26/09/2016

Are We Finally About To Get A Global Agreement On Aviation Emissions?

The Conversation | 

Aviation emissions are growing about 5% each year. Flying image from www.shutterstock.com
Tomorrow, delegates from more than 190 nations will begin an 11-day meeting in Montreal to determine the final form of a scheme to reduce greenhouse emissions from the aviation industry.
The meeting – the latest in a series of three-yearly summits held by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the United Nations agency tasked with reducing aviation emissions – is poised to decide on a scheme that would ultimately make it mandatory for most airlines from member countries to buy carbon offsets for their flights.
The resolution would fill a key gap in global climate policy. The Paris climate agreement, brokered last December, makes no mention of aviation emissions, despite having featured these in earlier drafts.
Earlier this month, the ICAO Council issued the final draft of a resolution text to be considered – and, presumably, after some debate, approved – at the Montreal meeting.
In its current form, questions will be raised over the scheme’s effectiveness, not least because it won’t become mandatory until 2027 – and even then not for all carriers. But these loopholes make it more likely that the plan will be adopted.

Mandatory offsetting (in the future)
The planned carbon offsetting scheme set out in the draft resolution would begin with a pilot phase running from 2021 to 2023, involving states that have volunteered to participate. These states will have some flexibility in determining the basis of their aircraft operators' offsets.
The purpose of this pilot phase is not really clear, and some aviation industry organisations, such as the Air Transport Action Group, regard it as unnecessary.
A first “formal” phase from 2024 to 2026 would apply to states that voluntarily participate in the pilot phase, and again would offset with reference to options in the resolution text. The main difference between the pilot and first phases is that, for the pilot phase, states can determine the applicable baseline emissions year.
A second, mandatory phase would only operate from 2027 to 2035 and would exempt the least developed countries and those with the smallest proportion of international air travel.
There are also exemptions based on the routes themselves. While the rules would apply to all flights between countries covered by the offsetting requirements, they will not apply to flights that take off or land in a non-member state.

Offsetting the issue
Then there are the well-publicised problems with the whole concept of carbon offsetting. Most countries and groups of countries (and ICAO is a group of countries) have ignored offsets in favour of mechanisms such as emissions trading schemes or carbon taxation – and with good reason.
Offsets, which by definition simply move emissions from one source to another, have little net effect on emissions. As such, offsets could be viewed as a diversion from regulations that genuinely encourage emissions reduction, such as carbon pricing. The Paris Agreement does not directly rely on offsets because all governments recognise that it’s collective, substantive action that counts.
What is really needed is a policy that motivates major industrial sectors – aviation included – to cut emissions and use resources more efficiently. Market-based mechanisms offer the best way to apply the price pressure needed to drive such a change.
The question in designing any market-based mechanism is whether to base it on quantity or price. A quantity-based instrument is an ETS, the most common example of which is a cap-and-trade system; a price-based instrument is a carbon tax.
ICAO has chosen neither of these options. Instead, it has chosen a system of voluntary and then mandatory carbon offsets, with all their attendant problems.

Other issues
An analysis by Carbon Brief has found that even if the aviation industry meets all of its emissions targets, by 2050 it will still have consumed 12% of the global carbon budget for keeping warming to 1.5℃. This could increase to as much as 27% if the industry misses its targets.
Meanwhile, airlines estimate that air travel will grow by an average of almost 5% each year until 2034, in an industry where low-carbon alternatives are difficult to find.
It is perhaps good news, then, that three weeks ago 49 states indicated they were willing to opt into the ICAO’s offsetting scheme in its earliest phase. The following week, in a joint statement, the European Union, Mexico and the Marshall Islands said they would join the scheme. And at G20 talks earlier this month, China and the US offered support.
Brazil, one of the fastest-growing aviation markets, said, however, that it will not join until the mandatory scheme begins in 2027.
Notwithstanding substantive draft texts prepared before the assembly, there is still plenty of negotiating to do before we know its final shape. And despite the pitfalls of carbon offsetting and some difficulty with integrating the scheme with the Paris process, a resolution at the meeting would be a step forward (to be followed by further steps and leaps) for an industry with emissions roughly equal to those of the entire nation of South Korea.

Links

People Would Be Prepared To Fly Less To Help Climate Change Fight, Survey Shows

BT.com - Press Association

As many as six out of 10 people would be prepared to fly less in the next year to help tackle climate change, a survey suggests. 
As many as six out of 10 people would be prepared to fly less in the next year to help tackle climate change, a survey suggests.
Two thirds would be willing to pay extra to "offset" the pollution caused by their European return flights - which green campaigners say costs less than £5.
Environmentalists claim the findings of the poll put pressure on governments and aviation industry leaders to find solutions to the greenhouse gases caused by flying as they gather for a major meeting on the issue.
The poll of 2,089 people for conservation charity WWF found that 60% of people would be willing to cut back on flying in the next year to tackle climate change - excluding those who were already doing so or for whom it was not applicable.
The figure was higher than those who were willing to cut back on driving (47%) or on eating meat (49%), while 70% were prepared to buy fewer new gadgets.
When told that offsetting a European return flight's pollution would cost £5 or less on top of their ticket, 67% of people quizzed in the Populus poll said they would be willing to pay the charge.
The world's first comprehensive climate change deal was secured in Paris in December, but while it commits nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions it does not directly deal with international flights as they occur between countries not within them.
The proposal on the table at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) meeting in Montreal, Canada, is an offsetting scheme which will require airlines to invest in carbon reduction projects for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above 2020 levels.
But WWF said questions still remained unanswered ahead of the meeting, including what the rules would look like, which countries would be covered and what would be done about biofuels.
WWF-UK chief executive David Nussbaum said: "The most straightforward way to reduce emissions from aviation is to fly less, so it is encouraging that 60% of Britons are prepared to do just that."
He said governments and airlines needed to take on board that people could be willing to turn away from flying to using rail and videoconferencing, when looking for solutions.
He said: "Paying for their pollution won't bankrupt airlines or their passengers.
"Most people don't realise that it costs less than £5 per person to offset the carbon dioxide from a European flight, even with high quality 'gold standard' carbon credits, and yet two thirds are willing to pay that price.
"That should give governments worldwide the confidence to sign up to an ambitious emissions reduction scheme from day one and set their airlines en route to a sustainable future."
WWF wants to see a strong deal that only backs offset schemes and alternative fuels which achieve real cuts in emissions and support sustainable development.
According to the conservation charity the average cost of offsetting a typical return flight to Europe is just £1.60.

Links

Support For Action On Climate Change And Renewables Strongest Since 2008

Climate Institute


The 2016 edition of The Climate Institute’s long running benchmark Climate of the Nation research reveals that support for renewables continues to grow and a surprising number of Australians expect federal leadership in taking action on climate change.
“Australians, in record numbers, accept climate change is happening, and even more can see economic opportunity in the clean energy future they want to be part of,” said The Climate Institute CEO, John Connor.
Connor said there are three headline findings from this year’s comprehensive national research.
“Firstly, the Australian public’s desire for action on climate change, and solutions, is almost as strong as it was when we had bipartisan support for an emissions trading scheme back in 2008, recovering from the lows of 2012 which was the height of the scare campaign before carbon pricing began. Secondly, the sense of urgency has been dampened by frustration with political squabbling, scare campaigns and setbacks. Despite this, there is a strong expectation for leadership and action on climate change, a transition to renewable energy and the phasing out of coal. Perhaps surprisingly, despite the frustration, most task the national level of government with the role of leading, but also support state action."
"Thirdly, people want action to be bipartisan and inclusive - engaging individuals, business and all levels of government in a transition that maximises economic benefits while managing the costs of that shift and of climate impacts. All three combine to show the strongest support for action in almost a decade.”

This edition of Climate of the Nation – research which first started in 2007 - provides evidence of the waning impact of debate, among some in politics and the media, about climate change and renewable energy.
“Seventy-seven per cent of Australians now believe climate change is occurring, up from 64 per cent in 2012, with trust in the science up from a minority in 2012 to 60 per cent now. While not all accept climate change is occurring now, concern about current and potential impacts is high, with 82 per cent concerned about droughts, flooding and the Great Barrier Reef,” Connor said. “At the same time, support for coal power is in decline, with three quarters thinking that governments should implement a plan to ensure the orderly closure of old coal power plants and replacement with clean energy. Only 12 per cent include coal in their top three preferred energy sources, in contrast support for wind and solar has continued to grow to 70 and 86 per cent respectively.”
While there is support for government action, distrust and disappointment is dominant.
“Ninety per cent of Australians think responsibility for action sits at the federal level of government, made up of 67 per cent who say they should take the lead and 23 per cent that say they should contribute. Just 3 per cent say they should take no action. At the same time, only 19 per cent consider the federal government to be doing a good job,” he said. “When it comes to both climate action and energy policy, though, most don’t support delays or half measures - 61 per cent agree a time will come when urgent action becomes necessary, increasing the likelihood of shocks and sudden negative adjustments to jobs, electricity prices and energy security.”
Connor also said that 65 per cent of people want to see Australia be a world leader in finding solutions to climate change, the highest since 2008’s 76 per cent, and up from 52 per cent in 2012. Fifty-nine per cent do not agree that we should wait for other major emitting countries, such as China and the US, before we take action. And Australians generally want more clarity about what individuals and communities can do to help, with 68 per cent of people thinking individuals and households should be contributing to action on climate change.
“With supporting factors such as the successful UN Paris summit, increasing affordability of clean power and transport, as well as mainstream business and investor support, these conditions look more like John Howard’s ‘perfect storm’ of 2007 than 2010-12’s lows after the disappointments of Copenhagen and carbon tax ‘lies’.”
The research for Climate of the Nation 2016 consists of a national Galaxy poll of over 2000 people conducted from 29 July to 7 August, as well as focus groups held by JWS Research in Brisbane, Melbourne and Newcastle.

Who is responsible? Who should take a leading role? Who is doing a good job?


Australians increasingly trust the science and that climate change is occurring.


Animation contrasts Australians' support for solar energy vs coal-fired generation.


Public support for coal and gas continues to decline.


Australians' support for renewable energy continues to grow.


Links