Aviation carbon cuts: can it be done?
In a move that surprised many observers, the aviation industry pledged to the UN Climate Summit in New York this week that it will halve its 2005 levels of C02 emissions by 2050 and that it will go on to make all growth in the industry carbon neutral by 2020.
But for such a disparate, currently cash strapped but still rapidly growing industry, is this really a realistic goal? Most would say no. Certainly some reductions on C02 emissions are possible but going back to half of what was emitted in 2005 within the next 40 years seems beyond any industry.
If the two other airline pledges delivered to the UN forum by Willie Walsh, ceo of BA, on behalf of the industry are thrown in, the challenge becomes even more steep. These extra promises are: to cut C02 emissions by 1.5% each year over the next decade and to submit plans for joining a global carbon trading scheme to the UN by November 2010.
 |
| Kati Ihamaki |
If these pledges are accepted by the UN, as is likely, they will appear on the agenda of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December and aviation will be expected to deliver. Few are questioning the value of the pledges, although there is a feeling the Copenhagen summit might just have imposed far tougher measures on the industry if it had not itself acted on greenhouse gases.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) which represents most of the world's major carriers and helped draw the pledges is well aware that, fairly or not, the aviation industry has been fingered as the villain of emissions and an easy target for green and climate campaigners.
But if the industry has won itself at least some breathing space - and delivering a plan for a global carbon trading scheme within 14 months is going to be a massive task - there are many in the industry who believe the promises can be honoured.
Among them is Kati Ihamaki, Finnair's vp for sustainable development and a member of IATA's environment committee, who believes the goals are attainable but only through great and consistent efforts.
She points, naturally, to her own airline which is already taking measures to cut C02 but she warns from the start that 95% of airline emissions come from the planes' engines so that is where the most cuts must be made. This means using modern aircraft.
"You can't be carbon neutral only through technology. It does not happen that quickly. We have MD-11s which will be replaced by A330s andA340s by 2010. This will mean fewer emissions in absolute terms."
Finnair is also taking delivery of a fleet of A350s between 2014-16 which will bring that average age of its aircraft down to five years and emissions by 20%. We are getting rid of all our old planes because you can no be sustainable in the long term if you have an old fleet. I t would also not be an economically sustainable option with the price of fuel going up."
Another plank in Finnair's programme to cut emission is its "weightwatchers' policy". With this, every item is looked at to see how its weight can be reduced. For example, the airline has installed lighter life jackets and oxygen cylinders. It also uses a lighter type of paint on its aircraft and washes them more often to get rid dirt picked up on flights.
There is also its use of the continuous descent approach when landing at selected airports, including Helsinki and Manchester, which creates fewer emissions and makes less noise than in a standard "step by step" descent.
Finnair is also seeking to persuade travellers that indirect flights can emit less carbon dioxide than direct ones, notwithstanding the need for more fuel for the extra landing and take off. For example she says a flight from New York to Delhi via Helsinki would save nine tonnes of fuel and emit 28 fewer tonnes of CO2.
It is, like many other carriers, interested in the development of a suitable biofuel which can be mixed safely with kerosense and does not, Ms Ihamaki said, curtail the world's food supplies. A likely source is from the vast forests of Finland which is now being studied.
Finnair is also active on the ground, trying to reduce the use of energy and water in its office, training staff on environmental issues, encouraging them to use public transport or bicycles to come to work and looking for green suppliers.
But Ms Ihamaki stresses these measures on their own will mean little if the engine emission are not dealt with - and here she would like to see the GDS screens displaying some indication of which plane an airline uses and what its likely C02 emissions would be on a particular flight.
This sounds a good idea and would help travellers and green-inclined corporates to make a choice of which airline to use. But it is a lot easier said than done. Ms Ihamaki acknowledges that an agreed emissions calculator does not yet exist.
The reason for this is that a plane's emissions will not only vary according to the age of the aircraft but also according to its load factor, its cargo weight, its seat configuration and a host of other factors. These will vary not only between different plane types but also between slightly different types of the same model.
She says a start could be made if a calculator if it were initially based on two verifiable factors: fuel consumption and load factor, presumably before other factors could be added with an acceptable and accepted degree of accuracy. That would be a start
In the meantime the aviation industry has to persuade the world that it is ready and willing to help save the planet. According to figures from the World Resources Institute, transport is responsible currently for 14% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Within transport, aviation contributes 7% while cars and vans - the main offenders -are responsible for 45% and trucks for a further 23%. The problem facing aviation is the pace of its growth. If this continues it will outstrip other industries and all gains made elsewhere rendered valueless because of the extra CO2 pumped in the atmosphere by aircraft. It makes fulfilling those pledges that bit more urgent. Time is not on aviation's side.