It's not easy being green: Airlines feel heat to reduce emissions Andrew Compart, Travel Weekly, 3/6/2007 How aircraft affect the climate Aircraft typically operate at cruising altitudes of five to eight miles, where they release several gases and particles that alter the composition of the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. What follows is how the European Commission explained it in a paper on the topic. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas because of the large quantities released and its long residence time in the atmosphere. Increasing concentrations have a well-known, direct effect that warms the Earth's surface. Nitrogen oxides have two indirect effects on the climate. Nitrogen oxides produce ozone under the influence of sunlight, but they also reduce the atmospheric concentration of methane. Ozone and methane are greenhouse gases. Water vapor released by aircraft has a direct greenhouse gas effect, but as it is quickly removed by precipitation the effect is small. However, water vapor emitted at high altitude often triggers the formation of condensation trails, which tend to warm the Earth's surface. Moreover, such "contrails" may develop into cirrus clouds (clouds of ice crystals). These are also suspected of having a significant warming effect, but this is still uncertain. Sulphate and soot particles have a smaller direct effect compared with other aircraft emissions. Soot absorbs heat and has a warming effect; sulphate particles reflect radiation and have a small cooling effect. In addition, they can influence the formation and properties of clouds. -- A.C. The doubling of a tax in a bluntly stated attempt to discourage air travel. A prince under attack for daring to fly on a plane to New York to receive an environmental award. The Church of England's third most senior bishop suggesting that taking a flight for a vacation is a sin. Ads declaring that "flying is a killer." What's going on here? Or, more accurately, what's going on there? In Europe, and in the U.K. in particular, the pressure is mounting for airlines and governments to do more to reduce airline emissions such as carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. While there are ongoing arguments over whether pressure is being applied reasonably or proportionately, it's not going to go away. In fact, it is already starting to spread beyond Europe and is beginning to have an impact in the U.S. That higher tax in the U.K. forces U.S. customers to dig deeper to pay for flights departing from the U.K. A European Union proposal would ensnare U.S. airlines in a mandatory plan to control aviation emissions. A Feb. 12 Time magazine article headlined "Greenhouse Airlines" encouraged travelers "to limit any business and leisure flights that we can." Justified or not, like it or not, airlines will have to confront the issue everywhere in the world because governments demand a reduction in airline emissions or environmentally minded consumers want a reduction, or both. "The pressure on all of us to come up with sustainable answers is mounting," KLM President and CEO Leo van Wijk said last fall to attendees at the Amsterdam Global Conference on Sustainability and Transparency. "We cannot consign this issue to the 'too difficult' column and hope it will go away," British Airways CEO Willie Walsh said in a speech last year. "It won't, and if we as an industry don't find ways of limiting our environmental impact, we will find politicians imposing their answers upon us." "The whole world is waiting to see what American carriers do, because they haven't said very much," Virgin Atlantic spokesman Paul Charles told Travel Weekly. "The whole American airline industry has to change its mind-set," he continued. "It has to understand that the environmental pressures are building. They have to change things fast before they start losing passengers to airlines that are going green. In 30 years' time, you won't be in business unless you are green-minded. So it's do or die, really." Disproportionate focus on aviation? To many people in the industry, all of this attention on aviation is disproportionate, especially when the amount of pollution that airlines emit is weighed against their contributions to the increasingly interconnected global economy. The U.K. government- commissioned Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published in October, found that aviation accounted for 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions and would account for 2.5% in 2050 under "business as usual" projections. The Stern Review, however, also said the impact of aviation on climate change was greater than those figures suggest because of other gases released by aircraft and their effects at high altitude. There are estimates that the global warming effect of aviation is two to four times greater than the effect of its carbon dioxide emissions alone. Even with that multiplier, which would make the contribution anywhere from 3.2% to 6.4% now and 5% to 10% in 2050, aviation remains far behind other sources such as factories, power utilities and vehicular traffic. But that's not a complete picture. Aviation is still getting a lot of attention, particularly in Europe, in part because the popularity of air travel is growing so fast. Aviation emissions in the E.U. have increased 87% since 1990 and are projected to more than double from present levels by 2020, even though aircraft are getting more efficient. The airline emissions issue is also getting more attention because of the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. never ratified that international treaty, which was designed to start tackling the problem of greenhouse gases on a global scale. But the treaty became legally binding in February 2005 for the countries that ratified it, and under its terms most developed countries have committed to a specific level of reductions in their output of greenhouse gases by 2012. The E.U. set an 8% reduction target that differs by member states: the U.K., for example, has a target of 12.5%. The true percentage is even larger, because the reduction is supposed to be from the level of emissions in 1990. Furthermore, the U.K has set itself an even more ambitious goal: to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050. There's skepticism that goal will be reached, but if it is and aviation is not proportionally included in those cuts, the industry's contribution to emissions would grow as a percentage. A U.K. government report warned that aviation could account for 25% of the country's global warming contribution by 2030. Domestic flights were included in the Kyoto Protocol's limits on a country's greenhouse gas emissions. But international flights were not included, in part because of difficulties in allocating to specific countries their share of emissions on flights that crossed over several countries, not to mention a flight's time over water. The treaty instead left it to each country to control emissions from international aviation by working through the International Civil Aviation Organization. Action on that front is still pending, with the ICAO planning to issue guidance this September. All of these factors, combined with the growing public awareness of global warming, have put aviation in the crosshairs. Going green could mean more green for airlines The range of options is broad, in that there are many solutions, and limited, in that none provide the perfect solution. Airlines would prefer to keep the focus on efficiency, which helps the environment as well as their bottom lines. The environmental push could give airlines a boost in their long-running drive for more efficient air traffic control systems to lessen delays and holding patterns and for government approvals that allow a more direct path on international routes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that air traffic management improvements could improve overall fuel efficiency by 6% to 12%, and IATA said that would get rid of as much as 73 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. In Europe, the airlines' big gripe is that the Continent has 34 air traffic control providers. Airlines are continuing to push for just one under a proposal called Single European Sky. In the U.S., airlines are pushing for the government to do a better and faster job in converting to a satellite-based air traffic control system that would give more control to pilots in selecting optimum routes. Internationally, IATA has been working with countries to allow airlines to fly over air space that allows for shorter routes. One of its favorite examples is the 30 minutes it was able to shave off Europe-China flights, which it said reduced emissions by 84,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. "Optimizing routes should not be a battle," said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA's director general and CEO. "It's a win-win situation for the passenger and for the environment." Efficiency also comes from aircraft and aircraft engines, which have made remarkable gains over the decades. Fuel efficiency has improved 70% over the past 30 years, IATA said, and IATA expects another 25% improvement by 2020 with even more efficient newcomers such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380. That translates into substantially lower emissions per aircraft. The problem is that it takes time for newer aircraft to work their way into airline fleets, and in any case, the efficiency won't keep pace with increases in airline traffic. Airbus, for example, has predicted that worldwide air traffic will increase nearly 5% a year through 2025, and by then there will be twice as many aircraft in service. Many low-cost carriers, countering environmentalists who blast them for flying so many short routes, argue they actually provide a more efficient and environmentally friendly model than traditional airlines because they fly more modern aircraft, fill them with more seats and fill a higher percentage of those seats with passengers. Most of them also fly point to point, avoiding the extra miles, landings and takeoffs that come with hub-and-spoke systems, and use less-congested airports with fewer delays and holding patterns. Carbon emissions and you Average CO2e* emissions per year: 4.5 tons for the average U.S. car. 4.5 tons for the average global citizen. 6.2 tons for electricity use of average U.S. household. 21 tons for the average U.S. resident. 1.5 million tons for a 50-molecular-weight coal plant. 8.3 million tons for a 1,000-molecular-weight coal plant. Less than 25 billion tons for the planet as a whole. * CO2e stands for carbon dioxide equivalent, an internationally accepted measure that encapsulates all greenhouse gases. A ton of CO2e is emitted when you: Travel 2,000 miles in an airplane. * Drive 1,350 miles in a large sport utility vehicle. Drive 1,900 miles in a midsize car. Drive 6,000 miles in a hybrid gasoline-electric car. Run an average U.S. household for 60 days. Have your computer on for 10,600 hours. Graze one Ugandan dairy cow for eight months. ** * emissions per passenger ** methane emissions from cow belching To offset 1,000 tons of CO2e you could: Move 145 drivers from large SUVs to hybrids for one year. Run one 600 kilowatt wind turbine for an average year. Replace 500 100-watt light bulbs with 18-watt, compact, fluorescent lights (10-year life). Replace 2,000 refrigerators with the highest efficiency model (10-year life). Install 125 home solar panels in India (20-year life). Plant an acre of Douglas fir trees (50 years of growth). Protect four acres of tropical rain forest from deforestation. Source: A Consumer's Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers, by Clean Air-Cool Planet, 2006 It's not likely, or even feasible, that every carrier could match this model. But they are trying to become more fuel-efficient in other operational ways, such as taxiing on one engine when possible and lightening the load on aircraft. Virgin Atlantic wants to take it a step further, with Chairman Richard Branson lobbying for the creation of "starting grids" at airports for all aircraft departures. Airport tugs would tow the aircraft from parking bays to an area closer to a runway before take-off, substantially reducing the time that engines need to be running. Virgin Atlantic estimated the procedure could save up to two tons of fuel per flight. Under this system, arriving aircraft also could turn off their engines five minutes after landing and be towed to their stand. Virgin tested the concept at London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports in December and said the early results were encouraging. Branson has urged Chicago O'Hare to test the system in the U.S. But one of the key questions is whether towing rather than engine-powered taxiing would slow down operations too much at busy airports. Virgin Atlantic advocates permission for earlier descents from high altitudes, which allows aircraft to descend at a slower, more efficient speed. The airline also favors the creation of Single European Sky. Branson has contended that starting grids, earlier descents and air traffic control improvements could reduce aviation emissions by 25%. The emissions trade Airlines aren't quite as enthusiastic about some other options, including the one with the most currency right now: emissions trading. In emissions trading, participants are given a ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions. If they fall below it, they can sell their surplus allowances on the market to companies that exceed the cap or bank them to cover future emissions. If they go above it, they would take measures to reduce their emissions or buy emission allowances from the market. In effect, they face a financial penalty. The E.U. began emissions trading for about 11,500 industrial locations in January 2005. In December 2006, the European Commission took the first step toward expanding the E.U.'s emissions trading system to airlines. If the plan is approved -- several more steps are required -- aviation would be able to trade emissions with any sector, not just with other airlines. Intra-E.U. flights would become part of that scheme in 2011, and all international flights to or from the E.U. would become part of it in 2012. The aviation community does not dismiss emissions trading. Many airlines, and IATA, prefer it to other options. But the idea of including airlines from non-E.U. countries in the plan, without those airlines' consent, is not going over well with IATA or in the U.S. "Many countries around the world, including the U.S., view this unilateral approach as unworkable and unsustainable under international law," Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion Blakey said earlier this year. The Air Transport Association warned the E.U. that its proposal "violates international laws and bilateral air-service agreements." It urged the E.U. to "join with the rest of the world in working with ICAO to find constructive solutions." That makes the ICAO meeting this fall, at which it is supposed to recommend a plan, even more critical. If it doesn't come through with a consensus and the E.U. forges ahead with its own plan, that could set the stage for a major battle. Even less popular with airlines than emissions trading are additional taxes. Gordon Brown, Britain's finance minister, doubled the U.K.'s Air Passenger Duty, or APD, on airline tickets as of Feb. 1 to try to discourage people from flying. Sweden also is considering new taxes to reduce air travel demand, IATA said. In the U.K., the APD rose to about $20 in economy and $39 in business and first classes for intra-E.U. flights and $78 and $156, respectively, for long-haul services. IATA calculated that the increases added 4.4% to the average short-haul economy fare and 3.8% to the average long-haul economy fare, with higher percentages for low-fare carriers. IATA and many U.K. airlines have attacked the increase as a "money grab," because the government hasn't committed any of the $2 billion in expected tax revenue to environmental projects. Another option that has been mentioned is an international fuel tax, which could provide an extra incentive for airlines to be more efficient. But most bilateral aviation agreements don't allow a fuel tax on international flights. Offsetting your carbon Another option, to be used in conjunction with reduced emissions, is carbon offsetting. Passengers pay an additional fee that offsets their carbon usage for that flight because the fee is invested in environmental projects that avoid, reduce or absorb greenhouse gases. There already are more than 30 companies and organizations working on carbon offsetting, and about a third of them have programs specifically for air travel, most with calculators that figure out carbon output per passenger for a given route. (A Tufts University report at www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets rates the companies for accuracy and effectiveness.) A handful of airlines offer this as a voluntary option. One is British Airways, but it isn't pushing the plan, especially now that the APD has been doubled. Fewer than 1% of customers are using it. The Hodgkinson Group, worldwide aviation advisers, recently issued a report in which they urged airlines to make carbon offsets an opt-out system instead of opt-in. Customers would be notified several times of their option, but studies show that most customers choose default settings. "It seems clear that airlines will be increasingly held responsible for the social costs of their actions," the Hodgkinson Group said. "This initiative gives airlines a simple and workable means of accepting this responsibility before the decision is forced on them." London-based Silverjet, a premium-class-only carrier serving the London-New York market, has gone one step further. It made carbon offsets a mandatory part of its ticket price, with customers given a choice of environmental projects to fund. Silverjet boasted that the system makes it the world's first "carbon neutral" airline. New age fuels The ultimate solution would be an alternative, cleaner-burning jet fuel. Branson made big headlines last September when he pledged that the Virgin Group would provide $3 billion over 10 years to develop renewable energy technologies, using all future profits from the Virgin Group's train and airline businesses. In the U.S., the Air Transport Association and the FAA are among the aviation groups participating in a Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Branson's effort includes finding a replacement for kerosene-based jet fuel, but it won't be easy. Ethanol, for example, freezes at 15,000 feet. Another prospect (but not for Branson's project, because it's not renewable) is a method used to derive jet fuel from coal. But while the fuel would produce fewer emissions, carbon dioxide is released during the gasification of the coal. These types of obstacles make alternative fuels a long-term project. And as recent events have shown, there doesn't seem to be the time or patience to wait for results without taking other action in the interim. Airlines forced to fight a P.R. battle In the U.K., which seems to have become the hot spot in the debate over aviation's contribution to global warming, the pressure for action to reduce airline emissions has manifested itself in campaigns to convince people they should not travel by air, or at least not when they have a choice. It has become a moral issue. The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, said last July that "making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin" because of the impact on the environment. Chartres, a leading environmental spokesman for the Church of England, pledged last month to go a full year without flying. Prince Charles canceled an annual ski trip this winter to reduce his contribution to air travel emissions and his "carbon footprint." But he came under fire from some environmental groups and the British environment minister for flying to New York with an entourage in late January to receive an environmental award. A coalition of environmental groups, including Greenpeace, has been running ads in British newspapers attacking airlines for their contributions to global warming. They are urging the public to reduce their flying, especially on short-haul routes served by low-cost carriers for which train travel is sometimes an option. "Your addiction to fossil fuels and flying everywhere puts us all in peril," one ad stated. "Make no mistake, flying is a killer." Eurostar has run ads marketing its high-speed rail service as more environmentally friendly. It also commissioned research it said shows that travelers who flew between London, Paris and Brussels generated 10 times more carbon dioxide emissions than travelers who traveled by rail. Some of its ads even included a drawing of an airplane in the form of a burning cigarette. The airlines have felt compelled to respond, acknowledging aviation must do its part but also emphasizing its economic contributions, the industry's increased efficiency and relatively low contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and its preferred solutions. The European Low Fares Airline Association has published a position paper on Low Fares Airlines and the Environment, and London-based EasyJet issued its own Corporate and Social Responsibility Report just two weeks ago. British Airways CEO Willie Walsh gave what the airline billed as his first major speech on the environment last April. Ryanair, Europe's most popular low-fare carrier and the environmentalists' favorite target, has taken to calling itself "Europe's Greenest Airline" because of its modern, fuel-efficient fleet. But CEO Michael O'Leary also has blasted critics in blunt terms. He responded to one salvo by offering more seats for free. Beyond the public relations battle, the campaign against flying also raises some practical questions. By the airline industry's tabulations, more than 80% of the industry's carbon dioxide emissions are produced on trips longer than 1,500 kilometers (932 miles). In any case, it seems unlikely that any campaign is going to discourage enough people from flying to make a significant dent in emissions. At least it hasn't so far. Ryanair saw its traffic increase by 11 million passengers in 2006 to 42 million, and it is expecting to double that number by 2012. The number of passengers flying EasyJet increased 11% in 2006 to 33.7 million. And NATS, the U.K.'s leading air traffic management provider, said it handled a record 2.4 million flights in 2006, 3.5% more than in 2005. With no signs air travel growth is about to slow down in the U.K. or anywhere in the world, the search is on for other options. -- A.C.               Home | Business Travel | Demo Room | Reservations | Contact Us Travel Management Program | Groups & Meetings | Club Getaway ©1997-2007 Atlas Travel International. All rights reserved.