Commentary: The Global Governance of Aviation’s Emissions – Time to Revisit the ICAO/UNFCCC Relationship

Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)Business News/Analysis European Union (EU)Funding/Financing/Investing History of Advanced Biofuels International Opinions Policy Sustainability

April 01, 2021

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Chris Lyle (GreenAir Online/Air Transport Economics) In 1997, the UNFCCC’s COP3 decided, via the Kyoto Protocol, to treat international aviation indirectly through ICAO. CO2 emissions from international aviation have since doubled from 317Mt in 1997 to 641Mt in 2019, to match the total emissions of the 129 lowest emitting countries combined, ranking just behind Canada and at least one and half times those of the UK. Climate Action Tracker, which has been assessing the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of individual countries under the Paris Agreement, last year turned its attention to international aviation emissions. It concluded that current measures, and notably ICAO’s CORSIA carbon offsetting scheme, were “critically insufficient” – the worst level – and compatible with a 4°C+ world. Therefore, suggests Chris Lyle, that with the opportunity of the Covid-induced delay in the effectiveness of CORSIA and the upcoming COP26, it is time to revisit the ICAO/UNFCCC relationship.

It is currently unclear when international air traffic will return to pre-Covid 2019 levels and whether subsequent growth rates will be lower than in the past, but it remains a likely scenario that without markedly more effective climate policies, damaging emissions from air transport will at least double 2019 levels by 2050. If aviation is to make its requisite contribution to the Paris Agreement targets, its CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by 2030 to half 2019 levels and by 2050 to zero (not ‘net’ zero, which includes out-of-sector carbon offsetting, capture and storage).

...

But given they (electric aircraft) will not have a substantial global market presence until close to mid-century, there is a critical need for early address of other means of reducing aviation’s emissions, notably market-based measures and sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).

Voluntary carbon offset schemes from airlines and third parties have been on offer to passengers and shippers for many years but they are minimally taken up.

...

(A)n EU study showed that the majority of even offsets of the highest standards simply do not work.

...

On the contrary, out-of-sector carbon offsetting needs to be discouraged in favour of real in-sector reductions in emissions.

...

Biofuels from waste and particularly e-fuels could nevertheless become viable alternatives given the application of blending legislation (for example States designing progressive and legally-binding blending mandates for fuel suppliers, airports and/or air carriers with principal place of business in their territories). But surely issues such as life-cycle and land use, or blending mandates in individual countries, should not be in the remit of ICAO?

Clearly, given the required investments and increased operating costs of SAF and e-fuels, government intervention and support will be necessary. Blending mandates will in any event include small proportions of SAF initially with only gradual increases because of lack of availability and so temper the rise in operating costs.

...

Direct carbon levies are another potential policy vehicle. Tax exemptions for fossil fuels, which discriminate in favour of air transport and against SAF, electric and hydrogen powered aircraft alike, should be removed but with ring-fencing of revenues for alternative fuel and power source development.

But again, such measures fall within the remit of individual governments, not ICAO provisions.

...

Any country can add international aviation to its carbon budget at its discretion and a number of countries are now including it in their NDCs. The UNFCCC at its COP26 in November could incentivise action on aviation emissions by mandating this approach.

...

Amongst other reasons for bringing policy into the UNFCCC:

Choice of emission mitigation measures would be at the discretion of individual governments in reflection of their particular circumstances, taking into account the relationship between air transport and their other industries.
Similarly, the influence of the air transport sector would be taken in a general national economic and emissions context rather than a predominantly sectoral one.
Governments would be held directly accountable for reducing both international and domestic aviation emissions and each country would be in a position to create incentives for, or impose sanctions on, air carriers, as necessary under its sovereign jurisdiction.
The generic CBDR principle as agreed to in Paris would apply, removing the discord with the uniform application provisions of the Chicago Convention.
Overlap, inconsistency and institutional duplication between ICAO’s Emissions Unit Criteria and the UNFCCC’s carbon-offsetting provisions would be avoided, with reduction of concerns regarding the double-counting of offsets.

The time has come also to move beyond the CO2 focus for aviation to take account of the other greenhouse gas and contrail-induced cirrus impacts. Recent climate research has shown that non-CO2 impacts of aviation are significantly larger than those of CO2 alone but they have yet to be included in mitigation measures. READ MORE