A landmark deal curbing the impact of aviation on climate change was altered at a United Nations (UN) meeting on Tuesday, meaning airlines likely will not have to start offsetting their growing carbon emissions for several years later than planned.
Four years ago, to tackle aviation鈥檚 fast-growing carbon footprint by making the industry pay for tree planting and other schemes to offset its growth in emissions between 2020 and 2035.
Then the coronavirus pandemic hit and airlines, concerned that flights will fall 55 per cent this year on 2019 levels and demolish their revenue, . This has now been , a decision that environmental groups say will be disastrous for efforts to tackle climate change.
Advertisement
The step was taken 鈥渢o avoid inappropriate economic burden on the aviation industry鈥�, ICAO said in a statement. The move was 鈥済reat news for the environment!鈥�, .
However, Annie Petsonk at the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington DC says the change means airlines may not begin offsetting until 2027. Such a delay risks a consumer backlash from younger passengers concerned about climate change, she warns.
鈥淔ar-sighted leaders in aviation need to grapple with the climate crisis and understand that, as they rebuild from covid-19, if they do not put decarbonisation at the core of their business model, the future for the industry will be in jeopardy,鈥� she says.
The rule change hinges on a seemingly arcane detail, the baseline year from which emissions growth is measured. This dictates how much airlines will have to offset their growth 鈥� before the pandemic, the industry had expected .
The previously agreed听baseline was the average emissions across 2019 and 2020. However, as flights and aviation emissions are much lower than expected this year, that would mean airlines having to offset more than expected, assuming flights return to pre-pandemic levels.
To avoid this, for growth to be measured only from 2019, when emissions were much higher. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) thinks the change will mean the industry avoids an extra $18 billion of costs.
Exactly what the decision will mean for climate change depends on how quickly aviation recovers from the pandemic. The Institute for Applied Ecology in Germany considered three different scenarios for recovery. 鈥� and potentially even nothing until 2027. Overall, the group said that tweaking the baseline could reduce the amount of carbon dioxide offset by up to 75 per cent.
IATA argues that many airlines may be unable to afford higher offset costs, given their financial dire straits. Petsonk disputes that, pointing to a flexibility mechanism built into the offsetting rules that mean airlines would need to pay little extra before 2024.
Even before the change, the offsetting scheme was limited. It does nothing in the short term to address aviation鈥檚 existing emissions, which are around 2 per cent of the global total. The sector is making other efforts to reduce these emissions听by moving to biofuels and more efficient engines.
The big test of yesterday鈥檚 decision will be in the court of public opinion. Aviation had already been hit by the Flygskam (flight-shaming) movement before covid-19, with early evidence suggesting it was reducing flights in Sweden and the Netherlands.
IATA had hoped to win back passengers this year who were wavering on flying because of climate concerns. By pushing for the rule change, airlines have effectively told those same people that they are happy to delay action on climate change.
Sign up to our free Fix the Planet newsletter to get a monthly dose of climate optimism delivered straight to your inbox
