Air travellers jet off for sun, sand and CO2

When summer hits, Europeans are keen on travelling to sunny coastlines. But when such trips are nudging up the temperature of the planet, there is cause for alarm.

The cheap flights that ferry Europeans on holiday contribute to making air transport the fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the EU. An increase of 75% in aircraft movements in the EU is forecast by 2020.

Although the airline sector still accounts for only about 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions, environmentalists complain that the growth in air travel could offset improvements in energy efficiency made in other sectors. They point out that air transport’s damaging effect on global warming is greater than just its CO2 emissions, partly because the emissions are released into the upper atmosphere and partly because planes also emit other greenhouse gases.

The challenge of how to cut emissions, preferably without putting a damper on travel plans, is the focus of a number of initiatives.

It has long been an ambition of the European Commission - and of the airlines - to achieve a ‘single European sky’, streamlining European air traffic control, pooling airspace and giving greater access for routes. Despite consolidation and cross-border mergers in the airline industry, air traffic control is still fragmented. Whereas a few years ago the campaigners were stressing the improvements in safety or in speed that would flow from the single European sky, now they are also emphasising the climate change benefits.

The Association of European Airlines calls the lack of single EU air-traffic regime "the biggest single obstacle to environmental improvement". Airlines argue that not having to follow different flight paths and regulations in each country would result in a 12% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Climate change is not their only concern, even if it is increasing. A high-level group on aviation regulation reported last week to Jacques Barrot, the European commissioner for transport, on the possible benefits from the ‘single European sky’. Jacqueline Tammenoms Bakker, chair of the group, said that passengers and industry incurred costs of €33 billion because of the fragmentation of Europe’s air traffic regime. In addition to lower costs, passengers would face fewer and shorter delays and less congested airports, she added.

One difficulty for those trying to curb airline emissions is that, in contrast to the power generation or road transport sectors, where renewable energy options exist, there is currently no way to power an airplane with anything other than kerosene. In addition, kerosene is not taxed. Governments cannot raise taxes to encourage more efficient engines or more efficient flying. Some of them have, however, begun introducing airport taxes with a climate change levy, but those hit the passengers rather than the airlines directly.

Last month the Commission launched the ‘Clean Sky’ Joint Technology Initiative, which aims to reduce airlines’ greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. Some €800 million from the EU’s 7th framework programme for research will be matched by private industry in developing greener technology. The energy-reducing technology to be pursued includes such innovations as the SMART-wing, which constantly changes shape during flight to maximise efficiency.

Most controversially, the Commission wants to include the airline industry in the next phase of the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), which currently includes only the power generators and heavy industry.

Françoise Humbert, spokesperson for the Association of European Airlines, said that airlines supported the idea of emissions trading as the best available tool to reduce emissions, but had problems with the plan that is on the table. An industry impact assessment predicts airlines will have to pay out €45bn for allowances over the first ten years of the programme. Only one-third of which would be recoverable from passengers and shippers, according to the assessment, putting "European airlines at a competitive disadvantage".

Humbert argued that the number of permits allotted to airlines was too low to account for growth, and would be a major burden to travellers. Forcing airlines to buy emissions permits will not necessarily achieve substantial reductions in emissions. UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said that she favoured an outright charge on air travel to reflect the cost to the environment. If the ETS system is going to be used, she argued it should at least be a closed system with airlines only buying permits from other airlines. Lucas said that would reflect the fact that emissions in the air were disproportionately worse for the environment than those on the ground.

Such pressure has put airlines on the offensive, coming out with their own green strategies. Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, claims to have made substantial investments in the most energy-efficient aircraft. Virgin Atlantic is instead investing money in developing uses for renewable biofuels in airliners. Some airlines, including British Airways, offer passengers the chance to buy voluntary emissions credits to offset their journey. Not surprisingly, uptake of these voluntary programmes has been minimal, suggesting that, while travellers may support keeping emissions down, they are less enthusiastic about prices going up.

When summer hits, Europeans are keen on travelling to sunny coastlines. But when such trips are nudging up the temperature of the planet, there is cause for alarm.

• Primary Source