Commentary: Green offsets let polluting airlines off the hook

Commentary: Green offsets let polluting airlines off the hook

Sustainability targets for airlines need to be based on real emissions cuts at their source, says an observer.

File photo of plane in midair
File photo of a plane in midair. (Photo: Unsplash/Ross Parmly)

BIRMINGHAM, England: The coronavirus pandemic has grounded thousands of aircraft, contributing to the largest-ever annual fall in carbon dioxide emissions. At some point though, the planes will soar again and with them, global emissions.

Most airlines in the UK have committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. From 2026, it will become mandatory for airlines worldwide to ensure that their annual emissions stay flat.

But the UK aviation industry also plans to increase the number of passengers it serves by 70 per cent in the next three decades.

To pull this off, airlines will be planning to fly planes at or near full passenger capacity and use cleaner burning fuels. 

But the rest of the emissions airlines hope to cut – between one-third and half of the total – are expected to come from market-based measures, such as carbon offsetting and emissions trading.

READ: Commentary: Airlines that shift towards long-haul flights will succeed post-coronavirus

READ: Commentary: Can you really fly sustainably? And do these carbon offsets work?

You’ve probably encountered an option to offset your carbon footprint when buying a flight. The payment page of Ryanair’s website suggested a “carbon offset contribution” of £2 (US$2.70) for a return flight from Gatwick to Alicante.

Airlines seeking government bailouts are likely to use carbon offsetting and emissions trading to show they’re serious about putting their emissions on a downward trajectory. But what do they involve and are they really a solution to climate change?

CARBON OFFSETS

The idea of offsets is to cancel out your own emissions by reducing equivalent emissions elsewhere. This could be by purchasing carbon credits from an emissions trading scheme, where one credit typically equals one metric tonne of CO2.

When a carbon credit is “retired” – essentially ripped up – it saves one tonne of CO2 from being emitted by the countries or companies that sell them.

The tropics are emitting more carbon than they capture because of deforestation, a study in the
(Photo: AFP/RODRIGO ARANGUA)

Alternatively, you can invest in offsetting schemes – called clean development mechanisms – which aim to reduce future emissions in developing countries by providing greener cooking stoves, for example.

There are also carbon removal schemes which aim to actively absorb carbon by planting trees, or developing technologies that can absorb carbon from the air.

Only a decade ago, carbon offsetting was largely voluntary and schemes were unverified and unregulated. Broken promises and schemes causing more harm than good abounded.

Today, there are several trustworthy schemes that can verify the work of offsetting projects, such as the Verified Carbon Standard.

As the popularity of offsetting schemes increases, regulation continues to improve. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change trusts carbon offsetting to ensure its meetings – which involve delegates flying from around the world – are carbon neutral.

READ: Commentary: Flying will be leaner, maybe even more responsible, after COVID-19

READ: Commentary: We will fly again. Here’s what’s needed to safely restart flights and resume air travel

IS CARBON OFFSETTING SUFFICIENT?

But whether these schemes actually make sufficiently deep carbon cuts over an effective timescale to actually slow climate change is another matter.

With tree planting, it can take a long time for newly planted trees to start storing carbon, and it’s difficult to accurately predict how much carbon each tree will put away during its lifetime. That carbon is easily re-released during forest fires or as a result of deforestation.

Carbon credit trading and carbon offsetting schemes can support projects which reduce emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere if they’re sufficiently ambitious – and they should be going ahead anyway, without their benefits being cancelled out by businesses using these schemes to continue polluting.

READ: Commentary: The outlook for Singapore Airlines has gone from bad to worse

carbon emissions
(Photo: Unsplash/veeterzy)

For example, a tax on airlines and customers could fund offsetting projects that aim to cut at least double the units of carbon emitted per flight, with frequent flyers being taxed more heavily.

But sustainability targets for airlines need to be based on real emissions cuts at their source. That would mean drastically reducing the number of flights each year, especially those with reasonable travel alternatives such as rail.

As a condition for any post-COVID-19 bailout, airlines should invest heavily in the research and development of technologies that can make flights carbon-neutral, such as electric engines and batteries. The marketing of rescued airlines should also be honest with customers about the climate impact of their flight.

READ: Commentary: Airline industry faces financial crisis with more bankruptcies looming

LISTEN: COVID-19: Aviation and flying never ever the same again

Aviation will need to change drastically to shrink its contribution to climate change. As governments consider state aid for flagging airlines, they have a rare opportunity to enforce lasting changes.

But if offsetting is earmarked as the principal way for them to reach net zero emissions – with no reduction in the number of flights or control over how airlines invest their revenue, these efforts could become little more than greenwashing.

When it comes to meaningful action on aviation emissions, now is the time to get our heads out of the clouds.

Ben Christopher Howard is Doctoral Research in Nature-based Solutions at the University of Birmingham. This commentary first appeared on The Conversation.

Source: CNA/el

Bookmark