ICAO Member States Agree to Aspirational Goal of Capping CO2 Emissions from Aviation from 2020
11 October 2010
Member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted a resolution at its 37th General Assembly on Friday to reduce the impact of aviation CO2 emissions on climate change. The agreement, which will cover more than 90% of worldwide air traffic, provides a roadmap for action through 2050 for the 190 ICAO Member States.
ICAO agreed on a collective medium-term aspirational goal of capping emissions from international aviation as of 2020, while recognizing that States or regions such as the EU can act sooner and be more ambitious. In addition, the agreement calls for aviation to become more fuel efficient at a rate of 2% per year and for a global CO2 standard for aircraft engines with a target date of 2013.
Emissions from international aviation currently account for about 2% to 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but as aviation is expected to grow significantly in the coming decades, this figure is forecast to rise.
Other elements in the ICAO agreement include:
Action Plans: States will notify to ICAO the different measures that they are taking to meet the agreed goal by submitting Action Plans. States with less that 1% of international aviation activities are not expected to submit plans unless they choose to do so voluntarily.
Market-based measures: ICAO recognizes the role of market-based measures, such as emissions trading, and has agreed to a range of guiding principles to be applied by States designing and implementing them. ICAO refrained from language which would make the application of the EU’s ETS to their airlines dependent on the mutual agreement of other States. It was this requirement that led to a stalemate at the last ICAO Assembly in 2007. This time, the EU agreed to engage constructively in dialogue with third countries during the implementation of its ETS, notably regarding how to deal with emissions from incoming flights from third countries.
Exemptions for small emitters: The agreement says that small emitters, in particular air carriers of countries falling below a threshold of 1.0% share of air traffic, may be exempt from the commitments to submit action plans towards achieving the global medium-term goal and from the application of market-based measures.
Financial assistance: The agreement also includes provisions on technical and financial assistance for developing countries’ actions to mitigate the climate change impacts of aviation.
This deal is very significant because at a global level, governments and the aviation industry, have for the first time agreed to cap greenhouse emissions from 2020. It is the first time any transport sector has been able to reach this kind of global deal. This is a real breakthrough. There is a lot more work to be done, but this is a deal which is very good news for the aviation sector, good news for the environment and good for a more sustainable future.
—EU Vice President Siim Kallas, Responsible for Transport said:
ICAO has taken a step in the right direction. The Resolution adopted expressly recognizes that aircraft emissions must be stabilized and that also big developing countries have a role to play in this regard. The goal is not as ambitious as Europe thinks it should be, but at the same time ICAO has recognized that some States may take more ambitious actions prior to 2020. Critically, the deal is a good basis for proceeding swiftly with the inclusion of aviation in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme from 2012 as foreseen by the EU legislation in force.
—EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard said "
IATA—the International Air Transport Association, which represents some 230 airlines comprising 93% of scheduled international air traffic—hailed the agreement and said that the agreement’s principles on market-based measures have implications for all governments with, or seeking to implement, environmental schemes or taxes.
In light of this agreement, all states should review any economic measures, planned or implemented, to conform to today’s agreed principles. The only effective long-term solution remains a global approach, which states agreed to work towards under ICAO’s leadership.
We must recognize that a long journey still lies ahead. Industry’s ambitious targets are still ahead of governments. Our commitment to cut emissions in half by 2050 compared to 2005 remains the global benchmark. The entire aviation industry is committed to working under the leadership of ICAO as we move forward to achieve both the aspirations outlined in today’s agreement and the industry’s targets. We will take this strong message to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun later this year.
—Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO
Bisignani addressed the gap in the industry’s commitment to a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency and the ICAO goal of a 2% annual improvement. While achieving a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency is possible with efforts of the industry, he said, achieving the 2% ICAO goal means that governments must come to the table with much needed infrastructure improvements such as the Single European Sky or NextGen in the US.
The resolution on the environment makes ICAO the first United Nations Agency to lead a sector in the establishment of a globally-harmonized agreement for addressing its CO2 emissions. The resolution was adopted with some States expressing reservations and calling upon the ICAO Council to continue its work on specific aspects of the agreement.
The agreement comes two months before negotiations are again undertaken by the same States at the 16th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting scheduled for December in Mexico.
It will be extremely interesting to see how the industry will accomplish this, direct point to point flights instead of airways, lighter, larger airplanes, more efficient engines, integrated wing/body designs...etc.
Posted by: Lad | 11 October 2010 at 09:51 PM
It won't be easy.
Planes last at least 20 years so it takes ages to update the fleets.
Most existing designs are already very efficient, and the guys have to bust their guts to get a few percent improvement out of the designs.
They 787 may be 20% better than the A330, but it is coming out about 18 years later.
Also, they have to compete with noise reduction, which may compromise designs.
Also, the airlines pay no tax on their fuel, so their fuel costs are not as high as they could be (i.e. motoring taxes in Europe and Japan).
On the other hand, there is nothing like trying to reduce the costs, and the 2008 price spike of $147/barrel woke everyone up.
There are lots of operational improvements to be made, in terms of takeoff and landing profiles, routing
and taxiing.
It may be, that by fitting new avionics, it will be possible to retrofit these techniques to the current fleet without waiting for replacement aircraft.
Also, the airlines can do things to reduce weight by removing magazines and excess stuff they do not need, and by fitting lighter, thinner seats etc.
Emirates were able to get a ton of water off the A380 (for showers) and to replace the 2KG in flight magazines with an electronic version (for a 500 seat aircraft).
Also, with thinner seats, it may be possible to fit an extra row of seats without compromising passenger comfort.
Posted by: mahonj | 12 October 2010 at 02:12 AM
This is another example of the modern version of the religion CANUTE esposed by his followers who believed that Canute, or his mythical self, could hold back the tide.
Relatively safe nuclear ariplanes could be built. No one considers airplanes safe, but they consider driving whilst talking or texting or drinking safe.
When the nuclear part of the nucraft kills one tenth as many people as the crashes, we can start to worry about how to make nucraft safer. Nuclear cars (electric) can operate in France; The power company can guarantee that all of the non nuclear power is sold to other users.
Airlines can refuse to accept customers and save on fuel and certainly transport no freight. BYE BYE! Federal Express and its long distance trucks in addition to the aircraft. Only railroads and ships can be allowed to transport freight. BYE BYE WALMART distribution systems and centers. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 12 October 2010 at 03:41 AM
Henry, I think aviation will be the last thing to be electrified, the shielding is just too heavy.
Nuclear trains, yes (we have them now), cars: yes, boats, (yes, but expensive), spacecraft, yes, but planes, no.
People are irrational and just do not like the thought of a Boeing falling on their heads and showering them with half spent reactor fuel rods.
As you point out, everyone tolerates 40K annual deaths on the road in the US with a shrug (except perhaps google), but if a Nuke goes up, everyone has to run to the toilet.
Chernobyl only killed about 60 people (up front) (it made many more sick), and we never hear the end of it, but it is about 1 day's worth of road deaths in the USA.
We haven't had a major accident since then.
But I digress...
The best way to get the airlines to conserve fuel would be to add a 1$/ US gallon tax now, and a further 1$ in 10 years time.
(implementing this tax would be tricky).
This will happen anyhow due to increased demand for oil as China and India get going, so the sooner we take it seriously, the better.
Posted by: mahonj | 12 October 2010 at 04:56 AM
Larger planes are 15% to 20% more efficient on a passenger/Km basis.
Better designed planes could be 20% to 30% more efficient.
Improved engines are 15+% more efficient. uFture engine could do more.
Direct flights can save 5% to 15%.
Improved flight planning can save 5% to 10%
Al above, can indeed maintain a 2%/year improvement program.
Posted by: HarveyD | 12 October 2010 at 11:39 AM
A lower hanging fruit in the effort to reduce CO2/passenger-mile traveled would be to step up the effort to produce renewable combustible aviation fuels via solar collector. If aviation fuel will be more and more CO2-neutral, then the objective will have been accomplish without the unrealistic goal of 2%/yr improvement.
A company by the name of Joule (in honor of Prescott?) claimed to have found a breakthrough in achieving 10% net efficiency from solar to liquid fuel (oil) at a cost of 30$/barrel. This is achieved via genetically-modified photosynthetic bacteria.
Alternatively, aviation can be reserved for long-distance travels, while for shorter intercity or regional travels, electric trains using renewable electricity can be used, thus saving precious fossil fuel for aviation.
In other words, if aviation activities can be reduced yearly at a 2% rate, via increasing construction of high-speed electric trains, the end result will be the same as achieving 2% increase in aviation efficiency. Ditto for the substitution of fossil fuel by renewable liquid fuels.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 12 October 2010 at 07:27 PM
Why? Science has shown Co2 is not a pollutant, or a heavy climate modifier. So Why?
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 13 October 2010 at 06:29 AM
2% + 2% = 4% a year is possible?
Who can honestly be against efficiency gains.
Posted by: HarveyD | 13 October 2010 at 09:01 AM
Brackish water grown algae --> jet fuel. Solution.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 13 October 2010 at 10:02 AM
Ultra high speed e-trains, for trips up to 1000+ Km, and improved large planes and direct flights for longer trips could cut air travel and fuel consumption by 50+% over 30 years or so.
Of course, e-vehicles could reduce fuel consumption many times more.
Posted by: HarveyD | 13 October 2010 at 05:17 PM
"Why?" [trying to reduce CO2 emission?]
Yes, CO2's GHG effect is much less than that of water vapor, but WRT Global warming, CO2 level acts like the small control current in a power transistor that allows much larger current to flow thru. Water vapor is the main Green House Gas (GHG) here, but water vapor concentration in the air is in equilibrium with liquid water in the ocean, and cannot increase, unless the temperature gets warmer.
However, CO2 level is not in equilibrium, but kept rising due to human activities. This small rise in the GHG effect of CO2 will trigger a small rise in global temperature proportional to its GHG effect. This small temperature increase due to CO2's GHG effect will trigger a much larger increase in water vapor level, since warmer air can hold more water vapor in exponential proportion with respect to temperature...this increase in water vapor will trigger much more global warming...leading to even more water vapor...like a positive feedback loop, or like amplification circuitry...and the world will warm up with the extent far higher than possible than with the rise in CO2 level alone.
Other positive feedback loops or amplifiers will also come into play, like the erosion of artic ice yearly, leading to more solar energy absorption, since ice reflects majority of incident solar energy, whereas darker-colored vegetation or earth will absorp more sun's ray.
And also, the release of frozen methane hydrate deep under the tundra and under the artic ocean due to global warming and melting of glacier into the atmosphere will greatly boost the GHG effect, since methane is a very potent GHG.
Bottom line: don't under estimate the sophisticate computer model of the IPPC in the estimation of global warming.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 15 October 2010 at 12:23 AM