On airplane's invisible CO2

It is a strange thing that airplanes' CO2 is not included in the agreements of the Kyoto Protocol. One solution to this was suggested at one of the workshops at EU's Green Week.

What I concluded from the session is that the aviation industry (which was not included in the Kyoto Protocol) should insist that it will be included in the next climate change framework (to prevent being seen as the “bad boy” of climate change) and that it should work as hard as possible (with government support) on developing new types of airplanes (zero-emission airplanes by 2050?) and alternative fuels (but there also respecting environmental constraints, e.g. on the use of biofuels). But I also feel that because of the expected air travel growth (what if all middle class Chinese and Indians start travelling for tourism as we Westerns do?) there will come a time when international policymakers will have to “define” the kind of air travel that is still absolutely necessary (cargo, business) and the air travel that is for leisure (can this best be done via the price mechanism?).

A new article from the Canada-based Globe-net notes that emissions might also be included in the new Emission Tradings Scheme (ETS).

In recent years, governments and international organizations have looked at policy options that could create incentives or impose requirements on aircraft operators and manufacturers to reduce emissions.
At the forefront of this push is the European Union, which has proposed that aircraft be covered under the region's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Only domestic flights are covered under the Kyoto Protocol, so international flights are currently not targeted by any regulatory emissions reduction efforts.
Under the proposal, emissions from all flights within the EU will be covered in 2011, with international flights to be included in 2012, impacting airlines based in Canada directly. The EU hopes to serve as a model for other countries, and projects that by 2020, the cost of a typical return flight within the region could rise by $3-$9 Cdn.

An independant study by Ernst & Young thinks otherwise, though. EurActiv report on this.

On 6 June, the aviation industry unveiled an independent impact-assessment of the inclusion of aviation into the ETS, which it claims demonstrates that the Commission's proposal "will jeopardise the long-term viability of the European aviation industry".

[...]

Moreover, as operating costs rise, profits will fall due to the fall in demand, which will occur once ticket prices rise, because demand for air travel is in fact highly price-sensitive, claims the study.

The study also shows that, whatever the geographical scope of the scheme, it will put EU aircraft operators at a "perpetual competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis non-European carriers". Airlines are therefore calling on the Commission, Council and Parliament to review the proposal and make it less detrimental to the sector. They say that a different baseline and cap are essential.

SustainaBee says: Hmm... confusing. But in the light of current problems I think it's better to take care of our environmental problems. If our environment deteriorates our economy will surely suffer so much more than through our inaction!

Further reading: