http://transportenvironment.org/Printer/News/2009/12/Analysis-Aviation-and-Shipping-Emissions-after-Copenhagen/

From the online edition of “Transportation and Environment”

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

None of the big issues surrounding aviation and shipping (bunker) emissions were resolved at Copenhagen despite the fact that the issue itself received more attention at the UNFCCC in the past three months than in the last ten years.

There was no consensus on the EU proposal [1] for setting -10% and -20% emission reduction targets at Copenhagen.

It is highly unlikely that any such consensus will emerge at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) either.

In fact both ICAO and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) claimed at Copenhagen that their work on targets is pretty well done. It isn't.

Leading players in ICAO and IATA read prepared statements to a Copenhagen side event that attempted, but failed, to convince delegates that the question of reducing aviation emissions was under control. There was no debate or time allowed for questions.

This was in stark contrast to the earlier session by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) which included an open exchange of views. The events reflect the growing differences in approach of these two organisations.

For two years, the IMO has been considering two proposals for global emissions trading or a levy and is set to adopt a fuel efficiency standard for new ships next March/April and an operational index for existing ships.

ICAO's Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) can't even agree on the need for global measures and, after nearly two years of sitting on the issue, sent it back to the ICAO Council. The Council's High Level Group then sent it back to another working group. It's ICAO's version of a filibuster. Talk long enough, and hope the issue goes away.

ICAO’s position that an annual 2% fleet fuel efficiency metric amounts to an emissions reduction target is a sham. It is a measure of business-as-usual fleet renewal. It cannot be enforced and provides no economic incentive for emissions reductions.

IATA claims that it is leading industry by promising 50% emission cuts in 2050 and carbon neutral growth by 2020. But why should one industry be permitted to grow emissions unhindered for another decade when others are cutting back?

The 2050 emissions cut is merely an intention to offset emissions in other sectors. A proper sectoral target needs to ensure global warming remains below 2 degress (Copenhagen Agreement) and to constitute a binding commitment which ICAO (or UNFCCC) Parties would need to adopt.

During Copenhagen, IATA made much of the idea in public that it supported global measures and wanted progress on implementing any deal to be reported to COP 16 in Mexico in 2010.

It even claimed NGO support for this position in a flyer distributed to negotiators.

Behind the scenes the aviation industry was up to its old tricks, orchestrating a flurry of press reports in the last week, led by comments from Sir Richard Branson, that any aviation environmental tax agreed at Copenhagen would destroy the industry. ICAO has a long and tortuous history of drawing fine distinctions between fuel taxes which it claims contravene the Chicago Convention, levies or charges which it at first recommended over taxes (ICAO 33rd Assembly 2001) - so long as the revenues were recycled to industry - but later discouraged member states from pursuing, (35th Assembly 2004) and emissions trading which it only approves of on a global basis and by mutual consent.

On the eve of the High Level phase of the Copenhagen negotiations, the US Air Transport Association (ATA) announced that it had lodged a legal challenge to the EU’s decision to include aviation in its ETS in 2012. ATA also denied at a Copenhagen side event that it was spending millions to have aviation fuel removed from the provisions of the draft Boxer/Kerry Bill – but did not deny the allegation itself.

So, after 12 years of inaction since Kyoto, we are left with another year of tortuous proceedings on the environment in ICAO. NGOs remain hopeful that ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) will approve work to begin on developing a fuel efficiency standard for new aircraft.

But without any call from Copenhagen for ICAO to accelerate its work, there is a danger that ICAO’s business-as- usual approach to environmental issues will mean several years at least to complete the work and then more to have it sent to Council for approval. And despite all the hype at Copenhagen surrounding the decisions at the ICAO High Level meeting last September, ICAO members there were completely divided on the question of global measures and their non-discriminatory application.

The Copenhagen outcome indicates that this situation has not changed. ICAO (and UNFCCC) Member States remain as divided as ever on the question of real emission reduction targets for aviation and a global measure to implement them involving all operators. ICAO and the aviation industry's environmental reputation stands to decline even further.

Copenhagen was a lost opportunity to resolve the big issues preventing progress.

Tags: | Aviation | Climate Change & Energy | Pricing & Taxation

This story was printed from the T&E website on Tuesday, 22 December. The original can be viewed online at: transportenvironment.org/News/2009/12/Analysis-Aviation-and-Shipping-Emissions-after-Copenhagen/.

© 2009 European Federation for Transport and Environment AISBL