According to Hilary Osborne writing for The Guardian:
“Emissions from air travel have doubled since 1990, to make up 6 percent of the UK’s carbon footprint. Forecasts suggest that the increase in flights will mean that by 2050, emissions from aviation could be between four and 10 times higher than they were in 1990, making it almost impossible for the government to achieve its target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent.”
But according to the same article, aviation is not included in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). So I guess it doesn’t count?*
It’s perhaps a bit like Germany excluding its new coal fired power stations?
Indeed a few months ago Germany admitted it had probably over estimated its emissions and acknowledging that it needed to tighten its greenhouse gas emissions limit in the second round of the EU’s carbon market, while at the same time suggesting that new coal plants will opt out of the ETS.
So Germany got the credits for the old coal-fired power stations it closed down, but it won’t count the new one’s it builds? At least it wants a 14 years moratorium before it starts counting them?*
How does this work? Do Germany and the aviation industry have really good negotiators?
—————–
* Changes made to this post following comments from Steve, see below.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
All the emissions are accounted for in that countries emission inventory and kyoto reporting. The currently limited scope of the ETS does not remove a country’s kyoto obligation.
At least at present aviation companies do not have an emission target to beat (and presumably ditto for the new german coal power stations) under the ETS.
THis is because by far most of the emissions come from the stationary (ie not transport) energy sector, e.g. electricity generation.
And while transport emissions may be growing faster at present, stationary energy emissions are growing quickly too.
I think its very sensible to start off emissions trading in just the stationary energy sector where the biggest emitters are, and then expand it to other sectors once the teething problems have been sorted.
And while they may not have a direct obligation, there is nothing stopping aviation companies from reducing emissions and selling the credits to liable parties.
As for the new German coal companies. Yeah sure, they probably just have good negotiators, helped along by a new conservative German government. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would agree that it is pathetic of the German Govt that they are excluded.
In the proposed State-based Australian emissions trading scheme, only stationary energy is covered, though emission reductions in other sectors such as transport and agriculture or tree planting could presumably sell credits to the liable parties.
ETS aside, the country as a whole will still have an obligation to meet its kyoto target. Maybe they have other policies or strategies at this point in time to deal with aviation emissions?
Thanks Steve, just to clarify:
1. Aviation is included for EU countries — just can’t be traded? So all British Airways flights, even from say Berlin to Sydney, count against the UK?
2. The new coal power plants in Germany don’t count against Germany’s inventory?
3. The state based system in Australia will excluded aviation?
1. aviation is included in the emissions inventory for each country. They are obliged to account for it and report for Kyoto.
Domestic UK flights would certainly be included in the UK emissions inventory. I’m not clear how emissions from international flights are allocated among countries – maybe they are just divvied up based on the country that the company is doing business in for that flight??
I’m not entirely sure, but i wouldn’t be surprised if it were possible for an aviation company to voluntarily reduce its emissions (say if it switched to a cleaner fuel) and sell the credits to a party with a liability in the emissions trading scheme.
2. The new coal plants in Germany would be legally required to be included in Germany’s national greenhouse inventory and accounted for under Kyoto . They would count towards Germany’s total emissions. However, it sounds as though they are not =obligated= to reduce their emissions under the emissions trading scheme. This is a free kick to those new coal generators, but it will not make Germany’s job to meet its kyoto obligation any easier.
3. The state-based emissions trading scheme in Australia has only been proposed to cover stationary energy at first, not transport. This means it will cover electricity companies, big electricity users, and other big industrial emitters. Aviation or road transport might be included at a later date, but not initially. Maybe it would never get included, and instead a different policy would address transport emissions. Even though agriculture wouldn’t be obligated to reduce emissions under the state-based scheme, liable parties could still buy credits from tree planting etc.
I don’t know how confusing all that was, probably a bit. Maybe this will help:
KYOTO
Kyoto is about uniform measurement of emissions, and agreed national targets for each country to achieve emission reductions.
All emissions are accounted for and reported against kyoto, but kyoto is not about the actual =implementation= of emission reduction measures.
The EU EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME
The ETS is but one policy to try and reduce emissions. Kyoto is a target, the ETS is an implemented means to go about reducing emissions.
The ETS does not cover every last source of emissions and place obligations on every last person and company to reduce their own emissions. Rather, the ETS is currently just targetted at stationary energy, big electricity users, and key big industrial emitters.
Perhaps the growing public discussion about aviation emissions will serve to fasttrack the inclusion of aviation companies in the ETS, or else maybe it will spur the development of new policies that are better structured to deal with transport emissions.
Steve,
I was confusing inventories and ETS and have now put a line through reference to the former in the above blog post… so as not to confuse others.
Thanks for explaining.
I should probably also change the title?
Another point of clarification:
China, as an example, has ratified Kyoto but has no emission targets?
Belgium, as an example, has ratified Kyoto and has emission targets and the ETS scheme to help meet the targets?
Australia has signed but not ratified Kyoto and has emission targets (which we on tract to meet through banning broadscale tree clearing and a few other initiatives)?
Yup, that sounds right.
Australia is apparently meeting its target mostly by ending broadscale landclearing instead of reducing emissions with an emissions trading scheme.
The push for emissions trading in Australia is not about meeting kyoto, its about continuing to reduce emissions.
Perhaps the European countries can meet their kyoto targets without doing anything amazing to reduce aviation emissions. However, i think the article you linked to is arguing that aviation emissions need to be looked at in the longer term because they are growing so rapidly. Cant achieve the aspirational 60% reduction by 2050 or whatever if aviation emissions are rising so fast and nobody is doing anything about it, even if significant reductions are made in electricity generation.
There was an article in the CSM that puts things into some perspective, future CO2 emissions from the US, China and India are set to dwarf any projected savings from Kyoto.
“By 2012, the plants in three key countries – China, India, and the United States – are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons…..
….”China and India are building coal-fired capacity as fast as they can,” says Christopher Bergesen, who tracks power plant construction for Platts, the energy publishing division of McGraw- Hill.
China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants – nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213 such plants; the US, 72.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html
Some more perspective:
the $2 billion going to farmers in drought relief is more than the entire Australian Government cumulative budget on greenhouse, energy efficiency and renewable energy from 1997 to some time after 2010.