Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

The aviation industry’s plans for the climate: Cooking the books and the planet

Posted on 31 July 20185 April 2019

In June 2018, the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) approved rules and standards for its planned carbon trading scheme, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). We are sleepwalking into a climate disaster.

Nevertheless, ICAO describes this as a “landmark decision”. In a press statement, ICAO Council President Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu says,

“Aviation has now set out not only its climate change goals, but also the means to achieve them. The progress achieved today is a clear demonstration of the unwavering commitment, on behalf of both governments and airlines, to minimize the future impact of international aviation on the global climate.”

Unfortunately, ICAO’s “unwavering commitment” is to ensure that the aviation industry can continue to expand and continue to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon offsets in CORSIA have everything to do with allowing emissions from aviation to continue and nothing to do with minimising aviation’s impact on the climate.

Making oil green?

ICAO has managed to undermine its already pathetically weak carbon trading scheme. ICAO gave in to lobbying from Saudi Arabia and the United States and included “lower carbon conventional fuels” in the definition of “sustainable” aviation fuels. According to ICAO, then, “green fuel” includes kerosene as long as it is produced in an oil refinery running on renewable energy.

Meanwhile ICAO’s Council postponed decisions about the rules covering which offsets will be allowed to be traded under CORSIA. Julie Girling of the European Parliament’s environmental committee notes that,

The offset can has been kicked down the road to avoid confrontation which doesn’t augur well for future agreement. The decision on fossil fuels is a bizarre and unnecessary concession to oil producing countries including the US.

China was reported to have pulled out of the pilot stage of CORSIA.

In fact, China has never agreed to take part in CORSIA. A representative of China’s delegation to ICAO told GreenAir that, “China has not made a decision yet whether to join the CORSIA pilot phase or first phase”.

China has the second largest civil aviation industry after the United States. China plans to expand the number of passengers by 11.4% in 2018.

Emissions from aviation are increasing rapidly

Emissions from the aviation sector are rising rapidly, and will continue to do so under ICAO carbon trading scheme.

On 13 July 2018, the website Flight Radar 24 tracked 205,468 flights – a record number for one day. 29 June 2018 was the first time the website had tracked more than 200,000 flights.

Another flight tracking record yesterday and our first time tracking over 205,000 flights. See the 205,468 flights we tracked on 13 July and when we expect traffic to peak for the year at https://t.co/sevtHsxfgb pic.twitter.com/odNJr8Y9U0

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) July 14, 2018

ICAO reports that in 2017, 4.1 billion passengers flew – an increase of 7.1% over 2016. ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu argues that by flying more, we are somehow benefiting the poor:

“Air traffic growth is making key contributions towards the achievement of United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, offering an opportunity to lift a generation out of poverty, figuratively and literally. As a UN agency, ICAO is deeply committed to ensuring that all countries have an opportunity to benefit from the doubling in flight and passenger volumes forecast for the next 15 years.”

Of course Liu makes no mention of the impact that the aviation sector’s emissions have on climate change, or of the devastating impact that climate change is already having on the world’s poorest communities.

EDF and TNC appear not to care about the aviation industry’s impact on climate change

Despite this disaster in the making for the world’s climate, the Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy welcomed the latest developments on CORSIA. EDF describes CORSIA’s rules as “an important step forward in [ICAO’s] efforts to address the role of air travel in contributing to climate change”.

But even EDF recognises that ICAO is cooking the books by allowing fossil fuel to count as “green fuel”. Annie Petsonk, International Counsel at EDF, comments,

“A potentially troubling development at the last minute involved changes to the SARPs so that airlines could in principle claim credit for fossil fuels if those emit less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fossil fuels. This change could present a serious stumbling block for CORSIA’s overall credibility, as it remains doubtful whether such fuels could meet the stringent criteria that the public will expect from this system.”

Isn’t it odd though, to see a so-called environmental organisation raising concerns about the “credibility” of the CORSIA carbon trading scam, rather than worrying about the impact of the aviation sector’s ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions on the planet’s climate?
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP19 Warsaw COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Green Resources Guest post HBS Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union Finland France Gabon Germany Guyana India Indonesia Kenya Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2026 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!