Airlines' fuel practices feed doubts over climate commitment

PARIS, France — Airlines have taken steps to reduce their carbon footprints under the gaze of public opinion, but the pressure of the bottom line means some fly with extra fuel, boosting emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases.

As the highly competitive air travel industry is being pushed to reduce its carbon emissions—which it puts at two to three percent of the global total—the practice known as fuel tankering has become an acid test for airlines' commitment to really go green.

In fuel tankering, an aircraft's tanks are filled sufficiently at the departure airport to avoid having to take on additional fuel for the return leg at a destination airport where fuel costs may be higher, or there are supply issues.

According to a study by Eurocontrol, the practice is a money-saving strategy for airlines as it outweighs the cost of additional fuel needed to carry the extra weight on the outbound flight.

"Aviation is a very competitive market and each airline needs to minimise operating costs, in order to keep its ticket prices as competitive as possible," said the group, an inter-governmental organisation that helps harmonise regulations in the sector.


With fuel accounting for up to 25 percent of airlines' operating expenses, "saving fuel has become a major challenge for aviation", it added.

Eurocontrol found that in Europe fuel tankering concerns about one in six flights, on average resulting in an extra 136 kg of fuel burned.

Despite the additional fuel cost of 75 euros it still results in a net saving of 126 euros per flight. That saving also includes nine euros for purchasing carbon allowances for the 428kg of additional CO2 generated.


The report estimated that in Europe fuel tankering could generate net savings of 265 million euros per year for airlines, while adding 286,000 tonnes of fuel burnt and 901,000 tons of CO2 emissions.

"This represents about 2,800 round-trips between Paris and New York or the annual emissions of a European city of 100,000 inhabitants," said the report.

Everybody does it...

After being called out for fuel tankering by the BBC, British Airways called it a "common practice across the airline industry" and said that it is done for "operational, safety and price reasons."

British Airways said it resorts to fuel tankering for "mainly short-haul destinations where there are considerable fuel price differences between European airports."

Willy Walsh, the head of IAG, British Airway's parent company, acknowledged that the issue shows that airlines are torn between economic and environmental imperatives.

"What we see today is that there is often a conflict between what we do that makes a commercial and financial sense and the things we should be doing from an environmental point of view," he told investors at a gathering at the beginning of November.

Germany's Lufthansa said it resorts to fuel tankering only exceptionally for operational reasons because the practice "goes against our goal of reducing carbon emissions," said a spokesman.

Air France said it practiced fuel tankering only on "some specific" routes for economic or organisational reasons.

Offsets

The airline industry adopted in 2016 a mechanism called CORSIA to offset any increase in CO2 emissions from 2020 levels using tree-planting and other schemes that absorb carbon.

This will allow the industry to continue to grow to meet rising demand for air travel without adding any additional carbon on a net basis.

Budget airline easyJet announced it plans to go further by offsetting emissions from all flights.

Most airlines have also undertaken efforts to reduce their emissions such as optimising flight paths, using electric towing vehicles or reducing the weight of seats.

But these efforts are not sufficient believes Andrew Murphy of the non-governmental organisation Transport and Environment.

"The increase of aviation emissions and stories like this show that actually the industry isn't doing enough and actually we can't just rely on the industry to cut it's own emissions," said Murphy.

"The equation is super complex" to arrive at a reduction of emissions when the volume of air traffic is expected to double every 15 to 20 years, said Pascal Fabre, an air travel expert at the consultancy Alix Partners.

The situation is even more daunting as airlines need to make money to survive, with around a dozen going out of business in the past year and a half according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

source: philstar.com

What would happen if carbon emissions continue to rise? UN scientists paint grim picture of future

PARIS - UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict, and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

A draft of their report, seen by AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.

Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from Tuesday to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.

"We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences... including the implications for security," said Chris Field of the United States' Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.

The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming.

It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3-4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, adding to roughly 0.7 C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26-82 centimetres (10.4-32.8 inches) by 2100.

The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much.

Warming of 2.5 C over pre-industrial times -- 0.5 C more than the UN's target -- may cost 0.2-2.0 percent of global annual income, a figure that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

"The assessments that we can do at the moment probably still underestimate the actual impacts of future climate change," said Jacob Schewe of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany, who was not involved in the IPCC drafting.

Many scientists concurred, he said, that recent heatwaves and floods were evidence of climate change already on the march -- and a harbinger of a future in which once-freakish weather events become much less rare.

Among the perils listed in the draft are these:

-- FLOODING: Rising greenhouse-gas emissions will "significantly" boost the risk of floods, with Europe and Asia particularly exposed. In the highest warming scenarios of untamed greenhouse gas emissions, three times as many people will be exposed to severe river flooding as with lower warming.

- DROUGHT: For every 1 C (1.8 F) rise in temperature, another seven percent of the world's population will see renewable water resources decline by a fifth.

- RISING SEAS: If no measures are taken, "hundreds of millions" of coastal dwellers will be displaced by 2100. Small-island states and East, Southeast, and South Asia will be the biggest land-losers.

- HUNGER: Average yields of wheat, rice, and corn may fall by two percent per decade, while demand for crops is likely to rise by up to 14 percent by 2050 as Earth's population grows. The crunch will hit poor, tropical countries worst.

- SPECIES LOSS: A "large fraction" of land and freshwater species may risk extinction, their habitat destroyed by climate change.

Security threat

Poverty, migration, and hunger are invisible drivers of turbulence and war, as they sharpen competition for dwindling resources, the report warns.

"Climate change over the 21st century will lead to new challenges to states and will increasingly shape national security policies," its draft summary says.

"Small-island states and other states highly vulnerable to sea-level rise face major challenges to their territorial integrity.

"Some transboundary impacts of climate change, such as changes in sea ice, shared water resources, and migration of fish stocks, have the potential to increase rivalry among states. The presence of robust institutions can manage many of these rivalries to reduce conflict risk."

By reducing carbon emissions "over the next few decades," the world can stave off many of the worst climate consequences by century's end, says the report.

The IPCC will issue a third volume, on strategies for tackling carbon emissions, in Berlin on April 13.

The panel has issued four previous "assessment reports" in its quarter-century history.

Each has sounded a louder drumbeat of warning about the gigatonnes of carbon dioxide spewed by traffic, power station,s and other fossil-fuel burners and methane from deforestation and farming.

The Yokohama volume goes further than its predecessors in forecasting regional impacts in greater detail and emphasizing the risk of conflict and rising seas.

The IPCC's last big report in 2007 helped unleash political momentum leading to the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen. But its reputation was dented by several mistakes, seized upon by climate skeptics as proof of bias.

source: interaksyon.com

New Aussie PM Abbott moves to repeal climate tax

SYDNEY -- Australia's new conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott Wednesday moved to abolish a carbon tax designed to combat climate change as his first major economic reform since taking office.

Abbott said the September 7 election that he won decisively had been a referendum on the future of the tax, which was imposed by the former Labor government on major polluters from 2012 in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

"No one should be in any doubt -- the government is repealing the carbon tax in full," he said as he introduced a bill to repeal the tax into parliament. "We are doing what we were elected to do. We have said what we mean and we will do what we say -- the carbon tax goes. It goes."

Scrapping the divisive tax was a central election promise of Abbott who had argued the cost of the levy was passed on to consumers, resulting in higher utility bills and day-to-day costs.

"The intention of the new government is to put power prices down by axing this toxic tax and by using other means to reduce emissions," he said.

"This is our bill to reduce your bills, to reduce the bills of the people of Australia."

Abbott also said the removal of the tax would strengthen the economy of Australia, which is among the world's worst per capita polluters due to its reliance on coal-fired power and mining exports.

The carbon tax had charged the country's biggest polluters for their emissions at a fixed price and was due to transition to an emissions trading scheme.

The new government instead favors a "direct action" plan that includes an incentive fund to pay companies to increase their energy efficiency, a controversial sequestration of carbon in soil scheme, and the planting 20 million trees.

Abbott had earlier been forced to wait for about an hour to move the legislation after Labor, which opposes the dismantling of the tax, stalled proceedings with debate about the government's nickname for opposition leader Bill Shorten.

The prime minister had referred to his opposition counterpart as "Electricity" Bill Shorten during a media interview earlier in the day, a moniker attacked by Labor as "name-calling."

Then as he began to move the bill, Abbott was interrupted by yelling protesters in the public gallery.

"Inaction (on climate) is simply not good enough," shouted one protester, one of more than a dozen removed from the chamber.

The government also introduced a bill to repeal the mining tax -- a levy once proposed as a 40 percent tax on "super profits" within the industry but which was ultimately greatly reduced in size and scope after a backlash from the mining sector.

source: interaksyon.com