Air and sea transport must start trading carbon

European finance ministers meeting in Brussels yesterday called for international shipping and aviation greenhouse gas emissions to be included in a global carbon pricing system.

In a decision immediately hailed by Oxfam's climate change adviser Lies Craeynest as a ″double win", they said that this would become ″potential source of revenues that would also generate the price signal necessary to efficiently achieve emission reductions from these sectors".

The EU is already resolute that aviation will be included in its Emissions Trading Scheme after 2012, despite opposition registered by at least 120 countries at an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) meeting last October.

The finance ministers issued a statement on climate finance which said that although raising the $100 billion per year by 2020 to tackle climate change - as agreed by world leaders in Copenhagen 2009 - is challenging, it is feasible.

They noted that Euros 7.2 billion will be available up to the end of 2012 in Europe, and challenged other countries to come up with their share of the cash.

One of the mechanisms for raising this cash must be a ″robust carbon market" to drive ″the carbon price necessary for low carbon investment to achieve global mitigation objectives in an efficient way".

They acknowledged that public finance is a particularly important source for developing countries striving to meet their reduction targets, that is difficult to provide in the current economic climate.

It says therefore that ″the carbon pricing of global aviation and maritime transportation is a potential source of revenues that would also generate the price signal necessary to efficiently achieve emission reductions from these sectors".

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and ICAO must therefore "develop without delay a global policy framework that avoids competitive distortions or carbon leakage".

However the statement also squarely challenges developing countries to develop "improved general business and policy frameworks". If these are in place it will inspire confidence for cooperation between public and private climate financiers and the development of ″an effective and efficient Green Climate Fund", as proposed by the UNFCC and delegates at Cancun last December, and currently being designed.

The system finance ministers are proposing would work by imposing a global cap on carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions. Companies that then emitted more than their share of the gases would have to trade permits.

"It is a unique opportunity to control a major and rising source of climate changing emissions and at the same time generate desperately needed cash," said Oxfam's Craeynest.

Shipping companies - close to agreement?

The IMO was tasked with the job of reducing emissions from shipping in 1997 and has so far failed to come up with a solution.

On April 27 this year, Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard signalled that she had lost patience with them.

In response, a spokesperson for the IMO argued that ″the work is heavily advanced", and promised it will be discussed further at the next meeting of the group's Marine Environment Protection Committee during 4-15 July.

This body's meetings occur but twice a year. At the last one, there was no consensus reached on how to proceed with the next stage of its climate change strategy, but delegates did decide to force new ships to include an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), and that as long as the required energy-efficiency level is attained, ship designers and builders can be free to use the most cost-efficient solutions for the ship. This is a strategy that is compatible with a carbon pricing system.

It also decided to task a Working Group on GHG Emissions with preparing details of a carbon trading system. At the end of March, this Group came up with a variety of proposals, ranging from a contribution or levy on all CO2 emissions from international shipping; or only from those ships not meeting the requirements of the EEDI, via emission trading systems; to schemes based on a ship's actual efficiency, both by design and operation, based on the SEEMP.

It's these that will be discussed at the July meeting, and the European finance ministers will be hoping that at last, after 14 years of deliberation, the IMO will finally reach a consensus.

Airlines resist change

The ICAO has also been looking at the issue for a long time since 2000 - and is also considering market-based mechanisms. This is the body tasked by the Kyodo Protocol with working with developing countries to reduce emissions from international aviation.

It has issued draft guidance on the voluntary use of emissions trading and on levies, but it has consistently resisted taxes of any sort on aviation fuel.

Last October all member nations committed to increasing fuel efficiency by 2% a year up to 2020; to achieving carbon neutrality for the industry by 2020; and to producing international standards for aeroplane engine emissions by 2013. But these are general goals with no specific requirements for individual member nations. There is no forum for discussing such requirements until the ICAO's next session - in 2013.

Biofuels are considered to be the only viable option for reducing aircraft emissions, and several companies are successfully trialling various fuels.

Air travel is responsible for some 700 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year (around half of which comes from international aviation), representing 2.4% of the world's total emissions. It is highly debatable whether all such journeys could be propelled by renewable fuels.

It's clear that Europe believes that a global carbon pricing scheme is the only mechanism which will deliver the emission savings required and this is why it is is piling the pressure on to these two crucial industries.

Can biofuels fuel our transport needs?

By 2050, biofuels could provide 27% of total transport fuel, supplementing diesel, kerosene and jet fuel while avoiding emissions of around 2.1 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 emissions per year - but only if produced sustainably, according to a new International Energy Agency (IEA) roadmap published today.

But biofuels aren't the only fuel - electric vehicles are taking to the road too, and yesterday saw the publication of a new UK Low Carbon Automotive Directory to promote UK expertise in the area for export.

What we do about transport to make it sustainable is the thorniest question facing us as we try to steer our high-energy way of life towards a more climate-friendly future.

The kind of answer arrived at affects the degree to which lifestyles, accustomed or aspiring to the freedom of movement that cars, planes, buses and trains currently offer, can continue into the future.

The IEA technology roadmap, Biofuels for Transport is positive, and provides an excellent overview of many of the fuelstocks and conversion technologies, from those in full commercial production now, to those which are just in R&D.

It also examines their carbon balance and overall sustainability, which is crucial to minimising the impact of travel.

However, it does not cover everything - it is relatively quiet on aviation fuel and in particular on jatropha. This is a plant which grows on land otherwise unusable for farming, makes biodiesel, and was recently tested by Japan Airlines, Air New Zealand, Continental, Brazil's TAM Airlines and Mexican carrier Interjet with Airbus.

A peer-reviewed Yale University study says it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from flying by up to 60%.

140,000 formerly impoverished farmers in India are now earning a living cultivating the crop without compromising food supply or food pricing - which makes it highly sustainable. India aims to meet 20% of its diesel demand with fuel derived from plants rather than fossils by 2017.

The IEA report is also weak on the multiple benefits of algae-farming. Algae produces biodiesel while absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and processing sewage, and proposals have been made to grow it alongside industrial plants which emit the greenhouse gas. The process also produces a fertiliser and clean water.

A recent report in the New Scientist on the subject does highlight physical limits to how much we could make, but of course the fuel-source is only one amongst many.

Can we produce enough sustainable biofuels?

The IEA study says most conventional biofuel technologies need to improve conversion efficiency, cost and overall sustainability, and that current advanced, second-generation biofuels need to be commercially deployed.

We must be fully confident that the life-cycle impacts of these products do not compromise food security and biodiversity, and yield positive social impacts. This includes sustainable land-use management and certification schemes, as well as support measures that promote 斗ow-riskfeedstocks and efficient processing technologies.

The report calculates the land area requirements for biofuel feedstock, at around 100 million hectares (Mha) in 2050 - a considerable challenge given competition for land and feedstocks from rapidly-growing demand for food and fibre.

But it concludes this should be possible, and provide the required 145 EJ of total biomass for biofuels, heat and electricity from crop residues and wastes, along with sustainably grown energy crops.

Will it be expensive?

The IEA roadmap says that scale and efficiency improvements will reduce costs to make most biofuels competitive with fossil fuels by 2030.

The investment costs seem high - production costs from 2010 to 2050 in this roadmap are $11 trillion to $13 trillion, but the marginal savings or additional costs compared to use of gasoline/diesel are in the range of only +/-1% of total costs for all transport fuels - and this is without factoring in the externalities of environmental damage avoided from not using fossil fuels.

UK leadership

The UK is a pioneer in many aspects of low carbon vehicles, well-placed to profit from the global shift to sustainable transport. The updated UK Low Carbon Automotive Directory has been produced to help boost the export market for this emerging sector.

It lists suppliers, partners and new solutions from the UK's businesses and research institutions in areas such as manufacturing, components, transmissions & drive trains, energy recovery & storage (batteries and flywheels), electrical recharging infrastructure, fuels & infrastructure and hydrogen and fuel cells.

The sector is supported by the BIS Automotive Unit with the DfT's Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) and LowCVP.

Crucial to fostering UK success is Cenex - the UK's first Centre of Excellence for low carbon and fuel cell technologies.

Cenex has just launched its website allowing registration for the key trade show for the sector, LCV2011, the 4th annual Low Carbon Vehicle event which will take place on 7th and Thursday 8th September 2011.

Navigating the route to a low-carbon travel is tricky, but the encouraging message is that it is potentially achievable.

UK emissions have "risen by one fifth"

Far from reducing, as the government often claims, the UK's greenhouse gas emissions have risen by nearly a fifth over the past two decades, according to a report, Too Good To Be True? The UK's Climate Change Record, from Chairman of Defra's Academic Panel Dieter Helm.

It shows that Britain has not yet broken the link between economic growth and emissions.

Helm says that when the UK's emissions are analysed using the UN climate convention's method, which measures consumption of energy, Britain appeared to achieved a fall of 5.3 per cent in emissions between 1990 and 2005.

However, when international air travel and supply chain implications are factored in - ie total production is quantified - then the trend is "adverse".

The depressing report only serves to underline the need to consume less, and to consume locally - either we downsize in a planned and managed way, as the Transition Towns movement is trying to do for example, or we will be forced to do so later in a much more unpleasant fashion.

What is sustainable about this transport policy?

The sustainability of transport in the UK comes down to one thing - can we all maintain or improve our quality of life and tackle climate change in the way we move from A to B (or, indeed, decide not to).

The Government has just laid out its ideas on this in Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World. This is a consultation document that will lead to a new Transport White Paper in a year's time.

It is a brave document in that it dares to question whether new major infrastructure projects are a good idea, but still pledges support for airport expansion in southeast England.

It also wants to speed up motorways and rail links between London, Birmingham and Manchester.

Its attempt to be "sustainable" rests partly on a pledge to ensure that "every extra tonne of carbon from aviation growth above 2005 levels would need to be matched by a tonne saved somewhere else - a saving over and above existing targets".

This is code for emissions trading, and means we can carry on as usual, while investing in renewable energy in developing countries, but this does nothing to reduce the overall level of GHG entering the atmosphere.

We are back with Catch-23.

Basically economic growth and sustainability are incompatible. It's like trying to get cats and mice to get on with each other.

So in short, the Low Carbon Kid says there's not much sustainable about such a transport policy.

He will write another time about how saving money by energy efficiency doesn't result in saving nearly as much energy as you'd thnk because the money saved is usually spent on other things that also use energy.

Catch-23 again.

Meanwhle, the logic from all of this leads to the conclusion that only one thing will reduce our overall energy use: personal carbon trading with a yearly reduced overall cap.

This will be because there will no possible way to use more energy. No choice. Nada.

Like the spoilt child, we should be banned from playing with our dangerous toys, and learn to do more with less.

It's the only way.

Aviation and climate change

Most of us know that flying's bad for climate change, and that we should really holiday closer to home, take the train and videoconference.

Aviation has by far the greatest climate impact of any transport mode, whether measured per passenger kilometre, per tonne kilometre, per € spent, or per hour spent. See the Transport and Environment report, 'Clearing the Air: the myth and reality of aviation and climate change'.

The opening of the St Pancras rail link to the continent on November 14 will allow you to travel in style from the centre of one city to the centre of another faster than ever, for a comparable price to flying in many cases (eg London to Berlin is more or less the same price on BA/tube/rail to/from airport). So what if it takes longer? It's sure going to be less hassle and you can take the sleeper.

But people will still fly - so should aviation be included in the EU emissions trading system (ETS)?

The ETS

The EU thinks so, and so does the British government. The EU is pressing ahead despite a major rift within the UN body responsible for the sector.

The airlines don't like it. They are kicking and screaming.

The 2007 Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) - a body representing the airlines but also responsible, under the Kyoto Protocol, for reducing emissions from international aviation - passed a resolution earlier this month saying countries should sign separate agreements with all other countries operating in its airspace before applying emissions trading to their carrier airlines.

This was strongly backed by the United States.

To enter into separate agreements would be technically illegal under the Kyoto treaty and disables the whole point of the ETS.

Since 1997 the ICAO has failed to endorse, or issued negative statements on, every serious policy option for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the sector.

In retaliation EU member states, and member countries of the wider European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) which includes Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, made a 'reservation' against the resolution.

Though ICAO guidance is not legally-binding, the EU has until now acted within its framework. This 'reservation' signals the end of that commitment.

João Vieira, of the Brussels-based group Transport and Environment, called for this body to be disbanded. "After a shameful decade of obstruction and inaction, ICAO must now be stripped of its environmental responsibilities."

But will it make any difference?

But will bringing aviation into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in line with current proposals have any effect on burgeoning air travel?

Not according to a report by the University of Manchester's Tyndall Centre. Its research found that even if carbon dioxide permit prices rose up to €50 per tonne it will have little impact on the price of and demand for flights - and hence will barely dent the rise in emissions.

Current predictions of the carbon credit price are in the range of €15-35. For example consultancies Ideacarbon and Econ said in September that the price for the next five years could be around €15 because of imports of credits from developing countries.

At this price the ETS isn't going to make much difference to anything, let alone airline emissions.

The Low Carbon Kid says pressure must be kept up on governments to curtail flights - and make flying as unfashionable as owning a slave.

Your name on a paper plane

I had a nice letter from Asi Sharabi asking me to promote "the WWF (World Wildlife not the wrestling...)'s new campaign to strengthen the UK Climate Change Bill".

I agree with him when he describes the Climate Change Bill (which was hard fought for by grassroots groups) as "one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to go before the UK Parliament".

But surprise, surprise a funny thing's happened on the way to the statute book - it's been watered down. 

What's needed from you and me is pressure to include carbon emissions from international aviation and shipping – the fastest growing sources of emissions – in the bill's targets.

"Excluding them is  a bit like going on a diet but not counting the calories from chocolate!" he says.

So WWF plans to build a massive paper boat and paper plane, put all the names of the people who signed the petition on the boat/plan, and then deliver them to the Houses of Parliament. 

Your name could be on it, if you click here.!

He adds: "PS: Funnily enough my wife bought me Hybrids recently (she said I spend more time with my laptop then with her but thats just not true.... ) I didn't have the chance to read it yet but looking forward!"

While we're on the subject I've also been asked by the Energy Saving Trust to encourage people to pledge to commit to save their 20% of their energy use.

Currently only 106,000 have signed up, and they aim to reach one million by Christmas!

Energy Saving Week is next week, so I suppose I'll be banging on about this again then.