Aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions.  Flying is one of the most carbon-intensive activities   ̶   yet it contributes just 2.5% of the world’s carbon emissions. How does this add up? Well, most people in the world do not fly.  Studies estimate that just 10% of the world’s population flies in most years. But as incomes rise, this will change.

International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) projections suggest that growth in air traffic will mean that CO₂ emissions in 2050 will be seven to ten times higher than in 1990. At the same time, though, flying has become more than twice as energy efficient. Travelling one passenger-kilometre in 1990 used 2.9 megajoules (MJ) of energy. By 2019, this had more than halved to 1.3 MJ. This efficiency has come from improved design and technology, larger planes that can carry more passengers, and a higher ‘passenger load factor’. Empty seats are less common than in the past.

The problem is that the carbon intensity of that fuel   ̶   how much CO₂ is emitted per unit  ̶   has not changed at all. We used standard jet fuel in 1990 and are using the same stuff today. It has not gotten any cleaner. Biofuels and other alternatives are just a tiny fraction of global demand.

This has prompted the EU to take action to reduce aviation emissions in Europe and, working with the international community, to develop measures with global reach.  Three years ago, the European Commission adopted a series of legislative proposals setting out how it intends to achieve climate neutrality in the EU by 2050, including the intermediate target of a minimum 55% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Plans are in the pipeline to require airlines to track and report their contribution to climate change from January 2025 – not only from carbon dioxide, but also soot, nitrogen oxides, and water vapour.

The package included proposed revisions of several pieces of EU climate legislation, including the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), Effort Sharing Regulation, and transport and land use legislation, setting out in real terms the ways in which the Commission intends to reach EU climate targets under the European Green Deal.

Last week, the Commission announced that it would initially exempt long-haul flights from rules on monitoring their non-CO₂ emissions for two years until 2027, after international carriers lobbied for an opt-out.   Airlines’ non-CO₂ emissions contribute to global warming at least just as much as their CO₂ output, according to the EU’s aviation safety authority.  As a result, the reporting will be limited to routes involving two aerodromes located in the European Economic Area, that is flights from the EEA to Switzerland or Britain would also be covered.

The Commission did not give a rationale for the exclusion. The exemption mirrors current EU rules that require airlines to disclose and pay fees for their CO₂ emissions produced on flights only inside Europe, although those rules are due to be reassessed in 2026.  Within the EU, direct CO₂ emissions from international aviation have increased fast – by 87% since 1990.  Intra-European aviation emissions have increased by 35% in the last six years.  

The new rules have, however, split the industry.  Low-cost European carriers Ryanair,     easyJet, and Wizz Air say all flights   ̶   including long-haul international trips   ̶   should be included.  “The blanket exclusion of extra-EEA routes would give the misleading impression that these routes create no non-CO₂ warming effects, misdirecting all future non-CO₂ mitigation measures,” the airlines said in a joint statement distributed to EU governments.

In the original decision in 2012, the EU had decided to include all flights entering and leaving the EU in the ETS. It was quickly changed to only include travel within the EU.  This discrimination between international flights from the EU and intra-Europe flights indirectly affects Malta, as most of our aviation is within the EU.  Meanwhile, successive Maltese governments have been voting for such measures as if it doesn’t matter.  We keep complaining of the one-size-fits-all approach of the EU but, when it comes to the crunch, we fall in line with the rigidities imposed by the institutions. Does this make sense?

Photo: Dean Morley/Flickr