Flying under the climate radar!

Here is a post originally written for A/J magazine (here), but revised and posted on the CIPS blog more recently (here):

Monday, 13 July 2018 was a day for the record books. On that day the Swedish company FlightRadar24 tracked 205,468 flights occurring around the world, making it aviation’s busiest day in history. It would be a herculean task to determine the total carbon footprint of all those flights put together, but a basic back-of-envelope calculation yields some jaw-dropping figures. Consider that even a one-way short-haul flight in Canada (such as the average 1-hour trip between Ottawa and Toronto) generates about 4718 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO₂) — about as much as a typical passenger vehicle does in a whole year.[1]

If the Ottawa to Toronto route is representative of the global average in terms of distance travelled, aircraft type, and occupancy, then the aviation sector would have consumed the equivalent of over 2.2 million barrels of oil on that single day! By way of comparison, that’s enough energy to power nearly 105,000 North American homes for a whole year! It is so much CO₂ that it would require 1.1 million acres of forest a full year to remove it all from the atmosphere.[2] That’s one big day of air travel!

Of course, it’s quite possible that many of the flights tracked were not as damaging, since the tracking software sometimes includes non-commercial small aircraft. But even if we cut that estimate in half, the energy used would still be equivalent to the amount of oil coming out of North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields every day. The point is that any way you look at it, the aviation industry is an unmitigated climate change nightmare. Studies show that global flight emissions alone account for about 2% of all anthropogenic emissions globally.[3] Yet that’s just direct aircraft emissions of CO₂. Planes also emit nitrous oxides, water vapour, sulfates, and soot — which also impact the climate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that in 1992, aviation was responsible for 3.5% of all “anthropogenic radiative forcing” (in other words, 3.5% of human-caused climate change), which was expected to climb to 5% by 2050. But that figure doesn’t even account for the sector’s broader supply chain, which would have to factor in all the energy that goes into building, maintaining, and energizing airports and runways; producing, refining, storing, and transporting jet fuel; and of course, feeding all those hundreds of thousands of daily travellers.

There are no good global estimates of emissions from the entire aviation supply chain out there. However, one study of the life-cycle emissions for the aviation sector in the US found that an equivalent of 30% of aircraft emissionsare generated through indirect categories such as jet fuel production, airport and runway construction, aircraft manufacturing, and so on. If the same is true in global terms, then the aviation sector is responsible for about 4.6% of anthropogenic radiative forcing.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), there were more than 4 billion air passengers last year. Of course, not everyone in the world flies. In fact, most of the world (80%) has never been on an airplane. And of the remaining 20%, some travel frequently and some travel about once a year. One educated guess is that 6% of the world’s population flies in a given year (as distinct passengers) — so, about 446 million people in 2016. The aviation sector thus has a population akin to that of Indonesia and Nigeria combined, being responsible for about 4.6% of anthropogenic warming.[4]

All of this raises an important question: Why is it that while the world’s biggest oil companies and, more recently, the world’s largest livestock producers, occasionally get lambasted in the media for their willful ignorance on climate change, the world’s biggest airlines do not? While it’s true that there is a growing popular understanding that flying is a “climate negative” behaviour, there is very little sense of how significant the sector is as a contributor to anthropogenic climate change.

More worryingly is how significant it will be according to projections of growing air travel. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), air travel is expected to double over the next two decades. So how is the aviation industry avoiding being held to account for climate change? 

First, the sector benefits from the publicity received by technological innovations and efficiency gains in aviation — this gives the perception that the corporations that build and operate aircraft, and the governments that regulate them, are taking the necessary steps to tackle the problem. While the idea of electric airplanes is pretty much a non-starter for commercial aviation, there are indeed some recent efficiency and technological gains made by aircraft manufacturers and airline companies. Notably, these include the growing use of biofuels, new lightweight materials being used on airplanes, and improvements in air traffic management (all of which help reduce emissions).

Combined with the rise of “offset” products, these innovations give the false impression that aviation emissions are under control. But nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, the sector’s target of 1.5% fuel efficiency improvements per year between 2009 and 2020 are clearly being overwhelmed by the annual growth in passenger demand, which has hovered at around 6% per year. Improvements in efficiency are certainly helpful, but they are simply not keeping up with the growing pace of emissions.

The second reason relates to problems with the IPCC reporting mechanisms for aviation emissions. Because of the international nature of aviation vis-a-vis the nation-based reporting to the IPCC, countries submit figures for domestic and international aviation separately. In part, this is borne of a methodological dispute over who ought to take the emissions burden in their national greenhouse gas (GHG) reports.

For instance, should emissions for an international flight be split 50/50 between the countries of departure and arrival? What if the majority of the flight occurs over one country, or if the majority of passengers are from another — should those countries report a higher share of the flight emissions? Or, should the emissions be attributed to the country where the airplane fuelled-up?

The problem with this dual-reporting mechanism is that emissions figures often end up being downplayed. For instance, a 2012 government reportentitled Canada’s Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation claims that only around 5% of transport emissions (about 1% of national emissions) are due to aviation. But that figure only includes domesticaviation. A deeper dive into Canada’s National Inventory Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hiding somewhere on page 88) shows that when international travel is included, aviation is actually responsible for 11% of transport sector emissions, or 2.7% of the country’s total emissions. In the end, the ability of aviation — like global shipping — to sneak out of national reporting has helped the sector fly under the radar at the national level, since domestically oriented policies try to identify and reduce GHG emissions from the most polluting sectors.

Finally, there’s CORSIA — the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. This is the global aviation industry’s ambitious plan for addressing climate change. According to CORSIA, the aviation sector has less than a decade to cap and reduce its flight emissions to 2020 levels, and then by 2050 it aims to bring them down an additional 50% compared to 2005 levels. While that would indeed mark a substantial reduction, the likelihood of it being achieved is extremely low. So much of CORSIA relies on what it calls a “Global Market-Based Measure” (MBM) — essentially a global-scale carbon fee that most nations would have to agree to that would go towards offsetting the projected growth in international emissions relative to 2020.

Obviously, the plan to implement a global MBM is riddled with problems. Not only does it require the international community to co-operate on the implementation of new carbon pricing (a political policy wedge in countless industrialized nations today), but it also assumes problematically that carbon offsets work in the first place. As one expert explains, “offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading, and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth.”

Ultimately, like the publicity around new technologies in aviation efficiencies, CORSIA gives the impression that the problem is being addressed, when clearly it is getting worse. Even if the CORSIA plan reached its objectives of 50% of 2005 emissions by 2050, the sector would still be contributing about 857 Mt of CO₂ by mid-century (about as much as Germany emits today) — meaning that the aviation sector alone would be eating up 12% of the global carbon budget for 1.5⁰ C of warming.

In the end, we are left with the classic challenge of trying to balance the benefits of global aviation (and I’ll be the first to admit there are many) with the extreme scale of damage caused by the industry. It’s hard to imagine giving up flying in this fast-paced, integrated, modern world. Perhaps a good starting point is to consider the merits of tackling growth in aviation, which ultimately means coming up with concrete ways to fly less overall.

Until the aviation industry is held to account for its contribution to climate change, the band-aid solutions of trying to minimize the impact of this booming sector will continue to allow it to fly under the radar.

[1] According to ICAO, the average aircraft on that route burns 1866 kg (493 gallons) of aviation fuel during the trip. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), jet fuel emits 9.57 kg of CO₂ per gallon. So, the average Ottawa–Toronto flight emits 4718 kg of CO₂ (4.718 Metric Tons).

[2] These conversion factors all come from the EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator” — using a value of 969,398 Metric Tons (Mt) of CO₂(4.718 Mt x 205,468).

[3] According to the ICAO, the international component of the sector emitted 448 Mt CO₂ from direct fuel consumption in 2010. The ICAO also notes that international aviation accounts for 65% of global aviation fuel consumption, meaning that another 241 Mt CO₂ is emitted from domestic aviation. Together, 689 Mt CO₂ is equivalent to 1.4% of global anthropogenic emissions in 2010 according to the IPCC. According to IATA, air transport accounted for 2% of anthropogenic emissions in 2017 (about 859 Mt of CO₂).

[4] In reality, those two countries combined only produce about 2.3% of global emissions.

What do we really need from the green economy?

Repost from my recent op-ed for The Hill Times, published here: https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/03/19/really-need-canadas-green-economy/137793

Since the 1970s there has emerged a vast literature exploring the relationship between economic growth and the environment. Fifty years of research has yielded anything but consensus: One major school in the debate claims that humanity long ago overshot Earth’s natural carrying capacity; it thus argues we need to dramatically scale back material consumption (particularly in the West). Another major school argues that growth can be made to be green, as long as environmental damage is accurately priced within the market. There is also a range of radical contributions to this debate, with calls for everything from eco-socialist revolution to venture-capital backed geoengineering schemes.

Enter the Trudeau Liberals, who placed themselves within this debate by repeatedly assuring Canadians that what’s good for the environment is good for the economy, and vice versa. The economy and the environment “go together like paddles and canoes,” Trudeau once said: “unless you have both you won’t get to where you are going.” This rather vague mantra – that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand – has not only served to juxtapose their environmental policy from the Harper Conservatives (who seemed to imply that environmental protection hampered economic growth), but it has also worked at justifying a wide range of government policies, from the recent overhaul of the environmental assessment rules; to its support for oil sands pipelines; to its investment of hundreds of millions of dollars into Canadian innovation; and its plan to put a price on carbon.

Don’t get me wrong – some of these policies are great ideas (particularly the latter two) – but allow me to ask a rather heretical question; what if what’s good for the economy isn’t necessarily good for the environment all the time? What if doing what’s truly good for the environment in a particular case would knowingly inflict pain on our economy? If we can assume that there are indeed instances where growth and environment are incompatible, then is not the Liberal mantra a dangerous tautology destined to make us believe we can have it all without changing our way of life?

To suppose that we Canadians (who, by one measure, produce more garbage per person than any other nationality on the planet) can consume our way into a green economy strikes many as a bit of a fairy tale. Canada’s economy is relatively strong. Meanwhile, the environment is ensnared in deep crisis – not just relating to climate, but also to biodiversity and the viability of precious resources. Policy is often a way of mediating tradeoffs between gains and concessions. A guiding policy which claims no compromise is necessary in achieving sustainable growth in perpetuity is deaf to the material realities of our biosphere.

To return to the growth and environment debate, it seems rather obvious that the lack of consensus about their relationship arises from the abstract nature and complexity of both growth and environmental sustainability. How could there possibly be such a clear-cut relationship between these two societal goals? Hiring someone to cut down a tree generates economic activity; but so does hiring someone to replant it! Some economic activities that generate growth in Canada’s domestic product will evidently yield some forms of environmental damage; and others may help us in tackling certain environmental indicators. So why the oversimplification from our political leadership?

A more honest path forward is one that specifies what we truly need from our economy and the environment. Canadians arguably need fulfilling and lasting employment, to provide us not only with income, but meaning; yet we also need access to uncontaminated natural resources and ecosystem services, which provide us with sustenance and good health. If those needs can be achieved while the economy grows, great; but the priority should be on the ends, not the means. The point, as we work towards a truly green economy, is to focus our objectives on the specific social and ecological outcomes we require for our national and global society to thrive.

GHGs and GDP: The Correlation in Canada

Every year Environment Canada produces a National Inventory Report of Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. The idea is to help identify areas for improvement, but the report has also turned into a fantastic data set. Each year the report features numerous charts showing annual emissions trends, such as the following:

Source: Environment Canada, National Inventory Report 1990-2011

The question of the correlation between GHG emissions and GDP always comes up, but you will never see a chart featuring both data sets. Instead, the report (particularly in recent years) has emphasized "emissions intensity" - a measurement of GHG emissions per unit of GDP. So, inevitably there will be a chart that looks like this:

Source: Environment Canada, National Inventory Report 1990-2011

Both of these charts tell a particular story, but they also omit important details, so I have taken the liberty of producing my own 'mash-up' versions to highlight some of the missing details.

First up, I have added into the Canadian Emission chart the original reduction target under the Kyoto protocol. Figure S-1 above suggests that GHG emissions peaked in 2007, which so far is true, and by including the 2020 Copenhagen goal on the right side, the chart conveys a message that the government is on track to meet its goals. But as the following mash-up reminds us, our federal government failed miserably in reaching the Kyoto target of a 6% reduction of 1990 levels by 2012. This is the level of reduction necessary for Canada to help maintain global GHG levels below a threshold of runaway warming, whereas the Copenhagen protocol will allow for several hundred Megatonnes of additional GHGs to be released. The Kyoto target would have brought national emissions down to much-needed pre-1990 levels, whereas the Copenhagen target will only bring national emissions down to mid-1990 levels (over 50 MT of GHGs more each year). This is a significant failure. Whereas the federal government had signed into law an attempt to reduce emissions to 555 MT by 2012, the target was overshot by nearly 25%.
This chart tells a very different story, and here's an analogy to highlight the point: An obese person comes to appreciate in 1997 that they turned a negative corner back in 1990, and thereby makes a plan to return to a healthier body mass by reducing their weight back to what it was before it became dangerously high (that's Kyoto in a nutshell). Then in the early 2000s it is clear to the obese person that they are not effectively on track to meet the healthy target, yet instead of trying to make a concerted effort to meet the target, they just adopt a new one... In 2009 they thus decide that bring their weight back to what it was in the mid 1990s in time for 2020! Meanwhile, they will still be obese, and will have been unhealthy for a span of 30 years, and have created a precedent of failing to achieve a weight reduction objective at the same time (that's Copenhagen in a nutshell)!

My mash-up of Figure S-1 above

Second, there are problems with Figure S-2 above: The overall message is, again, that Canada is achieving great success when it comes to reducing emissions, because the amount of emissions per unit of economic activity is declining. However, this does not mean that the correlation between GHGs and GDP is getting weaker. As the following chart shows, when you plot the two indicators together it is evident that there is still a close relationship between economic growth and GHG emissions. The most notable link can be seen in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The economy took a nose dive, and so did emissions (as fossil fuels became less affordable); Then as the economy started to recover, emissions began to rise again. This is because consumption in this country is still very closely associated with increased usage of fossil fuels:

With data from Statistics Canada, Table 380-0064 & Environment Canada's National Inventory Report 1990-2011

Ideologically the current government has much to gain from portraying a weakening link between economic growth and GHG emissions, because it espouses a perspective of ecological modernization in which economic growth can be made 'green'. The problem is that a macro-view of the global economy actually suggests a much closer correlation than we see at the domestic level. One of the main reasons Environment Canada lists for why 'GHG Intensity' is falling involves...

Structural changes involving a shift from an industrial-oriented economy to a more service-based economy. Between 2000 and 2008, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the service industries rose by 32%, while heavy industries and manufacturing together grew by only 3%. Service industries are less emission intensive than goods producing industries, so this ongoing change has lowered Canadian GHG emissions (Environment Canada, National Inventory Report, 2013).

Of course, as our rising expenditure-based GDP figures suggest, we are still buying plenty of goods - the only difference is that they are increasingly being manufactured abroad. So those manufacturing and industrial emissions haven't disappeared, they've just moved elsewhere! This gives us a false sense of accomplishment which only reinforces the incorrect notion that we can consume more and reduce emissions at the same time. It just doesn't work out at a macro-level, at least not until we have systems of production which are not founded upon fossil fuels.

Yes, it is true that there have been major efficiency gains which have helped drive down emissions - including in the electric power generation sector and through emissions reductions programs (retrofits, etc.) - but my worry is that further reductions from efficiency gains will not be significant. There is only so much to be gained from producing and consuming more efficiently. If there were endless efficiencies to be gained, then one would expect a clearer curve in Figure S-1; the GHG levels should have peaked and consistently declined since then. But they haven't. Instead, emissions have begun to grow again, and it's no surprise when you consider the areas where Canada's economic activity has spiked - in particular the energy and transportation sectors.

The problem with the current approach taken in the National Inventory Report is that it conveys a sense of steady accomplishment and suggests that Canada is 'on track' to reduce emissions, and further that this can all take place while its citizens continue to consume at increasingly higher levels each year. A critical appraisal of the same data, however, suggests an entirely different reality. Ultimately, we need to consume less and change the things we produce (and how we produce them) dramatically if we are going to do our part to help keep the worsts of climatic change at bay.