Lara Williams, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change, has written a highly informed column on the subject. She pointed out that summer flights between the UK and the continent are currently one-third more expensive than last year.


Blame the EU


The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has been changed, and this change will hit the low-cost airlines' pockets. The likes of Ryanair can offer ludicrously low-cost tickets (subject of course to demand) as they are the absolute masters of controlling costs. This change in the rules is something they can’t avoid, and needless to say, you will be paying for it.

This regulation is a cornerstone of the EU's policy to combat climate change and its key tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. The aviation industry is responsible for 2.5 percent of global CO2 emissions.

The EU is also clearly focusing on airlines and encouraging (forcing them) to make reductions in their CO2 emissions. To try and explain the new regulations is a daunting task, but if you are technically inclined, you can read more online here. The quick answer is that the emissions allowances the airlines got for free are now being reduced. From next year the airlines are going to have to start to pay for their emissions, By 2026 there won’t be any free allowances. It is estimated this is going to double their carbon costs in the next three years. A report by Alex Irving, European transport analyst at Bernstein suggests this is going to cost European airlines about five billion Euros by 2027. Guess who’s going to pay?

The low-cost operators are masters at controlling costs and revenue, and Ryanair is consistently one of the most profitable airlines in the world. The Independent recently reported, ‘Ryanair makes £2m a day and fills 93 percent of its seats even in the last three months of 2022’. easyJet have had three years of losses, but hopes to return to profit this year.


What can the airlines do?


Airlines rely heavily on carbon offsetting, in other words buying credits by investing in carbon reduction projects such as rainforest protection. Greenpeace wrote ‘We analysed 10 reduced deforestation offsetting projects relied on by major airlines as part of their emissions reduction pledges and certified by Verra, the biggest issuer of carbon credits in the world. We conducted satellite analysis of deforestation in and around projects backed by BA, easyJet, and United Airlines, examined project documentation, interviewed multiple leading experts, and commissioned on-the-ground reporting.

The investigation revealed that, although projects often provide benefits to the environment and local communities, attempts to quantify, commodify, and market the resulting carbon savings as a “carbon offset” are based on shaky foundations.

Although this is a highly dubious tactic, it’s also worth noting that these credits are getting very expensive. It seems that the airlines are depending on other people’s carbon reduction rather than doing something about it themselves. If there was a simpler or cheaper way of reducing their CO2 emissions, they would have done it already.

Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, deforestation modelling expert wrote: ‘Aviation companies buying credits are just postponing action. It would be better to spend money investing in research on more efficient jets or alternative fuels’. That seems a very valid point.


Is there a sustainable fuel for airlines?


According to TIME Magazine, ‘The industry’s preferred path out of its emissions bind is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Currently fuelling a tiny fraction of flights, SAF could cut aviation emissions by up to 80% if used more widely, according to the Air Transport Action Group, a trade association. It has been the focus of a flurry of lobbying activity, investment and discussions among policymakers as governments roll out COVID-19 recovery packages and climate plans. In the U.S., Congress is considering plans put forward by the Biden administration to introduce a tax credit for SAF production. However, considering that one of the ‘ingredients’ of SAF is wood, so hope this doesn’t result in rainforests being cut down to provide the wood for SAF. The word ‘ridiculous’ comes to mind.


Take the train


At least within Europe, high-speed trains have to be the answer. Long-distance travel by air, for example, crossing the Atlantic, will, for the foreseeable future, be the only option. However, rail travel within Europe is very practical and feasible, and the EU wants this to happen. Not only that, it’s a lot more relaxed and comfortable than being crowded onto a plane. European governments need urgently to invest in high-speed rail travel. A lot has been done, a lot more needs to be done. A recent analysis concludes that the carbon footprint of high-speed rail including operation, track construction and rolling stock construction is about 14 to 16 times less than transport by private car or airplane.

It’s a ‘no brainer’, high-speed rail has to be the answer.

Author

Resident in Portugal for 50 years, publishing and writing about Portugal since 1977. Privileged to have seen, firsthand, Portugal progress from a dictatorship (1974) into a stable democracy. 

Paul Luckman