Emma Fenton is senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO working to unlock the opportunities from tackling climate change using law, economics, and policy.
Last week, the world’s governments came together in Montreal for the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), just as aviation’s climate impact is coming under sharper scrutiny.
Despite aviation contributing 4% of global heating to date, there are no effective measures to drive emissions reductions – and the industry is expected to keep growing. Passenger traffic is forecast to double over the next two decades, and as a result, the sector is projected to be responsible for as much as 22% of annual global CO2 emissions by 2050.
For too long the aviation industry has held a privileged position in how it accounts for its impacts. Just 1% of the world’s population is responsible for more than 50% of aviation emissions, highlighting the profound injustice at the heart of the sector’s operations.
But without a serious attempt to fairly price – and therefore curb – this sector’s insatiable appetite for fossil fuels, any progress made in decarbonising other sectors will be undone by the aviation industry’s refusal to join the club.
As China and EU disappoint, prospects of meeting 1.5C climate target fade
Enter ICAO’s flagship ‘emissions reduction’ scheme CORSIA, which stands for Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. CORSIA may give the industry a prop when it is quizzed on decarbonisation.
But in reality it is ineffectual, with a baseline threshold for ‘acceptable’ emissions set at 85% of the highest-ever level of emissions recorded for international aviation to date. Clearly a scheme that doesn’t bring all aviation emissions into scope creates unnecessary loopholes for the industry.
And all too often we hear the same excuse from the industry – if we were to price aviation emissions, it would create unmanageable economic consequences, particularly for tourism-dependent climate-vulnerable countries. It also cites a lack of fuel availability as a rationale for not taking any decisive action.
But neither of these arguments fly.
Distribution of costs and revenues is key
Latest research by Opportunity Green shows that – while the effect on tourism must unquestionably be a consideration when pricing emissions from aviation – the impacts can be mitigated in how you distribute both the costs and the revenues from your pricing system.
Firstly, those causing the most emissions should pay the greatest share. First-class passengers can be responsible for up to four times the emissions of those in economy seats, so the price of emissions should be borne by those who are causing the most.
Secondly, the pricing mechanism itself can act as a market signal and play a vital role in bringing investment certainty for the development of truly sustainable fuels for aviation. This market signal would help to create the fiscal enabling environment that will unlock private-sector investment to accelerate the uptake of e-fuels (those that are derived from green hydrogen).
And finally, where an emissions price has caused an economic impact in a tourism-dependent country, this can be compensated for through the equitable distribution of the revenues raised by the emissions pricing mechanism. This means that any losses incurred by climate-vulnerable and developing countries can be addressed as a priority.
Climate legal obligations apply to aviation
To make a meaningful step-change in ambition and pace on decarbonisation, we must also see states recognise the growing body of international legal obligations on climate change. Recent opinions from the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and Inter-American Court of Human Rights all confirm that states have binding obligations to reduce emissions, including from international aviation.
ICAO must align its governance with these legal standards to remain credible.
While hostile moves from the likes of the US and Saudi Arabia have attempted to shake the founding principles of multilateralism, we have also seen states come together in solidarity to push for ambition in tackling climate change.
So far this year, we have seen an historic agreement made at the International Maritime Organisation in April, and a pioneering group of countries agree to implement solidarity levies on luxury aviation, demonstrating how climate action is both morally essential and economically effective.
Coalition set sights on taxing luxury air travel to fund climate action
It was 2022 when ICAO adopted its long-term global aspirational goal for international aviation to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in support of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C goal. Since then, we have seen no credible action to start moving the sector in the right direction.
Now is the time to confront aviation’s free pass and show how a well-designed emissions price could not only cut emissions but also support the very countries most at risk from climate change.
Unless its member states act in courage, solidarity and with the urgency that is demanded by the climate crisis, ICAO’s long-term goal won’t even make it off the runway.
