JetBlue will fully offset the emissions from its flights in June: What do you think about that?

This article was originally published in our "Décryptage Mobilité" newsletter. To receive future articles by email as soon as they are published, Subscribe now.

By Stéphane Amant – Senior Manager

For many years now, airlines (some of them, to be exact) have been offering their customers the option to offset the emissions from their trips, if they choose to do so. The upcoming entry into force of the UN's CORSIA mechanism (effective January 1, 2021, on a voluntary basis, then mandatory starting in 2027) will mark a historic turning point in this regard, since Starting on that date, airlines operating international flights will be required to offset all CO2 emissions exceeding the threshold reached in 2020. The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), which created this economic instrument, has established a Technical Advisory Board (TAB) to determine the eligibility of carbon credits from various offset programs in voluntary carbon markets [1]. The quality of credits eligible for the program—and, ultimately, the effectiveness of CORSIA in achieving its primary objective of “offsetting” the growth in emissions from the aviation sector—will depend on the stringency of the criteria adopted by the TAB. The first recommendations regarding eligibility are expected to be announced in early 2020 [2].

In this context, Some airlines are taking the initiativeand form partnerships (directly with project leaders, through NGOs or retailers, or even with brokers in the case of the least scrupulous among them) in order to become familiar with the world of voluntary carbon markets. This is undoubtedly also an opportunity for them to restore their image at a time when the aviation industry as a whole has been under fire for several months, fueled by the perception that the industry “isn’t doing enough.” One particular case has drawn attention in recent days: it involves The U.S. airline JetBlue, which announced its intention to offset the carbon emissions of all customers traveling on its flights throughout the month of June [3]. In this case, we would be talking about approximately 700,000 metric tons of CO2, equivalent to the emissions produced by the residents of Marseille in one month. To do this, JetBlue purchases credits from a project in Brazil (the Envira Amazonia Tropical Rainforest Conservation Project), which aims to protect a certain area of the Amazon rainforest from deforestation.

So it is a REDD-type project (for “ "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation" ) which involves not sequestering additional carbon beyond the existing stock, but rather preventing carbon emissions that would result from hypothetical deforestation in the absence of the project. This is a significant distinction! Indeed, in the case of a carbon sequestration project in the strict sense (such as tree planting or the capture and sequestration of CO₂ from the air using a technical device), the equivalent of the emissions released by aircraft is normally absorbed and stored in ecosystems or underground (which is a simplified view, as questions arise regarding the permanence of storage and the rate of absorption). We can then speak of “offsetting” emissions: 1 unit emitted (by the aircraft) – 1 unit sequestered (by the project) = 0 total emissions. In the case of a REDD project like JetBlue’s, what we can be fairly certain of… is that nothing is actually happening in terms of emissions! On the one hand, airplanes fly and emit CO2; on the other hand, the REDD project ensures that the forest is not cut down and that the overall emissions situation does not worsen. In this case, it is impossible to speak of “offsetting” emissions: 1 unit emitted (by the plane) – 0 units sequestered (by the project) = 1 unit of emissions in the atmosphere.In other words, JetBlue is ensuring—simply through its project financing in Brazil—that The situation is less bad for the climate than it would be without the project. Indeed, without this project, it’s reasonable to assume that deforestation would have occurred: 1 unit emitted (by the airplane) + 1 unit emitted (due to deforestation) = 2 units of emissions into the atmosphere …

For the Earth’s system, we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing carbon sinks: REDD projects are of no use in this regard. That is why a cross-party group of European lawmakers recently called on California to reject the use of REDD credits [4] for the protection of tropical forests within its domestic carbon market, as this would not guarantee a reduction in emissions … The example of JetBlue thus highlights the debate—admittedly highly technical, but nonetheless essential—regarding the nature of the carbon credits that will be eligible under CORSIA(and, more broadly, for any credible “compensation” mechanism). If credits from REDD-type projects are deemed eligible, the credibility of this system will be significantly undermined. Similarly, if all credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are deemed eligible, : more than 800 million are still available, which, on paper, would be enough to fund CORSIA for many years. And many of them do not provide sufficient guarantees of climate integrity to match the stakes. In conclusion, in light of this example, it becomes It is urgent to thoroughly review the entire framework for carbon credits at the international level : From now on, we’ll need to distinguish between actual emissions reductions, physically sequestered emissions (in carbon sinks), and avoided emissions (where emissions are neither reduced nor sequestered—we’re just making things a little less bad: credits linked to renewable energy projects or REDD, for example).

Article written by Stéphane Amant – Senior Manager

Sources: [1] ICAO [2] Carbon Pulse [3] AP News [4] Carbon Pulse