How can we build a sustainable aviation industry for everyone?

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

Article written by Nicolas Meunier (Consultant) nicolas.meunier@carbone4.com and Stéphane Amant (Senior Manager) stephane.amant@carbone4.com

It's not even certain that the worst is yet to come. That’s probably what aviation industry players must be thinking right now, as they’ve already been hit very hard by the unprecedented crisis they’re facing. This crisis is worsening further with the second wave of COVID-19, which is causing air traffic in Europe—which had only just begun to recover—to collapse once again. It is against this backdrop that we must consider the proposals from the Citizens’ Climate Convention aimed at curbing the growth of air traffic. It is entirely understandable to want to dismiss these proposals without debate or discussion, because “now is not the time.” [1] But In the face of the climate emergency, when will be the right time? Can we afford to wait for the air travel industry to fully recover before implementing climate measures, given that France has committed to achieving carbon neutrality in 30 years, and that the aviation sector itself has pledged to cut its emissions in half between 2005 and 2050?

To achieve this ambitious goal and remain within the 2°C limit, we will need to use the three available approaches: energy efficiency, the widespread development of alternative fuels … and energy conservation. All are necessary, and even by aggressively developing technological and operational solutions (new aircraft, optimization on the ground and in flight, use of new energy sources, etc.), According to research by Carbone 4, traffic mitigation accounts for roughly 50% of the effort required developed for companies in the aviation industry.

The aviation industry insists loud and clear that it is already doing enough. Many initiatives are underway—that is absolutely true. However, things are more complex than they seem, and we need to dispel certain misconceptions.

First, among the arguments regularly cited by the airline industry to demonstrate its environmental excellence, The very significant reduction in actual fuel consumption per passenger (on the order of 80% since the 1970s) is very often cited. Unfortunately, there is a downside: as has been the case throughout the history of technology, these incredible advances have in fact also contributed significantly to a strong rebound which has helped lower the cost of air travel and make this mode of transportation more accessible to the general public. This increase in traffic has led to more than just offset unit energy savings, leading to a steady increase in the sector’s GHG emissions. Setting aside any moral judgment (is it good or bad to democratize air travel by making it accessible to more people?), one need only observe that It is the absolute impact that really matters when it comes to climate change, not the efficiency per passenger..

Another argument that is frequently cited, the implementation of the CORSIA mechanism to offset a portion of international aviation emissions, contains significant biases because this instrument does not ultimately reduce aviation emissions, but rather either sequesters a portion of those emissions (at best, and with no guarantee of permanence) or prevents another economic actor from emitting them (and does so in a conventional manner). CORSIA can only be viewed as a temporary measure to enable airlines to begin contributing to global carbon neutrality. However, it is scientifically incorrect to say that this mechanism offsets aviation emissions [2].

More generally, The measures promoted by stakeholders in the aviation sector are focused on on energy efficiency and the development of new energy sources (such as hydrogen, sustainable biofuels, or electrofuels), and are a step in the right direction. However, as we noted above, they are not sufficient: The proposals from the Citizens' Convention serve to complement them by attempting to address the aspect of the moderation. The ban on airport expansion, the ban on flights when a lower-carbon alternative exists (and for all airlines, not just Air France!), or even increasing the eco-tax rates—are not intended to eliminate commercial flights but to enable more moderate traffic, while still benefiting from the many services that aviation provides to our societies. In other words, to ensure that aviation does its part at the appropriate level so that we can collectively keep the average temperature rise below 2°C.

The ban on airport expansion clearly reflects the idea of limiting—rather than eliminating—air traffic. This trend is already underway in Europe, with the rejection of expansion plans for Heathrow in London and Schwechat in Vienna. This measure also addresses the need to limit land development, as France has just committed to a “net zero land development” goal. The ban on flights that can be replaced by a realistic, lower-carbon alternative also supports this goal: replacing air travel with trains and buses as much as possible, in order to preserve the aviation sector’s carbon budget for cases where flying is the only viable transportation option. It is true that there is a significant risk that some passengers who would initially have connected in Lyon or Paris might switch to another international hub (London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt…), thereby negating the climate benefit. This problem can be partially resolved by developing multimodal hubs that integrate trains and buses at airports, as is the case in Frankfurt or Amsterdam.

To conclude, let’s address the issue of equity in access to air travel—a highly divisive topic, as it is undoubtedly not well understood. Transportation Minister Jean-Baptiste Djebbari opposes increasing the eco-tax, particularly on the grounds that it would restrict air travel to the wealthiest [1]. This is a key point in the debate, as a just low-carbon transition cannot be achieved by exacerbating inequalities or restricting certain services to an elite. With regard to air travel, data analysis shows that, on the one hand, Undeniably, air travel has become much more accessible over the past 20 years : In 2015, for example, 60% of French people reported having flown at some point [3], a figure that contrasts with the 25% who actually flew in 2013–14 [4]; The same is true in the U.S., where 50% of Americans reported having flown in 2016 [5].

On the other hand, the distribution of trips among travelers is extremely varied and reveals an increasingly pronounced divide between occasional travelers and frequent travelers: several studies (surveys, sociological studies) [3, 4, 5, 6] show that Only 10% to 15% of travelers account for 50% to 70% of all trips : These are “hyper-mobile” individuals, the vast majority of whom fall into the top income decile of the population. Their contribution to the aviation sector’s overall emissions is considerably higher than that of other aviation users (such as, for example, a European family that flies once every two years to go on vacation). Given this, it seems appropriate to propose an aviation tax that takes into account this frequency of air travel per person. Thus, a 2019 report commissioned from Imperial College by the Committee on Climate Change (the UK’s equivalent of the High Council for Climate) [7] proposes the idea of Implement a Frequent Flyer Levy in the form of a financial contribution that increases based on the number of trips taken, so that occasional flyers are not penalized.

The benefit of such an approach is thus to restore greater social equity through taxation, and not the other way around. Without banning air travel, it would essentially place the burden on “hyper-mobile” travelers (who largely coincide with the highest income earners, though adjustments would need to be made for a minority of special cases), and would allow the vast majority of travelers to continue flying occasionally without increasing aviation’s overall environmental impact. It should be noted that 80% of the members of the UK Citizens’ Climate Convention—which is currently underway—support this measure. [8]

Balancing Short-Term and Long-Term Goals Aviation provides countless benefits to society, and it is important that we work together to build a sustainable future for it. However, technology alone will not be enough if we do not also address the issue of managing traffic growth. Air travel is going through a monumental slump—there’s no question about it. It is imperative to take this into account when implementing environmental measures. However, let's not lose sight of the longer-term climate goals: The proposals put forward by the Citizens’ Climate Convention should not be dismissed out of hand. They can be adapted to take into account both the short-term economic impact of COVID-19 and the urgent need to avoid returning to “business as usual.”

Article written by Nicolas Meunier (Consultant) and Stéphane Amant (Senior Manager) nicolas.meunier@carbone4.comstephane.amant@carbone4.com

[1] Les Échos [2] United Nations Environment Programme [3] BVA [4] Demoli and Subtil [5] Airlines for America [6] The Guardian [7] Imperial College (on behalf of the Committee on Climate Change) [8] Climate Assembly - UK