Commercial airlines are responding to the rising price of aviation
fuel and to growing acknowledgement that the aviation industry must
become more sustainable. Several airlines, together responsible for
about 15 per cent of total commercial jet fuel use, have committed
this week to a more sustainable future, pledging to make positive
steps toward developing biofuel use.
The newly-formed Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (SAFUG)
which includes Boeing, the petroleum refining technology developer
UOP, and airlines such as Virgin Atlantic, Air France, Gulf Air
and Japan Airlines, claim they represent the first global transportation
sector to voluntarily push for sustainability practices in its fuel
supply chain.
The group is initiating peer-reviewed research into a biodiesel
fuel derived from jatropha curcas – a plant grown in many
tropical and subtropical areas that does not compete with food crops
– which will include assessment of lifecycle CO2 emissions
and potential socio-economic effects on producer countries. The
Natural Resources Defense Council is looking into algae as another
alternative. ...or green wash?
Earlier this year a highly-publicised Virgin Atlantic flight using
a small proportion of biofuel was dismissed by leading environmental
groups as “high-altitude greenwash”. They raised concerns
about the impact on food crops, the possibility of increased deforestation
and depletion of arable land, and the simple fact that any progress
made by converting to biofuels would be dwarfed by the continued growth
and expansion of the aviation industry. Commercial aviation, whilst
responsible for only three to five per cent of global carbon emissions,
is nevertheless the world’s fastest growing source of those
emissions.
Aviation – currently just 5% of co2 – will not become
the largest contributor to global warming by 2020. It would need to
increase 500% over the next 12 years – to 25% - to do this.
Some people have argued that IF all other industries reduced their
emissions by 60-80% AND aviation kept on growing fast THEN aviation
might be the biggest contributor. I think that’s a bit of a
cheat!
Others commended the effort as a step in the right direction, noting
however that to remain viable the focus needs to be on developing
algal fuels rather than the coconut and babassu oil from which the
Virgin flight’s fuel was derived.
Can air travel be responsible travel?
Environmental pressure groups often argue that reducing the amount
of flights we take – or even ceasing to fly altogether –
is the only way to maintain a sustainable lifestyle and slow the onset
of global warming. But whilst it is undeniably necessary to steadily
cut down on the number of flights we take, the issue of responsible
air travel is a little more complicated than this.
After all, the blame cannot always lie with the consumer. Commercial
aviation should bear a proportional level of responsibility for developing
the industry along more sustainable lines, and the impetus must come
both from government and internal pressures. Unfortunately at present,
British airlines are effectively subsidised by roughly £9 billion
every year through the absence of any tax on kerosene, the fuel used
by aircraft.
This means that airlines are allowed to displace the real cost
of flying – and it is the environment, the government, and
society as a whole that ultimately pays that cost. Voluntary carbon-offsetting
schemes only reinforce the idea that it is the consumer who must
take positive action, and not the airlines themselves. Governments
need to implement some mechanism by which airlines are forced to
account for the environmental damage they cause, whether this takes
the form of fuel taxation or inclusion in the Emissions Trading
Scheme.
A further issue is that refusing to travel by air would have huge
detrimental effects on tourism in some of the countries that rely
on it most. British tourists currently spend over £2 billion
in developing countries, at least some of which supports local employment,
local businesses and local conservation of national parks and cultural
heritage. It is true that some of this money also goes towards multinational
corporations, corrupt regimes and environmentally unsound practices,
but this is an argument for changing the way we travel – not
ceasing to travel altogether. It should also be investigated whether
flying on ‘low-carbon holidays’, serving as a break
from a normal daily life that can involve much higher levels of
energy consumption, may actually produce smaller net carbon emissions
than not travelling at all.
A cautious approval
SAFUG’s pledge should be welcomed as a positive development
in the creation of viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Since reducing
or eliminating commercial flights is both unfeasible without more
decisive government action, and arguably unwelcome given the benefits
of responsible tourism to host communities, any efforts to increase
the sustainability of commercial aviation is a good thing.
However, the more urgent objective of curbing the growth of the
aviation industry remains to be seriously engaged with by governments,
and is unlikely to gain much support within the industry itself.
It is therefore vital to continue lobbying governments to intervene,
promoting greener alternatives to air travel whilst encouraging
greener practices by airlines themselves. The actions of SAFUG must
be continually monitored in light of their promise to ensure biofuel
development will not prove damaging to producer communities, and
they must be held to their commitment – proving to us that
it isn’t just a load of hot air.
Bookmark or Share
