The company has agreed to pay British project developer UNDO to take around 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere – about 0.02% of the airline’s current annual emissions – through a form of carbon removal known as “enhanced weathering”.

Weathering is the natural process of rocks decomposing and converting carbon dioxide into solids and liquids. Enhanced weathering is when this natural process is artificially sped up by spreading ground-up rock on land, shorelines or in the ocean.

British Airways’ sustainability director Carrie Harris said carbon removals like this “form a key part of our roadmap to reach our climate goals”, adding that though the firm’s initial purchase was “relatively small, the partnership hopes to demonstrate the art of the possible and unlock future investment in carbon removals”.

Standard Chartered bank provided debt financing for UNDO to scale up its activities, and CFC provided insurance for the deal.

Most technology to cut aviation emissions directly is expensive, speculative or problematic, while sustainable aviation fuels are costly and in short supply. As a result – and with the industry and governments generally unwilling to reduce flight numbers – a large chunk of airlines’ green strategies counts on carbon removal technologies.

In 2022, transport ministers around the world agreed an “aspirational goal” for the international aviation industry to reach net zero by 2050.

The British government’s “Jet Zero Strategy” to get UK aviation to net zero by 2050 plans to achieve about a third of the industry’s emissions reductions through carbon removals.

British Airways projects that its own emissions will be higher in 2050 than in 2020, even with more efficient flying and sustainable aviation fuel. But it plans to still reach net zero emissions in 2050 by investing in carbon removal projects and buying carbon offsets.

Experts have questioned the legitimacy of some of the carbon credits previously purchased by the firm. A government official in Peru claimed in an investigation by Unearthed, Greenpeace UK’s journalism unit, that a forest protection project funded by British Airways over-estimated how much danger the forest was in – and therefore how much greenhouse gas was prevented from being released into the atmosphere.

More broadly, academics at the University of California Berkeley found last year that clean cooking projects, another type of carbon offset bought by British Airways, deliver only a fraction of the emissions reductions they advertise.

Jim Mann, the founder of UNDO, said in a statement that the aviation industry “will require large amounts of high-quality carbon removal to meet their net zero commitments” and that deals like the one with British Airways are needed to scale up the market.

He added that enhanced rock weathering is “one of the most robust carbon dioxide removal solutions available today because it is permanent, highly scalable and provides a host of co-benefits” – including better soil.

Green Climate Fund restructures, aiming to become donors’ “partner of choice”

Scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, however, reported in 2022 that enhanced weathering is expensive due to the costs of mining, transport and disposal, and requires a lot of energy to grind up the rocks. Deployment at scale may require decades, they added.

While the technique has the positive side-effect of improving soil quality, the IPCC scientists found it can also have negative impacts caused by mining for the rocks and contamination of air and water.

A briefing by researchers for the UK parliament warned that if the technology were to take off, “there would likely be adverse environmental impacts due to the extent of quarrying required, such as destruction of habitats, noise, water and air pollution.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post British Airways plans to offset rising emissions by sprinkling crushed rocks appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Kentaro Iemoto/Flickr)

By Ed King

Biofuels currently used in cars and trucks could be used to power planes, according to leading aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

It says Green Diesel, which is derived from vegetable oils and fats, is chemically similar to aviation biofuels and releases 50% less carbon dioxide than oil-based fuels over its lifecycle.

In a statement Dr James Kinder, a Technical Fellow in Boeing Commercial Airplanes Propulsion Systems Division, said this discovery could represent “a major breakthrough.”

“We are collaborating with our industry partners and the aviation community to move this innovative solution forward and reduce the industry’s reliance on fossil fuel.”

Boeing says it is seeking approval from the US Federal Aviation Administration for aircraft to fly on green diesel, but admits current levels of production would only be able to provide 1% of global jet fuel demand.

Climate change

Efforts to develop cleaner alternatives to jet fuel that release lower quantities of climate warming greenhouse gases have accelerated in recent years. Air transport currently accounts for between 2-5% of global CO2 emissions.

Rising oil prices and the threat of an aviation carbon trading scheme have forced companies to consider ways of powering planes through various types of fuel.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set an ambitious target to halve net 2005 emissions levels by 2050. Figures from PwC indicate this requires efficiency savings of 5.1% a year.

Aviation expert Professor David Lee from Manchester Metropolitan University told RTCC various forms of biofuels could offer anything between 10-25% of the fleet’s liquid volume requirement by the middle of the century.

“Biofuels are a realistic prospect. They can’t be produced in sufficient volumes yet, but they may start to make a difference if pursued vigorously by about 2040-2050,” he said.

Systemic problems

Green Diesel is frequently described as one of the cleaner members of the biofuels family, but still faces some of the same issues – including the need to sustainably source raw materials.

In theory biofuels can offer a ‘zero net emissions’ source of fuel, but in practice this depends where they are produced and what plants are used.

Critics say the growth of the biofuel industry is linked to land grabs in poorer parts of the world, as well as rising levels of hunger, as agriculture is switched from food to fuel crops.

The impacts of climate change may also play a role in determining the success of biofuels – drought or excessive rainfall in growing areas may mean some crops are unsustainable.

The post Boeing hails green diesel ‘breakthrough’ for aviation industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

With all focus firmly on the skies, there is little attention paid to what airports can do to cut emissions in the aviation sector.

Several airlines and plane manufacturers are developing biofuels to dilute their use of fossil fuels, cutting carbon and insulating themselves from volatile prices at the same time.

Heathrow is the third largest airport by passenger numbers in the world and it is working hard to cut its own direct carbon footprint and those related to its operations. An estimated 80% of all visitors to the London Olympics will pass through it with Monday 13 August – the day after the closing ceremony – expected to be the busiest day in its history.

There will always be those that say you should avoid flying all together but in the real world, air travel is growing at more than 5% a year and is expected to grow even faster in the coming years.

The planes will fly, so how can we cut the related carbon?

One of the key issues is having the planes on the ground with their engines running for as little time as possible. In 2007, 8.5 million tonnes of CO2 were emitted by delayed planes waiting on the tarmac in the US alone, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s the same as 1.4 million American cars produce in a year.

Add to that the fuel burned during normal operations, taxiing, waiting at the gate etc, and the numbers get even larger.

The airport hosted a trial that included air traffic control, airlines and manufacturers (through the Sustainable Aviation coalition) to look at whether CO2 could be cut from the taxiing, take-off and landing process.

“We found there was enormous potential to reduce those emissions through a number of pragmatic steps working in partnership with airlines,” says Graham Earl, head of climate change at Heathrow.

Simple measures like eliminating sharp turns and inclines during taxing mean planes can use fewer engines and less fuel.

Generating and saving power

Other routes to cutting emissions require investment in infrastructure, rather than good planning.

“Many planes have a generator to power the AC unit and the lights and so on. If you can just provide a power socket instead, they can plug into that and save money and carbon. We’ve done a lot of work on this which has been passed onto other airports in the country,” he said.

Heathrow’s carbon cuts are not all about the airlines. The site generates 350,000 tonnes of CO2 directly and has an energy bill of £60 million, which it says it is tackling this head-on.

One of the most impressive initiatives is a biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility at Terminal 2 as part of the building’s £2bn face lift.

CHP plants generate electricity by driving turbines but this heat can also be extracted and distributed for central heating.

Related stories:

01/11/2011 – Virgin Atlantic greens flights

04/11/2011 – Aviation could run on sustainable fuels by 2050, says British Airways

18/01/2012 – Thames Hub project moves step closer to reality

The Heathrow plant, which will be one of the largest CHP systems in London will be fed by wood pellets rather than fossil fuels.

The airport has signed a long-term deal to be supplied with biomass pellets sourced from within 25km of the site.

“When we committed to this, we were keen to know where this stuff was going to come from,” says Earl. “The point was not just to transfer the carbon burnt elsewhere and getting involved in enormous supply chains for wood-chip imported from long distances. We were keen for it to be local for that purpose and also to push economic benefits back into the local area,” says Earl adding that there can be question marks over the sustainability of biomass fuel if not sourced carefully.

The airport is also investigating the possibility of installing wind turbines.

“There are specific challenges surrounding windmills and airports. That’s not to say you can’t do it. Birmingham has windmills and we are looking at what’s possible, we are not giving up on the idea,” says Earl.

Heathrow from the air, keeping the runways and taxiing routes clear is a mammoth operation. (Source: Flickr/okelydokely)

Adapting to the new normal

As well as cutting its own CO2 output, the airport is also facing new challenges as the variability of weather patterns extends.

“Adaptation has gone rapidly up the agenda, in part driven by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) requirements under the UK Climate Change Act for companies to produce adaptation reports,” he says.

“Heathrow is located at a single site. We are here for the long-term and obviously, we don’t have any opportunity to move and go somewhere else. So we have to be able to adapt to what happens in the future.

Many of these adaptation issues are familiar, using water collection to buffer against drought periods and improving the efficiency of its building stock as it continues a period of modernisation.

“It’s just got us thinking about the designs and parameters that we need to be setting for those buildings that allow us the flexibility to respond to future climate change, particularly in relation to temperature and sunlight. There is a predominance of glass these days, is that the right choice?” asks Earl.

Other challenges are fairly unique. For example, the response to a fuel spill must be changed if temperatures climb high regularly.

Extreme low temperatures must also be dealt with – last winter the airport cancelled 41% of flights as a result of serious snow fall.

Consecutive wild winters interfered with the airport’s operations prompting a £50m investment by parent company BAA in snow clearance vehicles and staff training.

Improving this resilience is tied directly to cutting emissions from delays and traffic management problems. This means good adaptation work can result in mitigation benefits too.

Aviation may be considered a “dirty sector” but the financial incentives alone should be enough to convince people that airports are serious about cutting their own footprint and helping the airlines to do the same.

VIDEO: Thierry Nowaczyk of Airbus describes the perfect eco-flight from good traffic management, alternative fuels and perfect aerodynamics.

The post How to cut carbon emissions at Europe’s busiest airport appeared first on Climate Home News.

A global deal to address emissions from the aviation sector should concentrate on cutting carbon, not raising funds, an industry insider has told RTCC.

The EU has included all flights that use EU airports in its emissions cap and trade system as of this year, regardless of the nationality of the airline, and given the importance of European airports, it’s a move that affects all major operators around the world.

Aviation generates at least 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions and EU emissions from international air travel have doubled since 1990.

While the decision has the support of all 28 EU member states, a number of countries including India, Russia and the US oppose what they see as a “unilateral” move.

Con trails from aircraft in the skies between London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports, one of the busiest aviation hubs in the world. (Source: Flickr/Chris.Loxton)

They also believe that the legislation breaches international aviation agreements signed through the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

A bill is currently working its way through the US Congress to ban American airlines from taking part in the trading scheme, with opponents labelling the ETS an ‘assault on our sovereignty’ and an ‘illegitimate tax’.

In 2011 the Point Carbon website estimated the cost to participating airlines would be in the region of €1.1bn, although the price of carbon has fallen dramatically since then.

Related stories:

Aviation deal should focus on cutting carbon, not taxing airlines, says industry

EU tax deal breaker for climate talks, says India’s environment minister

Biofuel flights clouded in controversy

A significant proportion of that cost is expected to be passed onto customers in the form of rising ticket prices, and a US airline industry insider has told RTCC that as it stands, they are not convinced the scheme will achieve a significant reduction in emissions.

“A lot of the climate financing discussions have really just been about raising money, but if a scheme is well-designed and global in nature, then it should also be able to reduce emissions, which is the most important part of the challenge.

“Taxes seem to be quite a blunt instrument which delivers money to government coffers, but does not provide necessary emissions reductions,” they added.

Final approach

Aviation has been billed as a possible source of finance for the UN climate agency’s Green Climate Fund, which aims to guarantee carbon reduction projects around the world.

Critics of the airlines say they are simply looking to stall attempts for them to account for their emissions – aviation is the most carbon intensive and fastest-growing source of transport CO2 emissions.

The US-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has noted that if the US government complains about the EU to ICAO, a panel of five members, that are not directly involved in the dispute, acts as the jury.

With 16 other countries joining the US in the so-called “coalition of the unwilling” and EU member states all discounted, only Burkina Faso, Morocco, and Swaziland remain, two short of the requirement for five members.

“The airlines have already tried the lawsuit tactic before, and they lost. After two years of court argument, a panel of thirteen judges on Europe’s equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court held that the program was fully consistent with international law,” the EDF’s Annie Petsonk wrote in response to last week’s meeting.

“That kind of lawsuit would be decidedly counterproductive if the administration’s real goal is – as it has repeatedly stated – to get action in ICAO on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aviation,” she added.

What options are on the table?

According to www.greenaironline.com, there are three options on the table for a global emissions deal that will be presented to ICAO at its next assembly in 2013. It is unclear whether this work could continue if a dispute on emissions trading was passing through ICAO.

Mandatory offsetting – Airlines are awarded an allowance of CO2 and are then obliged to offset it in the same way as a passenger may choose to do to cover CO2 from their own travel.

Mandatory offsetting with a financial mechanism – This is basically a more complex version of the above that rewards airlines that offset more than their own emissions. It is thought to be the least popular due to its complexity.

Cap and trade – The most familiar system would be similar to the EU emissions trading scheme with caps on CO2 output assigned and airlines left to purchase required excess credits or shake-up their operations to stay within the bounds of their designated emissions.

RELATED VIDEO: How Airbus plan to run the ‘perfect, sustainable flight’

The post Aviation deal should focus on cutting carbon, not taxing airlines, says industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

China’s refusal to pay the EU’s new airline emissions levy has come as no surprise.

They have been vociferous opponents of the carbon tax, which will take effect in 2013, together with the USA, India, Canada and Russia.

China has banned domestic airlines from joining the EU Emissions Trading Scheme

These states appear to regard the EU’s carbon-emissions trading system as an infringement on their sovereignty, as it taxes emissions outside the EU, and some claim it breaks international law.

The prospect of a trade war breaking out is now all too real – with the impoverished EU, emboldened by a European Court of Justice ruling in 2011, determined to stick to its principles and enforce the charge.

For some a comprehensive EU-ETS is the (unofficial) first step towards fulfilling clause 2 of the Durban Platform, which aims to enforce a ‘legal instrument or outcome’ applicable to all parties.

If the EU’s efforts to make the aviation industry pay for its emissions failed at the first hurdle, where would this leave the hopes for a binding global agreement by 2015?

Limited leverage

Estimates suggest that aviation counts for 3% of global carbon emissions. In addition, airlines are not taxed on their fuel.

And despite economically losing ground to the far-east, Europe is still a vital hub for international carriers, dealing with around 40-50% of global traffic.

As in Durban the EU has cast itself as a guardian of progressive thinking, leading the low-carbon charge.

But while laudable, and in the long-term necessary, this bold unilateral move could do the EU and future climate negotiations more harm than good.

If the EU backs down, then the concept of global emissions trading will be placed on the back-burner, rather than the after-burners.

In a week’s time Chinese and European leaders are meeting to discuss the provision of more financial support for the EU bailout fund.

And as the FT reported this morning, the Chinese Aviation Authority, an extension of the government – has said it “will consider additional measures to protect the interests of our citizens and our companies”.

Despite the strong words of EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, it is easy to see how China’s financial leverage could see it crack European unity on this policy in a way the other states opposing this levy could not achieve.

Politics versus environment

The Chinese – conveniently or otherwise – appear to see this measure as a trade barrier rather than an environmental levy. Their trade body estimates it could cost them $127m in 2012.

“This is more of a political fight than about protecting the airlines,” Konrad Hanschmidt, a carbon-markets analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance told his sister company Bloomberg News earlier today.

“The carbon costs would have a relatively small impact on airfares, as they account for approximately 1 percent of fuel costs.”

So if it’s not the cost, then what is the issue?

As all those in that stormy final session in Durban found out, China and India deeply resent the developed world bossing them about.

They perceived efforts to enforce ‘a legal instrument’ as obscene, given their current rate of development and levels of poverty, and decried the lack of ‘equity’ in proceedings.

Before heading to the Durban climate talks I spoke to Professor Stephen Chan, an expert at the School of Oriental and African Studies in all matters Chinese, and asked him how we could account for China’s attitude at global talks.

“I don’t think the Chinese ARE facing down the developed world. I think they ARE a large part of the developed world,” he emailed back.

“On climate issues, they simultaneously pollute hugely AND have put into play the greatest range of green measures. The latter hardly cancels out the former, but the Chinese would say the West is not trying as hard as they.”

That may be the crux of the argument.

Some in China regard the airline levy as the EU’s way of squeezing more cash out of its burgeoning economy, and of all the countries complaining about these charges, it arguably has the most leverage.

The argument will rumble on. It also heralds the start – albeit indirectly – of talks to establish a replacement to Kyoto.

And if the EU loses this argument, then what hope has it got of leading the way on a global treaty?

The post Comment: Durban Platform at stake in airline levy row appeared first on Climate Home News.