Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor
Aviation climate

The aviation industry is avoiding its climate commitments while manipulating the price of carbon offsets downwards

Posted on 11 June 202012 June 2020

By Chris Lang

Before the coronavirus crisis, greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry were among the fastest growing of any industry. Yet there is no mention of the aviation sector in the Paris Agreement. Instead, in 2016, the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) announced that aviation would go “carbon neutral” from 2020.

The aviation industry plans to continue expanding, and continue polluting, while relying heavily on offsets to achieve the illusion of “carbon neutral” growth.

The industry’s proposed Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) never had any credibility. It was always a distraction from the urgent need to reduce emissions dramatically.

At the ICAO Council meeting that runs from 8 to 26 June 2020 in Montreal, governments are busy watering down CORSIA even further. Under CORSIA rules, the aviation industry was supposed to offset any increase in emissions from 2020 compared to a baseline set as the average of 2019 and 2020 emissions.

Because of the coronavirus crisis, aviation emissions have fallen this year. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) aviation emissions this year could fall to 1995 levels. The baseline would be much lower than anticipated, and the aviation sector would have to buy a lot more offsets.

So, IATA has been lobbying the ICAO Council, arguing that the baseline “must be adjusted to ensure the sustainable development of international aviation and avoid an inappropriate economic burden on the sector”.

IATA argues that changing the baseline to 2019, and ignoring the drop in aviation emissions in 2020, would save airlines US$15 billion. But IATA doesn’t say what price for carbon offsets it used to come up with this figure.

USA, EU, and Latin America fall into line

On 8 June 2020, Reuters reported that the United States and the Latin Americal Civil Aviation Commission support changing the baseline:

The United States told a virtual ICAO meeting on Friday it supports changing CORSIA’s baseline, three sources said.

The Latin American Civil Aviation Commission, which represents countries in the region, said in a letter to ICAO’s council president seen by Reuters that it supports changing the baseline.

The European Union has also confirmed that it will back IATA’s proposal to change the baseline. According to Climate Home News, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Greece will speak in favour of watering down CORSIA’s rules at ICAO’s Council meeting. Sweden is the only EU country to oppose changing the baseline.

Gilles Dufrasne at Carbon Market Watch told Climate Home News that,

“This could be the final blow for Corsia. It was always a ridiculously weak system, but now it is becoming essentially meaningless. Airlines are just let off the hook one more time.”

Aviation’s free pass on climate

A recent report by the Öko-Institut looks at the implications of changing the baseline and concludes that,

The proposal by IATA to use a 2019 baseline would delay mitigation obligations for the industry by several years and most likely waive any offsetting requirements in the pilot phase, and possibly even in the first phase of the scheme.

Using only a 2019 baseline, the Öko-Institut writes, would “remove incentives for the industry to achieve a green recovery and to take the necessary steps and investments to embark on the transition towards zero emissions that is ultimately needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement”.

Since 1970, the aviation industry has faced five crises. Each crisis resulted in a slow down in aviation’s growth, but the recovery took six years at the longest (that was after the Gulf War in 1990-1991). Öko-Institut’s graph shows the recovery period in each case – and clearly illustrates how the continued growth of the aviation industry is an urgent problem to address if we are to stand a chance of addressing the climate crisis:

The International Council on Clean Transportation calculates that total CO2 emissions from commercial aviation operations (including domestic flights – which are excluded from CORSIA, passenger movement, and freight) totalled 918 million tons in 2018. That’s a 32% increase over five years, and 70% higher than ICAO’s projections.

Offset supply and demand

Obviously, cheap offsets are in the aviation industry’s interest. The industry is doing everything it can to reduce the price of offsets – increasing supply by including more and more offsetting programmes in CORSIA, and reducing demand by changing the baseline. There is currently a massive oversupply of carbon credits. And that’s unlikely to change any time soon.

In March 2020, ICAO included the Clean Development Mechanism as one of six offsetting programmes that are eligible for CORSIA. On 10 June 2020, CER Futures were changing hands on the European Energy Exchange for €0.24.

ICAO’s Technical Advisory Body is currently considering a further eight programmes, and reconsidering two that were previously submitted (including the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility). Accepting more programmes into CORSIA will increase the supply of carbon credits even further.

According to the theory of supply and demand, if the supply of an item is larger than the demand, the price will fall. The aviation industry is simultaneously increasing the supply of offsets while reducing demand to as close to zero as it can get away with. Guess what happens next.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!