A global coalition of around 50 scientists specialising in climate and aviation-linked disciplines has signed an open letter warning of the warming impacts of aircraft contrails and calling on global decision-makers to urgently address the problem. Among the signatories is Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a Belgian climatologist and former vice chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Contrails are the most significant of aviation’s non-CO2 effects, said the scientists in their letter. The communiqué was published by Brussels-based climate advocacy group Transport & Environment (T&E), which has also just released a report recommending deviating flight paths that it claims would halve the number of warming contrails by 2040, with a climate benefit substantially larger than the impact of the CO2 emissions caused by the extra fuel burn.

Contrails are formed when vapour and particles of soot emitted from aircraft engines freeze into ice crystals in certain conditions and regions to create clouds that can trap heat.

“Global aviation traffic doubled between 2005 and 2019, and its CO2 emissions grew by 40%,” said the scientists in their letter, “and that just covers part of the problem. Planes cause much more warming than just through their CO2 emissions. Non-CO2 effects of aviation, such as nitrogen oxides and contrails, warm the planet at least as much as aviation’s CO2.

“Most contrails dissolve within a few minutes, but in certain conditions they can persist in the atmosphere, spread out and become artificial cirrus clouds with a net warming effect. The climate impact of these effects has been known for more than 25 years.”

But despite this knowledge, said the scientists, little has been done to address the problem.

“We, aviation and climate scientists, call upon global decision-makers to implement solutions to tackle non-CO2 effects of aviation on top of decarbonisation efforts,” they said.

“This starts by better awareness-raising of the general public. Airline passengers should be informed of the full climate impact of flying when booking a flight and companies performing business flights should include non-CO2 in their corporate reporting.”

As well, said the scientists, large-scale tests should be performed of contrail avoidance measures, supported by research and backed by government policies and monitoring designed to reduce warming contrails and other non-CO2 impacts of aircraft.

“This is a ‘no regrets’ approach that will help to slow climate change by a significant margin,” the scientists said. “Delaying action would be a critical error.”

Their letter closely follows the release of a Transport & Environment report, which states that by “tweaking the flight plans of only a few flights”, contrail-induced warming could be halved by 2040.  

The report says the net warming effect of aircraft contrails was “at least as important” as the damage caused by CO2 emissions from aircraft and that just 3% of flights produce 80% of contrail warming. It argues contrail reductions could be achieved simply by changing flight plans slightly to avoid conditions known to cause the phenomenon.

Such a strategy would marginally increase fuel consumption, said T&E, but would still deliver greater environmental benefits by preventing contrail formation.

“Changing flight paths to avoid contrails will only happen on a very small number of flights, and only for a small part of the journey,” says the report, adding that the climate benefits of from avoiding the most warming contrails would exceed the CO2 penalty of rerouting the plane by a factor between 15 and 40 times.

“The extra fuel burnt to avoid contrails would be less than 0.5% on the whole fleet over a year. And on those few flights where rerouting will happen, 80% of the contrail warming of the flight can be avoided with an extra fuel burn of 5% or less.”

The study conservatively estimates that slightly changing the flight path of a Paris – New York flight to avoid contrail formation would cost less than €4 per ticket, covering extra fuel used for the diversion and the use of associated technologies including humidity sensors and satellites.

Commenting on the report, T&E’s aviation technical manager, Carlos Lopez de la Osa, said some in aviation “overstate the scientific uncertainty of warming contrails – but the climate benefits of contrail avoidance are huge, and solutions are improving by the day.

“The aviation industry is being offered a simple and cheap way to reduce its climate impact. By identifying the very few flights that cause warming contrails and then tweaking their flight paths, we can have an immediate effect on contrails warming. So let’s no longer discuss whether we have to do it, but how to do it.”

Photo (T&E): Contrails, short for condensation trails, are created by aircraft flying through cold and humid areas of the atmosphere

Tony Harrington

Correspondent

• Linkedin

Analysis by Brussels-based pressure group Transport & Environment (T&E) has found that emissions from business flying by the pharma sector business dropped 21% in 2023 compared to pre-Covid 2019 levels. This compares to a fall in the business travel emissions of global consultancies by 46% and technology companies by 49% measured over the same period. T&E is leading a campaign, Travel Smart, to reduce corporate air travel emissions by 50% or more from 2019 levels, and says by flying less now, companies can make a big contribution to aviation sustainability. Business travellers make up some 12% of passengers but up to 75% of revenues on certain flights, so their choices have important leverage on the aviation industry, it argues.

“For the critical decade until 2030, the best way to reduce aviation emissions is to fly less, as the timing for scale-up of sustainable fuels and zero-emissions aircraft is currently post-2030, and offsetting has shown to be ineffective,” states T&E on its Travel Smart website.

“Consumers, investors and employees are more concerned by the impacts of climate change then ever before. If businesses fall out of step with expectations, their reputation is at risk. Demonstrating a commitment to sustainability and adopting planet-friendly travel policies will enhance their image, appeal and overall success.”

The latest analysis of 11 of the world’s major pharmaceutical companies could have seen a reduction as large as -44% if the two pharmas flying the most, Johnson & Johnson and Merck, had halved their emissions instead of reducing them by 10% in the case of the former and increasing emissions by 29% in the case of Merck, said T&E.

“Top flyers should be leading by example, not watering down efforts to reduce business flying,” commented Denise Auclair, head of the Travel Smart campaign at T&E. “What we’re seeing in the pharmaceutical sector is an extreme case of large polluters hampering the sector’s progress towards flying less, but we’ve seen that story some other times.”

The NGO believes sustained business flying reductions can only be assured through targets and says just four of the 11 companies analysed had set a business travel target. The four – Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk and Roche – achieved emissions reductions ranging from 44% to 55%.

Its analysis of major global consulting firms found 12 of the 15 companies in its sample had set business travel targets, with Accenture, KPMG and SGS so far failing to do so, although the former had achieved a 71% reduction in 2023 compared to 2019, the highest of all the companies analysed.

“The overall trend is one of reduction in the aftermath of the pandemic where global travel came to a halt, and notably by those who previously were flying the most,” observes T&E. “However, the data shows that consulting companies are slowly creeping back towards pre-Covid levels.”

This trend is also mirrored in the technology sector, where the world’s biggest tech companies have halved their business flying compared with 2019 but those that have not set targets to reduce flying emissions, such as Alphabet, the parent company of Google, and Apple, were slowly returning to 2019 levels. On the other hand, India’s tech giant Wipro, a company that set a target of -55% by 2030, increased its reduction to -71%.

“Tech companies have claimed to be climate leaders for a long time and many have substantially reduced their business travel emissions, but if they want to be credible, they must set reduction targets,” said Auclair.

Christopher Surgenor

Editor

• Linkedin

A study carried out by consultancy CE Delft and commissioned by green group Transport & Environment (T&E) suggests those living in proximity to busy airports are at risk of serious health conditions by exposure to ultrafine particles emitted from aircraft. It found nearly 52 million people, more than 10% of Europe’s total population, live within a 20km radius of the 32 busiest airports in Europe and are particularly exposed to ultrafine particles (UFPs). This can be linked to the development of respiratory problems, cardiovascular effects and pregnancy issues, says the study. As a result of extrapolating illnesses around Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to those 32 airports, the researchers estimate aviation UFP exposure may be associated with 280,000 cases of high blood pressure, 330,000 cases of diabetes and 18,000 cases of dementia. The amount of UFPs emitted from flights depends strongly on the composition of the jet fuel and the study estimates that the use of 100% hydrotreated jet fuel with very low sulphur and aromatics can reduce UFP emissions and health risks by up to 70%.

UFPs, which are less than 100 nanometres in diameter, or 1/1000^th the thickness of a human hair, are of particular concern because they penetrate deep into the human body and have been found in the blood, brain and placenta. Despite the growing evidence of the harmful long-term effects on health and mortality, T&E says the pollutant remains largely under researched and unregulated and the study provides a first estimate of the scale of the problem caused by aviation-related UFPs.

As well as at high altitudes, where climate-related effects such as warming contrails take place, UFPs from planes are also emitted on take-off and landing, meaning residents living near airports are particularly affected, and people living within a 5km radius can breathe in air that contains on average, anything from 3,000 to 10,000 UFPs per cubic centimetre emitted by aircraft.

As there is a correlation between people living near an airport and lower incomes, T&E argues the most vulnerable in society are the worst affected by air pollution. Although not covered by the study specifically, airport personnel working on the apron are some of the most exposed to these emissions, “constituting an unquantified but serious risk to their health,” warns the study.

“Can living near an airport make you ill? The tragic answer is yes,” said Carlos López de la Osa, Aviation Technical Manager at T&E. “Planes release tiny particles that may be linked to pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. This hidden health crisis has been ignored by politicians who have prioritised the growth of the aviation sector and business travel over the health of its own people, often the poorest.”

T&E says there are a number of ways the problem can be tackled: reduce the amount of air traffic at airports and curb further expansion; move to cleaner burning fuels through hydrotreatment, a well-established process already used to remove sulphur from fuels for cars and ships; and use cleaner technologies like sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emission aircraft. It estimates hydrotreating fossil jet fuel, which adds hydrogen to the fuel, removing impurities and improving its composition/combustion properties, could cost less than five cents per litre. Hydrotreatment would have an additional benefit in contrail abatement.

“It’s not often that an alarming problem affecting millions of people can be reduced, and at a low cost,” said López de la Osa. “Dirty fumes caused by planes can be drastically reduced if we clean up the fuel. The road and shipping sectors took this necessary step years ago, but the aviation world has been dragging its feet.

“Reducing UFP emissions through better quality jet fuel would not only be beneficial for the population living near airports but also for the planet.”

Adds the study: “Although the costs of producing fuels with a low concentration of aromatics and sulphur would be higher than the cost of producing conventional jet fuels, the health and climate benefits outweigh these and other additional costs so that economic welfare would increase when these fuels would be used. Hence, there are good reasons to mandate or incentivise their use.”

T&E recommends that sampling points should be installed in and around EU airports to better quantify UFP concentration levels with a view of introducing target values for UFP concentrations in the next review of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. It also calls for an EU jet fuel standard to be created with a progressive reduction of aromatics and sulphur content “which will prepare the ecosystem for 0-aromatic, 0-sulphur SAF”.

Photo (Roger Cremers): Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

Christopher Surgenor

Editor

• Linkedin

Global airline body IATA has called for “urgent action” on better understanding of the climate effects of non-CO2 emissions from aircraft at high altitudes, in particular cirrus cloud formation from persistent contrails. Scientists have long warned that contrails have a significant net warming impact on the climate but a new report by IATA says significant knowledge gaps remain in the complexity of contrail science and calls for more data and research. However, it is pushing against a move by the EU to introduce from January 2025 mandatory monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of non-CO2 emissions from all flights departing, arriving as well as within the European Economic Area (EEA). An alliance of European low-cost airlines – Ryanair, easyjet and Wizz Air – together with NGOs led by Transport & Environment have now written to urge the European Commission to resist IATA’s lobbying to restrict the scope to intra-EEA flights.

All sides accept that aviation’s climate impact extends beyond CO2 emissions, with non-CO2 effects such as contrails and nitrogen oxides also contributing to global warming. However, with uncertainties over the scale of the problem and how to tackle it, action by industry and policymakers has so far been lacking, although that is beginning to change. A number of airlines are taking part in contrail avoidance trials, while others have installed monitoring equipment on their aircraft. The EU, on the other hand, now wants access to extensive non-CO2 emissions data from flights before implementing a policy decision that could eventually result in airlines paying for their non-CO2 as well as CO2 emissions under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The UK government has indicated it intends to carry out a policy consultation on the non-CO2 issue sometime this year.

Following its newly-released report ‘Aviation Contrails Climate Effect: Tackling Uncertainties & Enabling Solutions’, IATA is calling for “a strengthening of collaboration between research and technological innovation, coupled with policy frameworks to address aviation’s non-CO2 emissions through more atmospheric data.” The lack of high-resolution, real-time data on atmospheric conditions – particularly humidity and temperature at cruising altitudes – hinders precise contrail forecasting, argues the report.

“The industry and its stakeholders are working to address the impact of non-CO2 emissions on climate change, particularly contrails,” said IATA’s Director General, Willie Walsh. “To ensure that this effort is effective and without adverse effects, we must better understand how and where contrails form, and shrink the uncertainties related to their climate impact.”

This requires more trials, collection of more data and improvement of climate models, alongside developing mature technologies and operations, he said.

“Formulating and implementing regulations based on insufficient data and limited scientific understanding is foolish and could lead to adverse impacts on the climate,” he warned. “That is why the most important conclusion from this report is to urge all stakeholders to work together to resolve current gaps in the science so that we can take effective actions.”

The study, conducted with a number of industry organisations and research institutions, recommends a course of action over the period to 2050. In the immediate term, until 2030, the priority should be on mitigating CO2 emissions, while increasing airline participating in sensor programmes, continuing scientific research and improving humidity and climate models for the purposes of contrail mitigation, it says. In the mid-term (2030-2040), action should be taken for data transmission, continuous validation of models and encouraging aircraft manufacturers to include provisions for meteorological observations, as well as selected avoidance.

Over the longer term (2040-2050), the report expects aircraft to be continuously supplying data, with models and infrastructure in place to provide reliable results. By then, there should also be a more complete understanding of the non-CO2 effects from alternative fuels, it forecasts.

“These action items collectively aim to mitigate the climate impact of aviation while advancing scientific understanding and technological capabilities,” it says.

However, IATA is dismissive of the EU’s plans to collect non-CO2 data from flights as of next January and for the European Commission to come up with a legislative proposal by the beginning of 2028 to expand the scope of the EU ETS to include non-CO2 aviation effects.

The proposal could serve as “a first-stage experiment that attempts to achieve a baseline estimation of the non-CO2 effects of aviation,” says IATA. “However, it is currently not feasible to validate the output from the experiment to ensure that it accurately represents reality.

“Studies have shown that estimating the formation of individual contrails using past weather and trajectory data could lead to incorrect results 50-80% of the time. An MRV system for non-CO2 emissions today could support further research thanks to additional data but the science is not mature enough to allow confidence in its implementation at a policy level.

“It is conceivable that by attempting to avoid the formation of contrails and reduce reported non-CO2 emissions, operators could inadvertently increase their CO2 emissions. The complex and likely trade-offs amongst different non-CO2 emissions, and between these and CO2 emissions are still poorly understood.

“Considering all the challenges and uncertainties, introducing an MRV system as early as January 2025 would not serve to mitigate aviation’s non-CO2 effects under the EU ETS.”

The decision to include non-CO2 MRV was agreed by the European Parliament and member states last year and incorporated as an amendment to the EU ETS Directive 2003/87/EC. While MRV under the EU ETS in respect of CO2 emissions is restricted to intra-EEA flights, the new non-CO2 rule also applies to all flights that depart or arrive at an EEA airport.

IATA recommends airline participation in the MRV framework should be voluntary, given its “experimental nature”, and  its application scope should be “strictly intra-EU” to mirror that for CO2.

“Any intention to expand beyond the current EU ETS application scope for aviation would imply a legal risk of extraterritorial impact and would work counter to any MRV implementation,” it argues. “Furthermore, the probability of contrail formation is highly dependent on the region: mid-latitudes have a higher probability of contrail formation than the tropics or the equator, so contrails affect different regions differently.”

However, a policy paper by European NGO Transport & Environment (T&E) responds that full geographic scope is essential to ensure the credibility of the scheme. “It allows a better understanding of the impacts of long-haul flights, which research shows to cause more warming and present more promising mitigation opportunity,” it says. “A reduction in the scope would significantly limit the amount of data and the opportunities to mitigate non-CO2 effects beyond intra-EEA flights.”

The paper notes that shipping companies are now required to monitor maritime non-CO2 emissions for voyages to, from and within the EU. “Aviation cannot seek another exemption while other sectors are required to do more.”

It adds: “As non-CO2 emissions account for two thirds of aviation’s climate impact and adversely affect human health, the aviation industry must no longer avoid its responsibility but instead take decisive action to confront its complete environmental impact. The MRV scheme is a necessary first step aimed at better understanding these effects with a view to explore mitigation pathways. Any divergence from the original full scope would only lead to a large part of aviation emissions remaining hidden from regulators and consumers alike.”

Commented T&E Aviation Policy Manager Krisztina Toth: “Non-CO2 emissions were recognised as a climate problem 25 years ago. A monitoring tool offers a much needed first step that will help bring more understanding of the full climate impact of aviation. But some legacy carriers are lobbying to weaken the proposal, using uncertainty as an excuse.”

Full scope alliances

T&E has formed an coalition on the issue with low-cost carrier easyJet, as well as industry actors and other NGOs to urge the Commission to maintain the full scope of the non-CO2 MRV.

In a letter to the director-generals responsible for climate and transport, as well as the climate minister for Belgium, which currently holds the EU presidency, the group said: “It is critical that the full geographic scope is retained, as it is the only scientifically sound basis to understand the impact of aircraft types and geographies, and allow a better understanding of the impacts of long-haul flights, which research shows to cause more warming and present larger mitigation opportunities. It is vital that activity in areas such as the North Atlantic region, with a high concentration of contrail formation, are monitored and understood.

“Given the volume of their contribution to this issue, any deviation to exclude long-haul routes from the scope would be a significant missed opportunity which would empty the MRV of most of its meaning from a climate impact mitigation perspective, and undermine the scientific basis for future action. It would also go against the original agreement between the co-legislators.”

In a separate letter to the two Commission director-generals, easyJet has teamed with rival low-cost carriers Ryanair and Wizz Air to present a similar joint position on maintaining the full scope of non-CO2 MRV. “We call on the Commission to reject IATA’s attempts to restrict monitoring of non-CO2 effects to intra-European flights,” they said in a statement.

“We do not understand the intent of this effort to undermine the MRV scheme and why significant parts of the industry do not want to further the understanding of the science of non-CO2 effects,” says the letter.

“The purpose of the scheme is to support the development of a robust scientific evidence base. There is currently simply too much uncertainty around non-CO2 effects to drive policy development or to even reach a coherent understanding of the impact of non-CO2 on warming. This is precisely why we need such a system and why it must not be limited to intra-EU flights.

“Without robust science, it will not be possible to develop a policy measure to address non-CO2 effects, so if the EU chooses to restrict the MRV it is by default choosing to remove the option of a future policy instrument.”

IATA’s concern over the extraterritorial application of the non-CO2 MRV to airlines from third countries arriving at and departing from EEA airports has justification. The EU ETS in its original scope was similar but it faced considerable international opposition from countries such as China, India, Russia and the United States. China threatened to withdraw a sizeable order of Airbus aircraft for one of its carriers. The US passed legislation, which is still in force, that provides powers to prohibit its airlines from complying with EU ETS regulations. In the face of such opposition, and with the expectation that ICAO would come up with a market-based global scheme to address carbon emissions from international flights (ICAO member states later agreed the CORSIA carbon offsetting scheme), the EU backed down and restricted the scope of the EU ETS to intra-EEA flights on a time-limited basis.

The letter from the three LCCs acknowledges “there are reasonable concerns” around the scale of MRV data required from airlines and third country airline involvement. However, they say: “We think these can be resolved through a pragmatic approach to the implementation of the MRV.

“The concern that foreign governments and their carriers might in future object to having to report non-CO2 emissions is also not a reason to restrict the measure to intra-EU flights. These carriers are already subject to reporting requirements under CORSIA and will be subject to reporting requirements under ReFuelEU Aviation. There is no technical reason why extra-EU flights should be exempted from reporting their non-CO2 emissions.

“Options to tackle non-EU country objections, should they arise, could involve limiting or delaying the enforcement for non-EU carriers, or other options involving EU funding to address any imbalance in costs. The scope restriction to intra-EU flights is not a necessary outcome.”

Article updated May 10 to include a link to the full letter from the three LCCs.

Photo: DLR

Christopher Surgenor

Editor

• Linkedin

A new study by European lobby group Transport and Environment (T&E) has identified commitments to build 45 e-kerosene plants in 10 European nations, with combined potential to produce more synthetic aviation fuel by 2030 than required by the EU’s RefuelEU mandate. The group says 25 of the proposals are industrial scale and 20 are pilot projects but cautions that their futures are “very uncertain” as none have yet achieved final investment decisions. The T&E tally of promised e-kerosene facilities is 17 higher than its last count late in 2022 when it listed 28 announced projects to produce synthetic fuels for aviation. The study coincides with confirmation that low-cost airline Norwegian Air Shuttle has invested in Norsk e-Fuel, which is planning to build a large-scale electrofuel (e-fuel) production facility, while Nordic Electrofuel has secured a €40 million ($44m) grant from the EU Innovation Fund towards construction of its commercial-scale e-fuel plant in southern Norway.

Synthetic fuels are produced through a pathway known as power-to-liquid (PtL) which combines carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere or directly from industrial plants with green hydrogen, produced by electrolysing water with renewable electricity. This process is increasingly viewed as a primary future source of SAF, as CO2 provides an abundant and easy-to-acquire feedstock for alternative fuels, compared to current ingredients of used fats, oils and greases or solid waste biomass.

While the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation has been designed to de-risk SAF production by establishing escalating blending mandates to ensure long term, predictable demand, T&E says there remain significant impediments to e-fuel production, including scarce supplies of green hydrogen and sustainable carbon sources, plus reluctance by many airlines to sign purchase agreements.

“We see proposals for e-kerosene plants springing up like mushrooms around Europe,” said Camille Mutrelle, SAF Expert at T&E. “The EU could meet its 2030 target to power planes with e-fuels. But the road is still long before we actually see e-kerosene in our planes. We need to move from paper to reality and ensure that e-kerosene projects truly materialise, or else the law will be nothing but empty words.”

ReFuelEU Aviation requires jet fuel suppliers to include e-kerosene in the blended supplies they deliver to EU airports, beginning with 1.2% in 2030 and increasing to 35% by 2050. 

The study says the 25 industrial projects identified by T&E have the ambition to produce 1.7 Mt of e-kerosene by 2030 – well over the 600 kt obliged under ReFuelEU, and sufficient to power the equivalent of 70,000 transatlantic flights, while avoiding a total of 4.6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Of the 10 countries assessed, it found Norway, Germany and France to be the leading proponents of e-kerosene production. Norway’s e-kerosene plans are the most advanced in the markets surveyed, with total production capacity of 420,000 tonnes planned in 2030, and two of its companies, Nordic Electrofuel and Norsk e-Fuel, targeting almost 25% of the European market. 

Germany is targeting 0.5% e-kerosene use at its airports from 2026, increasing to 2% in 2030, while France has committed €200 million ($220m) to support innovative SAF programmes.  

The study adds that Norway, France, Germany and Sweden are attracting most investments in e-kerosene projects and says 80% of production is likely to be in these countries, “whereas Italy, Poland, Belgium, and, more broadly, eastern European states, are nowhere to be seen on the map.”

T&E’s e-kerosene research reveals a two-speed Europe, said Mutrelle. “While countries like Norway, Germany and France are pulling ahead in the e-kerosene race with some promising projects on the horizon, other countries like Spain, Italy and Poland are lagging behind and not making use of their potential,” she said.

“Ramping up the production of e-fuels for aviation should be a priority of national aviation decarbonisation strategies. Europe needs all the e-kerosene it can produce in order to convert dreams of more sustainable flights into reality.”

T&E said impediments to scaling up e-kerosene production in Europe include a lack of incentives to supply the fuel before 2030, limited availability of renewable hydrogen and carbon sources, insufficiently targeted EU funding for hydrogen use in hard-to-electrify sectors including aviation and shipping, and high production costs, the latter a significant barrier to securing offtake agreements with airlines.

The study therefore recommends prioritising the use of e-fuels in aviation and shipping, more EU funding focus on the use of hydrogen in these sectors, “meaningful” direct air capture policy incentives to increase CO2 transformation to fuel and establishment by EU states of pre-2030 targets to boost early supply of e-kerosene.

Interactive map of planned major e-kerosene projects in Europe (source: T&E)

Confirming Norway’s e-kerosene leadership, low-cost airline Norwegian has just formalised an initial investment of more than NOK 12 million ($1.1m) in Norsk e-Fuel, as part of  the carrier’s commitment to reduce its aircraft CO2 emissions 45% by 2030, and to secure assured supplies of SAF.

Norsk plans to build what it claims could be the world’s first large-scale production facility for e-fuel at a site in Mosjøen, northern Norway, close to the Arctic Circle. The companies say SAF could be flowing from the Mosjøen plant from late 2026.

The airline will secure more than 7,000 tonnes of fuel per year from the initial plant, a volume it says corresponds to its total fuel consumption in carrying 430,000 passengers between Oslo and Bodø in the country’s north-west – almost 80% of the 550,000 passengers the airline carries each year on that route.

It has pledged to invest a further NOK 40-50 million if plans for two additional factories progress, potentially increasing its SAF supplies from Norsk e-Fuel to 29,000 tonnes per year.

“This agreement marks the start of a pioneering partnership that will accelerate the transition to fossil-free fuels in aviation and give us access to a product that will be available in limited quantities,” commented Norwegian’s CEO, Geir Karlsen. “Increased production of this type of fuel is essential in the years to come if we are to succeed in the transition to more sustainable aviation.”

Norsk e-Fuel’s CEO, Karl Hauptmeier, said his company has ambitious plans to increase production, and the commitments of Norwegian and other partners “show the understanding of the critical role of e-fuels in shaping a future for aviation that is free from fossil fuels, both in Norway and across Europe.”

In addition to supplying Norwegian, Norsk e-Fuel has signed an e-kerosene offtake agreement with cargo operator Cargolux.

“E-fuel will be a major pillar to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in aviation,” said Richard Forson, CEO of Cargolux. “E-fuels are based on abundant feedstocks such as carbon dioxide and when produced with green electricity, the Norsk e-Fuel project will provide one of the highest greenhouse gas savings compared to conventional jet fuel. We look forward to offering our customers the option to have the ability to voluntarily enhance the sustainability initiatives through the use of e-fuels for their shipments as of late 2026.”

Norsk e-Fuel has also just signed an agreement with Gen2 Energy on the supply of green hydrogen for use as a feedstock for the Mosjøen facility. The two companies will have neighbouring plots at the Nesbrucket industrial site, where Gen2 Energy is planning large-scale production and supply of green hydrogen. As well as supplying Norsk e-Fuel, and subject to an investment decision later this year, Gen2 Energy is targeting export of green hydrogen to offtakers in Europe.

Direct air capture technology from Climeworks will be integrated in the production process, filtering CO2 from the atmosphere, with electrolysers from Dresden-based Sunfire at the core of the conversion process.

Vying with Norsk e-Fuel to build the world’s first commercial-scale aviation e-fuels production facility, Nordic Electrofuel has been awarded a €40 million ($44m) grant from the EU Innovation Fund’s pilot programme to support the construction of its plant at Herøya Industrial Park, Porsgrunn, in southern Norway.

In June last year, the company entered into a collaboration with Hamburg, Germany-based PtL technology company P2X-Europe for the long-term supply of synthetic fuels, in particular e-fuels for aviation (eSAF). Nordic Electrofuel will produce synthetic crude in Norway, which P2X-Europe will upgrade to eSAF and other synthetic products. Initial production and supply volume has been set at around 8,000 tonnes per annum, with plans for future production scale-up.

Top image: Illustration of the proposed 24,000-square-metre Norsk e-Fuel Mosjøen facility

Tony Harrington

Correspondent

Add your content…

• Linkedin
• Twitter
• Email

Cross-party MPs on the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee have welcomed government policy steps to scale up and support new technologies, zero carbon aircraft and domestic sustainable aviation fuel production in efforts to reach a sectoral target of net zero emissions by 2050. However, its Net Zero Aviation report just published expresses a number of concerns over the government’s Jet Zero Strategy and notes its high ambition scenario needs to be followed through with “vigour and the appropriate priority” for delivery or risks the UK falling behind in its emissions reduction targets, leaving other sectors to pick up the slack. The Committee calls on the government to undertake an early review of progress by the end of 2025 and to urgently consider further demand management measures should reductions fall short of prediction. The government must also carry through on its legislative promise to include international aviation emissions in the national carbon budgets, they say. The MPs welcome the establishment of a mandate for SAF use and call for swift progress on introducing a revenue certainty mechanism to support SAF developers. Meanwhile, a group of NGOs has written to the government seeking assurances that such a mechanism would be funded by the aviation industry and not the taxpayer.

Commenting on its report, a member of the Committee, Jerome Mayhew MP, said aviation’s decarbonisation path was substantially slower than that of many other sectors of the economy and would require a number of different initiatives to make a tangible impact.

“First, the correct legislation needs to be in place. Despite promises over the years, the government is yet to include aviation emissions in its carbon budgets, which monitor progress in the UK’s emissions reduction policies,” he said. “Second, we must support industry in developing new technologies and fuels, and provide the right certainty and definitions for what can be coined a ‘sustainable aviation fuel’. These new technologies must not only reduce CO2 emissions, but take into account and mitigate other environmental impacts associated with aviation. And finally, we must champion UK innovation on zero carbon aircraft here at home for UK flights.”

In 2019, the UK’s aviation emissions amounted to 37.8 MtCO2e – 36.4 MtCO2e from outgoing international flights and 1.4 MtCO2e from domestic flights – together accounting for 8% of total UK GHG emissions. Having fallen substantially during the pandemic, emissions are expected to climb as traffic recovers to pre-pandemic levels, potentially this coming year. The government’s independent advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) predicted in 2019 that unabated, aviation was likely to be the largest emitting sector in the UK by 2050, consuming 36% of the available carbon budget.

The CCC’s projections for 2050 under its ‘balanced net zero pathway’ modelling envisage aviation contributing 23 MtCO2e to the UK’s emissions, set against a baseline of 51 MtCO2e. The reduction of 28 MtCO2e comprises a contribution of 12 MtCO2e from demand management, 8 MtCO2e from SAF and 8 MtCO2e from efficiency measures and hybrid fuels. This was based on a number assumptions, including that by 2050 demand would have grown by no more than 25% relative to a 2018 baseline, the sector would improve its efficiency by 1.40% annually to 2050 and by the same year, 17% of UK aviation fuel would be from biofuel and 8% from synthetic fuel.

By contrast, the government’s own modelling, which underpins its Jet Zero Strategy assumptions, projects traffic demand would rise by 70% by 2050, airline fuel efficiency would increase 2% annually between 2017 and 2050, and SAF would be providing 10% of aviation fuel by 2030, 22% by 2040 and 50% by 2050.

Through its Sustainable Aviation body, the UK aviation industry’s modelling shows different projections from both those of the government’s and the CCC’s, with a much higher forecast of unabated aviation emissions but markedly more optimistic contributions from new fuels and technological efficiencies in aircraft fleets, including zero-emission aircraft. As a result, the industry’s projection of the 2050 ‘emissions gap’ – residual emissions unable to be mitigated by action within the aviation sector – appears far lower than the CCC and government estimates, notes the EAC report, which recommends the government work with the CCC and Sustainable Aviation on a comparative analysis in order to reach a consensus.

Over two and a half years after promising to bring legislation to include international aviation emissions in the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget target by 2037, the MPs recommend the government lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument “without further delay”.

The government has committed to five-yearly reviews of progress against the Jet Zero Strategy’s targets, which, on the current timetable, would make the first review in 2027, which the EAC believes is too late.

“We recommend that an initial review of the Jet Zero Strategy and the modelling underlying its ‘high ambition’ scenario be undertaken no later than the end of 2025, with a view to determining whether the Strategy remains on track to meet the interim emissions reductions projected for 2020 and 2040, as well as the overall reductions projected for 2050,” says its report, which adds that it should be with the active engagement of the industry.  

“Should the evidence of the review indicate that technological measures alone will not deliver the emissions reductions predicted, we recommend that ministers reconsider the role of demand management measures in aviation emissions policy. In preparation for the outcome of that review, we recommend that the government develop policy proposals on demand reduction, including consideration of greater use of digital technologies, reducing the cost of rail travel and a frequent flyer levy, should these then by required.”

The MPs on the Committee were encouraged by the research and development taking place in the UK on zero emission flight technologies, recognising their deployment is realistically likely to be restricted to short-haul flights for the foreseeable future. They recommend the government establishes a target under the Jet Zero Strategy for the full roll-out of zero-emission aircraft on a minimum number of routes essential to UK connectivity by 2040. When promoting research into the non-CO2 effects of aviation, the government should also include the funding of research into the effects on the atmosphere and climate of aircraft using zero-emission flight technologies.

The Committee welcomes the initiatives taken so far by the government to establish a domestic industry for the manufacture of SAF and its efforts to build long-term supply chains internationally, and also the criteria restricting the feedstocks to be used in UK-manufactured SAF and specifying that feedstocks are not to be obtained from land with high biodiversity value or land with high carbon stocks.

However, it is concerned about the broad definition of what is considered ‘sustainable’ and in the absence of a global standard for SAF, that this might lead to the development of aviation fuels that cannot credibly be described as such.

“We recommend that the government takes every opportunity to establish in its policy instruments for a UK SAF industry the strongest safeguards to ensure significant lifecycle emissions savings from the use of SAF developed in the UK,” says the report. “We further recommend that ministers and officials work vigorously at ICAO and in all other relevant international bodies for the establishment of a global regulatory standard for SAF which is comprehensive and rigorous.”

It also calls for “swift progress” on the implementation of a price support mechanism to incentivise investment for new SAF production pathways.

“The Committee’s report sets out clearly what the government must be prioritising, and I look forward to receiving its response,” said Mayhew.

A group of ten NGOs is also looking for a response to a letter they have sent to UK transport ministers urging the government to follow through with its intention that a SAF price support, or revenue certainty, mechanism should be funded solely by industry. The group, which includes Greenpeace, Opportunity Green, Transport & Environment and the Aviation Environment Federation, seek clarification that all the costs of such a scheme are entirely funded by the aviation sector and that existing or future taxes or revenues that flow to the Treasury, such as Air Passenger Duty or from the UK ETS, should not be earmarked for the fund. Given that the majority of British people did not fly, it would be “grossly unfair” for taxpayers to cover the funding costs, they argue.

“At no point should there be any potential for Treasury money to be used to cover any scheme costs; the scheme should be administered by a body that is not the Treasury, similar to how the Low Carbon Contracts Company operates regarding renewable energy generation,” says the letter.

The aim of the proposed revenue certainty mechanism is to lower the risk of new SAF production projects in the UK by guaranteeing investors a degree of price predictability. The government expects to complete a short consultation process in the first half of 2024, with a view to drafting new legislation and then delivery of the scheme by the end of 2026.

Photo: The UK government helped fund the Virgin Atlantic 100% SAF flight in November 2023

Christopher Surgenor

Editor

• Linkedin

Two new reports have highlighted the considerable costs and logistics of transitioning air transport to novel propulsion aircraft, both emphasising the need for urgent action to enable the switch. A report by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its Target True Zero initiative indicates that by 2050, the aviation industry will need to invest between $700 billion and $1.7 trillion to provide sufficient infrastructure for hydrogen, battery-electric and hybrid-electric aircraft. It argues the foundation elements must be in place by 2025 and says new partnerships are essential between the aviation sector and energy suppliers. A parallel report by European advocacy group Transport & Environment (T&E) says hydrogen-powered aircraft will cost 8% more to operate than fossil-fuelled planes but could be 2% cheaper from 2035 if their development is supported by government incentives, funded through taxes on conventional jet fuel and a price on carbon. “These pricing measures are key to the deployment of green technologies like hydrogen planes,” says T&E.

The WEF report was produced with the support of McKinsey and Partners, the Aviation Environment Federation and the Aviation Impact Accelerator of the University of Cambridge to help quantify challenges involved in the transition to new propulsion technologies. It estimates that by 2050, battery-electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft could comprise between 21% and 38% of total fleets, and require 15% to 34% of the industry’s total energy needs.

Of this power, says WEF, between 89% and 96% would be needed for hydrogen-powered aircraft, with the remaining 4% to 11% for battery-electric turboprops, regional jets and small narrowbody planes. The introduction of hydrogen and electric propulsion would also require separate infrastructure value chains and necessitate production of power away from airports, which would not have sufficient land for the energy infrastructure. “The investments needed to meet 2050 alternative-propulsion-related infrastructure goals must start now,” stresses the report, with the first elements required to be in place by 2025.

“Getting infrastructure right will be critical in allowing this new industry to take off – whether that means ‘on-airport’ infrastructure, such as chargers and refuellers, or ‘off-airport’ infrastructure, such as producing enough green electricity,” write McKinsey Partner Robin Riedel and WEF Climate Head Pedro Gomez in their foreword to the report. “There is a great deal at stake in getting this transition right. Collaboration across geographies, industries and stakeholders is critical to fast-track aviation’s trajectory towards a more sustainable future.”  

The sheer volume of energy needed to power the emerging generation of novel propulsion aircraft is identified by WEF as a key challenge in the transition to zero-emission commercial flights. Globally by 2050, it estimates alternative propulsion systems could need between 600 and 1,700 terrawatt hours of clean energy, “which is equivalent to the energy generated by around 10 to 25 of the world’s largest wind farms, or a solar farm the size of Belgium.”

As well, to power alternative propulsion aircraft, the WEF report says airports will need to massively increase their on-site energy use, with battery-electric and hydrogen-powered fleets each needing their own energy infrastructure. “For an airport that is a large hub looking to invest in on-site hydrogen liquefaction and charging for battery-electric powered aircraft, total on-site electricity consumption for terminals, ground support and other uses could be between 1,250 and 2,450 gigawatt hours per year, which is about five to 10 times more electricity than London Heathrow currently consumes.”

Producing new power would also present a major challenge, for while most airports would have room to develop hydrogen liquefaction and storage infrastructure, they would have nowhere near enough land for infrastructure to generate the clean energy required to power battery-electric or hydrogen aircraft.

“While airports have been touted as possible energy hubs, the scale of energy demand for alternative propulsion will make it extremely difficult to perform all energy production at airports,” says the report. “If Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport is used as an example of a major international hub, it would require approximately 5,800 hectares of solar panels to generate sufficient electricity to meet its demands under the Mission Possible Partnership’s prudent scenario. This far exceeds the size of the airport itself, which now occupies 3,300 hectares.”

The report says transition to novel propulsion aircraft would require capital investment of between $700 billion and $1.7 trillion by 2050, around 90% of which would be for off-airport infrastructure, mainly to generate power and for hydrogen electrolysis and liquefaction. On-airport infrastructure, which comprises the remaining 10%, will total “a more modest” $66 billion to $114 billion by 2050.

“Capital expenditures in green power generation for aviation alone would double the current projections for global airport capital infrastructures, $1.68 trillion by 2040 at $84 billion per year,” it calculates. “This makes it almost certain that aviation players will need to form partnerships with companies in other industries, such as energy providers and those in hydrogen-consuming industries, to secure the required investment. 

“The investments needed to meet 2050 alternative-propulsion-related infrastructure goals must start now. The first elements of on-airport infrastructure must be in place by 2025 to meet the expected energy demand.”

The report’s authors also say operators of alternative propulsion should expect to pay between 76% and 86% more than the market price for renewable electricity, pricing which reflects additional costs of operating aviation infrastructure.

The report commissioned by Transport & Environment, and produced by research group Steer, concludes hydrogen-powered jets could be operated less expensively than fossil fuel-powered aircraft from 2035 “provided kerosene is taxed adequately”.

It says: “In 2035, running planes on hydrogen could be 8% more expensive than using kerosene. But with a tax on fossil jet fuel and a price on carbon, hydrogen planes could become 2% cheaper to operate than their kerosene counterparts. These pricing measures are key to the deployment of green technologies like hydrogen planes.”

The T&E analysis shows that by 2050, deployment of hydrogen aircraft for intra-Europe flights would cost €299 billion ($320bn), of which only 5% (€15 billion) would be for the development of hydrogen planes. “This relatively small upfront cost must, however, happen before 2035, or risk jeopardising the success of these new planes.”

The balance of the cost would be outside the aviation sector, with green hydrogen production accounting for €161 billion, or 54%, then hydrogen liquefaction at 23%, hydrogen infrastructure at airports (12%) and distribution of the fuel to airports (6%).

T&E highlights the commitment by Airbus to launch hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035, but said the airframer had since warned of delays due to slow development of hydrogen infrastructure.

“Building these planes is feasible,” said T&E’s aviation technical manager Carlos Lopez de la Osa, “but if we want Airbus to walk the talk, we’ll need to create a market for zero emission aircraft by taxing fossil jet fuel and mandating zero emission planes in the future. “For hydrogen planes to take off in the next decade, we need to enter the virtuous circle of regulation, investment and a fall in prices, followed by stronger uptake. But the cost must be shouldered by the aviation industry and its users by ring-fencing part of carbon and kerosene tax revenues for green tech like zero emission planes and clean fuels.”

Image: The Airbus ZEROe concept hydrogen-powered aircraft

Political progress has been reached on two key pieces of legislation to bring the European aviation sector into line with the ‘Fit for 55’ goal to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. After protracted negotiations, the European Parliament and the Council, representing EU member states, have agreed on the ReFuelEU Aviation proposal that will require fuel suppliers to blend sustainable aviation fuels with kerosene in increasing amounts from 2025. A more ambitious target than proposed by the European Commission was reached on the level of supply of synthetic fuels, or e-kerosene, from 2030. The Parliament and Council have also adopted rules on tightening the EU ETS Aviation that will see free allowances to airlines phased out by 2026, although 20 million free ‘SAF allowances’ will be set aside to incentivise the uptake of SAF in the EU and 5 million allowances will be transferred to the EU’s innovation fund for low-carbon technologies.

Aviation emissions in Europe increased by an average of 5% year-on-year between 2013 and 2019, and are expected to grow still further following the Covid-19 hiatus. “The increased climate ambition of the aviation sector will be crucial for the EU to reach its climate objectives under the Paris Agreement and make the European Green Deal a reality,” said the Commission.

Welcoming the agreement on its ReFuelEU Aviation proposal, the Commission said the measure on its own is projected to reduce aircraft CO2 emissions by around two-thirds by 2050 compared to a ‘no action’ scenario, as well as cleaner burning SAF providing climate and air quality benefits by reducing non-CO2 emissions. The Council said the proposal had aimed to increase both demand for and supply of SAF while ensuring a level playing field across the EU transport market. The mandate, it added, should provide a way out of the situation that was hindering SAF development and supply, and prices that were much higher than the fossil equivalent.

Under the mandate’s rules, aviation fuel suppliers must supply all flights departing from an EU airport from 2025 with fuel containing a minimum share of 2% SAF, rising to 6% in 2030 and gradually to 70% by 2050. The negotiators agreed to a 1.2% synthetic fuel mandate between 2030 and 2031, and 2% between 2032 and 2035, an increase from the Commission’s proposal of 0.7% between 2030 and 2035. Airports will be required to make sure their fuelling infrastructure is available and fit for SAF distribution.

“Since it will apply throughout the EU, the new mandate will ensure a level playing field within the EU internal market, provide legal certainty to fuel producers and help kick-start large-scale production across the continent,” said the Commission after the deal was reached by Parliament and Council negotiators. “It will also increase the EU’s energy security by reducing dependencies on third-country sourced energy products and create thousands of new jobs in the energy sector. The EU’s airlines will have access to increasing amounts of sustainable aviation fuel throughout the EU.”

Rules were also agreed in the trilogue negotiations to prevent aircraft operators deliberately carrying excess fuel on flights to avoid refuelling with SAF at EU destination airports, a practice called tankering. There will be an obligation for operators to ensure that the yearly quantity of aviation fuel uplifted at a given EU airport is at least 90% of the yearly aviation fuel required. However, exemptions from the tankering provisions could be granted in the event of serious and recurring operational difficulties or structural difficulties in SAF supply.

Reporting obligations for fuel suppliers and aircraft operators will also be enforced by designated competent authorities, with revenues from fines for non-compliance being directed to research and innovation into bridging the price differential between sustainable and conventional fuels. The data collection and reporting will be used to monitor the effects of the mandate regulation on the competitiveness of EU operators and platforms, and to improve knowledge of the non-CO2 effects of aviation emissions. The Commission is required to report in 2027 on the impact of the regulation on connectivity, on carbon leakage and distortions of competition, and on the future use of hydrogen and electricity.

Negotiators also agreed to extend the scope of eligible SAF and synthetic aviation fuels proposed by the Commission. For biofuels, the scope is extended to other certified biofuels complying with the Renewable Energy Directive sustainability and emissions saving criteria, up to a maximum of 70%, with the exception of biofuels from food and feed crops. The use of hydrogen and synthetic low-carbon aviation fuels has also been added to reach the minimum shares in the respective part of the regulation, although there are differing views among states on the role of low-carbon hydrogen, particularly nuclear-derived hydrogen.

Although controversial biofuel feedstocks such as food crops and palm oil by-products (PFADs) had been excluded, said Brussels-based NGO Transport & Environment (T&E), other “problematic” feedstocks had been kept in.

“Fuel suppliers will be able to meet targets with animal fats and used cooking oil (UCO), both of which are in limited supply,” it said. “Animal fats are by-products of the animal slaughter process and their inclusion risks creating shortages in other industries that already use them, like the pet food industry. Palm oil is very often used as a substitute for animal fats. Negotiators have not set a cap on the use of UCO, which could lead to a demand from European aviation outstripping what the continent can sustainably provide, leaving it reliant on imports and increasing the risk of fraud.”

In general though, T&E welcomed the trilogue outcome. “This pioneering deal is an unwavering endorsement of the world’s largest green fuel mandate for aviation. The EU doubled down on synthetic fuels, which are key to decarbonising the sector, and limited the use of unsustainable biofuels in planes,” said Aviation Manager, Matteo Mirolo.

It also welcomed the amendment to bring non-CO2 effects of aviation into the final agreement, following earlier failed legislation attempts. “ReFuelEU opens the door to regulating the quality of the fuel to ensure it has lower aromatic concentrations and sulphur content – this is a significant step,” it said.

Although the ramp-up of SAF could now start, there is still work to be done and ensuring the success of SAF will require industrial support policies for synthetic kerosene and stronger safeguards against unsustainable biofuels, said Mirolo.

With the first mandate of 2% SAF due by 2025, the agreement provides immediate certainty for airlines and the whole SAF industry, said Airlines for Europe (A4E). “EU policymakers should now turn their attention to ensuring Europe develops a strong SAF industry that can provide enough sustainable fuel for airlines to fulfil the mandates agreed,” said the industry body. “Widespread adoption of SAF is a critical component of European aviation’s roadmap for achieving net zero and policymakers need to throw their efforts behind building up Europe’s SAF industry.”

Laurent Donceel, Acting Managing Director of A4E, commented: “ReFuelEU is not the final destination for SAF in Europe. European policymakers need to ensure they now follow through and help build a world-leading SAF industry, strengthening fuel security and delivering sustainable jobs. The EU needs to think about SAF the way it thinks about wind turbines, solar panels and other sustainable technologies in order to support aviation’s energy transition whilst not pricing passengers out of the air.”

Some EU member states have already introduced SAF blending mandates, while other states have called for themselves to be granted differing SAF targets. However, agreement was reached on a uniform approach.

“The single EU-wide mandate for SAF will prevent fragmentation of the EU’s single market for aviation through differing national targets in different member states. The EU mandate should now supplant national mandates and harmonise all relevant legislation,” said A4E.

Parliament and Council also agreed on the creation of a Union eco-labelling scheme for flights from 2025 on environmental performance by aircraft operators “that will help consumers make informed choices and will promote greener flights.”

Responded A4E: “While we support providing consumers with information about their flights, we caution that any label should be based on a robust methodology and present an accurate depiction of the environmental impact of flights.”

A joint statement from A4E and four other European aviation associations (ACI Europe, ASD, CANSO and ERA) said: “The agreement marks an important and timely step necessary to the realisation of the ambitious targets of the decarbonisation roadmap to which the sector has committed. Sustainable aviation fuels play a decisive role in that endeavour and the agreement lays the foundation for all key stakeholders to move on in a concerted effort to reach the blending shares of SAF to kerosene agreed upon. This is expected to stimulate increased production and larger scale market uptake of SAF through to 2050.

“Through Destination 2050, announced in early 2021, the European aviation industry was the first in the world to commit to the realisation of a net-zero goal for all departing flights by 2050. Whilst the trilogue agreement is an important step into the right direction, further support is needed through complementary EU policies and initiatives.”

Speaking after the agreement had been reached, European Parliament rapporteur José Ramón Bauzá Diaz commented: “After months of intense negotiations, I am happy to conclude the ‘Fit for 55’ package. I am also proud to say the European Parliament has been successful in defending and advancing the ambitious development of sustainable aviation fuels across the EU. We have created a level playing field through harmonised rules and preserved EU air connectivity. With this regulation, the decarbonisation of aviation becomes closer.”

The agreement now requires formal adoption by the Parliament and the Council. Once this process is completed, the new legislation will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force with immediate effect.

EU ETS reform adopted

This process has just been completed and adopted by both the Parliament and the Council in respect of revisions to the Directive for the EU Emissions Trading System for aviation. In December, they agreed more stringency of the existing system, which has covered aviation since 2012, to bring it in line with the ‘Fit for 55’ package and the Paris Agreement. The updated rules have just been adopted by both institutions.

The EU ETS will apply to intra-European flights, including departing flights to the UK and Switzerland, while the ICAO CORSIA carbon offsetting scheme will apply to extra-European flights to and from third countries participating in CORSIA from 2022 to 2027, a so-called ‘clean cut’ mechanism. If and when global aviation emissions under CORSIA reach levels above 85% of 2019 levels, European airlines will have to offset their proportionate share with corresponding eligible carbon credits.

The Council and Parliament agreed that after ICAO’s Assembly in 2025, the Commission is to assess whether CORSIA implementation is sufficient to reduce aviation emissions in line with Paris objectives. If deemed adequate, the Commission is required to make a proposal to extend the clean cut but if not, it is to make a proposal to extend the scope of the ETS to all flights departing the European Economic Area.

Free emission allowances will be reduced by 25% in 2024, 50% in 2025 and 100% from 2026, with all allowances fully auctioned from 2026. Five million allowances are to be transferred from the aviation sector to the EU Innovation Fund and 20 million free allowances set aside to encourage the uptake of SAF.

A4E said the SAF allowances would help stimulate and incentivise the rapid deployment of SAF in Europe. “Without them, the phase out of free allowances by 2026, well before truly effective decarbonisation solutions will be available at scale, could negatively impact air transport. This is because the cost of compliance for the ETS will likely increase fivefold by 2025, to over €5-6 billion annually, which would impact ticket prices, route availability and ultimately connectivity,” it said.

The co-legislators agreed that all fuels eligible under ReFuelEU, except fuels derived from fossil fuels, will be eligible for the SAF allowances and will be in place until 2030. Small islands, small airports and outermost regions will be able to cover the price differential between kerosene and eligible fuels with 100% of the SAF allowances in order to ensure availability in these locations with specific supply constraints. For all other airports, the coverage of the price differential will be modulated according to the type of fuel.

Under the legislation, the Commission is to improve transparency on aircraft operators’ emissions and offsetting, and also implement a monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system for non-CO2 aviation effects from 2025. By 2027, it will submit a report based on the MRV and by 2028, after an impact assessment, make a proposal to address non-CO2 effects.

Christopher Surgenor

Editor

• Linkedin

A campaign led by European NGO Transport & Environment (T&E) shows 85% of global companies analysed in its 2023 Travel Smart Ranking do not yet have credible plans to reduce their corporate flying emissions. T&E and a coalition of partners are campaigning to persuade companies to cut these emissions by 50% or more by 2025 or sooner from 2019 levels but only four out of the 322 businesses in the ranking have committed to do so. It says aviation is the most climate-intensive form of business travel, which accounts for 15-20% of global air travel emissions – around 154 million tonnes of CO2 in 2019. If just 10% of the biggest emitting companies analysed set the 50% target, this would go halfway to achieving its campaign target, say the campaigners. The ranking tracks and evaluates commitments, emissions and reporting performance from companies across 17 countries in Europe, India and the United States, and, for the first time, the assessment includes results for non-CO2 emissions. The four companies achieving its ‘gold standard’ ranking are Novo Nordisk, Swiss Re, Fidelity International and ABN Amro.

The Travel Smart campaign was launched in 2022 with a ranking of 230 companies, increasing to 322 for the 2023 edition. It ranks companies according to 10 indicators relating to air travel emissions, reduction targets and reporting, and are given an A, B, C or D grade. In this year’s ranking, 11 companies qualified for an A grade, 38 a B, whilst the vast majority received a C (212) or a D (61). It finds 40 companies report all greenhouse gas emissions associated with corporate flights, with pharmaceutical giants AstraZeneca and Pfizer and consulting companies Boston Consulting Group and Deloitte leading the way by considering the full impact of flying in their reporting.

Netflix, Lush, Siemens, Spotify and Amazon are at the bottom of the ranking with Volkswagen, KPMG and Johnson & Johnson being the top three emitters without a target to reduce their travel emissions.

Commenting on the ranking, T&E’s Corporate Travel Manager, Denise Auclair, said: “Corporates are turning a blind eye to the harms done by flying for work. Most companies are taking little to no action on business flying, which renders any other travel targets meaningless in the context of tackling climate change. Only a few frontrunners align with the science by reporting non-CO2 emissions – the hidden part of the iceberg of aviation’s full climate impact.”

The 10 biggest flyers without a target collectively accounted for 3.5 million tonnes of air travel emissions in 2019, or 20% of emissions from companies in the ranking. In 2020 and 2021, says the report accompanying the ranking, corporate air travel emissions decreased by 64% and 70% respectively, mostly as a result of the Covid-19 travel restrictions. It points to analysis showing these emissions have not rebounded in the same way as commercial aviation emissions since companies have innovated practices to perform with less business flying.

For the critical decade until 2030, the best way to reduce aviation emissions is to fly less as the timing for scale-up of sustainable fuels and zero-emissions aircraft is currently post-2030 and offsetting cannot substitute for reducing emissions, says T&E. It calls on companies to set ambitious targets to reduce corporate travel emissions, switch from air to rail travel where possible and privilege video conferencing as a substitute for reducing emissions.

“The biggest emitters have a disproportionate role to play in reducing their corporate flying emissions and the means to achieve this are more accessible than ever before,” said Auclair.

Governments too can have a role in reducing corporate travel emissions, says the ranking’s report, by extending reporting requirements on companies’ business travel emissions. “Legal requirements for companies to define climate transition plans and emissions reductions targets are still in the starting blocks, which partly explains the lack of business air travel targets,” it says. “A faster and more specific deployment of target setting requirements will be necessary.”

Christopher Surgenor

Editor

• Linkedin

The EU’s Council and Parliament have reached a provisional agreement on revisions to the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) rules applying to the aviation sector. A proposal by the Parliament, and backed by environmental groups and major European low-cost airlines, to include all international flights departing the European Economic Area (EEA) within the EU ETS was blocked by the Council, which represents EU member states. As a result of the trilogue talks, the EU ETS will apply only for intra-European flights – including departing flights to the UK and Switzerland – while ICAO’s CORSIA will apply to extra-European flights to and from third countries participating in the global scheme from 2022 to 2027. The two institutions agreed that after the next ICAO Assembly in 2025, the Commission will assess if CORSIA implementation is sufficient to reduce aviation emissions in line with Paris climate objectives. The co-legislators also agreed to fully phase out free emission allowances for aircraft operators between 2024 and 2026 but also set aside 20 million free allowances to incentivise the uptake of eligible SAF and to transfer 5 million allowances to an innovation fund. The agreement, which also addresses non-CO2 effects for the first time, has been both welcomed and criticised by the European airline sector.

Revisions to the Aviation EU ETS were first proposed by the European Commission in July 2021 as part of its ‘Fit for 55’ package to reduce overall EU emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and to achieve climate neutrality in 2050. EU member states and the Commission have shown strong support for CORSIA, which was considered necessary to secure international backing for an agreement to adopt the Long-Term Aspirational Goal (LTAG) at the ICAO Assembly in October. The inclusion of emissions from extra-European flights into the EU ETS also risked confrontation with third countries, including the United States, which has legislation in place to prohibit US airlines from compliance with the EU scheme. An agreement was also reached at ICAO during the Assembly to strengthen the CORSIA baseline, despite initial opposition from the airline industry not to change the baseline that had been altered during Covid-19 to help airlines deal with the added financial burden of CORSIA offsetting compliance.

However, CORSIA is criticised as an ineffective scheme by environmental groups and others, who do not see it in step with the Paris Agreement 1.5C climate target and the net zero by 2050 goal for aviation emissions adopted by both ICAO and the industry. Under the scheme’s rules, it will not be reviewed again until 2025.

European NGO Transport & Environment said the failure to include long-haul flights in the EU ETS would result in 58% of Europe’s aviation emissions being unaccounted for and accused EU governments of cowardice. The trilogue outcome would also make international aviation one of the only sectors of the EU economy that will not fall under an emissions cap, it added.

“EU governments lacked the grit to push through a deal that was good for the climate and social justice,” said Jo Dardenne, Aviation Director at T&E. “Average European families will continue to pay much more for their CO2 emissions than frequent long-haul flyers. We are about to see another lost decade of climate inaction.”

Low-cost airline Ryanair, Europe’s biggest carrier, also condemned the decision not to include departing international flights in the EU ETS, which it blamed on the Commission.

“The Commission’s failure to support the Parliament vote means that Europe’s most polluting flights – long-haul and transfer passengers – that create the majority of EU aviation emissions, will continue to be exempt from paying their fair share of ETS taxes,” commented Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary. “While the richest Americans, Europeans and Asians on long-haul flights pay zero environmental taxes, Europe’s most price sensitive passengers and their families travelling on short-haul flights, many to peripheral member states and who have no alternative to flying, are forced to pay all of Europe’s ETS taxes, while they generate less than half of EU aviation emissions. This is clearly unfair.”

In actual fact, when emissions from flights to and from outside the EEA reach levels above 85% of 2019 levels (the revised baseline agreed at the ICAO Assembly), they will have to be offset with corresponding eligible carbon credits purchased by the flight operator to be invested in emissions reduction projects. Of ICAO’s 193 members states, 118 have agreed to participate in the voluntary pilot and first phases (2021-2026) of CORSIA. Major aviation players China and India have yet to join though, so flight emissions between the two countries and the EEA will not be covered by CORSIA during this period.

After the next ICAO Assembly in 2025, the Commission will carry out an assessment of CORSIA as to whether it is meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement. If it is then the Commission will make a proposal to the Council and Parliament to extend the “clean cut” between the two schemes. If deemed insufficient, the Commission says it will make a proposal to extend the scope of the EU ETS to all flights departing from the EEA.

“The deal reached on the scope of the ETS shows that work towards an effective global carbon price for aviation has only started,” said a statement from trade association Airlines for Europe (A4E), whose members include both low-cost and long-haul airlines. “This will build on the outcome of the ICAO Assembly in October. We must not forget that airlines have been paying for their emissions through the EU ETS since 2012. The cost of compliance for the ETS is likely to have increased five times in size by 2025 to over €5 billion ($5.3bn) annually.”

A4E expects the annual cost of compliance to both the EU ETS and CORSIA schemes to rise from €0.95 billion in 2019 to €7.6 billion in 2030 and €9 billion by 2035.

Another conflicting position between the Council and Parliament was over the phasing out of the free allowances granted annually to aircraft operators under the EU ETS. The Commission proposed all free emission allowances be phased out by 2027, to be replaced by full auctioning of allowances, a position backed by the Council. Parliament, on the other hand, voted for a faster phase out by 2025. The trilogue produced a compromise of 2026, a year earlier than proposed, with a phase-out of 25% in 2024 and 50% in 2025.

“A4E is extremely disappointed about the decision to phase out by 2026 free ETS allowances currently granted to airlines,” said the A4E statement. “This is well before truly effective decarbonisation solutions will be available at the scale needed for them to be effective.”

On the other hand, A4E welcomed an agreement on a new system of sustainable aviation fuel allowances under the EU ETS to help stimulate the deployment of SAF and also the transfer of 5 million allowances from the aviation sector to the EU’s Innovation Fund, which uses EU ETS revenues to support innovative low-carbon technologies.

The co-legislators also agreed to set aside 20 million free allowances to further incentivise the uptake of fuels that are deemed to be in the short-term a promising path for aviation decarbonisation by aiming to bridge the price gap with conventional jet fuel. All fuels eligible under ReFuelEU, except those derived from fossil fuels, will be eligible for the SAF allowances under a mechanism to be in place until 2030. Small islands, small airports and outermost regions will be able to cover the price differential between kerosene and eligible fuels with 100% of the SAF allowances in order to ensure the availability of the eligible fuels in these locations with specific supply constraints.

For all other airports, the coverage of the price differential will differ according to the type of fuel: 95% for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs); 70% for advanced biofuels; and 50% for other eligible fuels.

The agreement also provides for the implementation of a monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system for non-CO2 effects in aviation from 2025. By 2027, the Commission is required to submit a report based on the MRV and by 2028, after an impact assessment, the Commission will make a proposal to address non-CO2 effects.

“I’m glad that we have found an agreement that effectively paves the way for meeting our objective of reducing transport emissions by 90% by 2050,” said Marian Jurečka, the Czech Minister of the Environment, which currently holds the EU presidency. “It will allow us to address aviation emissions within the EU but also outside by appropriately aligning the EU ETS with CORSIA and to ensure that all airlines operating flights on the same routes are treated equally.”

The provisional agreement now requires formal adoption by the Council and the Parliament.

Meanwhile, the UK has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Switzerland that states the UK’s intention to include flights from the UK to Switzerland in the UK ETS “as comprehensively as possible” by 1 January 2023. The UK ETS, which replaced the UK’s participation in the EU ETS on 1 January 2021, covers domestic flights, flights between the UK and Gibraltar, and flights to the EEA. It is likely the UK will mirror the EU Council and Parliament agreement to apply CORSIA to all other countries that have joined the ICAO scheme.