Introduction

The commercial aviation industry, when it first began humbly in the early 20th Century, did not initially consider the impact of its activities on the environment. Today, it contributes 5% to the total global warming problem but also takes measures to reduce its adverse environmental impact. This is evidenced by, among other things, the itemization of the carbon footprint, in the form of our flight tickets, with the footprint reported directly on them. This shift has come about due to a combination of effects, such as an enhanced awareness of climate change via the efforts of environmentalists and their activism, recognition of the responsibility of all industries and businesses to help tackle the crisis, and the need for urgent action and need for transparency in reporting of the impact of corporate activities on the environment.

Thanks for reading Beyond Carbon! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

In this article, we examine the case for a carbon tax and discuss its implications on the aviation industry in addition to taking a look at the top 3 airlines (by revenue) in the world - the measures they have taken in order to respond to climate change and the positive impact of these measures. We will also detail the challenges they encountered as well as the criticism they face.

Turbulence

Previous attempts to address emissions from the aviation industry had been problematic. It is easy to see why. Consider the following:

If an aircraft is manufactured in country A, owned by a company in country B, leased to an airline in country C, takes off from country D, flies over country E, and lands in country F; who is responsible for that aircraft's emissions?

Due to jurisdictional issues, the UN's Framework Convention of Climate Change - the international treaty that sets out to combat ‘dangerous human interference with the climate system’ - did not deal directly with the aviation industry. Instead, in 2016, the United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) released a resolution that would regulate aviation emissions on a global basis. This resolution entailed the ICAO's aspirational goals defined in a basket of measures, available to States to address international aviation CO2 emissions; encompassing technological, operational and market-based measures. However, it is important to note that there exists some criticism of the ICAO's proposed measures, in particular the fact that it proposes the use of carbon offsetting to reduce aviation emissions, which is considered problematic by some climate experts.

A Carbon Tax on Flying

The benefits of a carbon tax seem uncertain with its implementation being complex. However, there exists historical precedence for a similar tax on airline tickets - a supplementary charge, known as the UNITAID solidarity tax, which charges anywhere from $1 for economy class up to $40 for business and first class tickets, the proceeds of which go to providing access to drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Nine countries actually implemented this tax with considerable success, with more to follow suit.

Most passengers who pay for the UNITAID solidarity levy are charged on outbound air tickets, both domestic and international, exempting transit. Countries themselves have the right to decide the amount levied and which ticket classes to include. Another benefit of a carbon tax is that, since the ICAO's draft resolution makes a distinction between developed and developing nations, its implementation as a point-of-purchase tax would include everyone that flies, covering both the passengers in developing countries, and the far more numerous ones in the developed world – with states setting the tax at a level appropriate to their (developed or developing) circumstances.

A carbon tax modelled after the solidarity levy could address the aviation emissions problem more effectively than the proposed draft ICAO offsetting resolution. This is because tax systems are a time-tested, mature, and universally applied instrument. They are also more direct and more transparent, capturing more revenue with less regulatory cost. If implemented as such, the proposed carbon tax could be a useful 'bottom-up' model for reducing aviation emissions. It is important to note, however, that a carbon tax alone is not sufficient for addressing aviation emissions entirely and should only be supplementary to additional measures taken.

Measures Taken by Top Airlines to Respond to Climate Change

To date, the top 3 airlines by revenue are American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines. Let us examine the measures these airlines have taken to respond to the climate crisis, their positive impact, challenges and criticisms:

• Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): American Airlines has committed to using SAF, investing in new technologies, and partnering with biofuel producers.
• Fleet Modernization: The airline has focused on acquiring more fuel-efficient aircraft.
• Carbon Offsetting: They offer customers the option to offset their carbon footprint when purchasing tickets.

Positive Impact: These initiatives have helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve operational efficiency, and enhance customer engagement regarding sustainability.

Challenges: The high cost and limited availability of SAF have hindered large-scale implementation.

Criticism: Critics argue that American Airlines has not set aggressive enough targets for emissions reduction and relies heavily on offsetting rather than direct reductions.

• Carbon Neutrality Commitment: Delta has pledged to become the first carbon-neutral airline globally by 2030, focusing on fuel efficiency, operational improvements, and investments in sustainable fuel.
• Investments in Technology: Delta is investing in new technologies for more efficient operations and has explored electric and hybrid aircraft options.

Positive Impact: Delta’s investments in fuel-efficient fleets and carbon-neutral goals have positioned it as a leader in sustainability within the industry.

Challenges: Achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 requires significant changes in operations and sourcing of sustainable fuels, which can be challenging to scale.

Criticism: Some environmental groups argue that Delta's targets are not ambitious enough and that their reliance on carbon offsets detracts from necessary operational changes.

• Fleet Upgrades: United has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2035 and is investing in new, more efficient aircraft.
• Sustainable Fuel Initiatives: The airline has been a pioneer in the use of SAF, with significant investments and partnerships to scale up production.

Positive Impact: United's aggressive emissions reduction goals and investments in SAF demonstrate a commitment to sustainability that can inspire other airlines.

Challenges: The need for a consistent supply of SAF and the high costs associated with transitioning to greener technologies present hurdles.

Criticism: Critics highlight that United’s measures might be insufficient in the face of the climate crisis and call for more transparency in reporting emissions data.

Conclusion

While all three airlines have taken notable steps toward addressing climate change, they face significant challenges, including the high costs of sustainable technologies and the need for systemic changes in the industry. They are also criticized for their reliance on offsets and perceived inadequacies in their climate strategies. Balancing profitability with sustainability remains a complex issue, but their ongoing efforts represent a crucial part of the aviation industry's journey toward a more sustainable future.

Sources

ICAO Environment (2016) ‘Market-Based Measures’. [online] Available at: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/pages/market-based-measures_old.aspx [Accessed 31 December 2024]

The Conversation (2016) ‘Airline emissions and the case for a carbon tax on flight tickets’. [online] Available at: https://theconversation.com/airline-emissions-and-the-case-for-a-carbon-tax-on-flight-tickets-56598 [Accessed 31 December 2024]