Airline chief defends industry’s net zero commitment

This story was originally published by The Guardian and appears here as part of the Climate Table collaboration.

For the airline industry, it was a “momentous decision.” For environmental advocates, it was “essentially pointless.” Last month, the world airline trade body IATA passed a resolution, passed by nearly 300 of the world’s largest airlines, to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Like Santa Claus, millions of passengers struggling with the desire to fly with environmental guilt would love to believe in it. Willie walshIATA’s CEO, is famous for not being Santa, but he has pushed the policy, the adoption of which perhaps received less praise than airlines expected.

Airlines first promised a 50 percent net reduction in emissions in 2009, a target that after the 2015 Paris accords “clearly wasn’t enough,” says Walsh. Some airlines, including the one Walsh operated at the time, British Airways owner IAG, have since pledged to reach net zero by 2050. However, it says the deal in IATA AGM this October it is still “a big problem”.

“In Europe, the appreciation of the need to address this is more advanced,” says Walsh. “The important thing was to translate the commitment of some airlines into one on behalf of the industry.”

How it will be done is a more important question. IATA has developed a plan that depends on the action of the government and other industry players (such as fuel suppliers and aircraft manufacturers) as much as airlines and will have a cost, borne by carriers, governments or passengers, of approximately £ 1.5 billion.

What people are reading

Speaking in the run-up to the inauguration on Sunday of the Climate Summit COP26 in Glasgow, Walsh has no regrets, comparing airlines to car drivers: “You have to force the people who produce the planes, the engines, the fuels to operate the air traffic control systems. Everyone’s standing there looking at us, saying, ‘Okay, guys. Now you do. In the same way that the auto industry was forced to comply, it was also forced to comply. Clearly, it requires proper government policy. “

That starts with producing enough sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), says Walsh. A theoretical jet fuel blend could be used that uses 50% of it derived from sustainable sources, such as household waste: “The problem is that airlines cannot get the supply … Fuel companies must have the mandate to produce at scale. “

The British government took a first step in its net-zero strategy, which was published last month, saying it would require that 10 percent of jet fuel produced be SAF by 2030. It is estimated that the fuel will initially cost three to four times as much to produce until economies of scale reduce spending. “There will be a cost … but we are able to adjust to a higher fuel price,” says Walsh, acknowledging that rates will go up.

Better air navigation and redesigned planes will play a role. But IATA’s 2050 plan relies heavily on SAFs to reduce about 65 percent of the cumulative emissions it anticipates, and about carbon offset, which remains controversial And, at best, it has not been tested, no matter how closely the schemes are controlled now. Aviation figures like easyJet boss Johan Lundgren have been frank about the limitations of SAFs: they continue to burn fuel and produce carbon emissions.

“We are not trying to cheat,” says Walsh. “You are still burning fuel. But you are recycling carbon, you are not adding more CO2. SAF is an absolutely credible way to do it. We are talking about net zero, we are not talking about zero. We recognize that we continue to broadcast ”.

While companies like easyJet hope to benefit from electric aircraft for short-haul flights, such a technological shift on long-haul flights does not seem likely for long. “Hydrogen is potentially an option, beyond 2050,” says Walsh. “But I don’t think we’d be credible if we said we’ll get to zero that way.”

Credibility is a recurring theme. While Boris Johnson spoke last year that the UK will develop a “zero emission” transatlantic aircraft by 2050, Walsh will not play along. “I don’t think that’s credible and it’s not useful. It’s good to have ambition, and maybe that’s why you’re doing it. But we don’t think you can get a commercial transatlantic jet in the time frame you’re talking about. “

Most alarming to skeptics of the IATA plan, air passenger travel will increase fivefold to about 10 billion passenger trips by 2050. That, says Walsh, will happen whether European traffic slows or workers from the west they move to Zoom. , with growth in places like China and India.

However, it is adamant, despite accepting the climate emergency, despite aviation’s special request to use offsets due to its dependence on liquid fuel, that a limit on flights is not an answer. “Should people limit their use of the Internet? It is 3.7 percent of global emissions. People will have to adapt and do things differently. It’s not just about aviation. That’s all.”

Regardless of passenger travel, Walsh says, the reliance on air travel is huge. Think about what would have happened if air cargo had not been available at the beginning of this pandemic. Governments relied heavily on airplanes for vaccines and personal protective equipment. “

While groups like the Campaign for Better Transport have proposed a ban on short-haul flights where there is a train alternative, Walsh cites an investigation by Eurocontrol: “If I limited all flights in Europe to less than 500 kilometers, it would reduce the 3.8% emissions from aviation. Great, but not the solution. “

For the Irishman, the question of a future without aviation is personal, linked to his heritage and Irish emigration: “People left Ireland and went to America; They were never seen again because they could not afford to travel. I have cousins ​​in Boston who left Ireland in the 1970s, we grew up together, they left and that was it – they were never seen again. You used to get a postcard. “

Walsh says he can’t imagine a future without flying: “We have experienced what it is like during the shutdown and early stages of this pandemic.” Pointing to the screen through which he is being interviewed online, he adds, “I hate these things.”