Dr Philippe Rochat, executive director of the Air Transport Action Group which lobbies on behalf of the aviation industry on environmental matters, responds to the Green Party's stance on airlines and the environment
Having read "The green view on aviation" (Airline Business, page 82 March 2005), it is an ironic coincidence that the author, Member of the European Parliament for the Green Party Dr Caroline Lucas, not only shares her name with Star Wars inventor George Lucas, but apparently also his penchant for science fiction.
Dr Lucas starts off completely on the wrong footing – and never finds her way back. She opens by parotting misplaced environmentalist propaganda, claiming that climate change represents a bigger threat than terrorism. I am not sure that families of terrorist victims around the world would agree.
Like so many of her fellow crusaders, Dr Lucas appears unable (or worse, unwilling) to separate science and politics, making unsubstantiated claims based on hand-picked pseudo-scientific "facts" to justify a "radical change" in aviation policy.
Dr Lucas is plain wrong when she states – without any substantiation – that "aviation is the single most polluting mode of transport". Everyone else knows that road transport accounts for about 75% of total global transport CO2 emissions, while aviation's share stands at about 12% (according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, published in 1999). Even by environmentalists' own rules, simply multiplying aviation's CO2 impact by two-to-four times for assumed effects at altitude and ignoring additional effects from other modes, aviation still cannot possibly be considered to be the biggest culprit.
Also, no matter how often one uses the word "pollution" in the same sentence as "aviation", (and Dr Lucas scores very high points here) in the hope that when enough mud is thrown some of it will stick, the fact is air transport typically only represents a fraction of total pollution, be it local or global, emissions or noise.
Moreover, it cannot be reasonably argued that CO2, the lifeblood of all vegetation and exhaled by every single human being, qualifies as a pollutant. If that were true, a per capita exhalation quota could be just around the corner. And the Greens would start recommending that people breathe with moderation and stop practising sport.
Putting words in airlines' mouths – and creating a false aura of scientific authority for her own Green Party – are other strong points in Dr Lucas' statement, according to which "Airlines claim that they contribute around 3% of total greenhouse gas emissions". Airlines claim no such thing. Instead, they take scientific guidance from the IPCC and other reputable research bodies and climate scientists. Recent research – 2004, not 1999 – confirms that aviation's share of the total human climate change effect is 3.5%, showing no increase since 1992 (according to Aviation Radiative Forcing in 2000: An Update on IPCC (1999) by Robert Sausen et al, 2004).
Moving on to economic issues, the author's zest for the anti-aviation cause reaches new heights, downplaying industry benefits, exaggerating the alleged "costs to society" and blowing the tax trumpet. It is mind-boggling to think that there are people out there who believe that if you take money away from companies by imposing new and higher taxes, this will somehow encourage them to spend more money on new and expensive equipment.
Unfortunately for Dr Lucas, independent economic research has repeatedly shown that air transport does in fact make significant contributions to the global economy, that taxes are not an effective means to address transport emissions, and that aviation is not under-taxed.
A recent study by international engineering and transport consultancy Mott MacDonald, for instance, shows that unlike other modes, and taking into account all taxes and subsidies, aviation is making a substantial net contribution to the public budget. In the UK for instance, aviation not only pays for all its infrastructure costs, but through other taxes and charges, it makes a net payment of €11 to public funds per thousand revenue kilometres (rkm), while the rail sector does not entirely cover its infrastructure costs and gets €35 per 1,000 rkm from the public budget.
In France, aviation makes a net contribution of €67 per 1,000 rkm, while rail gets €78. In Germany, Mott MacDonald estimates aviation's net contribution to be €11, versus a rail subsidy of €15 per 1,000 rkm.
Air transport is taking its environmental responsibility very seriously. No other industry has achieved similar progress. Noise at source for instance has been reduced 75% over the past 40 years, while fuel consumption – and CO2 emissions – have been cut 70% per unit of transport. Manufacturers and research institutes are working on a further 50% reduction in both noise and CO2 emissions up to 2020.
Hence the importance of investments in new technology and fleet renewal as part of air transport's environmental strategy, combined with constant infrastructure and operational improvements, as well as voluntary good practices.
Aviation is a global industry looking for global solutions in partnership with governments. And it has a strong determination to implement effective ways to further improve its environmental performance and respond to society's needs.
Source: Airline Business
