Airlines get rid of agreed climate obligations

Airlines have been spared their climate protection obligations for years to come. From 2021, they had to start offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions with the purchase of credits or certificates that justify gas reductions from other sectors. But with the collapse of flights and emissions they have managed to change the rules of the commitments made.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an agency attached to the UN, agreed in 2016 that airlines should reach their peak gas emissions in the period 2019-2020, so they should begin to compensate from 2021 that excess of gases released. All this had to materialize through the so-called carbon reduction and offsetting scheme for international aviation (Corsia). The agreement had a first voluntary period for the countries (until 2026) and a second mandatory period later (until 2035).

They will begin to compensate for the excess of _CO2 by exceeding the levels of the year 2019, something not foreseeable in the short term

However, ICAO corrected the rule a few days ago and agreed to ease airlines’ obligation to offset for rising gas emissions.

The new agreement means that the date on which air navigation companies must start paying for carbon credits intended to offset the emissions produced is expected to be postponed until 2023.

All this comes after the International Air Transport Association (Iata) pressured the UN agency (ICAO) to change the peak or reference threshold with which the basis on which the excess emissions of the sector must be compensated (with carbon credits) is calculated.

The regulations provided until now that companies would start paying (in 2021) by exceeding the average emissions reached between 2019 and 2020. However, the collapse of flights, emissions and billing has made airlines claim not to have to assume this obligation.

Their argument was that the fight against climate change carried an additional burden at a time of economic crisis (and with companies asking for the bailout). And their demands have been met.

ICAO has agreed to change the rules during the first three years that the Corsia scheme was to operate on a voluntary basis.

Thus, the emissions of 2019 are set as a peak or reference threshold, so that companies would only have to pay when they exceed the _CO2 levels of that year.

That is, if emissions do not increase above those of 2019 they will not have to pay anything for their climate impacts. They will only resume their old obligations when they exceed the new bar, something that is not expected in the short term, since it is estimated that the full recovery of flights will not occur until 2022 or, perhaps, 2023.

The ICAO assembly (193 countries) will decide in 2022 whether to maintain the same emissions baseline beyond 2023 or return to the previously agreed average (2019-2020). The agreement was promoted by the EU in a context in which the US. had threatened to withdraw from the Corsia plan in its voluntary phase) if the baseline was not changed.

Several NGOs have criticized this agreement, judging that it further weakens the modest climate action plans in the aviation sector, which are considered insufficient. “This decision is a very bad political signal in the midst of the climate emergency. It’s an incomprehensible concession to the aviation lobby,” says Floren Marcellesi, co-spokesperson for Equo.

Compensating for _CO2 from airplanes: a controversial formula

The Corsia scheme endorses the use of various emission compensation programmes for international aviation; for example, the use of certifications or surplus rights from the Kyoto Protocol (managed by the UN) or others developed in voluntary agreements of companies to reduce _CO2.

But this system has many loopholes. For example, it would require that the global carbon market, which is not yet active, be already functioning due to disagreements between countries within the Paris agreement (although an emission rights market does work at the European level).

In addition, the participation in the voluntary phase of some of the large countries (China, Brazil, India and Russia) is not guaranteed. And secondly, there is a lack of credibility in some of the compensation units; there are doubts that they correspond to projects that have resulted in actual _CO2 reductions. Critics say this system offers no incentive for the aviation industry to invest in clean technologies, rather preferring to buy loans at cheap prices of dubious reliability.

“The Corsia scheme does not fit with the _CO2 reduction targets of the Paris agreement,” says Floren Marcellesi, co-spokesperson for Equo, which is opposed to the ICAO agreement.

“Compensation for climate damage will come too late compared to what science is asking for. They are climate irresponsibility. We regret that the Spanish Government has not opposed this step backwards, inconsistent with its declaration of climate emergency,” he adds.

Source: The Vanguard