Green Groups Warn Deal to Lower Aviation Pollution is 'Weak Shell Game'

A deal to lower airline-related greenhouse gas emissions has been struck in a historic 191-nation treaty, but green groups say it falls short of what’s needed.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations body that oversees the flying industry, created a framework that aims to offset carbon emissions while only costing the sector less than two percent of revenues, Reuters reports. The system will be voluntary from 2021 to 2026 and mandatory from 2027 for nations that have big aviation industries.

But as environmental advocates noted, the structure of the deal ultimately lets airlines off the hook by allowing them to “offset” their carbon footprint rather than reducing it, and by making the program voluntary.

“Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth. Taking a plane is the fastest and cheapest way to fry the planet and this deal won’t reduce demand for jet fuel one drop. Instead offsetting aims to cut emissions in other industries,” said Bill Hemmings, director of the European sustainable development advocacy group Transport and Environment, which was an observer to the ICAO talks.

“Today is not mission accomplished for ICAO, Europe, or industry,” Hemmings said. “The world needs more than voluntary agreements. Without robust environmental safeguards the offsets won’t cut emissions, leaving us with a deal that amounts to little more than adding the price of a cup of coffee to a ticket.”

The offsetting scheme will allow airlines to take part in programs that fund “forest areas and carbon-reducing activities,” the Guardian reports, adding that aviation emissions “account for 1.3% of the global greenhouse gas total today.” The system will use the industry’s 2020 emissions as a reference point and offset roughly 80 percent of that until 2035.

Although the U.S. and China have both said they will sign up for the voluntary phase, other big polluters, including Russia and India, have said they would not, on the grounds that it puts an unfair burden on developing countries.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT