Climate and the Government’s transport plan

by Robert McLachlan

[This is my personal submission to the Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport. Submissions close at noon on Tuesday 2 April, 2024.]

In the Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP1), transport emissions fall 41% by 2035. As the Ministry of Transport says, “Achieving this will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and give us a more sustainable, inclusive, safe and accessible transport system that better supports economic activity and community life.” There is plenty of detail in the plan:

The plan is supported by four specific transport targets:

Target 1 – Reduce total kilometres travelled by the light fleet by 20 per cent by 2035 through improved urban form and providing better travel options, particularly in our largest cities. 

Target 2 – Increase zero-emissions vehicles to 30 per cent of the light fleet by 2035. 

Target 3 – Reduce emissions from freight transport by 35 per cent by 2035. 

Target 4 – Reduce the emissions intensity of transport fuel by 10 per cent by 2035. 

Targets 1 and 3 are wrecked by the Draft GPS, while Target 4 is already suspended. Target 2 is also threatened by related government actions to slow the uptake of EVs and other low-emission vehicles: cancelling the CCD, imposing high RUCs on EVs (a world first), proposing to weaken the CCS, and proposing to replace fuel tax by RUCs based on distance and weight.[1] The Ministry advise that the first two of these alone may limit EV share of the light vehicle fleet to  7% by 2030 (and 23% market share)[2], vs. 12.5% in the Climate Change Commission’s Demonstration Path (and 64% market share), putting the 2035 target at risk. However, the Ministry’s model involves 22,000 EV sales in 2024. In fact there were only about 1,700 sales in the first quarter.

The ERP1 for transport is not rocket science and should not be at all controversial. Internationally, all transport climate plans include the basic elements of fuel standards, mode shift, public transport planning. The IPCC in their summary of evidence say the same thing. The debate is over the mixture of fees, incentives, regulations, and bans, not over the direction of travel. The Draft GPS would wreck this plan. Spending on walking, cycling, and public transport would reduce and become highly constrained. Spending on rail infrastructure would reduce drastically, which could render the national rail network non-viable. That in turn wrecks the New Zealand Rail Plan, intended to increase the proportion of heavy freight carried by rail by building high-tech truck/rail freight hubs and new rail ferries.

Dropping climate from the GPS drops it from NZTA, currently the lead agency charged with delivering emissions reductions from transport. What could replace it? The government is committed to meeting the emissions budgets, but have not yet released much detail about how they plan to do that, other than that the ETS will be the main tool.

But it is well known that carbon charges are not an effective way to reduce transport emissions. At current prices the ETS adds 15 cents per litre to the price of petrol, or $15/1000 km. The RUC rate for light vehicles is $76/1000 km. The carbon price would have to increase by a factor of five just to match that, which is unthinkable – it would destroy all other exposed sectors.

This issue has been covered extremely thoroughly in the international literature. In 2022, I co-authored a review with David Hall on “Why emissions pricing can’t do it alone”[3]. The Climate Change Commission identified ten types of barriers to a low-emission transition; tellingly, transport is the only sector for which they proposed specific fixes for all ten barriers. Nearly all of them are under attack.

So it is really flying in the face of evidence think that the ETS can be our main climate tool, particularly for transport. Details are lacking – Minister of Climate Change Simon Watts will only say that work on the second Emissions Reduction Plan (2026-2030) is under way. Analyst Christina Hood has repeatedly detailed how the ETS will struggle to deliver even under present conditions[4].

Emissions reductions first entered the GPS in 2015, under John Key. It was raised to a strategic priority in 2018 and 2021, but now it is proposed to be dropped. Presumably, all work streams in NZTA related to emissions reduction will be stopped and all work teams dissolved. So, despite all the other alarming and potentially disastrous parts of the Draft GPS, this one is the worst.

Section 5ZI(3) of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 states that

The Minister may, at any time, amend the plan and supporting policies and strategies to maintain their currency, (a) using the same process as required for preparing the plan; or (b)in the case of a minor or technical change, without repeating the process used for preparing the plan.

But the Draft GPS states, in contrast, that

Following the general election and a change of government in late 2023, the intended emissions reduction policies foreshadowed by the previous Government are being reassessed. For this reason, GPS 2024 has not undertaken the alignment exercise as anticipated in ERP1. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is the Government’s key tool to reduce emissions. In addition to the ETS, matters relating to climate change/emissions reduction issues are being worked through and will be addressed during development of the second Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP2). 

Thus both the Draft GPS and the decision to not perform the alignment exercise are in violation of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Note that the relevant “plan” referred to in section 5ZI(3) in this case is ERP1, not ERP2. In addition, many of the activities needed to support the 2nd and 3rd carbon budgets need to be undertaken in the first budget period.

Slower transport emissions reductions from existing policies mean that other policies will need to be developed to replace them. I am skeptical that the two that have been announced – higher carbon prices and faster EV charger rollout – can make up the difference. But at the very least the modelling and policy advice to support this approach should be published. To put it another way, the climate plan and the transport plan should be prepared together. But they have not been prepared together in what appears to be a deliberate strategy.

Another possibility is transport emissions will be allowed to decrease more slowly that previously intended and that other sectors will make up the difference. But transport is so large a share of emissions that it is hard to know where the other savings could come from. Three other large sectors are agriculture, industry, and trees. The first two may struggle to deliver greater cuts, while trees are already performing a far greater share of net emissions reductions than in any other developed country and are also facing policy challenges and risk transferring climate obligations to future budget periods. 

To sum up, the Draft GPS constitutes climate denial.

Recommendations

R1.          Perform the alignment exercise required of the GPS by ERP1.

R2.          As the proposed changes to ERP1 are neither minor nor technical in nature, but strike directly at its heart, revise ERP1 using the process required by the Climate Change Response Act.

R3.          Publish the legal advice received regarding R1 and R2 above.

R4.          Reinstate emissions reduction as a strategic priority of the GPS.

[1] https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350179050/casualties-governments-declaration-war-evs

[2] Departmental Report to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, RUC Amendment Bill, https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/54SCTIN_ADV_60f18385-f31e-4c3e-1dba-08dc38a90c66_TIN1082/e69f6e2b63ae81e98f300a8d3cc146de8b21ae76

[3] https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/7496

[4] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nz-ets-review-zero-carbon-act-theory-vs-reality-christina-hood/?trackingId=DtF8IukNSzW5egD9Mc2POg%3D%3D

Aotearoa’s fossil fuel emissions, 2023

Three years ago I asked, “Why did New Zealand’s CO2 emissions blow out so spectacularly in 2019?“. At that point, emissions had risen 10% in three years. My conclusion was that

the forces for increasing fossil fuel burning were vastly more powerful than the puny forces opposing them. All the talk about climate change in 2017–2019 had little effect on the behaviour of companies or individuals.

Have we turned the corner? Possibly. The pro-fossil fuel forces are still there, but the opposing forces are gathering strength, especially through the Zero Carbon Act which for the first time includes a falling cap on emissions. In the most sensitive sector, electricity, the changes can be seen already. My takeaway from the new 2019 data is that the big four, road transport, aviation, electricity, and food processing, that are so large, that have performed so poorly, and that have so much scope for transformation, are where we need to look for change.

We don’t have full emissions data yet for 2023, but MBIE have just released a partial snapshot covering emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which contribute 85% of gross CO2 emissions. 2023 was the first full post-lockdown year – travel restrictions were only eased in early and mid-2022.

Although emissions are up slightly, they are still well below the blow-out year of 2019, and stand at 23-year lows. 2022 and 2023 comprise the first half of the first 2022-2025 carbon budget, so low emissions in these two years will definitely help us meet the budget.

But digging into things in more detail, progress is not so great. Here’s the breakdown by fuel.

This shows that the fall in emissions in 2022-23 was due to falling electricity emissions, caused by full hydro lakes (hydro generation up 4200 GWh on the previous two years, or 5% of total generation) and new wind farms (up 1100 GWh). Solar (up 290 GWh) also started to make an appearance. That doesn’t mean that electricity emissions will bounce back, though: another 2800 GWh of new renewable generation is planned for the next three years, so even in an ‘average’ rain year we should be alright.

Clearly a major culprit is oil. It’s a big chunk of these emissions (70%) and it’s hard to move. Oil consumption is down on record highs, but not by much – closing the Marsden Point oil refinery in mid-2022 shifted 0.8 MtCO2 of emissions offshore, accounting for the whole decline.

The Clean Car Discount was introduced in mid-2021, and staying in place for 2 1/2 years, but has now ended. Road User Charges will be introduced on EVs in two weeks’ time, at a proposed rate of $76/1000 km – New Zealand will be the first country in the world to do this. (In Australia, the state of Victoria did impose RUCs on EVs, at A$25/1000 km, but this was annulled by the High Court last year.) There are also threats to weaken future fuel efficiency standards and to remove fuel excise duty entirely. Together these amount to a war on EVs which may lead to significant upward pressure on emissions. The fact that all the EVs in New Zealand are only saving 0.14 MtCO2 a year at present – too small to even see on the above graph – doesn’t mean they’re a failure, it just shows the scale of the problem and the persistence that is required.

Of course EVs are not the only or even the most important solution to transport emissions. In 2021 I wrote that “big battles over mode shift lie ahead” and these have now come to pass with the release of the Government’s draft policy statement on transport, which drastically de-emphasises cycling, passenger rail, and public transport. Climate Liberation Aotearoa have a handy mantra:

The first three are part of the first Emissions Reduction Plan, but the Government appears to think it is free to ignore the plan. As I read it, they are in violation of the Zero Carbon Act, which says that

The Minister may, at any time, amend the plan and supporting policies and strategies to maintain their currency (a) using the same process as required for preparing the plan; or (b) in the case of a minor or technical change, without repeating the process used for preparing the plan.

I guess that’s why we have lawyers.

The underlying global warming signal

By Robert McLachlan

Here are the annual average temperatures relative to pre-industrial times, as measured by NASA.

2023 clocked in at +1.40 ºC.

There’s quite a lot of variation from year to year. Some of this is fairly well understood. Large volcanoes like Pinatubo (1992) cool the air for a year or two; The El Nino/La Nina oscillation alternately and irregularly warms and cools the air, as heat is transferred in and out of the ocean; and the 11-year solar cycle also contributes. Together these account for about half of the fluctuations – they are typically around ±0.08 ºC but can be up to ±0.2 ºC.

Recently, a well-known statistician updated an earlier study in which these known effects are subtracted out to reveal the underlying global warming signal:

He ends his analysis with the understated comment that “it appears that the rate of global warming has increased”.

What does the global warming signal look like if we remove the rest of the fluctuations? Here’s what I get:

And with the smoothed signal only:

The underlying rate of warming is about 0.08 ºC per decade in the 1950s and 60s. It rises to 0.15 ºC per decade in the 1980s and 90s. In the past decade it has averaged +0.30 ºC per decade. The underlying trend value for 2023 is +1.25 ºC, meaning that if there is no further change in the trend, 1.5 ºC will be breached in 8 years.

There are a lot of contributors to the warming, but atmospheric CO2 is the main one. Here is the underlying warming trend shown together with the (scaled) level of atmospheric CO2:

Which climate scenario should we plan for?

By Robert McLachlan

In the Manawatū region of New Zealand where I live, the Horizons Regional Council plans for climate change impacts under the high-emission “RCP8.5” scenario. This is a scenario in which no attempts are made to reduce emissions – the track we were on for decades. In this scenario, emissions triple by 2100 and coal burning expands by a factor of six.

This is now considered highly unlikely. So why is it still used for planning?

The Ministry for the Environment recommends

using the middle-of-the-road scenario (RCP4.5) and the fossil-fuel intensive development scenario (RCP8.5), and screening hazard and risk assessments for longer-term coastal impacts up to 2130 (RCP8.5).

RCP4.5 reflects moderate emissions and implementation of current global emissions reduction policy settings. It represents limiting the rise in global air temperature to 2.7°C by 2100.

RCP8.5 broadly aligns with emissions-reduction practice over the past few decades. It reflects high emissions, limited mitigation measures and no global emissions reduction policy settings. This scenario represents a rise in global air temperature to 4.4°C by 2100. RCP8.5 enables local government to understand the full extent of possible climate risk. It is particularly important for developments with a long timeframe (more than 100 years), especially for climate-sensitive projects and coastal planning activities, due to the very long time-lag (from decades to centuries) between sea level rising and seeing the effects on developments.

Ministry for the Environment. 2022. National adaptation plan and emissions reduction plan. https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/national-adaptation-plan-and-emissions-reduction-plan-guidance-note.pdf

RCP8.5 is relevant not just as a worst-case scenario of emissions. The key point is that it gives an idea of a bad-case outcome for the climate response even under moderate emissions. For that reason, only RCP8.5 should be used for planning; RCP4.5 still allows a completely unacceptable level of risk.

Climate change predictions are highly uncertain. One measure is the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”, the increase in temperature in response to a doubling of CO2, after short- and medium-term feedbacks have entered equilibrium. (“Medium-term” means decades to a few centuries). This has long been estimated at 2–4.5 ºC, with an average of 3 ºC. We are currently at just over half a doubling, resulting in 1.3 ºC of warming, although not all those feedbacks have yet run to equilibrium.

2–4.5 ºC is a wide range, and that’s only the “most likely” values – a 66% probability. If the sensitivity is actually on the high side, then even moderate emissions will lead to much greater impacts.

There are two fundamental reasons why the uncertainty is so large and has proven difficult to reduce.

First, there are many climate feedbacks. Some lead to more warming and some to cooling. Each is hard to predict accurately because of the long time scales and complicated interactions of the atmosphere and ocean.

Combining effects of the same sign needn’t increase uncertainty:

A = 10 ± 1 (10% uncertainty)

B = 10 ± 1 (10% uncertainty)

A + B = 20 ± 2 (10% uncertainty)

But combining effects of opposite sign always increases uncertainty:

A = 10 ± 1 (10% uncertainty)

B = –5 ± 0.5 (10% uncertainty)

A + B = 5 ± 1.5 (30% uncertainty)

Secondly, the uncertainty is worse on the high side:

Roe, G. H., & Baker, M. B. (2007). Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable?. Science 318(5850) 629–632.

Here the most likely response is 3 ºC, but very large values (6 ºC or even higher) are possible. In the most recent IPCC report (AR6) the most likely range was reduced somewhat, to 2.5 ºC–4 ºC. However, this was due in part to discarding a number of “hot models” that showed higher sensitivity. (In those models, forecasts of less clouds meant less sunlight reflected directly back to space, and hence more warming.) And that was done for a good reason, namely that the mid-range models fit the observed warming extremely well:

The takeaway message is that even under moderate emissions, there is still a pretty decent chance of catastrophe.

Allen Fawcett et al., Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science, 2015.

Here the “no policy” scenario (RCP8.5) gives a 90% chance of more than 3 ºC of warming by 2100. But even “Paris–continued ambition” (which assumes that all countries in the world achieve their 2030 targets and continue decarbonising at the same rate) has a 42% chance of exceeding 3 ºC. Only “Increased ambition”, in which decarbonisation accelerates greatly after 2030, gives a decent 14% chance of avoiding 3 ºC. That’s an “extreme climate change” scenario, with up to 60% of the global population at risk of starvation.

Risk is a funny thing. For aircraft, we think a 1-in-10 million chance of a crash is an acceptable level of risk. If a crash is linked to a design flaw, the entire global fleet of that model is grounded indefinitely. For flooding, we’ve settled on a 1-in-500 annual risk of catastrophic urban flooding in any given location. (In Palmerston North, stop banks were upgraded to that level just in time to survive the 2004 floods.) For climate change, a 50-50 risk of complete annihilation is met with “that’s the best we can do”.

Rising waters, resilient hearts: Māngere community unites against climate impacts

By Roshni Mathew, 350 Aotearoa
As the climate crisis escalates, stories are what connect us. Here, 350 Aotearoa board member Roshni Mathew shares her experience of Māngere being flooded in January 2023 and the power of mobilising community activism.

A street on an overcast day is covered in flood damaged furniture and household items on the footpath on the left.

In January of 2023, a marine heat wave, set up by La Niña and turbocharged by climate change triggered severe flash flooding in Tāmaki Makaurau. A combination of factors: The water temperature being six degrees higher than average and a deceptive atmospheric river meant that a storm brewed, with a state of emergency declared late in the evening. This deluge disproportionately affected several suburbs across the city, including Māngere. Among those affected were residents – Olsen Palaamo and Farasat Shafi Ullah, both of whom have experienced the devastating consequences of recent floods. As we delve into the heart of this community, we uncover tales of resilience, unity, and determination to forge a brighter future. This is the untold story of Māngere’s climate warriors, outraged but optimistic, rising together even above waters.

Just before midnight, Olsen and his wife decided to navigate waist-deep water, cradling their four-month-old daughter amid intense rainfall, fearing “if the water level continues to rise, what will we do next?”. Personal treasures—photographs, books, cherished mementos; succumbed to the deluge. The trauma of that night lingers, compounded by the arduous process of dealing with insurers, who were overloaded by thousands of flood-related claims, the mammoth task of cleaning up the aftermath and the uncertainty of their home’s future. But even if their homes were fully restored, a cloud of unease lingers: “we’re worried about when the next weather event will occur and how badly our area would be affected”. Much of Māngere, similar to many other gentrified areas around the country, sits on flood-prone land, and there are few resiliency measures being implemented to mitigate the risk. Scientists and climate activists warn that flooding and other extreme weather events will only continue to exacerbate with the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, some of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biggest emitters which include Fonterra, Silver Fern Farms, Affco and Alliance contribute to the agriculture sector accounting for 51% of emissions and are largely exempt from Climate laws such as the Emissions Trading Scheme. Leaving them free to pump out atmosphere-torching methane to their heart’s (and shareholders) content. With global temperatures continuing to rise both at home and around the globe, so does the number of natural disasters with recent catastrophes in Morocco, Libya, Pakistan, Canada and Turkey – disproportionately affecting communities on the front line.

A nighttime image of a severely flooded street. Taken from what seems the second story of a house - it looks down to cars drowning in flood waters and other houses across the street with lights on. The water is murky and brown. Some car lights are still on.

Similarly, for Farasat’s family, January 27th is etched into their memory as a “once-in-a-blue-moon” incident that turned their lives upside down. As new homeowners in Aotearoa New Zealand, they were eager to assimilate into their new neighbourhood. However, the floods exposed the ill-planned infrastructure and challenged their dreams of a flourishing future. Enduring the chaos of the floods and navigating a night of uncertainty, they found solace in their local community’s support. Amidst the chaos, Māngere’s residents banded together, sharing their concerns, progress on home repairs, and the weight of their experiences. Their collective strength and determination to seek solutions have become a beacon of hope for the wider region, with existing groups such as I Am Māngere delivering food parcels and other tools to residents . Olsen, Farasat and their newly created neighbourhood group “Thrive in Māngere” have recognised the importance of addressing the local Te Ararata Stream and stormwater drain management to mitigate future flooding risks, with their “Sort Our Stormwater (SOS)” campaign. The group has successfully reached out to local governing bodies – Auckland Council, Watercare and Healthy Waters for the maintenance of culverts before/after significant weather events, upgrades to stormwater system designs and infrastructure modelling to handle climate change impacts of today and for the future with the aid of Government funding throughout the city.
A year on, communities are still feeling the pressure. As waters recede and scars heal, the need for change, unity, and resilience becomes clear. Through collective action, we can confront climate challenges and forge a resilient, hopeful tomorrow.

A fence and wired gate stands around severe floods. It is raining on the huge pool of water and the skies are grey.

Reproduced with permission from 350.org.nz.

Central Otago study maps lifestyle, issues and concerns

By Robert McLachlan

Today James Renwick, James Higham and myself have released the first of three reports, making available key findings about Central Otago residents’ views on a number of topics.

The research, conducted late last year, covers five topics: Central Otago lifestyle, climate change, infrastructure and growth, tourism, and air travel and airports. Respondents chosen at random from right throughout the Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago districts were asked over 70 questions, and were also given the opportunity to comment openly on all topics.

The survey revealed a strongly unified population sharing many values, beliefs and concerns. 89% of respondents lived in or visited the region for its ‘lifestyle’; other natural factors, such as climate and landscape, also figured extremely highly. Other factors, such as ease of travel and work opportunities, were regarded as less important. There was a high level of concern about climate change and environmental sustainability in the region, and strong support for a greater focus on the value of visitors rather than the volume.

63% of respondents were opposed to the proposed Central Otago Airport (and 51%, strongly opposed) compared to 22% in favour. This level of opposition was found right across the Central Otago and Queenstown Lakes districts, in contrast to the statement from Christchurch Airport’s Michael Singleton that “the community is equally divided between supporters, opponents, and the undecided.”

The proposal to build an international airport at Tarras is not just a local issue as it is significant for New Zealand as a whole. It’s a national issue that can only be resolved by a national plan for aviation emissions that meets our international agreements.

Professor James Higham of Griffith University and the University of Otago commented that there were strong themes running through the responses. “There is no doubt that people choose to live in Central Otago for the same reasons that tourists want to visit. It is a superbly beautiful, unspoilt and tranquil place. It’s clear from our research that sustainability is now a very high priority for the people of Central Otago, and they also very clearly understand the impact of tourism that the region benefits from. This study shows that they want better tourism with less impact, rather than more tourists.”

Professor James Renwick of Victoria University of Wellington said that the impacts of climate change are clearly on Central Otago residents’ radar, which is consistent with research conducted elsewhere. “People are conscious that we have to do everything we can to get New Zealand to net-zero, and that we all have to play our part. We’re seeing people do that in numerous ways including solar energy, reducing waste to landfill and reducing unnecessary travel. Aviation can be a significant portion of people’s footprints – especially where flights are medium to long haul.”

The second report, due out next month, will present an analysis of the extensive and detailed written responses. A third report, scheduled for April 2024 will represent the results of bivariate analyses to uncover the relationships between responses to different questions.

The report can be downloaded at https://informedleaders.com/central-otago-study/.

It has all been combustion

The Rings of Saturn, a 1995 novel by W. G. Sebald, has been called the first novel of the Anthropocene, even though that era was not proposed until five years later. Ostensibly a walking tour of East Anglia with copious historical digressions and reflections, its global, far-reaching view is certainly more obvious today. Here is an extract from Chapter 7.

It had grown uncommonly sultry and dark when at midday, after resting on the beach, I climbed to Dunwich Heath, which lies forlorn above the sea. The history of how that melancholy region came to be is closely connected not only with the nature of the soil and the influence of a maritime climate but also, far more decisively, with the steady and advancing destruction, over a period of many centuries and indeed millennia, of the dense forests that extended over the entire British Isles after the last Ice Age. In Norfolk and Suffolk, it was chiefly oaks and elms that grew on the flatlands, spreading in unbroken waves across the gently undulating country right down to the coast. This phase of evolution was halted when the first settlers burnt off the forests along those drier stretches of the eastern coast where the light soil could be tilled. Just as the woods had once colonized the earth in irregular patterns, gradually growing together, so ever more extensive fields of ash and cinders now ate their way into that green-leafed world in a similarly haphazard fashion. If today one flies over the Amazon basin or over Borneo and sees the mountainous palls of smoke hanging, seemingly motionless, over the forest canopy, which from above resembles a mere patch of moss, then perhaps one can imagine what those fires, which sometimes burned on for months, would leave in their wake. Whatever was spared by the flames in prehistoric Europe was later felled for construction and ship-building, and to make the charcoal which the smelting of iron required in vast quantities. By the seventeenth century, only a few insignificant remnants of the erstwhile forests survived in the islands, most of them untended and decaying. The great fires were now lit on the other side of the ocean. It is not for nothing that Brazil owes its name to the French word for charcoal. Our spread over the earth was fuelled by reducing the higher species of vegetation to charcoal, by incessantly burning whatever would burn. From the first smouldering taper to the elegant lanterns whose light reverberated around eighteenth-century courtyards and from the mild radiance of these lanterns to the unearthly glow of the sodium lamps that line the Belgian motorways, it has all been combustion. Combustion is the hidden principle behind every artefact we create. The making of a fish-hook, manufacture of a china cup, or production of a television programme, all depend on the same process of combustion. Like our bodies and like our desires, the machines we have devised are possessed of a heart which is slowly reduced to embers. From the earliest times, human civilization has been no more than a strange luminescence growing more intense by the hour, of which no one can say when it will begin to wane and when it will fade away. For the time being, our cities still shine through the night and the fires still spread. In Italy, France and Spain, in Hungary, Poland and Lithuania, in Canada and California, summer fires consume whole forests, not to mention the great conflagration in the tropics that is never extinguished. A few years ago, on a Greek island that was wooded as recently as 1900, I observed the speed with which a blaze runs through dry vegetation. A short distance from the harbour town where I was staying, I stood by the roadside with a group of agitated men, the blackness behind us and before us, far below at the bottom of a gorge, the fire, whipped up by the wind, racing, leaping, and already climbing the steep slopes. And I shall never forget the junipers, dark against the glow, going up in flames one after the other as if they were tinder the moment the first tongues of fire licked at them, with a dull thudding sound like an explosion, and then promptly collapsing in a silent show of sparks.

An aviation emissions reductions plan for Aotearoa

By Paul Callister and Robert McLachlan

After a pause during Covid, aviation is once more on a growth path. There have been significant orders of new planes by many airlines and in Aotearoa there are plans to expand many airports. Christchurch airport continues to progress its plans to build a new large international airport at Tarras in Central Otago.

Despite much talk of future emission reduction strategies, the industry is still powered almost entirely by fossil fuels. The use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) remains mainly for demonstration flights and no electric planes are yet carrying commercial passengers. Supplies of SAF remain insignificant compared with overall fuel use and rapidly expanding production of these fuels is a difficult challenge.

With the growth of flying, unless action is taken it seems inevitable that emissions will increase both globally and locally in the short to medium term. This is at a time when almost other sectors are working hard to reduce emissions. 

The recently released advice from the Climate Change Commission relies heavily on new technology to reduce emissions from aviation. It argues that

within the second emissions budget period, the biggest opportunity for reducing emissions within aviation is likely to come from sustainably produced drop-in biofuels as a component of aviation fuels.

There are real challenges in producing sustainable biofuels, particularly if a goal is to not compete with food production. In an analysis of the use of crops for biofuel, primarily through the production of ethanol, Hannah Ritchie suggests that under some growth projections, the world would need around 300 million hectares of cropland to feed the planes. That is an area the size of India. Yes, sustainable aviation fuels will be an important part of decarbonising aviation. But other strategies are needed too.

In a new report with Kirsty Wild and Alistair Woodward from the University of Auckland, we identify seven key strategies that would help drive down our aviation emissions. These are 1) improved pricing, 2) carbon budgets for aviation; 3) improved emissions intensity; 4) limiting and targeting public investment; 5) public communications; 6) pausing airport expansion; and 7) investment in low-carbon domestic transport infrastructure. Our analysis is based on the Avoid-Shift-Improve framework of transportation planning and on the parallel contributions of passenger numbers, flight distance, and emissions intensity to overall emissions from the sector.

Download the report.

As we conclude,

No professor, chief executive, airline sustainability champion, or climate activist is under any
illusion about the challenges involved in regulating a source of pollution. But the ICAO
declaration, the ongoing Paris Agreement process, and the worsening climate crisis all point to
a rapidly closing window of opportunity for genuine action on aviation. Aotearoa, as a stand-out
beneficiary of aviation, has more to gain from timely and orderly action, and may also, through
its State Action Plan and other diplomatic efforts, foster more coordinated global action.

The NZ aviation industry is making bold climate claims – and risking anti-greenwashing litigation

James Higham, Griffith University

On the same day last week that Air New Zealand announced the purchase of its first fully electric aircraft, Christchurch Airport announced it had reached “a new standard for decarbonisation”. On the face of it, great news for reducing aviation emissions in Aotearoa.

The reality is a little more complex – and risky. As the climate warms, so too is the temperature in boardrooms and courtrooms. The aviation industry is under increasing scrutiny for its sustainability claims, and climate litigation is on the rise.

At the same time, “net zero” strategies in general are being challenged. The United Nations High-Level Expert Group was established at last year’s COP27 summit, as Secretary General António Guterres explained, because “net zero suffers from a surplus of confusion and a deficit of credibility”.

The expert group has put forward a set of net-zero guidelines to put a “red line through greenwashing”. The guidelines underpin the UN’s approach to net zero, which requires corporate entities to advance ambitious climate mitigation actions based on rigorous and comprehensive science-based targets.

Among other things, the targets must include emissions reductions from the entity’s full value chain and activities. These include emissions from sources the entity owns and controls directly (known as scope 1); emissions the entity causes indirectly (scope 2); and emissions not produced by the entity itself, but arising up and down its value chain (scope 3).

The expert group also notes that voluntary carbon credits (offsets) cannot be counted towards interim emissions reductions required on the pathway to Net Zero 2050. This is because carbon offsetting has been shown to be troublesome at best, and in many cases a scam.

Airlines in the firing line

Key players in the global aviation industry that make unsupportable claims have become targets for climate litigation.

A recent greenwashing complaint to the European Commission, for example, was filed by consumer groups in 19 countries against 17 airlines. Virgin Atlantic and British Airways are facing formal complaints filed by a climate charity and law firm over sustainable flight claims.

Advertisements for Air France, Lufthansa and Etihad have been banned in the UK for greenwashing, following complaints to the UK Advertising Standards Board that phrases such as “protecting the future”, “sustainable avitaion” and “low-emissions airline” are misleading consumers.

Delta faces a class action lawsuit for claiming to be “the first carbon neutral airline on a global basis” in a case brought by a California resident claiming the airline has grossly misrepresented its climate impact.

And KLM is being sued for greenwashing by law firm Client Earth, which successfully argued the Dutch airline’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign consitutes misleading advertising under EU law while KLM is growing its number of flights rather than reducing emissions. https://www.youtube.com/embed/09IW75K6Tu4?wmode=transparent&start=10

Long-haul growth versus decarbonisation

Cases like these raise questions about Air New Zealand’s “Flight NZ0” strategy and marketing, which focuses on sustainable aviation fuel and next-generation aircraft (including its recently bought electric Beta Alia), complemented by carbon offsetting and operational efficiency.

The focus on sustainable fuel will have to overcome significant scientific, energy, scalability and cost barriers. Solutions to these complex problems are likely to be decades away at least.

While Air New Zealand promotes the Beta Alia – with its inherent altitude, payload and range limitations – it also aims to significantly increase its long haul network, and is setting its sights on the “ultra long haul experience”.

The contradiction between long-haul growth and decarbonisation strategies is expressed in the airline’s own 2017 sustainability report, in which the sustainability advisory panel chair wrote:

And that’s the dilemma for anyone who cares passionately about addressing the multiple threats of climate change: either stop flying altogether (the logical but somewhat unworldly idealist’s position), or fly as little and as discriminatingly and responsibly as possible (the often uncomfortable pragmatist’s position).

As consumers and environmentalists focus more on the validity of climate claims and the viability of carbon reduction strategies, Air New Zealand may find it harder to defend its net zero pathway.

Airports on the radar

The environmental claims of other players in the wider aviation system – notably airports – are also likely to attract critical attention.

Airports Council International (ACI) is the global industry body for airports, with over 550 airports taking part in its Airport Carbon Accreditation program, including many in New Zealand (most recently Invercargill Airport).

Christchurch Airport has been in the program for longer, and makes significant climate claims. In April 2022, it announced “another world class sustainability achievement”, going “beyond carbon neutral, to become climate positive”.

But this doesn’t account for scope 3 emissions, mainly associated with flights in and out of the airport, which make up 95.39% of total emissions. Airports can only appear to be climate-neutral by not accounting for the high and growing emissions of the planes that are their core business.

Stakeholder reputations on the line

Key stakeholders are also exposed to any potential accusations of greenwashing. Christchurch City Council own 75% of the airport through a holding company, and the government owns 25%. Both have declared climate emergencies and made emissions reduction commitments.

Industry groups are involved, too. Tourism Industry Aotearoa, which represents businesses across the tourism industry, last month announced Christchurch Airport the winner of its Tourism Environment Award.

It cited the airport’s “climate positive” status and hailed it as being “at the forefront of airport environmental initiatives globally”. Such claims can be technically true if one accepts the limited parameters used to measure them.

But the Tourism Industry Aotearoa will need to ensure its environmental awards keep pace with developments in this rapidly changing field – including the increasing risk of litigation over unsustainable claims about sustainability.

James Higham, Professor of Tourism, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.