International Aviation

Critically Insufficient4°C+
World
NDCs with this rating fall well outside of a country’s “fair share” range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would exceed 4°C. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming of greater than 4°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.
Highly insufficient< 4°C
World
NDCs with this rating fall outside of a country’s “fair share” range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3°C and 4°C. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming between 3°C and 4°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.
Insufficient< 3°C
World
NDCs with this rating are in the least stringent part of a country’s “fair share” range and not consistent with holding warming below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach over 2°C and up to 3°C. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with warming over 2°C and up to 3°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.
2°C Compatible< 2°C
World
NDCs with this rating are consistent with the 2009 Copenhagen 2°C goal and therefore fall within a country’s “fair share” range, but are not fully consistent with the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming could be held below, but not well below, 2°C and still be too high to be consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C limit. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with holding warming below, but not well below, 2°C if all other sectors were to follow the same approach.
1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible< 1.5°C
World
This rating indicates that a government’s NDCs in the most stringent part of its “fair share” range: it is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit. For sectors, the rating indicates that the target is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.
Role model<< 1.5°C
World
This rating indicates that a government’s NDC is more ambitious than what is considered a “fair” contribution: it is more than consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit. No “role model” rating has been developed for the sectors.

Overview

Although emissions in the aviation sector are more challenging to abate than in many other sectors, studies suggest it is possible for the sector to decarbonise by mid-century (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019) or in the second half of this century (Napp et al., 2019).

Abatement measures can broadly be categorised into four categories: demand management, operational measures, improving energy efficiency and the adoption of decarbonisation technologies.

Demand management

Demand management includes a modal shift to high-speed trains or reduced travel through, incentivised for example, by increased costs for airlines and passengers.

Modal Shift

Governments can introduce policies to reduce the need for aviation, such as supporting a modal shift from short-haul flights to high-speed rail by making substantial financial investments in rail infrastructure (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019). They could implement regulations to reduce the number of airport slots, which are time slots during which an aircraft from a specific operator may land and take off from an airport.

It must be noted, however, short-haul flights are responsible for a small share of total aviation emissions, so a modal shift should be seen as a complementary rather than a crucial mitigation measure (Graver, Zhang and Rutherford, 2019).

Levies & taxes

Governments can reduce passenger demand for aviation by increasing the costs of flight tickets through taxes and fees, such as fuel taxes and ticket taxes. Although various countries tax jet fuel on domestic flights (Larsson et al., 2019), there are few examples of a jet fuel tax for international flights. The US has a federal tax rate of USD 0.01 per litre, but international air carriers may be exempted if agreed in bilateral Air Service Agreements (CE Delft, 2019). Although it is unlikely that countries will agree on a global tax on kerosene (Larsson et al., 2019), states may enter into bilateral agreements to tax kerosene on flights between their airports. For example, within the European Union, Member States could agree to tax jet fuel on all flight within the EU. Indeed, a number of EU Member States have called on the European Commission to “bring the debate on aviation pricing, e.g.in the form of aviation taxation” (Netherlands et al., 2019).

A number of countries, including Australia, France, Germany, South Africa and the United Kingdom, have implemented a ticket tax (Faber and Huigen, 2018). A study by CE Delft (2019) found that in most EU Member States, a 10% increase in ticket prices would result in a 9-11% reduction in demand and a similar reduction in the number of flights.

Operational measures

Operational measures include improved air traffic management (ATM), such as optimising routing, air traffic flow management and minimising flight distances. National governments should collaborate with airports and air navigation service providers to improve existing ATM infrastructure.

Research indicates that regional air traffic management, such as under the Single European Sky framework, could save approximately 5% of CO2 by 2050 below business as usual (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019). In addition to reducing carbon emissions, operational measures also have the potential of reducing the non-CO2 emissions from aviation. For instance, optimised routing can lead to a relatively large reduction in contrail formation and NOX emissions (Grewe et al., 2017).

According to the Energy Transitions Commission (2019), a combination of operational and demand management measures could reduce 2050 CO2 emissions by 15% compared to a (pre-COVID) business as usual scenario.

Energy efficiency

Improved energy efficiency, includes, for instance, improving thermodynamic efficiency of new engines and improved aircraft design. Engines of the current fleet have an average motor thermodynamic efficiency of approximately 50%. Estimates suggest this could be improved to 65-70%, depending on the development of new materials, design and component technologies (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2016). Further energy efficiency improvements can be achieved through technologies like blended wing bodies and revolutionary changes in the positioning of fuel tanks, which would enable hydrogen-fuelled planes (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019).

National governments can invest public expenditure to support R&D focusing on improvements of airframe and engine efficiency (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019). Further, governments should set high efficiency standards for existing aircrafts, which would accelerate fleet turnover (Rutherford, 2020).

Decarbonisation technologies

Decarbonisation technologies include synthetic power-to-liquid fuels, hydrogen, electric batteries and biofuels. Of these technologies, power-to-liquid synthetic fuels offer the largest abatement potential (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019; Searle et al., 2019). These have the advantage that the sector could continue to use the existing infrastructure, vehicles and engines, which allows a more gradual transition to alternative fuels (Scheelhaase, Maertens and Grimme, 2019). Power-to-liquid fuels are, however, currently extremely expensive, which represents a challenge to wide scale deployment (Scheelhaase, Maertens and Grimme, 2019; Searle et al., 2019).

Electric batteries are not expected to be feasible at scale by mid-century, except for short-haul flights (Hall, Pavlenko and Lutsey, 2018). Researchers expect biofuels to play an important role in decarbonising aviation from 2020 onwards (Napp et al., 2019) and biofuels will likely be approved as ‘CORSIA eligible fuels’. However, supply is limited and other sectors also expect to replace fossil fuels with bioenergy (Searle et al., 2019).

Of the four abatement categories, decarbonisation technologies offer the greatest mitigation potential and could reduce 2050 CO2 emissions by 50% compared to 2005 to 100% compared to a current practice scenario (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019; Napp et al., 2019). They also can help reduce non-CO2 emissions and impacts from aviation. For example, researchers found that soot emissions – and consequently contrail cirrus formation – can be reduced by switching to alternative fuels (Burkhardt, Bock and Bier, 2018)

To realise the mitigation potential from alternative fuels and electric batteries, it is crucial that national governments play an active role and, among others, set sustainable fuel quota for aviation (Larsson et al., 2019), as well as establish clear sustainability criteria that such fuels should meet. Governments could also provide financial support, such as grants and loan guarantees, to lower financial risks for biofuel refinery project investments and use public expenditure to support R&D of alternative fuels (Energy Transitions Commission, 2019; Feuvre, 2019).

Latest publications

Stay informed

Subscribe to our newsletter