Is downscaling necessary for a sustainable aviation industry?
Continuous expansion of production and consumption across all sectors of our economy has resulted in the spoiling and destruction of large parts of nature. This trend has also characterised the development of the aviation industry, taking the shape of continuously increasing passenger numbers and multiple expansions of infrastructure throughout the value chain. Today’s world is highly interconnected thanks to global flying routes, but the COVID-19 pandemic has put a stop to this trend, with the virus spreading rapidly and unnoticed via the busy international transport connections.
As a result, air traffic has experienced an unprecedented fall in demand worldwide due to international restrictions on travelling and the ensuing economic crisis followed by the spread of the virus. In 2020, passenger numbers plummeted by 60,5% compared to the previous year. The ongoing global pandemic has shaken the whole sector - not just the airlines, but also the whole value chain from aircraft manufacturers to airports. For an industry with structurally high fixed operational costs, leaving the aircrafts on the ground interrupts the cashflow for many of the parties involved. As a result, industry operators have been in breach of bankruptcy.
Our governments have responded by mobilising unprecedented financial support, worth US$159 billion across 57 countries to rescue these operators. This financial support has taken the form of loans, loan guarantees, wage subsidies and equity injections. These aid packages have understandably raised concerns about distorting competition in the industry and the efficient use of public resources. Surprisingly, many of these support packages neglected the crisis many people all around the world are already experiencing: climate change. In other words, they were designed without any environmental condition attached, such as emission reduction targets.
“Surprisingly, many of these support packages neglected the crisis many people all around the world are already experiencing: climate change”
There were some exceptions, such as the aid package for Air France. Despite its good intentions, however, this package failed to include legally-binding conditions for the airline. As an example, one environmental string attached to the agreement concerned a target of reducing 50% of emissions from domestic flights by 2024. However, no comparison year was set for this target, and the measures for promoting rail travel were left open. While this aid package could have been a great example of COVID recovery efforts aligned with sustainability goals in the aviation industry, it failed to be convincingly so.
Why air travel needed to be saved?
Historically, policymakers have shown the tendency to re-stabilise incumbent industries instead of using the momentum for sustainable transformation. A financial–economic crisis, in fact, can diminish public, political and business attention towards environmental issues. Even in this latest occasion, governmental actors have prioritised ensuring essential connectivity to and from their countries during the pandemic and protecting the millions of jobs the industry supports. Providing financial support also indirectly supports travel-sensitive sectors of the economy—such as tourism—that can enable a speedy rebound in the post COVID-19 recovery phase.
Intuitively, there seems to be a controversy between national climate targets and subsidising and saving an industry that represents the most energy-intensive mode of transportation. Indeed, the high capital costs of airlines and airports make the survival of several industry actors questionable in the short-term. For instance, the typical airline has cash reserves to cover only about two months of revenue loss. Therefore, for airlines it is crucial to have planes full of paying customers continuously in the air. This is the essence of how their business model works.
“There seems to be a controversy between national climate targets and subsiding and saving an industry that represents the most energy-intensive mode of transportation”
However, it must be pointed out the existence of another possibility instead of trying to return to the business-as-usual scenario within the next four years. The global pandemic could provide an opportunity for something new to emerge. Could this abrupt event be used to harness disruption to accelerate the decline of carbon-intensive activities? Currently, for instance, we are witnessing the revival of long-distance trains and night train connections in Europe. When flying, the goal is to reach the destination point as rapidly as possible. Instead, with trains, the travelling itself is transformed into an experience. Leveraging this experiential component, the global pandemic might offer a chance to bring the aviation industry out of its unsustainable path.
The storyline of a growth economy
Air passenger numbers and emissions have been growing steadily in recent decades. Between 1990 and 2014, the volume of European flights and their CO2 emissions increased by 80%. As a whole, aviation accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions and long-term forecasts indicate that air traffic is expected to continue increasing. This figure leaves out non-carbon emissions, which include all the other air pollutants. In a recent study, the aviation industry non-CO2 impact was estimated to be at least as important as that of carbon dioxide alone (EASA, 2020), doubling the sector’s overall climate impact. Interestingly, the aviation industry was left out of the Paris Agreement—alongside with the shipping industry—because they were seen as minor emitter sectors. This happened despite the fact that air travel has been the fastest-growing fossil fuel intensive transportation sector.
When passenger numbers grow, they also increase the demand for aviation related facilities and services. For example, international airports can act as major hubs for business activities and their commercial offer—such as shops and restaurants—can attract more passengers. In addition to their core business, operations such as ground transport activities, airport terminal activities and parking increase alongside with passenger numbers. Evidently, when the aviation sector grows, it is coupled by local and global environmental impact. This tendency of responding to an endless demand is not sustainable nor acceptable while living in a planetary environmental emergency.
The aviation business is deeply intertwined with economic activity and the tourism sector. This becomes clear when studying air transport development policies that have a tendency to focus on ensuring domestic and international air travel connectivity. This is the case because the number and frequency of flights is firmly correlated with economic growth. While desire for this kind of economic development is often dictating public and private decision-making, the desire for continuous economic growth is not compatible with the health of our planet and the human species.
Downscaling is inevitable
Due to the fact that aviation is intertwined with other sectors, it is necessary that the chosen sustainability measures embed a multi-stakeholder approach, including actors from all relevant sectors. Added control and regulation have also a role to play in the form of stick-and-carrot prompting for change. As changes in one sector will affect the others, the cross-sectoral impacts of sustainability measures should be considered.
The industry’s current responses to climate change have centred around market-based measures, futuristic technological fixes, participation in emission trading scheme (within the EU) and the promise of a carbon-neutral sectoral growth from 2020. The IPCC has estimated that all these activities are to be outstripped by growth in the sector. Therefore, these approaches can be described as tweaks in the aviation industry, merely treating the symptoms, leaving untouched the source of the problem.
For instance, the projected strong growth of air traffic and the achievement of carbon neutrality of growth through compensation should come under scrutiny while we have climate targets to meet. Compensation does not address emissions directly linked to aviation; it allows operating in the same way, while compensating emissions linked to some other activity, sector or location. But the core of the problem is the growth of a carbon-intensive transportation sector, and this is the fact that should be addressed.
“The core of the problem is the growth of a carbon-intensive transportation sector, and this is the fact that should be addressed”
Based on these premises, it is clear that there is a need for downscaling environmental degrading activities so that climate targets can be reached. We need to tackle their growth, while steering demand towards greener solutions. Intuitively, these types of actions could mean taking away achieved status and wealth, being politically unpopular. Regardless of their unpopularity, however, the chosen responses to climate change need to be large-scale and rapid.
Therefore, my research is focused on the socio-technical systems of the aviation industry, where I will be creating different transition paths for the industry. One such path is represented by the downscaling of production and consumption of aviation related services, which I believe is required to contain the sector’s rising emissions.
By Minna Käyrä
January 2021
Bibliography
Geels, F., W., (2013). The Impact of the Financial–Economic Crisis on Sustainability Transitions: Financial Investment, Governance and Public Discourse. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 6, 67–95.
IATA (2020a). Deep Losses Continue Into 2021.
IATA, (2020b). Recovery Delayed as International Travel Remains Locked Down.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2016). On board sustainable future. Environmental Report 2016. [online].
The Finnish Environment Institute (2019). Lentomatkustuksen päästöt. [Emissions of air travel].
Transport and Environment (2020). Air France's bailout 'climate conditions' explained.