Commercial air travel is a pollution source that is very much in the public consciousness. As a result, environmental efforts that target air travel are widespread. In general terms, these can be direct e.g. strategies that reduce the amount of carbon emitted by aircraft or indirect e.g. strategies that offset emissions from air travel in other ways.
Green initiatives themselves can come from governments and/or from private enterprise. The commercial airline ‘Air New Zealand’ has illustrated a pitfall of the latter option.
Figure 1: Air New Zealand Boeing 777. [11]
Air New Zealand scraps emissions targets
Air New Zealand had adopted its own emissions reduction targets for the year 2030. However, these have now been scrapped. The reasons given by the airline itself included:
- Delays in building new aircraft.
- Not enough alternative fuels.
- Regulation policies.
This has led some campaign groups to conclude that the aviation industry cannot be trusted when it comes to green initiatives that reduce their own emissions. While a self-imposed target is, in principle, more prone to being spontaneously dropped due to a lack of associated punishment, the role of private industry in the fight against climate change should perhaps not be so readily discarded.
Is private industry too heartless to fight climate change?
Private industry is, generally, profit-driven. Even if this isn’t the only objective of a private enterprise, it is very likely to be one of them, and very likely to be near the top of the list. However, this does not automatically mean that private industry cannot be an ally when it comes to green initiatives. Reasons that private industry can, and does, make progress when it comes to climate change include:
- It can be profitable in its own right.
- It can de-risk a business in terms of energy security.
- Improved image/reputation among its customer base.
- Values held by the business and/or its owners.
In addition, private industry has some advantages over governments when it comes to setting targets. These include:
- They may be able to allocate a greater percentage of their budget to such targets.
- They can agree targets faster than governments can.
- They can set more ambitious targets than governments can, since governments very often have to compromise on the scale of targets to get them approved.
- Greater control over the processes that will deliver the targets.
- Leadership within a private company may change less often and less drastically than leadership of a country (or a collective of countries in the case of the EU).
Examples of private industry taking meaningful steps to reduce or offset emissions include the accelerated progress towards green targets by Munich Airport, the adoption of Sustainable Aviation Fuel by Vestas.
Smoke and mirrors from private industry
Industry does not have a clean record when it comes to emissions and climate change in general. The fossil fuel industry was found to have been aware of their damage to the climate in the 1950s and proceeded to mislead the public for decades thereafter.
More recently, scandals such as the emissions testing fiasco from Volkswagen in 2015 have also undermined public confidence in the green credentials of industry giants. Some have suggested that this problem of mis-reporting credentials is extremely widespread. This is part of the wider phenomenon known as ‘greenwashing’, in which an entity misleads the public around their level of environmental protection.
The power of government
Government’s also have some clear advantages in the arena of green targets that are unique to them. These include:
- Targets can be legally binding, which adds incentive to reach them.
- Government initiatives can be far more wide-reaching than targets from within industry itself.
- Government can, in theory, apply regulations across the board such that targets can be pursued while maintaining a level playing field.
- Governments can make agreements/pacts with each-other, further extending the reach of such initiatives.
- A louder voice – targets that are set by countries or groups of countries are reported around the world, a level of visibility that even industry giants cannot achieve in isolation.
Needless to say, government-enforced targets are not without problems. For one thing, government commitments are usually quite painful to reach and often fall short of what may be required. For another, governments can be voted out every 5 years or so (on average), leading to the potential for national and international targets to be scrapped. Perhaps the most high-profile example of this was President Trump’s decision to withdraw the USA out from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which happened in June of 2017. However, U-turns on government positions as it pertains to climate change are not unique to the USA nor are they particularly uncommon.
There is also the question of how efficiently governments can (or choose to) spend money. Industry leaders such as Elon Musk, who is not opposed to critiquing the government, have expressed significant concern over the government’s ability to realise green ambitions, stating that “the role of government should be that of, like, a referee. But not a player on the field. So generally, government should just try to get out of the way and not impede progress”. He has also expressed opposition to any level of subsidy for Electric Vehicles (or anything else).
The topic of special interest groups and their level of influence over governments is also a legitimate concern for climate change efforts, however it is not one that we will cover here. This author considers it fair to say that conceptually this issue is analogous to that of the patchy record of private industry as it pertains to climate change efforts, but it really is a topic in its own right.
No saviour
In reality, neither industry nor the government appear to be making fast enough progress against rising emissions. However, we should not fall into apathy around the issue. Both private and public initiatives have made varying degrees of progress, and public sentiment remains in favour of action against climate change in spite of numerous other crises, political upheavals and general distractions in our daily lives. This is shown objectively by survey data and subjectively by the continued focus on climate initiatives in public life, most recently the sustainability aspects of the Paris 2024 Olympics.
Perhaps the best we can do is continue to pay attention to the progress that is being made, and endeavour to hold ourselves and each other accountable when things look like they are going off track.
We would also do well to remember that environmental problems can be solved when enough people agree to take action. That is not just theory, we have done it before. In the 1970s, scientists discovered that our planet’s Ozone Layer was being depleted. The Montreal Protocol is a United Nations treaty that was adopted in 1987 with the purpose of reducing use of substances that cause this depletion. It was the first treaty in history to be ratified by all 197 countries in the UN. The size of the hole in the Ozone Layer decreased (after a period of lag) following adoption of this treaty and it is still decreasing now, due to the reduction in global consumption of ozone-depleting substances by approximately 98%. This is why some, including the European Commission of the European Union, consider it “the greatest environmental success story in the history of the United Nations”.
The Montreal Protocol remains perhaps the most definitive battle we have won against man-made climate change. And while we are arguably still losing the war, progress has been made in both our understanding of the problems and the technology of our solutions. Perhaps all we still need is some more sustained effort, which is worth trying to keep up.
Pager Power
Pager Power has been supporting the safe development of renewable energy and building developments for over 20 years. We have worked on projects of varying scales and types, most often around solar, wind, aviation and construction. If you would like more information or to discuss your own projects, please do get in touch.
References
[1] Symons, A and Graham-McLay, C (August 2024), ‘The Industry cannot be trusted to reduce their own emissions’: Airline drops 2030 climate target (link), Euronews, last accessed August 2024.
[2] Milman, O (January 2024), ‘Smoking gun proof’: fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger as early as 1954, documents show (link), The Guardian, last accessed August 2024.
[3] Hotten, R (December 2015), Volkswagen: The scandal explained (link), BBC, last accessed August 2024.
[4] Consultancy.eu (October 2021), Study finds that most companies are misreporting CO2 emissions (link), Consultancy.eu, last accessed August 2024
[5] United Nations (undated), Greenwashing – the deceptive tactics behind environmental claims (link), UN, last accessed August 2024.
[6] WSJ Staff (December 2021), Elon Musk on EV Subsidies, Corporate Titles and China: The Full Transcript (link), Wall Street Journal, last accessed August 2024.
[7] Ritchie, H (March 2024), ‘More people care about climate change than you think’, (link), Our World in Data, last accessed August 2024.
[8] United Nations (undated), About Montreal Protocol (link), UN Environment Programme, last accessed August 2024.
[9] Environmental Protection Agency (undated), International Actions – The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (link), EPA, last accessed August 2024.
[10] European Commission (undated), Overview (link), EC, last accessed August 2024.
[11] Aero Icarus (2011) from Wikimedia Commons. Last accessed on 6th August 2024. Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Air_New_Zealand_Boeing_777-300ER;_ZK-OKM@LAX;08.10.2011_620bl_(6298167529).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
