Should the aviation industry take more responsibility for its emissions? Of course, the answer is yes; yet – shockingly – a new report states that by 2040, aviation will have risen to be the UK’s highest-emitting economic sector.
And every five years, the UK Government’s Climate Change Commission (CCC) publishes a Carbon Budget. This is produced to give guidance to Government, to reach the UK’s Net Zero by 2050 targets. The 6th budget, produced in December 2020, covers the period 2033-2037. The report can be found here:- https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/ – intro
One of the key recommendations in this report, was that there should be no net expansion of UK airport capacity, unless the sector is on track to sufficiently outperform its net emissions trajectory and can accommodate the additional demand.
Meanwhile, this month, February 2025, the CCC published its 7th Carbon Budget, to cover 2038-2042.
The full report can be found here :- https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/ – intro, and sections 7 and 8 deal with aviation.
So what has changed over five years?
- The report states that in 2025, aviation is the 6th highest-emitting sector in the UK economy.
- By 2040, aviation will have risen to be the UK’s highest-emitting economic sector.
- By 2050, aviation will have achieved Net Zero, through the rollout of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), improved efficiencies, electrification of aeroplanes, managing growth in aviation demand, and paying for engineered removals to offset residual emissions.
The recommendation mentioned above on airport expansion has been removed, and replaced with these Key Messages:-
- The aviation sector needs to take responsibility for its emissions reaching Net Zero by 2050. The cost of decarbonising aviation and addressing non CO2 effects should be reflected in the cost to fly. This will help manage growth in aviation demand in line with Net Zero.
- Low-carbon aviation technologies are at an early stage of development and the balance between them is uncertain; multiple options should be pursued. Government may need to take additional demand management measures if aviation sector emissions are not developing in line with Net Zero.
- The CCC also convened a citizens’ panel to explore what an accessible, attractive and affordable vision of Net Zero looks like for households. Among other topics, the panel explored the acceptability and affordability of different policy options for managing aviation demand, and there was a broad acceptance of the need to manage future demand.
- Most saw flying as a choice rather than a necessity, particularly as many UK citizens do not fly often or at all. There was generally a preference to moderate the flying of those who fly frequently, business flights, and private jet use.
- Most felt it acceptable to increase ticket prices because of policy.
- The importance was emphasised, that the ability of families to fly on holiday once a year, should be protected, and that any policy should target the most polluting flights.
- The panel felt that responsibility for reducing aviation emissions should sit with the airline industry.
- The Government, or taxpayer-funded engineered removal concepts, were rejected, as they felt that those who do not fly should not face additional costs for any removal processes.
After discussions on a range of policy options to manage aviation demand, the following opinions arose:
- A frequent flyer levy, or an emissions or distance-based tax.
- There was less support for a policy for airlines to offset their emissions.
- A ban on frequent flyer/air miles rewards programmes.
- The panel were in favour of policy to limit airport expansions and capacity. They felt it was unfair to target an individual’s flight behaviour, whilst still allowing airports to expand.
- There were mixed opinions on the subject of restricting certain types of flights. This primarily involved the debate on short haul flights where rail travel was possible.
- There were more consensuses on actions on banning/taxing private jets, and luxury flying, though recognising this would impact a small share of aviation emissions.
- Greater details on these subjects can be found in section 7.6.1 of this report, along with options for managing aviation demand growth in section 7.6.2, and subsequent sections throughout the report.
We would suggest a word search on “aviation”, to find such sections quickly.
So, what are the key benefits we can see from this report?
Whilst there is concern that the direct opposition to airport expansion has been removed, we feel the new proposals, that aviation should fund all developments of new technologies to reduce emissions, is an able replacement. We think it has been clear that whilst airlines have made all the right noises about cutting emissions through new technologies, particularly sustainable aviation fuels, they have been less keen to fund these developments. Their shareholder dividends will always take preference over funding developments, so they are quite happy to continue to increase flights and raise emissions on current fossil fuels. Even if taxes were levied on airlines for emissions, they would pass them on to the passengers and then complain that those taxes are then reducing their load factors and were unfair.
As for airport expansions, any flight tax raises the possibility that the after-spending billions on expansions, these taxes could increase the time scale that those billions could be recovered!
If aircraft engine technology does not advance and emissions cannot be cut through them, airports could not only see a stop on growth of flights to reach Net Zero by 2050, but a reduction could well be required on current levels, which of course would also make expansion costs potentially unrecoverable.
As always, it will not be environmental considerations, and the health of wellbeing of the planet and all species that dwell on it that is the priority, but how airports and airlines can continue to make as much money for their shareholders as possible.