Drawing a downward sloping line on a piece of paper and crossing your fingers is not a “strategy”
This article was originally published on BusinessGreen
When is strategy not strategy? We found our answer earlier this week when the High Court upheld an NGO challenge to the government’s net zero strategy. The plan was supposed to pave the way for reducing our carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.But a judge has sent the government back to try again, citing the strategy’s fail Develop the policies needed to achieve emission reduction targets.But if the net zero strategy is flawed, yesterday’s ‘zero jet‘The future strategy of the airline industry is even worse.
Despite unprecedented temperatures in the UK, the day started like many others recently, with government press releases filled with misinformation. The title claims to be: “2019 will be remembered as the peak year for aviation emissions”. But the Jet Zero strategy doesn’t actually say that. It sets a target carbon (CO2) emissions will peak in 2019, but ignore non-carbon Gases like water vapor or aerosols, even in their own words, their “The net rate of warming could be around three times that of CO2”. These non-carbon gases really matter when you consider that underpinning the strategy is a forecast of 720,000 (+33%) more aircraft travel per year in the UK by 2050.
A more accurate title might be: ‘Government sanctions unlimited air travel growth and 2.5 gigatons of emissions”. The government forecasts that the aviation industry will emit around 837 million metric tons of CO2 from 2023 to 2050. When we apply the last step, the government inexcusably missed out and considered To non-CO2 emissions, this rises to the best estimate of 2.5 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions. Aviation emissions will increase by 50% by 2035, when overall economy-wide emissions should legally fall by 78%. By 2050 In 2009, when the wider economy should achieve net zero emissions, the aviation industry will have the same emissions as it did in 1990. To nail this square in a circular climate hole, the government did its part ‘Free card for getting out of prison: “This situation resulted in 19.3 MtCO2e [sic] Remaining emissions to be offset or eliminated in 2050”.
“A more accurate title might be: “Government Sanctions Unlimited Air Travel Growth and 2.5 Billion Tons of Emissions”.
So there you have it. Jet Zero completes impressive feat involving 62 people ‘policy commitments”, but none of them can actually ensure the decarbonization of the industry. Instead, the government is betting on being able to capture and store 20 to 30 million tons of carbon a year by 2030. Currently, the world’s largest carbon capture plant has been big trouble Only 0.02% of that amount. Believing that we’ll be able to expand it 6,250 times in just eight years seems like an extremely risky, expensive, and unnecessary gamble for our safety and our future. Not only that, but governments need to do something about non-CO2 gases if we are serious about deadly heatwaves, summer wildfires or flooded homes caused by climate collapse.
At its core, the Jet Zero strategy represents an abdication of responsibility. The events of the past few days tell us that we need to take serious action to eliminate dangerous fossil fuels as soon as possible. The government’s plan is trivial.hyped ‘Requirements for Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) – 10% of the jet fuel mix should be sustainable by 2030 – but that’s it. latest research Shows that SAF currently has almost as severe an environmental impact as conventional fossil fuels. Even in the government’s optimistic modelling, the impact of a modest shift to SAF is minimal: the government still expects aviation to produce more carbon emissions in 2030 than it did in 2016.
The Jet Zero lacks a simple and relatively painless emission control. All the government needs to do is to further expand air travel on the condition of actual emissions reductions.Such controls should target industry emissions trajectories that prioritize safety, applying ‘The precautionary principle stipulates Recent Environmental Principles Policy Statement. This means faster tightening of emissions in the short term with the lowest availability of technological solutions and the highest risk.Open to the industry show great confidence In terms of their ability to scale up emissions-reduction technologies, they may feel relaxed about the government holding them accountable in this way.
There are already policies in place to reduce emissions in the coming years – and these are popular with the public.the vast majority back Frequent flyer tax, which charges higher fares for frequent flyers.the public also support Airport expansion needs to be limited to reduce aviation’s climate impact. Given that business air travel had ground to a halt before the pandemic forced us to adapt to video calling, there is clearly limited business need to expand air travel beyond the airline industry itself.
Draw a downward slash on a piece of paper and cross your fingers not ‘strategy’. The heatwave damage we’ve seen this week shows us what it really is, an extremely dangerous and irresponsible act of unnecessary self-harm.
Image: Pixel
