# Presentation: 924393

## Aviation, Growth and Environmental Policy Challenges--The Need to Reduce Emissions

- Susan M. Gander, Senior Policy Analyst
- Center for Clean Air Policy
- Presentation to:  NASA Environmental Compatibility Assessment Workshop - IV, Colorado Springs, CO
- August 12-23, 1999

## The Center for Clean Air Policy

- Environmental think-tank founded in 1985 by progressive state governors to help find a market-based approach to reducing acid rain
- Working to apply similar cost-effective approaches to reducing ozone, greenhouse gases, air toxics
- Active participant in climate negotiations; leading dialogue on greenhouse gas emissions trading; active in EPA/FAA process on aviation NOx reductions
- On-going effort to investigate policy measures for addressing aviation emissions

## Overview of Key Points

- Aviation impacts both local air quality and global climate
- Aviation emissions expected to grow considerably
- Technology improvements and additional policy options needed to address emissions growth

## Aviation Emissions are a Concern Locally, Globally

- Aviation emissions of NOx, VOC, air toxics are a concern for local air quality
- Aviation Emissions of CO2, NOx, H20, SOx and soot are a concern for global climate change

## Ozone Poses Serious Challenge to States, Localities

- Efforts to address ground-level ozone on-going since 1970’s, but problem persists
- 70 million people living in areas that exceed the federal ozone standard (1995)
- Stationary, mobile and area sources are all being squeezed to minimum emissions levels, but this still not enough to meet our clean air goals

**Notes:**
Nox is mjor precursor

linked to serious health impacts, expecially in children and lederly

also damages to forests and vegetation

## NOx Emissions from Aircraft Grew 111% in Past 25 years

## Aircraft’s Share of Total Regional NOx Emissions is Growing	1990 (Actual) and 2010 (Projected)

## Other Sources Asked to Make Significant NOx Reductions

- Ozone Transport Rule (1998)
- Calls for 28% cut in NOx -- 64% cut by utilities
- Non-road Diesel Engine Standards (1998)
- 46% cut in NOx by 2015
- Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines Standards (1997)
- Cuts allowable NOx emissions rate by 50%
- Locomotive Standards (1998)
- 45% reduction in NOx by 2015
- Small Engine Standards (1997/98)
- 32% reduction in NOx and VOCs by 2015

**Notes:**
 For example, under the 1999 Ozone Transport Rule (NOx SIP Call) utilities are expected to reduce their NOx emissions by up to 64 percent by 2003; 

the 1998 Non-road Diesel Engine Standards call for a 46% cut in NOx by 2015;

 the 1997 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Standards cut allowable NOx emissions rate by 50%;
 a 1998 locomotive standard calls for a 45% reduction in NOx by 2015; 
and new small engine standard call for a 32% reduction in NOx and VOCs by 2015. 

## Climate Change is the Leading Global Environmental Challenge

- Scientists worldwide agree there is a discernable human influence on global climate
- Projections for 2100 (IPCC):
- Average surface temp. will rise by about 2oC
- Average sea level will rise by about 50 cm.
- Will need a 50% to 70% GHG reduction from today’s levels to reach stabilization at 2X pre-industrial levels

## Climate Change Linked to Serious Environmental, Health Concerns

- Sea level rise, damages to coastal areas
- Changes in growing seasons and vegetation patterns
- Dramatic shifts in weather patterns
- Disease vectors

## Environmental Effects Carry Economic & Social Implications

- Loss of agricultural crops
- Loss of forest resources
- New threats to public health
- Impacts on water resources

## IPCC Report Predicts Growth in GHG Emissions

- Aircraft emissions increasing 3-fold
- (1992) .14 Gt Carbon, 2% anthropogenic
- (2050) .40 Gt Carbon, 3% anthropogenic
- .23 Gt to 1.5 Gt Carbon range of projections
- 1.6 to 10 times the 1992 value
- Aircraft radiative forcing growing 3.8 times
- (1992) .05 W/m2, 3.5% anthropogenic
- (2050) .19 W/m2, 5% anthropogenic
- .13 to .56 W/m2 range
- 2.6 to 11 times the 1992 value

## Projections of Global CO2 Emissions from Aviation

## The Kyoto Protocol

- Agreed to in December 1997 by 150+ countries
- “Developed” countries agreed to reduce GHG emissions 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012
- EU, other European countries reduce to 8% below
- US reduces to 7% below
- Russia and Ukraine stabilize at 1990 levels
- Australia, Iceland, Norway allowed to increase
- Six gases : CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6
- Details under development

## US Target Calls for 30%+ Cut from BAU Emissions

## Aviation Emissions Covered under the Kyoto Protocol 	

- Domestic emissions covered in country inventories
- International emissions covered under Article 2.2
- “The parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases ... from aviation ... bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization...

## Range of Options for Aviation Emissions Reductions

- Technology (e.g., fuel efficiency, NOx emission rates, APU “fuel switch”)
- but aircraft “fuel switching” not currently viable
- Operation (e.g., single engine taxiing, improved payload estimation)
- CNS/ATM (e.g., improved routing, optimal climb and descent)
*Technology improvements and gains in efficiency not enough to offset growth*

## Technology, Efficiency Gains not Enough to Offset Growth

- IPCC Special Report on Aviation:
*Although improvements in aircraft and engine technology and in the efficiency of the air traffic system will bring environmental benefits, these will not fully offset the effects of the increased emissions resulting from the projected growth in aviation.*

## Emissions Trading Offers Potential for Cost-Effective Reductions

- Trading among airlines
- Opt-ins for ground support equipment (GSE) -- that contribute as much as 30% of airport emissions
- Options for reductions in other sectors and other countries

## Kyoto Protocol Includes Several Flexibility Mechanisms

- “Emissions Bubbles” -- joint fulfilment of Annex I commitments
- Emissions Trading (transfer of “assigned amounts”)
- Annex I Joint Implementation (project-based)
- CDM (project-based credits sold by developing countries to Annex I parties; may start in 2000)

## Explanation of Trading

- Countries/companies are assigned emissions budgets
- Those with actual emissions < budget may sell credits not needed; those with actual emissions > budget must buy
- Reason that some buy, others sell:  Differences in cost

## Trading:  An Illustration

## Benefits of Trading

- Low costs
- Capital is directed to low-cost reduction opportunities; total cost is minimized
- Technological innovation
- Companies have a direct financial incentive to develop new technologies
- Environmental effectiveness
- Lower costs makes compliance easier
- Strong penalties for non-compliance

## Disadvantages of Trading

- Higher upfront administrative costs associated with getting a system up and running -- though overall costs are lower
- Greater potential for “gaming” than under “command and control” approaches.
- May not work for all areas or all pollutants because of “hot spots” -- though this doesn’t hold for global polutants such as CO2.

## Acid Rain SO2 Trading Program: US Success Story

- Cap of 8.95 million tons SO2 for utility sector with trading nation-wide
- 100% compliance
- Active trading market
- Cost of allowances = $200 per ton, compared to pre-implementation estimates of $2,000 per ton and more
- Minimum administrative costs

## More Examples of Trading Programs

- Trading of NOx allowances in OTC (US -- NOx
- British Petroleum’s internal GHG program (worldwide -- CO2), British Airways (under development)
- EPA’s banking and trading program during phaseout of lead from gasoline (US)
- Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot (GERT) and Pilot Emission Reduction Trading Pilot (PERT) programs (Canada -- CO2, SOx and NOx)
- Joint implementation under the UNFCCC (worldwide)
- Emission Reduction Market System (ERMS) (Chicago, IL -- VOCs -- to begin in FY 2000)

## Conclusions

- Growth in aviation emissions at odds with clean air and climate change goals
- Continued technology improvements are critical to addressing concerns
- Additional policy options also needed to address emissions growth
- Emissions trading offers cost-effective option for emissions reductions