The seven biggest European airline groups are failing to take sufficient measures to reduce their carbon emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement, according to a Greenpeace report published on Wednesday.
European airlines need to reduce air traffic by at least 2 per cent annually between now and 2040 to be in line with targets to keep global heating below 1.5 degrees. None of the companies analysed has annual reduction goals for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, has committed to reduce flights, or pledged to fully decarbonise by 2040.
Transport accounts for more than two-thirds of oil used in the European Union – and about a quarter of the flights in the EU currently runs on Russian oil.
“Airlines fail to present reliable and ambitious GHG emission reduction targets, credible plans on how to fully decarbonise, and rely on false or inefficient solutions for decarbonisation such as carbon offsets and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF),” it says.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
Airlines analysed were: Lufthansa Group; Air France-KLM, the International Airlines Group (IAG) – which includes Aer Lingus and BA – Ryanair, EasyJet, SAS and TAP Air Portugal.
Ryanair had the second-worst overall performance, behind TAP, taking into account climate and environmental, social and governance commitments – as well as incentives including dividends and lobbying.
[ Vanishing reservoir lakes herald America’s future water crisis ]
Herwig Schuster, spokesman for Greenpeace’s mobility for all campaign, said: “Europe’s biggest airlines are putting up a smokescreen of false solutions to distract from their staggering emissions, and keep transport in the EU hooked on oil.
“The EU cannot let the aviation industry get away with their greenwashing any more and must reduce air traffic, starting with a ban on short flights where reasonable train alternatives exist. Excessive oil consumption funds conflict and fuels the climate crisis; the aviation sector must play its part in bringing this to an end.”
The airlines – apart from TAP – claim to be aiming for “net-zero emissions” by 2050 but the report finds that none has annual emissions reduction goals.
Analysis by Observatorio de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa in Spain for Greenpeace finds that, despite bailing out the biggest European airlines with Covid supports worth more than €30 billion, European governments have failed to secure improvements on ecology, transparency and just working conditions in the sector.
It concludes European airlines are “highly non-transparent” about their lobbying activities, while only three out of the seven airlines analysed have linked remuneration of managers to the company’s climate performance. It is “still not seen as a relevant assessment criterion for managers working in Europe’s biggest airlines”.
“European airlines are failing to take sufficient action to combat their climate impacts. On average, European airlines score only 32 per cent on environmental responsibility and commitment. There is little to no substance to claims made by the airlines that they will cut emissions in the future,” it adds.
While six of the seven airline groups, including Ryanair and IAG, aim to become “carbon neutral” by 2050, none has backed long-term pledges with short-term and annual emission reduction targets, absolute emission reduction targets, or explicit and credible carbon reduction pathways, it says.
Carbon neutrality is a concept criticised by climate scientists as a “dangerous trap”, the report notes, based on the idea a polluter can continue to emit carbon and balance emissions out, instead of reducing one’s emissions, by paying someone else to hopefully save emissions in the future.
[ EPA report warns Ireland may not meet climate targets ]
In 2019, before Covid, the seven biggest European airlines were responsible for 170 million tonnes of emissions, equivalent to more than the total annual emissions of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland combined. Despite this, none of the seven airlines has pledged to bring down their emissions to “real zero”; only one has set any absolute reduction targets, with SAS aiming to reduce absolute emissions by 25 per cent by 2025 (compared to 2005).
Three out of seven have set short-term emissions reduction targets for the next five years. However, these only relate to a slight – less than 11 per cent – reduction of emissions per passenger-km “and not to an absolute reduction”.
Four out of seven European airlines have set emissions reduction and carbon efficiency targets for 2030, but most of them have only set targets for carbon efficiency, eg a reduction of emissions per passenger-km – which does not lead to absolute reductions in emissions if the number of flights increases, the report finds.
Only one out of seven airlines discloses whether they invest in development of renewable e-kerosene (synthetic kerosene made from renewable electricity and a carbon source); “it does not seem to be a major strategy by the airlines to bring emissions down”.
Five out of seven airlines use SAFs – new types of jet fuel mostly based on biomass. One airline has announced plans to start using them soon. However, SAF can be problematic and linked with environmental destruction, deforestation and food shortages – and therefore cannot be considered an adequate strategy to reduce airlines’ emissions, the report warns.
Three airlines have reported on their SAF, which in all cases is very low – only reaching 0.1 per cent of total annual jet fuel consumption at most. The International Energy Agency expects SAF will make up 19 per cent of airline fuels by 2040, meaning 81 per cent will still be fossil-fuel based kerosene. “This projected development of SAF is clearly not ambitious enough to bring aviation in line with the Paris agreement,” it finds.
