As with all airlines that serve the European markets, we had started our EU ETS monitoring and reporting activities for the whole of this calendar year. As I type this we are finalising the legal and commercial arrangements with a vendor on the verification process- a process / exercise that is mandatory for the EU ETS compliance.

Disappointingly, our Green Office program has not been running as smoothly as we had hoped. There were stop-start activities- some folks have seriously taken this on board, but most have been busy with the airline’s main focus, sidelining this “secondary activity” to pursue company objectives. We did have one building-wide “spring clean” exercise in our own office, where at least on a local level we are now aware of how much paper products we use and dispose. We are looking at having this as a recurrent activity, as well as for other buildings to do the same.

Our Voluntary Carbon Offset program has gained another corporate client- Khazanah Nasional Berhad, who joined our program with a donation. Thank you ladies for supporting our initiative

And on this note, we will be having a tree-planting event in January 2011 together with FRIM and the Pahang State Government, to assist in their redevelopment of the Pekan peat swamps.

On November 11th we jointly conducted the Airport and airline on sustainability seminar, where we shared similar and different challenges and approaches in dealing with climate change in the industry, and where we also learned about our guest speaker’s Deep Green program. I would very much like to see this become a series of events, with Malaysia Airports again, on similar topics, but with expanded scope and depth. Aviation and climate change is an interesting combination of topics internationally, even more so for the locals perspective.

Moving forward we will be further pursuing the sustainability agenda for the airline. A lot of 2010 was spent creating the awareness and educating the internal folks and management about this topic and how the airline would benefit with green initiatives. We have been engaging the higher management with this topic, both from a CSR as well as a brand-positioning perspective. 2011 will be the year when this becomes an internal policy, where we will also be pushing for more employee engagement activities to support this slow but steady cultural change.

On that note Malaysia Airlines will also therefore start to formally report on its sustainability efforts. This will include formalising this as a policy, increase internal adoption at the corporate level, conduct activities where we will measure and set targets for our (reduced) carbon footprint, increase our Green Office and 3R programs to include onboard activities, social responsibility activities, and have fun at the same time

The notable / relevant-to-us points (quotes from) this article are:

• Before the annual emissions and tonne-kilometre data reports can be submitted they must first be audited by an independent and approved verification body.
• However, the process and regulation of appointing verifiers specifically for the Aviation EU ETS is far from uniform across Europe and has the potential to lead to a situation of too few approved verifiers handling the audits of too many of the 4,000-odd operators in a short space of time.
• The verifiers themselves must first be accredited by the relevant accreditation body in the EU state they are seeking to operate before they can be approved by the respective Competent Authority (CA).

By the way, Malaysia Airline reports to the UK state.

• .. Although there are lists of verifiers released by each body, they may only be accredited to perform fixed installation EU ETS audits and not Aviation EU ETS audits.

And most relevant / impacting to our operations is this point:

• The CAs of France, Germany and the UK have yet to publish lists of aviation-specific accredited verifiers and it is therefore up to aircraft operators to select and check the status of potential verification bodies. Many of the bigger airlines will have already started, or even completed, a tendering process and are likely to choose the larger, international auditing companies.

Malaysia Airlines will be starting its own request for quotations too, this month, for this verification process. While we may be “working in the dark” in that there is still no list of definite approved verifiers, we will have to carefully look into the profiles of the potential verifiers we are considering.

They have designed a range of new engines called PurePower, which saves fuel by being lighter, more fuel efficient, quieter, and cleaner emissions.

More details to follow; just wanted to share some of the photos from our visit to Pratt and Whitney the engine manufacturer; as one of the people and places on the program’s agenda.

The team briefed on the engines

What about the effect on the environment?

Late last week I saw a comment left by a reader on a news article about the volcano, citing that grounding planes would therefore have an indirect benefit to the environment because of there would be no carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Immediately I thought “What about the plumes?”

I did some research which I am sharing below. The source is wikipedia.

With the massive reduction of air travel occurring over European skies, an estimated 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than the annual emissions of many developing countries, has been saved from entering the atmosphere as a result of the cancelled flights across Europe; however, no calculations have yet taken into account the massive amount of carbon dioxide released by the volcanic ash cloud itself. [119]

Residents of West London under the Heathrow Airport flight path have described the peace as ‘bliss’. John Stewart of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise said they had been inundated with emails and phone calls and said “The message is that this is what life should be like. The peace and quiet is absolutely wonderful.” Christine Shilling, of the No Third Runway Action Group, who lives in nearby Harmondsworth, said: “I’ve lived here more than 40 years and I’ve never known such peace.”[120] Jenny Tonge, president of HACAN Clearskies, life peer and former Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park in London said “Dare we hope that it will finally lay the Third Runway at Heathrow to rest and concentrate government minds on more environmentally friendly and sustainable forms of transport?”[121][122]

No doubt there has been a reduction or temporary cessation of emissions (until flights are allowed into that airspace again), but the plumes from the eruption may actually be quite damaging as well, in more ways than one.

When ash begins to fall during daylight hours, the sky turns hazy and a pale yellow color. The ashfall may become so dense that daylight turns the sky gray to pitch black, with the ash severely restricting visibility and deadening sound. A darkened ash sky lowers temperatures during daylight hours from what would otherwise be expected. Loud thunder and lightning as well as the strong smell of sulfur accompany an ashfall.[11] If rain accompanies an ashfall, the tiny particles turn into a slurry of slippery mud. Rain and lightning combined with ash can lead to power outages, breakdowns of communication, and disorientation.[12]

Very fine ash particles can remain high in the atmosphere for many years, spread around the world by high-altitude winds. This suspended material contributes to spectacular sunsets, as well as an optical phenomenon known as “Bishop’s Ring“, which refers to a corona or halo effect around the sun.[13] High levels of ash high in the atmosphere causes climate change by cooling the globe for a few years following major eruptions. The last episode of ash-induced global cooling followed the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991.[14] The most documented case in recorded history of this phenomenon followed the epic eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, which led to the year without summer in 1816.[15]

Hong Kong sunset c. 1992 after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Rainbow and volcanic ash with sulfur dioxide emissions from Halema`uma`u vent

Volcanic ash dunes near Tarvurvur Crater, Rabaul caldera

River eroding volcanic ash flow Alaska Southwest, Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes

Undoubtedly, the airline industry does have a part in overall emissions. But by last official statistics, airlines only contribute 2-3% of the overall emissions, when we take into consideration industries like power generation (coal plants), transport industry such as trucking, etc.

You may also be interested in reading “Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption”

John Low
MAS Environment Dept

Optimisation is the key factor in planning for an airline’s network: where to fly to, which planes to use, how often, and even what time of day to leave and/or arrive. And then there’s the aspect of “distressed inventory”- seats “expire” when the flight takes off. If a seat on that flight is not sold, it is a loss to the company because it can never be sold ever again. So, marketing efforts ultimately are to fill up the seats before the date and time of the scheduled departure.

With fuel being the one biggest cost in an airline’s operations, airlines are also looking into ways to reduce fuel use. Minimising the turnaround time (quickly get the plane flying again after landing), finding the best flight path to the destination, finding the best approach when landing (gradual descend while approaching instead of “braking” to slow down approach). Airplane manufacturers have also been making advances in both airplane technologies and engines to reduce fuel burn during flights.

Having an understanding of these characteristics of the aviation industry, it is a real challenge to balance the need to be environmentally conscious and responsible, whilst trying to “survive” as an airline in these difficult economic times and increased competition.

This article reproduced below updates the recently decided direction for the aviation sector in terms of carbon emission limits for the coming years.

ICAO High-Level Meeting fails in setting real targets to reduce net international aviation carbon emissions

Mon 12 Oct 2009 – Air transport representatives from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Contracting States have effectively given the green light to the international aviation industry to continue its net growth in CO2 emissions. This is the outcome of the High-Level Meeting (HLM) that ended on Friday in Montreal, called to review a Programme of Action on international aviation and climate change and provide recommendations to the COP 15 climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. The HLM managed a last-minute concession by some major developing States to extend the short term annual 2 percent fuel efficiency aspirational goal, previously agreed by ICAO’s GIACC group, to an annual improvement target to 2020, with a similar aspirational goal from 2021 to 2050.

Over the past 40 years, as noted in the Declaration issued at the meeting’s conclusion, improvements in fuel efficiency have resulted in aircraft today that are 70% more fuel efficient per passenger kilometre, so the 2% global fuel efficiency target (expressed in volume of fuel used per revenue tonne km performed) is little more than ‘business as usual’ given added anticipated efficiency air traffic management improvements in Europe and the United States together with a contribution from biofuels in the longer term. With an historic average global growth in passenger kilometres of around 5%, which is forecasted to continue well into the future, the HLM has failed to address the central dilemma of how to curb a net growth in aviation carbon emissions.

In a concession to developed countries pushing for meaningful reduction targets, the Declaration recognized the 2% goal “is unlikely to deliver the level of reduction necessary to stabilize and then reduce aviation’s absolute emissions contribution to climate change, and that goals or more ambition will need to be considered to deliver a sustainable path for aviation.”

Although the Declaration and its recommendations have to be passed by the ICAO Council, there is unlikely to be any further changes or movement within the ICAO process before Copenhagen and the issue is not due for further consideration by ICAO States until the next ICAO Assembly in September 2010.

Although there will be no surprise at the outcome, it falls well short of the aviation industry’s own call for a commitment for a global sectoral approach under which aircraft emissions would stabilize from 2020 with carbon-neutral growth and a 50% net reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 compared to 2005, achieved with a resorting to market-based measures such as carbon trading.

The Declaration says that ICAO will establish a process to develop a framework for market-based measures in international aviation, taking into account the conclusions of the HLM and the outcome of COP 15.

With the EU and other developed countries unlikely to be sufficiently impressed with the ICAO Declaration, a ‘patchwork’ of possible levies and national and regional cap-and-trade schemes such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme – feared by airlines – remains a firm probability.

However, as a result of an acknowledgement in the Declaration of the industry position and that ICAO should undertake further work on medium and long term goals put forward by the industry, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which has been lobbying hard on the issue, put a brave face on the result of the Montreal meeting, describing it as a “step in the right direction” and “significant progress”.

“We took a step in the right direction, towards a global sectoral approach, but there is still a lot of ground to cover,” commented IATA’s Director General and CEO Giovanni Bisignani, who attended the HLM. “As a united industry, we remain committed to the ambitious environmental targets that we brought to this meeting. Governments took note of our targets and recognized the need to work with industry to secure a sustainable future for aviation. This is significant progress.”

Although ICAO Contracting States failed to agree on the mid and long term targets that the industry was prepared to commit to, the 2% fuel efficiency improvement is more ambitious than the industry’s 1.5% proposal. However, the industry will expect the extra efficiency gain to come from added government commitment, rather than its own financial resources.

“Setting such a target comes with responsibility,” said Bisignani. “We can fly the plane efficiently, but governments must deliver improvements in air traffic management – NextGen in the US for example. Governments must back their target with infrastructure investments to make it achievable. Governments must also accelerate the development of the legal and fiscal frameworks to support the use of sustainable biofuels.”

The failure of an ICAO agreement on net reductions in international aviation emissions has been largely blamed on major developing countries – led by China – not wishing to step outside the Kyoto common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) principle ahead of the negotiations towards Copenhagen. China’s President recently announced his country’s plans for a carbon intensity goal, which would lead to greener growth but not guarantee an overall fall in emissions.

China played a leading role in the Chairman’s group that was responsible for drawing up the Declaration. Its position during the ICAO HLM process was largely against any movement on the short-term aspirational goals agreed by GIACC, conceding only at the last minute on the medium-term efficiency target and longer term aspirational goal.

In a late HLM paper submitted by Nigeria, African countries said they were opposed to unilateral action on market-based/economic measures by states and regions across national borders. They re-affirmed Africa’s belief in ICAO’s leadership on aviation emissions, but also considered that the CBDR principle should be applied in ICAO’s ongoing efforts.

Under the HLM Declaration, the agreed fuel efficiency improvements or other aspirational emission reduction goals would not attribute specific obligations to individual States. “The different circumstances, respective capabilities and contribution of developing and developed States to the concentration of aviation GHG emissions in the atmosphere will determine how each State may contribute to achieving the global aspirational goals,” it says.

In order to monitor progress towards reaching the targets, States are being “encouraged” to submit their action plans, outlining their respective policies and actions, and annual reporting on international aviation CO2 emissions to ICAO.

In its recommendations, the HLM calls on the ICAO Council to work expeditiously together with industry on developing and implementing more efficient aircraft technologies and sustainable alternative aviation fuels, as well as develop a global CO2 standard for new aircraft types.

The Chairman of the HLM was Yap Ong Heng, Director-General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, and Valery Okulov, Deputy Minister of Transport of the Russian Federation served as Vice-Chairman.

A short news release issued by ICAO said ICAO Member States, representing 93% of all commercial air traffic, affirmed their commitment to address aviation emissions that contribute to climate change by working through ICAO.

ICAO Council President Roberto Kobeh González stated that “the nations of the world that represent the vast majority of international civil aviation traffic have spoken and their commitment is clear.”

General sentiment is that while on the surface it appears logical that respective nations’ governments should be imposing their own policies on carbon emissions, since the nature and operations of the aviation sector is cross-border, requiring individual airline companies to comply with respective carbon policies of the countries to which they fly creates a whole myriad of complexities in terms of regulations, taxes, and maybe even carbon prices.

Below is the reproduction of a recent article update on the conference from GreenAirOnline. It summarises the united front of the sector in preparation of the Copenhagen summit in Dec 2009, calling for the global policy makers to consider a holistic single approach for the aviation industry, instead of leaving it to individual nations and their respective, and potentially differing, policies for a global sector such as the aviation sector.

John Low
Malaysia Airlines

Airline chief warns governments not to squander opportunity for a global sectoral solution for aviation

Thu 8 Oct 2009 – Ahead of the ICAO High Level Meeting in Montreal and the Copenhagen climate summit, airline leaders from the Asia-Pacific region meeting this week at the Greener Skies 2009 conference called for governments to back the industry’s global sectoral approach towards tackling aviation emissions. Tony Tyler, CEO of Cathay Pacific and Chairman of the IATA Board of Governors, said it was vital not to squander this chance to integrate international aviation into a global, well-designed solution to the climate change challenge.

“Our industry is in a chronic state of fragility and vulnerable to economic and other shocks. It is against this gloomy backdrop that we face a fierce battle on the environment front,” he said. “We continue to be strongly criticized by the environmental lobby, who wrongly charge aviation with being the ‘bogey man’ of climate change. There appears to be some on the more radical fringe who seem intent on stopping people flying altogether. Well, try telling that to the emerging middle classes of China and India.

“We also face more pressing and complex regulations from government policy-makers who seek to see aviation as a ‘cash cow’ for much-needed revenues so that they themselves can cope with the global downturn.”

He said the industry was facing up to its environmental responsibilities, adding: “We are doing something about it now and we are committed to doing even more in the future. This really is a landmark year for the industry and with Copenhagen in December, we have a unique opportunity to demonstrate the aviation industry is serious about reducing its carbon footprint. Copenhagen provides us with a platform to spell this out, but will it provide the panacea that we and the rest of the world are hoping for, or will it be another false dawn in finding a solution to the challenge of reducing emissions in a post-Kyoto world?”

He said the aviation industry was calling for its emissions to be included under a fair, pragmatic and environmentally effective global policy solution that was enforceable and easy to implement. Any scheme, he maintained, must allow for the sustainable growth of the industry and balance the urgent need to address climate change against aviation’s significant socio-economic contribution.

“This is the industry’s wish list – but achieving these goals won’t be easy,” he said. “Aviation is clearly caught up in a complex, high stakes geopolitical game and it remains to be seen what emerges from Copenhagen.

“While the industry would most like to see a landmark agreement for a global sectoral approach for tackling emissions, other less desirable outcomes are possible. The nightmare scenario is a ‘quick fix’: having failed to deliver something meaningful at Copenhagen, the parties agree that a global adaptation levy represents an easy way to deal with the aviation emissions problem. This would seek to squeeze yet more dollars from a beleaguered industry but do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

“A third scenario represents nothing at all being achieved. This could pave the way for nation states imposing their own emissions targets on aviation and lead to the emergence of more regional trading schemes and taxes aimed at driving down emissions. The result – a patchwork of overlapping taxes and charges – would add considerable cost and complexity to an already struggling industry, and would inevitably lead to the travelling public, or taxpayers, shouldering some of the burden.

“For all our sakes, it is vital that we capitalize on the opportunity that Copenhagen presents. The international airline industry is calling on politicians and heads of state not to squander this chance to integrate international aviation into a truly global, well-designed solution to the climate change challenge.”

Other airline CEOs from the Asia-Pacific region, including Chew Choon Seng of Singapore Airlines and Emirsyah Satar of Garuda Indonesia, lined up during the conference, organized by Orient Aviation magazine, to join the call for a global solution for tackling aviation emissions post-Kyoto.

Rob Fyfe, CEO of Air New Zealand, however, attacked the climate change debates over emissions targets as being “interminable” and “a travesty” as there had been a failure to take even the basic steps, he said, to reduce actual emissions and they were a distraction from the more important focus of taking action.

“To my mind, the UN climate change discussions amplify all that is wrong with global politics. Whether under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, ICAO or elsewhere – it’s the same procrastination; multiple conferences of many thousands; and turgid presentations and inequitable, albeit politically acceptable, backroom deals determining the shape of unwieldy global agreements at a glacial pace.

“From our small country alone, hundreds of long-haul hour sectors will have been flown this calendar year by government officials to take part in UN climate-related talks. Frankly, I would rather forgo the revenue we get from this bureaucratic circus.”

“I am very happy to see a price on carbon – it should be applied equitably across geographies; uniformly across all industry sectors; and it should incentivize improvement and investment in new green technologies rather than simply penalize all activity.

“I look forward to the day when we all stop protecting our respective butts in the endless policy debates and start focusing, globally, on concerted action. Just imagine what we could achieve if a tenth of the global bank bailout funds from the past 12 months were directed towards the environment instead.”

Fyfe said prioritizing emissions reductions for his airline was a “no brainer”.

“First, there is the direct link between burning fuel and greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel is our largest cost. For an airline that made a normalized profit of NZ$143 million ($105m) in our last financial year, our fuel bill was NZ$1.7 billion ($1.25bn). We have an enormous financial incentive to reduce our fuel consumption and therefore our carbon emissions,” he explained.

“Secondly, New Zealand is one of the most pristine, youngest and least spoilt environments in the world. Food production and tourism are the foundation of our economy and both are dependent on sound environmental management and maintaining our country’s environmental credibility so we can continue justifiably to market ourselves as 100% Pure New Zealand.

“And third, our airline is a large employer in our small country and is an integral part of our country’s economy. Consideration for future generations comes naturally in this context.

“These are the reasons why, at Air New Zealand, we spend only a small fraction of our time on the interminable climate change policy debates and instead we invest our efforts into actions that are making material differences in terms of the environment.”

He said he had challenged his team to position Air New Zealand as the most environmentally responsible airline on the planet. Initiatives had been identified that could make the biggest contribution in reaching that goal, he said, and its approach was constantly evolving as new opportunities and technologies came along.

Air New Zealand’s efficiency programme, he claimed, had delivered a 10% fuel burn saving, lowering emissions by over 350,000 tonnes of CO2 compared to the previous year.

“Our emission intensity improvements since 1995 are approximately 10% and we expect another 15% on our jet fleet over the next 10 years. I challenge other airlines and industries to come up with like or better intensity improvements” said Fyfe.

In a video presentation, IATA Director General and CEO Giovanni Bisignani urged airline chiefs to ensure the industry’s call for a global sectoral approach to aviation emissions was heard at the highest levels of government. Bisignani pledged to take the same message to upcoming meetings with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

He criticized taxes like the UK’s Air Passenger Duty, which he said did nothing for the environment, and the proposed international adaptation levy proposed by smaller developing nations like the Maldives. Instead, he said, governments should focus on solutions that lead to reductions and take advantage of the aviation sector’s ability to deliver global results.

“This means delivering emissions reductions by accounting for emissions at a global level and as an industrial sector, not within national targets; ensuring that airlines pay for their climate cost once not several times over; driving change with global standards on a level playing field; and monitoring progress through ICAO with the help of IATA,” said Bisignani.

“This will be the most effective and responsible way for aviation to secure its future and meet its environmental commitments. And it will be a role model for industry cooperation with the United Nations in driving important change.”

Andrew Herdman, Director General of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, said the region’s carriers were fully behind the aviation industry’s short, medium and long term goals on reducing emissions.

“These are challenging and ambitious targets, but certainly achievable,” he believed. “However, as an energy intensive, globally competitive industry, we need to build political support for a global sectoral approach for international aviation. The alternative of a patchwork of uncoordinated schemes and arbitrary levies would not achieve the desired environmental objectives in a cost effective manner. These are the key messages industry will be delivering to the ICAO High Level Meeting on Climate Change in Montreal in preparation for Copenhagen.”

In a panel session, he said the underlying UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities compared with ICAO’s equal treatment principle had so far proved impossible to reconcile within ICAO, where there had been resistance to the setting of global targets. “We shouldn’t kid ourselves it’s going to be any easier in Copenhagen.”

The industry had missed some early opportunities to get to grips with the climate change issue and build a consensus, he said. “It was only when we got hit between the eyes by the EU ETS and the prospect of a proliferation of national schemes that the industry had finally mobilized behind a consistent, coherent position.”

During the panel session Chew Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines, said his airline was in favour of a global solution but some airlines in Asia were still in denial over the problem of responding to the climate change issue. Although there was a growing acceptance of the role airlines in the region had to play, there were concerns over commercial as well as environmental sustainability.

Herdman told GreenAir Online that although there was an industry consensus amongst his Asia-Pacific members for a global sectoral approach, this wasn’t necessarily reflected at national government level. “The difference in Asia is that the countries are very diverse compared to, say, Europe,” he said. “We’ve got two-thirds of the world’s population but it is only generating a quarter of total GDP. The region is therefore generally poorer than the rest of the world, but there is also a great variety of income levels from rich, developed countries to those living in real poverty.

“When it comes to climate change, policy very much reflects each country’s position under the Kyoto framework. So the region includes the richer, developed Annex I countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan, plus the non-Annex I bigger developing countries like China, India and others in South-East Asia, and then there are the smaller, less-rich countries.

“Discussions within forums such as ICAO – which, of course, is made up of governments and not industry – are therefore going to reflect this Kyoto criteria.

“Now whilst airlines may be supportive of an industry approach to a global deal, they are also mindful of how their governments view things, which might be very different. Most non-Annex I countries can see the benefits of a global deal but they don’t necessarily like how it cuts across the Annex I/non-Annex I divide, to the extent that it could jeopardize their status under Kyoto and their exemptions under binding national emissions reduction targets. So they are not altogether supportive and this was reflected in the ICAO GIACC process.”

Herdman was not optimistic this conflict could be resolved at ICAO level and said the industry would likely have to wait until Copenhagen, or even after, for a clearer outcome on its call for a global sectoral approach.