{"id":42077,"date":"2020-07-01T12:31:17","date_gmt":"2020-07-01T11:31:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.climatechangenews.com\/?p=42077"},"modified":"2020-07-03T09:43:52","modified_gmt":"2020-07-03T08:43:52","slug":"airlines-climate-obligations-postponed-un-body-endorses-industry-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.climatechangenews.com\/2020\/07\/01\/airlines-climate-obligations-postponed-un-body-endorses-industry-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"Airlines’ climate obligations postponed as UN body endorses industry proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Airlines have wriggled out of their climate obligations over the next few years, after a handful of countries bowed to industry pressure to weaken the sector\u2019s climate deal. <\/strong><\/p>\n

The 36 countries that sit on the council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) \u2013 the UN body responsible for aviation \u2013 agreed on Tuesday to ease airlines\u2019 obligation to offset their emission growth until at least 2023.<\/p>\n

The move effectively postpones the date airlines have to start paying for carbon credits to offset a portion of their climate impact.<\/p>\n

The decision was made after the International Air Transport Association (Iata) lobbied Icao to change the baseline<\/a>\u00a0from which emissions growth will be measured \u2013 a move it estimates could save airlines\u00a0$15 billion in carbon offsetting costs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As air travel collapsed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and with many airlines pleading for government bailouts, Iata argued previously agreed rules would create \u201can inappropriate economic burden on the sector\u201d.<\/p>\n

But observers and campaigners say the move has deflated the little ambition of the aviation\u2019s sector climate plan, which was already \u201cfar below what is needed to avoid climate catastrophe\u201d, according to a coalition of NGOs.<\/p>\n

Prior to the rules being weakened, research by Climate Action Tracker<\/a> judged the sector\u2019s climate goals and the measures proposed to meet it \u201ccritically insufficient\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n

Aviation\u2019s black box:<\/strong> Non-disclosure agreements, closed doors and rising CO2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In a statement, the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) said the decision was a \u201cbetrayal to future generations and a slap in the face of the multilateral work to build the programme\u201d.<\/p>\n

The ICSA has repeatedly<\/a> said rewriting the rules of the aviation\u2019s climate deal wasn\u2019t necessary, as a flexibility provision in the scheme would have allowed airlines to reduce their offsetting cost until 2023.<\/p>\n

Gilles Dufrasne, senior policy officer at Carbon Market Watch, said airlines were \u201cmaking a mockery of governments and taxpayers, taking public money while fighting climate policies\u201d.<\/p>\n

The meeting\u2019s outcome was described by Icao in a tweet<\/a> as \u201cgreat news for the environment\u201d and safeguarding the sector\u2019s emission reduction programme.<\/p>\n

Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green lawmaker in the European Parliament, reacted with incredulity:<\/p>\n

\n

Seriously? You are adjusting the baseline to 2019 only with procedural tricks, further undermining CORSIA’s credibility, and you spin that as great news for the environment. Is this an UN account or did aviation industry now also take over your twitter account? https:\/\/t.co\/OEK3rz1toD<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Bas Eickhout (@BasEickhout) July 1, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n