Australia’s cap and trade system, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), is being reintroduced into Parliament this week, after two rejections in 2009 (see here and here). However, it is almost certain that it will fail again, following decreasing public support for the policy after the Copenhagen conference and Tony Abbott’s ascension to the opposition leadership.

To start with, public support for Prime minister Kevin Rudd’s flagship policy has dived 10 points from 66 to 56 per cent according to the latest Herald/Nielsen poll, while opposition to the trading scheme has risen 4 points from 25 to 29 per cent. While there has always been a high level of confusion in the electorate about climate change policy, and in particular about the CPRS, the failure of the Copenhagen conference shifted to a certain extent the public sentiment about climate change. In particular, extensive media coverage of a series of ‘scandals’ linked to the IPCC’s work has opened new windows for the numerous Australian and international climate sceptics (see for example Lord Monckton).

However the biggest challenge faced today by the government is without doubt the unexpected come back of the opposition (the Liberals) in the climate debate. The previous opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull, is a supporter of the scheme, which had greatly divided his party over the climate issue, to the benefit of the government. Yet Turnbull has recently been ousted by Tony Abbott, a strong opponent of cap and trade and climate policy in general, not to say a climate sceptic. The change here is that Abbott has come forward with an alternative to the governmental policy. The Coalition’s (Liberals+Nationals) “Direct action plan on the environment and climate change” would create an AUS$2.5bn fund to provide incentives for industry and farmers to reduce emissions through measures such as storing carbon in soil. The plan also includes the planting of 20 million trees by 2020 and would provide $1000 rebates to home owners for solar cells. The plan has immediately been slashed by environmentalists, Greens and the Labour Party as been unable to lead the country to a minimum 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, as Australia pledged in Copenhagen. While Kevin Rudd has ridiculed the direct-action plan as “a climate con job”, most business groups have backed the plan, agreeing with the opposition Leader’s assertion it is “cheaper, simpler and more cost-effective” than Labour’s proposed carbon emissions trading scheme.

With a now clear opposition to the scheme, the government’s CPRS is very likely to be rejected by the Senate this week. The government would then again have the possibility to trigger an early election, though it would be very unlikely since the next general election will take place this year. In the most optimistic scenario, a cap and trade system would therefore not be voted for another year. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is still way ahead from his potential challenger, though Abbott’s popularity is rising. But it is surprising that Rudd is not working to rally public opinion: he has not made a speech about climate change in the past weeks and is, instead, trying to change the subject. It is time now for Prime minister Rudd to start campaigning for his cap and trade scheme and explain to people why Australia should be moving when things look bleak internationally.

Following five weeks of intense negotiations between the Rudd government and the Opposition, the Australian Senate voted once more, by 41 to 33, against bills that would have established the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The Greens, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and Family First Senator Steve Fielding joined the Opposition (Liberals + Nationals) in voting down the scheme (SMH 02/12/09).

 The Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry welcomed the rejection, while WWF and the Climate Institute, called for a double dissolution and joint sitting of Parliament to get the original bills through (SMH 04/12/09).

 Under Australia’s bicameral parliamentary system, both houses must reach majority agreement on proposed legislation before it can go forward into law. Following a vote against a bill it may, however, subsequently be revived or presented again. That is what happened this autumn following a first rejection of the CPRS by the Australian Senate in August (see my previous post). The legislation had been put on the table again by the government in November, passing without surprise the House of Representative on the 17^th.

 The Senate no vote came after an extraordinary few weeks of drama, in which the Opposition reached a deal to support the legislation with big changes, and then reneged after its change of leadership. Indeed, on Monday, former Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull (who was backing the passage of the Australian ETS) was challenged within its own party, and was ousted as Liberal party leader by right-wing climate skeptic Tony Abbott. The new Liberal leader, who has been portraying the scheme as Kevin Rudd’s “big new tax”, managed to convince most Liberal Senators who would have supported the CPRS to vote down the scheme (except for two who crossed to floor).

 Mr Abbott insists that he will have a credible climate change policy but is making it clear that his policy will not include an emissions trading scheme any time soon. In particular, he said it would be “folly” for Australia to establish an emissions trading scheme before the United States had settled on its model: “The right time for an emissions trading scheme is when the rest of the world is signed up for one.” (ABC 02/10/09). Abbott plans to fight a climate change election using land management and energy efficiency measures instead of an ETS, and would welcome a debate on nuclear power as an option.

 Despite the fact that Prime minister Rudd now has the option to call for a double dissolution election, which he would without a doubt win, he has played down prospects of pulling this trigger. The government has said that in the next Parliamentary sitting period commencing on 2 February 2010, it will introduce bills to establish the CPRS, inclusive of amendments incorporated following negotiations with the Opposition announced on 24 November 2009, to give Parliament a further opportunity to consider and pass legislation. Hopes to portray Australia as a world leader on the issue have now vanished, putting Kevin Rudd in an incomfortable position as a friend of the chair in Copenhagen next week.

©MIT Press

It is a long-held truth that China will inevitably stride on to the centre stage of world affairs as it grows in power and influence. China has no doubt become a major player in trade, development and the environment. More crucially for the topic at hand, China became the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2007, overtaking the United States for the honour and in the last two years has only widened the gap. As one of the largest contributors to climate change Chinese consent is clearly crucial to any agreement (however limited) in Copenhagen and its now necessary successors. However, does this all add up to make China the linchpin of Copenhagen? In short, no.

China has a lot to gain from any potential agreement that will be reached. While Chinese emissions are clearly of enormous damage to the global environment they are no less deleterious to the Chinese themselves. Plenty of statistics are available that illustrate just how much of a problem this is for China. A 2007 paper (free summary) found that the loss in GDP due to losses in national health were 1.8% in 1997 with thousands dying prematurely each year. The paper further argued that pollution controls could actually raise China’s growth rate. While a more up to date World Bank report in conjunction with the Chinese SEPA (State Environmental Protection Agency) found that water and air pollution in China has cost the country 3.5%-3.8% of its GDP in public health costs and premature deaths.

China’s own independent attempt to measure the damage caused was also a shock for its leadership. ‘Green GDP’ was first calculated for 2004 and was an attempt to include environmental damage in growth rates. That damage was estimated to be in excess of $510 billion Yuan (or 3% of China’s economy). So damaging were these estimates that in 2007 the entire project was scrapped for lowering growth rates to levels considered politically unacceptable by the Chinese government.

All of this paints a clear picture of a tremendous cost to China in its quest for growth, costs that it has found increasingly difficult to ignore, taking some, though generally tentative, steps toward addressing. Copenhagen represents a potential boon for China; the perceived necessity for the developed world to pay the developing world would give China the chance to be at least partly compensated for steps that it increasingly acknowledges it must take. The biggest hurdle is exactly how much that final sum of money will be and how much China will have to cut its emissions by to get it. But at the same time, the cut in pollution for China, while costly, will also have a beneficial effect on its citizen’s health and its own growth rate.

Looking to Copenhagen and beyond, the ball is very much in the court of the developed world. China wants an agreement and very much needs to start cutting its emissions for its own sake and benefit. While the developed world certainly has its own motivations to ensure cuts in world emissions, most justifications tend to look some way into the future and the dangers of a temperature rise beyond two degrees. China’s environmental costs are very much in the here and now for it to tackle.

The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries - small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.

 EU leaders failed to agree on a financing proposal for developing countries after their two-day summit this week, leaving the EU’s negotiating position on the issue open-ended.

A Kenyan riverbed: developing countries are expected to bear the brunt of climate change because of their geography and their lack of capacity to adapt to change (Image: Matt & Kim Rudge @Flickr)

In a set of conclusions that were long on rhetorical concern about accelerating climate change but short on any new commitments for the EU, the European Council effectively endorsed the views set forth in the Commission communication on funding that I discussed a few weeks ago. This means that the 27 Member states have agreed a common view of the amount of funding required for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries – €100bn annually by 2020 – but not over how much of this should come from the EU and its members.

One of the reported reasons for the failure to reach an agreement is reported to be, as usual, down to differences between the richer and poorer members of the EU. A coalition of East European countries allegedly resisted specific commitments due to concern over their ability to afford the proposals. But the BBC also reported differences over negotiating strategy as a cause for the ambiguity of the Council’s position. Germany, it is suggested, believed that providing an explicit figure would provide less of an incentive for other developed countries to make similar commitments.

How much the EU is really willing to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, then, remains to be seen. But the failure of EU leaders to establish a common position underlines the political difficulty associated with large transfers of wealth to countries whose citizens don’t vote in European elections.

This month, the European Commission published development roadmaps for seven key low carbon technologies. Thy relate to wind, solar, bioenergy, CCS, nuclear technologies, as well as smart grids and energy efficiency, for the period 2010 and 2020. 

There is a long-standing policy debate over how best to spur innovation in low-carbon technologies. One option is to let markets ‘pull’ technology development along. According to this reasoning, if governments ensure there is a credible price for CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, then companies will start to develop new technologies with lower emissions in response to this market signal. The other possibility is for governments to use a policy ‘push’ and pay directly for early-stage R&D into new and promising technologies.

The roadmaps follow the publication of a EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan in 2007. It outlined a vision where the EU enjoyed global leadership in a range of low-carbon technologies. Each roadmap has been developed by the Commission in consultation with the relevant industries, and attempts to describe, step by step, how each technology should develop over the next decade in order to fulfil the vision of the SET Plan. Development in each of the technology areas is backed by an European Industrial Initiative, which is a public-private partnership working in each of the low-carbon technology areas.

In practice, governments usually opt for a combination of the two. The SET Plan was the EU’s policy push for low technologies, accompanying the market pull of the carbon and renewable energy targets included in the Climate and Energy Package it unveiled in the same year.

While the Climate and Energy Package and its 20/20/20 targets have successfully made it into EU law, the SET Plan has arguably been somewhat neglected by comparison. The Commission’s new communication implicitly acknowledges this by speaking of the need for the SET Plan now to be ‘taken forward to implementation’.

But implementation costs money and, critically, the Commission’s new roadmaps don’t come with any new funding plans attached. The Commission calls on Member States to dig deeper into their own pockets to fund energy R&D – a recommendation that is unlikely to receive a warm welcome from treasuries across Europe as they seek to recover their battered public finances – and proposes to use the European Investment Bank’s lending power to fund research in promising areas.

The communication also refers to the role of other countries in developing low-carbon technologies. As with other areas of international climate negotiations, there are large inequalities in the distribution of low-carbon innovation. While the EU can justifiably point to its global climate leadership committing early to substantial emission reductions (at least, compared to other developed countries), the US is leading the pack in terms of its expenditure on developing low-carbon technologies, from biofuels to smart grids. A number of international negotiations are in progress to improve coordination between developed countries and sure that they all pull their weight when it comes to energy R&D; another set of negotiations again are discussing how developing countries can access these new technologies.

As reported by EurActiv, it is not only global cooperation that lies behind the SET Plan: there is something of a technology race occurring between different developed countries, with potentially large future gains available to countries who lead the development of new low-carbon technologies. The IEA this week released its technology road map for CCS that envisages an investment of US$6 trillion by 2050. Companies who are successful in developing CCS technologies now will be able to profit from this economic activity in future. Similar arguments apply to other low-carbon technologies like renewable generation and low-emissions vehicles.

There is no question that low-carbon technologies will be vital during the twnty-first century: without them mitigating climate change will be intolerably expensive. How many of those technologies will be European in origin depends in no small part on whether the Commission succeeds in finding R&D funding at a scale that matches its R&D vision.

After the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’s defeat in Senate last August, the Australian Opposition, the Coalition (Liberals + Nationals), had until last Sunday to propose amendments before the reintroduction of the bill in November (for previous developments, see here). After a Party meeting lasting more than four hours yesterday, Mr. Turnbull, the Opposition leader, confirmed the partyroom had endorsed his strategy, backing “commonsense amendments” which, if agreed to, “would save thousands of Australian jobs”(The Australian 19/10/09).

Most provisions intend to provide greater exemptions to key industries. Amendments include exemptions for the coal industry, greater assistance to power generators, a permanent exemption for agriculture, greater exemptions for energy intensive industries, and protection for food processing. The detailed list is available on the Liberals’ website. The Coalition won early support for its position last night, with the Minerals Council of Australia backing its amendments. “The proposed amendments will better align the CPRS with other emissions trading schemes around the world, promote investment in low-emissions technologies and provide the necessary flexibility to adjust to the outcome of the United Nations climate change talks in Copenhagen in December,” chief executive officer Mitchell Hooke said. (SMH 20/10/09)

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, set a six-week timetable for negotiation and debate before a vote in November. The bill will be introduced to the House of Representatives this week, and should reach the Senate by mid-November. The government will push very hard for the passage of the bill by Copenhagen and may extend Senate sittings if necessary (SMH 18/10/09). However, the Nationals and some key Liberals strongly oppose the ETS, and threaten to cross the floor if Mr. Turnbull strikes a deal with the government. The legislation might still pass under this scenario, but Mr. Turnbull will face the embarrassment of a Coalition split on the issue just weeks after declaring he would stake his leadership on success.

For Blog Action Day, focusing this year on climate change, I thought to do something a little different and take a look at climate action, and how it relates to climate policy and politics. So I talked with Ada Aroneanu, an organiser with 1Sky, a collaborative campaign bringing together many organisations so as to bring about “public demand for a clear, simple, specific national policy platform that would set America on the road to real solutions.”

I asked Ada how and when 1Sky came into being?

During 2007 several groups who were active on climate change at the local level came to realise that there was a need for a mouthpiece on the federal climate policy level, and that these groups involved in climate action lacked variety. 1Sky evolved out of the coming together of these local groups as well as new groups who haven’t been directly involved with climate change before then (faith, human rights, anti-poverty, etc).

This also coincided with other national events – the ‘Step It Up’ campaign, which formed in 2007, and the 2007 Power Shift in November which saw 6,000 youths lobbying Congress on 1Sky principals.

And what are these principles?

1Sky promotes 3 main principles –

These principles are the prism through which 1Sky analyses policy.

My main interest was how on-the-ground actions might affect policy, so I asked Ada to tell me about some of their past actions and successes.

1Sky actions kicked off with the 2^nd Step It Up action in November 07 which called for a 20% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (below 1990 levels). At the time these numbers were not in the public debate, but following this action they started to be commonly referred to.

Green Jobs Now – a call to create 5 million green jobs. A collaboration with Green for All and Al Gore’s “We” campaign (now Repower America), with about 700 events covering diverse locations - urban sprawl, coloured communities – across the country. This number – 5 million jobs – and the principles of this campaign were incorporated into Obama’s presidential campaign which was nearing its final stages before the elections.

Power Shift 09 brought 12,000 students to Washington. 6,000 went to campaign on the Hill (despite a freak snow storm). There was a lot of face time with politicians over that weekend.

When asked about 1Sky’s current focus Ada told me about two of their summer actions -

Business outreach where 1Sky volunteers contacted local businesses and encouraged them to call their local chambers of commerce and talk to them about their climate change policy; and direct lobbying, with visits to - and rallies at - regional offices of representatives before the vote on the Waxman-Markey bill in June.

Currently 1Sky are focusing on the 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action on October 24, getting their volunteers and mobilizers to participate. Following that they are shifting their focus to placing some pressure on President Obama, calling on him to make America a leader in clean energy. Pushing the president, which will be done alongside pushing senators, comes as - in Ada’s words – “we need to be putting pressure on both branches of the federal government to act at the executive/agency level as well as Senators to act through congress.”

[I believe this focus on the president might also prove to be important in encouraging him to take a more active role in the climate legislation, as he did with health care but only very little with the climate bills, something that many US climate campaigners and analysts have noted.] 

Finally, as the main action in US domestic climate politics at the moment is the bill currently making its way through the Senate, I wondered how 1Sky were dealing with it.

“As it is currently at the committee level, we are working in the states of the relevant committee members. Once it reaches the floor, hopefully before Copenhagen, we will work across the entire country.”

With over 2,000 Climate Precinct Captains across the country, and 40 organisers, mobilizing communities on the ground, 1Sky joins million of people the world over in demanding bold climate action from their leaders.

Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham reaching across the aisle

Skimming over the headlines this morning, what I thought was a standard positive-thinking op-ed at the NY Times entitled “Yes we can (pass climate change legislation)”, transformed into an exciting development when I noticed the authors of this piece – Senators John Kerry (no surprise there), and Republican Lindsey Graham. 

Though there were some foreshadowing signs, after a practical witch hunt on the 8 Republican representatives who dared to vote in favour of the House bill back in June, the chances of any constructive partisan debate in the Senate seemed slim. 

Since John Mccain lost the elections, the Republican Party was nearly unanimous in opposing any climate action (Mccain talked of addressing climate change during his campaign). Not only is a significant number of elected Republicans set firmly in the climate denial camp, but also since Obama took office, Republicans automatically opposed anything suggested by Democrats, be they Congress or Administration (this recently reached a ridiculous level when far right pundits rejoiced in Obama’s failure to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. More moderate Republicans pointed out that hosting the Olympics is harfly a partisan issue). That is why Graham’s recent remark - “I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.” – was already a newsworthy item. 

So what is the compromise Kerry and Graham outline in their joint opinion piece?

1) “we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security” – as I mention above, this statement is still important in American domestic politics, where – unlike in most other countries - many elected officials still refuse to acknowledge climate change as a legitimate problem.

2) “while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power” – strong support for nuclear energy is important to many Democrats as well, and without it no climate or energy bill is likely to pass Congress.

3) “climate change legislation is an opportunity to [break] our dependence on foreign oil…we must recognize that … we will continue to burn fossil fuels … The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal.” - clean coal was also a recurring theme in both Mccain’s and Obama’s approach to climate change during the presidential campains. Even more so than nuclear energy, coal is a sticking point for Democrats representing coal-producing states. An emphasis on clean coal might help these Senators to swallow the climate bill pill, but it is important to keep firmly in mind that carbon capture and storage is still far from being a sure thing.

4) “we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration” – that is certainly a compromise. Focusing mainly on energy security issues, as has sometimes been done to promote the climate agenda, makes drilling for more American oil a logical solution. That however, does not help to combat climate change.

5) “we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas” – unlike many Republicans, proponents of climate legislation – including leading companies – realise that ignoring the business opportunities inherent in moving towards a low carbon society will not help the US regain economic leadership nor supply new jobs in a time where unemployment is still on the rise.

6) “we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards…we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses… there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased” - Kerry and Graham recognise that tackling climate change and transitioning to a low-carbon world is a complex process, one that cannot be done smoothly without some involvement from the government.

And if the above isn’t convincing enough, they provide one final reason why Congress should act – “If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.” – as expected, the EPA’s swift progress on GHG emissions is a good incentive for legislators to deal with this huge issue in a more balanced and systematic way.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has challenged governments worldwide to take four key steps to support the global aviation sector’s commitment to tackle climate change. Speaking in Hong Kong yesterday, Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO, stressed the need to:

1. 1. Adopt challenging industry targets to stabilise and eventually reduce aviation’s carbon emissions;
2. 2. Manage aviation’s carbon emissions through ICAO under a new ‘Kyoto II’ framework by treating aviation as a global industrial sector;
3. 3. Invest in efficient infrastructure, particularly air traffic management; and
4. 4. Establish fiscal and legal frameworks to promote the rapid development of biofuels for aviation.

Whilst the aviation sector represents a significant source of employment and growth, it also has an increasing contribution to global climate change.

The sector accounts for around 2% of global emissions - around 677mtCO₂ in 2008, expected to grow to 3% by 2050 (IPCC, 2007; ATAG, 2009). Whilst increasing efficiencies have reduced emissions, these have been outstripped by emissions increases due to industry growth; and the industry now consumes around 150m litres of ‘Jet A1′ fuel per year. The aviation sector has few alternative fuel options; and electric drives frequently cited as an alternative road transport option, are not likely to present a viable solution for aviation.

The industry argues that a global sectoral approach is essential to reduce aviation emissions; ensuring that airlines pay for their climate cost just once at a global level, rather than several times over within national targets; or through varying policies across numerous jurisdictions. For example, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) passed legislation for the inclusion of aviation sector emissions in January 2009, requiring all flights from European airports to consider their carbon liabilities. This is expected to drive emissions reductions on a level playing field, promoting efficiencies and the development and commercialisation of emerging sustainable aviation fuels.

“Aviation is unique among industries. When it comes to environment, no other global industry is as united, ambitious or determined. Our track record clearly shows that aviation is unique in its ability to drive major global changes. For example, IATA rolled-out e-ticketing to every corner of the planet in just 48 months,” said Bisignani.

IATA’s four-pillar strategy to address climate change with modern technology, effective operations, efficient infrastructure and positive economic measures is another example. “Implementing the four-pillar strategy, IATA has already saved over 68 million tonnes of CO₂. This year we expect aviation’s carbon emissions to fall by 7% - some 5% from the recession and 2% as a direct result of our work,” said Bisignani.

Government commitment will be critical for the aviation sector to reduce its emissions, and IATA calls for strong leadership at the Copenhagen summit to reject uncoordinated and opportunistic taxation which ‘does nothing for the environment’ and focus instead on positive emissions reduction activity - such as the air traffic management projects (US NextGen for example).

An industry-wide commitment, formalised in a working paper to be presented to the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) today, will pledge the following targets:

• - Improving fuel efficiency 1.5% on average per year through 2020
• - Stabalising emissions with carbon-neutral growth from 2020
• - Reducing emissions 50% by 2050, compared to 2005.

In order to support this effort, governments must also play a significant role in facilitating and accelerating commercialisation of emerging sustainable feedstocks for large-scale bio-jet fuel production. Along with technological improvements in aircraft, sustainably produced biojet fuels are considered the most viable long-term alternative fuel for the aviation sector, delivering long-term GHG reduction and fuel security (ATAG, 2009). The industry is aiming for carbon neutral growth, with some airlines aiming to operate their fleet on 25% biofuels by 2025 (ATAG, 2009). Studies by Boeing (2009) suggest that microalgae-based biojet fuels provide better fuel specifications than current, traditional Jet A1 fuel, including a better heat combustion, which increases the aircraft’s fuel burn (allows the aircraft to fly for longer on less fuel), potentially by around 1%. This presents a significant financial driver for wider uptake of microalgae-based biojet fuels. Other feedstocks also being explored for biojet fuel production include camelina, jatropha and pongamia piñata, to name a few.

Bio-derived oils from the feedstock are converted into a ‘drop-in’ biojet fuel, via a patented hydrogenation procedure, which produces ‘bio-derived synthetic paraffinic kerosene’ (Bio-SPK) (Taylor, 2009; Boeing, 2009). Test flights have been undertaken using bio-SPK, most notably by Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand, Continental Airlines and Japan Airlines using blends of jatropha, camelina and algae (2% blends of algae were used in the latter two) (ATAG, 2009, Boeing, 2009).

Microalgae biofuels have the potential to play a significant role in the long-term sustainability of the aviation sector. However, the major challenges for microalgae-based biojet fuel production are expected to be production at a scale appropriate for aviation consumption, whilst increasing productivities and decreasing cost per hectare (ATAG, 2009). Whilst commercialisation challenges exist, microalgae as a feedstock is considered as ‘the future’ sustainable aviation transport fuel.