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.

The biofuels debate is once again taking the stage, as the more sustainable second generation microalgae based fuels get ready to stamp out the unmitigated disaster presented by the first generation biofuels crops.

The debate is widely acknowledged, among other things biofuels crops such as palm oil and rapeseed, are accused of driving up global food prices, and accelerating deforestation in places like Indonesia and Malaysia. First generation biofuels crops compete for land and freshwater also required by food crops, and the economic incentives for growing such cash crops drive many farmers to switch food crops for such cash crops. Monbiot highlights further political issues, and increases in nitrous oxide – a highly damaging GHG.

However, biofuels developed from microalgae are being hailed as the more sustainable, and highly efficient alternative. Chisti highlights that microalgae are photosynthetic microorganism that convert sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into algal biomass. These oil-rich algae can be converted into biodiesel using existing technologies.  

Microalgae can be grown in wastewater, seawater or non-arable lands so don’t compete for freshwater and land required for maintaining food supplies. Algae has the potential to deliver as much as 6-10 times the energy yield per hectare compared to palm oil; and presents a sustainable alternative to oil use in transport, presenting up to an 80% saving on the current fossil fuel.

Whilst extensive research into algae biofuels was initiated by the US Department for Energy (DoE) in 1980s-1990s in the form of the Aquatic Species Programme, it was soon halted as the price of oil dropped again. However, recent concerns over climate change have rejuvenated interest in R&D to commercialise this technology on a large scale. The Carbon Trust launched the Algae Biofuels Challenge last year, to fund R&D in algae derived transport fuels, with a vision to commercialise their use by 2020. They expect to spend between £20-30m to address upstream technical challenges and develop low cost, high-productivity production systems at scale. 

Many microalgae biofuels plants already exist, with some clustering in the US. However, UK-based Holin Energy confirmed its intentions to build a large-scale microalgae bioreactor this week too. The World’s first Algae Biofuels Summit will be held in San Francisco later this month bringing together experts in this technology to address the industry challenges and take a global lead on commercializing algae biofuels – particularly their application in the transport sector.

The connections between climate change, deforestation and the growth of palm oil plantations are pretty clear. What to do is another thing. While it is easy enough to demand that the Indonesian government stop creating palm oil plantations this is an unrealistic objective. Caught between a rapidly increasing fiscal account deficit and its stated development goals, palm oil production is, like it or not, here to stay.

There are signs however that changes is afoot. To increase revenue, the Indonesian government would like to expand exports of palm oil to new markets, with Eastern Europe particularly targeted for expansion. However this runs into a major problem: from 2010, the EU will require biofuels to achieve a net carbon dioxide saving over oil of 35%. At present only one out of 300 listed producers do this, primarily because of the huge amount of carbon released into the atmosphere when clearing land away.

Furthermore, echoing one of the conclusions of the Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia (EEPSEA) report, fears about increases in floods and landslides due to deforestation have led the State of the Environment to instruct local administrations to cancel plans to convert natural forest into commercial areas. While putting the emphasis for action on the local administrations Masnellyarti Hilman, from the environment ministry, states that ‘It is time for local administrations to think in the long term rather than simply focus on the economic benefits of the short term, because the threat of natural disasters will most likely increase with climate change in the future’.

A solution? Use degraded land

This has the potential to not only help Indonesia’s economy but provide jobs and potential carbon offsets. Project POTICO (Palm Oil, Timber & Carbon Offsets) aims to rehabilitate 1.25 million acres of degraded land into palm plantations over three years. Created by the WRI (World Resources Institute) and NewPage Corporation, this new scheme was formed partially in response to changes in the US Lacey Act banning the use of paper from illegally harvested trees.

The link between illegal logging and palm oil plantation creation is primarily economic: as it takes four years from planting to generating an income from oil production, the revenue from the cleared timber helps offset costs. POTICO aims to counter this by creating up to three potential revenue streams:

• potential carbon offsets under REDD;
• a sustainable palm oil certification scheme to generate long-term cash flows;
• timber certification whereby oil palm companies with current timber concessions, are paid not to use the timber concessions until the palm oil plantation starts commercial production.

The potential for this is huge: Indonesia has 15-20 million hectares of degraded land. As Jonathan Lash commented “Project POTICO will relieve pressure on Indonesia’s virgin tropical rainforests, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forest clearing, and prevent the loss of biodiversity in forests slated for conversion to oil palm plantations.”  While hurdles remain to be overcome, especially in how to demarcate degraded land from rainforest, this project suggests a way where palm oil production can increase while reducing greenhouse emissions and stopping deforestation.

Brazil's biofuel industry in full swing

It was announced last week that two universities, one in Brazil and one in China, are to partner on developing climate change technologies. The result is the creation of the “Brazil-China Center for Innovative Technologies, Climate Change and Energy”.

Such collaborations are more than symbolic, and are needed if new technologies are to be shared quickly around the globe. It is significant that the countries in partnership are two of the so-called “BRICS”. I have written before about the needs of technology transfer to allow developing countries to adapt to climate change quickly enough.

One project will look at different ways of estimating GHG emissions, to feed into mitigation policies. Less welcome is that biofuels will be one of the centre’s initial research areas, mapping sources in Brazil and China, and developing common approaches to their exploitation.

It is well-documented that biofuels do not always reduce emissions when their entire production cycle is considered, and it is generally agreed that their exploitation played no small role in the global food price spike of 2008. However, if this collaboration results in the agenda moving towards more sustainable types of biofuels (if such a thing is possible), then is it to be welcomed.

In any case, such collaboration between research institutions is welcome if new technologies are to be shared quickly, and hopefully this new centre will bring fresh thinking.

After my previous post about Blue-NG’s plans to harness geopressure technology from the UK gas pipeline to generate renewable electricity, raised considerable interest, I have looked into some of the points of discussion and felt a further blog was necessary.

An architect's drawing of the planned site at Beckton, East London

The first of the eight schemes will install a highly efficient power station at a pressure reduction station (PRS) in Beckton, East London. It will utilize innovative Combined Heat and intelligent Power (CHiP) technology, with an expected energy potential of 19.5MWe – enough to power 50,000 homes. Click here to see the BBC’s report on this scheme.

Blue-NG has confirmed that there is no use of geopressure technology to generate ‘clean’ energy as detailed in the previous post, and other reports of the project. Blue-NG confirmed that despite early consideration of geo-pressure options for 2OC‘s agreement with the National Grid, this project is now only concerned with CHiP technology to capture heat, and not pressure.  Whilst 2OC campaigned for geopressure to be recognized in the Renewables Obligation, this will only benefit geopressure projects they may develop later; however this scheme will still benefit from ROCS for the use of fuel and heat.

Nevertheless, Blue-NG claim that the CHiP (click here for diagram) is the world’s most efficient generator, reaching a maximum efficiency of 96% and therefore boasts a number of environmental benefits.

It will produce electricity in three ways:

1.     A diesel engine will produce electricity from burning liquid biomass – locally grown and sustainable rapeseed oil sourced from within 50 miles of London. This will replace the gas boilers currently used to pre-heat the gas at PRSs to avoid unacceptable temperature drops (which may freeze pipes and valves) during the normal gas pressure reduction process.

2.     Surplus heat will be captured and used for local district heating

3.     The remaining surplus heat will be used to heat the natural gas in the National Grid’s PRS as part of its normal process operation, to ensure pipes and valves do not freeze as the pressure of the gas is reduced. 

Despite support from Greenpeace, the project has attracted criticism from some environmental organizations, including Biofuels Watch, who remain concerned about the health and sustainability issues relating to production of electricity from biofuels. They claim that the use of biofuels provokes a number of issues, including the displacement of food, human and animals, as well as leading to deforestation in developing countries from which they are imported.

However, Blue-NG highlight that the Section 106 agreement – a condition applied to the project by Newham council, requires them to source their fuel from sustainable sources, and prove that they have not displaced crops. This would allow the council to monitor the fuels used by the plant at any time, although some argue that this may still be difficult to police.

Richard Lyddon, from Blue-NG added that, the company’s sustainable procurement policy, developed with support from Greenpeace, commits them to sourcing rapeseed oil, (which will be processed) from credited farmers within 50 miles of the site.

Rapeseed is currently used as a break crop by farmers, and as a result of the EU abandoning the ‘set-aside’ policy for farmers, 10,000 hectares of land is expected to become available for growing rapeseed in the 50 mile radius from which Blue-NG will be procuring these crops. Lyddon confirmed that the project would only use rapeseed oil, and not palm oil, which was mentioned in an original tender. However, objectors of the project remain skeptical about whether the plan to source such a level of biofuels locally is realistic, and recognize the additional environmental costs of shipping the fuel to site.

Whilst Blue-NG plan to contribute to climate change mitigation through ongoing implementation of their CHiP technology after the 8 planned schemes and the government continues to incentivise biofuels through the Renewables Obligation (RO), many environmental organizations, including Biofuels Watch, remain unconvinced and argue that biofuels are simply unsustainable.

Deforestation (credit: energyportal.eu)

Discussions at Poznan on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) managed to come to some sort of conclusion this morning. UN estimates suggest that investments of $17-30bn annually could halve deforestation levels, reducing GHG emissions by 10%, but how should these investments be allocated, and where should the financing come from?

During negotiations, there was finally agreement on the thorny issue of how countries should be rewarded. Previously, Brazil had argued that countries should only be rewarded for simply stopping further deforestation, but now they have agreed to calls from China/India and others that there should be rewards for planting new forests and rehabilitating degraded land as well.

The Brazilians have generally been progressive on many REDD issues at Poznan, setting an ambitious target of reducing their deforestation rate by 70% over the next 10 years earlier this week.

However, there are still sticking points on REDD, mostly relating to social issues and forest monocultures. Several countries (USA, Canada, Aus, NZ) deleted any specific reference to the “rights” of indigenous people from the text, but their “full and effective participation” is still mentioned. This is an issue because historically, “forestry management” has often resulted in indigenous groups being expelled from their lands.

Also, some environmental activists are worried that the draft doesn’t mention biodiversity. This could potentially mean that further deforestation could be allowed as long as the forests are replanted, potentially with biofuel monoculture crops such as palm oil, which have been shown to increase emissions.

Despite these issues, it is certainly welcome that there has been some sort of agreement on REDD, and hopefully the text will survive any last-minute attempts at changes.