October 2010 Archives

The simmering row between the European Union and the USA over the EU's plan to include foreign carriers in its emissions trading scheme from 2012 is showing no signs of abating, despite the fact that ICAO has finally succeeded in getting its 190 member states to sign up to a global emissions reduction framework.

And it all seems to boil down to interpretation.

The ICAO resolution calls for the development of a global framework to manage market-based measures (chiefly emissions trading) based on 15 agreed principles.

But while the Air Transport Association of America had hoped this would "obviate the need" for its legal challenge against the EU (in which it is trying to prevent the EU from including US carriers in its own ETS), the EU sees things very differently.

"Critically, the deal is a good basis for proceeding swiftly with the inclusion of aviation in the EU's emissions trading scheme from 2012," chirps the EU transport division.

So the EU has interpreted the fact that this time around ICAO has "refrained from language which would make the application of the EU's ETS to their airlines dependent on the agreement of other states" as a green light to press ahead with its own ETS.

The ATA, on the other hand, believes the EU's determination to "unilaterally impose" its ETS on foreign carriers is "contrary to the will of all other states and contrary to international law".

So there you have it. Stalemate. Still.

However, the EC does seem to dangle a bit of carrot - throwing a line in to its press release saying that it will "engage constructively in dialogue with third countries" during the implementation of its ETS to discuss "how to deal with emissions from incoming flights from third countries".

Could this be an olive branch to the US? Or will this turn into a big, ugly diplomatic nightmare? Watch this space, I guess!

You know that elusive global framework on reducing emissions from aviation that we've all been hammering on about? Well, ICAO has gone and got its 190 member states to agree to a roadmap for cutting emissions between now and 2050.

So, is agreeing to a roadmap the same as agreeing to a framework? Is this the resolution everyone was hoping for?

Well, IATA chief Giovanni Bisignani describes it as "a good first step", which leads me to believe the resolution falls short of what was hoped for. But at least it's something.

The thing to watch out for now is whether this ends up being a roadmap to nowhere, or if this global consensus can be turned into a tidal wave of action that leads to aviation being held up as the first industry to commit to and achieve its own set of emissions reduction targets.

Oh and just a personal note of frustration - why announce this late on a Friday when most people have left the office for the weekend, leaving the reporting to be done on a Monday morning?

Europe's Clean Sky research effort came under fire last year for excessive levels of bureaucracy. So, have things improved?

The initiative's co-ordinating project officer Giuseppe Pagnano told me recently that issues over red tape have been "completely overcome".

This is a bold claim - bolder than the response I got from Erich Steinhardt, senior VP technology at MTU (which is taking part in one of Clean Sky's engine demonstrator programmes), who said: "There is not much less bureaucracy now than there was before, but we've made progress."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but progress is progress.

The aims of the programme are admirable and it would be a real shame if red tape ended up strangling its ambitious targets.

Anyway, bureaucracy issues aside, GKN Aerospace announced this week that it has got involved in Clean Sky, as outlined in this article. 

During my research for the feature I've just written for Flight International on the greener engine technology under development in Europe's Clean Sky initiative, I was told more than once that the open rotor could be a game changer when it comes to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from aviation.

With the open rotor's ability to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 30% over today's commercial aircraft engines, it begs the question: Why is open rotor still such an open question?

Well, noise, for one thing. But Rolls-Royce tells me the wind tunnel tests it has carried out show that an open rotor engine "can be quieter than any engine flying today".

Size is another thing. They're big. Too big to be mounted on today's aircraft and with Airbus and Boeing remaining tight-lipped about their narrowbody replacement plans, it's anybody's guess as to whether the airframers will eventually design and build planes that can accommodate open rotor engines.

So, I'm afraid I'm no closer to answering the question posed in the title of this blog. Maybe one day engines like the open rotor CFM International is developing (pictured above) will be a common sight at airports. Or maybe they will continue to be a maybe.

PS - I now know more about thermal efficiency and bypass ratios than I ever did before, which should make me an interesting dinner party guest.  

Tick tock, tick tock. Only four days to go until we find out whether the ICAO 37th Assembly in Montreal resulted in a global framework for reducing emissions from aviation.

Conclusions will be presented on 8th October. Here's IATA's final plea, in which it points out that if no agreement is reached this time around, "the next opportunity is 2013".

And here's what we had to say in the comment section of this week's Flight International, headlined "Do it or rue it".

But as my colleague Lori Ranson - who's been in Montreal attending the summit - reported here, it will be "difficult" to get so many nations to agree on such a defined list of targets.

All will become clear at the end of this week.