Aviation is by far one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding global mission of reducing carbon emissions, the aviation industry together with the shipping industry have been the most notable outliers but have still managed to remain on the sidelines. However, this is not the case anymore as the pressure is now mounting on the aviation and shipping industries to be in charge of their emissions. The environmental impact of aviation manifests itself because aircraft engines emit noise, heat, and other gasses that contribute to climate change. In a recent UN nation meeting, a total of 191 countries agreed to curb aviation’s greenhouse gas pollution.
CMgr (2016) notes that the aviation industry alone accounts for less than 2% of the world’s carbon emissions. However, while that may appear as a small percent, if the aviation sector was taken as a country, it would be ranked as the world’s seventh largest carbon emitter. Notably, this is an amount that is higher than generated by some of the world’s industrialized nations. Currently, aviation emissions are estimated to exceed 2005 levels by 2050 if no new runways are built (CMgr, 2016). This is the case as aviation demand would have grown more than 200% by 2050. Between 1990 and 2005, aviation emissions had increased by 87%. Similarly, between 1990 and 2010, the aviation emissions contributions to the accumulation of planet-warming CO2 in the atmosphere rose by over 3% margin which was three times faster than the overall global Co2 emissions.
As already mentioned, the UN recently reached a consensus with 191 countries on climate-change emissions which went down as the first climate-change pact to set worldwide limits on a single industry. In the meeting, there was an agreement on the upper limit of what carriers are allowed to discharge by 2020 (Milman, 2016). If some airlines exceed the set limit in coming years, then they have no choice but to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other projects and industries that are known to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It was also made a necessity that all countries must act on their own so as to ensure that they put the agreement’s limit into effect as soon as possible. Milman (2016) asserts that the delegates also agreed that the system would be voluntary from 2021 up to 2026. However, it would become mandatory after 2007 for all states that have large aviation industries. Over sixty-five nations including the United States have indicated that they would comply with the agreement enjoying the backing of the airline industry even though it is estimated that it could cost over 23.9 billion a year by 2035.
The US election results changed the dynamics of many things both domestically and globally, and the aviation sector was not left behind. The Paris climate deal was thrown into uncertainty by the US election results. According to Kemp (2016), this would be the case as many stakeholders have fears that Donald Trump could easily reverse the work done by President Barack Obama. They fear that Trump would withdraw the US from the Paris agreement as well as increasing fossil-fuel spending. In such an event, the US, which is an active player in the global arena, would no longer answer to the UN when it comes to climate change. This then means that the US could also easily cancel its agreement with recent UN accord on aviation emissions. Many of the details of reducing aviation emissions and climate change are contained in the Paris Agreement. It only makes sense that if the US sees no need of agreeing with the Paris Agreement, that they would also not see the importance of the recent UN agreement which could change its course entirely. For instance, many other nations could easily pull out as the associated cost may be too high for them.
Recent research has indicated that a Trump presidency would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 16%, should he end up serving for two terms (Kemp, 2016). Such a development would catastrophic in not only pushing the world towards a dangerous climate change but also makes it difficult to persuade other nations from making the stipulated cuts in emissions.
The aviation emissions reduction laws are what the world needs as it would be instrumental in reducing the aviation’s emissions and help the fight on climate change. The UN agreement is very vital despite the fact that it only covers international flights. This is the case as CO2 emissions from all international flights has increased by up to 83% since 1992. Also, despite the fact that aviation emissions only accounts for about 2-3% of the world’s CO2 emissions, it has one of the biggest impacts on climate change as a result of the altitude in which they release their CO2. It should also be mentioned that along with CO2; aviation also emits sulfate, nitrous oxide, and water vapor. The fact that all those pollutants are released at higher heights, they produce a series of chemical reactions that translates to a warming effect. As such, aircraft impact the climate two to three times more than the effects of the CO2 emissions. The UN emission laws are crucial to ensuring that this is not the case or at least try to curb the situation.
From the little I have gathered, the Paris Accord seems to be in a way more stringent concerning emission regulation, reduction, and control as opposed to the UN agreement. Nevertheless, I still feel that the recent emission laws and regulations are not in any way an overreaction but a necessity. The emission agreements have in a way unified the vast majority of nations, if not all of the countries involved in curbing the effects of climate change. Notably, the agreements have empowered the participating governments to work together in the effort to addressing a common problem, climate change. Additionally, if all their carriers together with their governing countries abide by the established requirements of the agreement, then the CO2 emissions will be reduced by up to 2.5 billion tons which is a good thing. This would be the same as removing over 35 million cars from the roads every year. I also find the idea of credit purchasing to be an ideal concept whenever nations exceed the set emission cap. The money raised goes towards funding emission control projects which will mean that even deviating countries will still play a significant role in curbing emissions at the end of it all. It is my strong conviction that the aviation emissions reduction laws are very valid and should be implemented as soon as possible.
References
CMgr, S. (2016). Air Transport environmental impact. Retrieved 17 April 2017, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/air-transport-environmental-impact-sammuel-yisrael- ieng-cmgr
Kemp, L. (2016). US-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement. Climate Policy, 17(1), 86-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1176007
Milman, O. (2016). First deal to curb aviation emissions agreed in landmark UN accord. the Guardian. Retrieved 17 April 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/06/aviation-emissions-agreement- united-nations
No comments:
Post a Comment