Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Carbon Offsets - The Air Passenger Duty Excuse

Aircraft are one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. While the per-kilometer carbon emissions from flying economy class are about the same as those from  driving alone in a car, an airplane can cover any given distance much, much faster.  You might generate the same CO2 emissions from a single 12-hour flight as you would from a year of driving. The climate change impact becomes even greater when you consider the indirect warming impacts of high altitude flights, which can double the overall warming compared to burning those same fossil fuels on the ground.

What is more, aircraft flights are often discretionary - at least compared to other greenhouse gas sources like producing food, heating our homes and generating electricity.  As a result, flight emissions tend to come under special scrutiny by sustainability teams, environmental campaigners, and - importantly - politicians.

Which brings us to Air Passenger Duty (APD).

In December 2006, the then-Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced that the Government would double Air Passenger Duty rates for UK flights. The rates were raised again in 2009, and then in 2010, and again in 2012.  They are scheduled to rise again in April 2013. APD was originally introduced in 1993 solely as a means of raising revenue from the relatively lightly taxed airline industry. However, Brown justified doubling the APD on environmental grounds, and hinted that it would be earmarked to "secure extra resources...for our priorities, such as public transport and the environment." According to the BBC, the Government continues to make environmental claims for APD rises, and campaigning organisations like Greenpeace argue that increases help ensure that airlines pay their proper environmental cost.

Air Passenger Duty costs £13 for a short-haul flight, rising in tiers up to a maximum charge of £92 for flights over 6,000 miles, and brings in over £2 billion in revenue.  The duty is several times the cost to purchase carbon credits that would balance out those flight emissions. It might seem reasonable, therefore, for the average passenger or company travel coordinator to avoid purchasing carbon offsets, on the assumption that they have more than paid for the environmental cost of their flights already.

It might seem reasonable, but it would be wrong.

Anyone familiar with the story of the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme will be unsurprised to learn how the Government uses the revenues from thAPD. A quick recap:iIn December 2011, the Chancellor announced that CRC revenues at £12/tonne CO2 would no longer be "recycled" back to participating companies as an incentive to save energy.  Nor would they be "hypothecated" and earmarked solely to environmental and energy efficiency initiatives.  Instead, the funds now go into the general revenue pool for use as the Government sees fit.

The same applies to Air Passenger Duty.  While the purchase of a quality carbon offset credit directs funds towards a real emission reduction that has been verified by an auditor, Air Passenger Duty payments go into the general tax revenue pool, where they are added to funds from every other source.  There is no requirement to hypothecate those revenues towards emission reduction activities, and no direct link between APD revenues and Government spending to tackle climate change.

APD is not even structured to provide strong incentives to reduce emissions.  Because it is levied on a per-passenger basis and not per plane or per litre of fuel, APD provides little direct incentive for airlines to fly fewer, fuller planes, or to fly newer, more fuel efficient aircraft.

With an increasing number of experts concerned that we are on track to disastrous climate change, it is more important than ever that we use all the tools at our disposal to reduce global emissions.  However, APD has only a marginal impact on aircraft emissions.  The revenue is not reinvested directly into emission reduction activities and its pricing structure does not drive down passenger numbers effectively.  In its current form, then, APD is not a credible alternative to offsetting your flight  emissions with carbon credits.

If you can avoid flying, then by all means do so  But if you must fly, there is no real alternative to carbon credits to offset those emissions.

Monday, 14 January 2013

That Time I Took Advice From a Petroleum Engineer

One of the most important conversations I ever had came about entirely by accident.

One sunny afternoon in the early 1990s I found myself sharing a picnic table with a graduate student from Stanford University's Petroleum Engineering Department (the university changed the department's name in 2006 to Energy Resources Engineering). It was my senior year and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska was still a recent memory. I was understandably curious to learn why someone would choose to pursue this career path.

"Petroleum is amazing stuff," he said. "Nature has given us these amazing long-chain hydrocarbons. We can break them apart, recombine them and make almost anything. Burning it is probably the least creative thing we can do!"

"That may be," I responded, but those long-chains hydrocarbons are also a great energy source, and we seem to be burning an awful lot of them, when we're not spilling them in the ocean."

"Yes," he conceded, "But we don't have to! We can make electricity any number of ways, and there are plenty of other things we can burn to generate heat. Besides, it's better for the environment.  So let's use those other resources for energy and do something more useful with the petroleum."

And so here I am, 20-odd years later. As a justification for his chosen career path, that petroleum engineer's argument may have been self-serving. After all, the vast majority of the petroleum that goes to refineries is still burnt as fuel - only a minority of petroleum engineers get to play with the substance as a chemical feedstock.

But he described very nicely the rationale behind everything I've done since then.

Burning fossil fuels for energy is easy, but it isn't particularly smart. Making a transition to a low-carbon future means finding ways to live a satisfying life without imposing unacceptable long term costs on families, communities, and the planet. I founded Carbon Clear nearly eight years ago to help accelerate that transition.  Since then, we've helped hundreds of companies improve their response to the challenges posed by climate change.

I wonder whether that aspiring petroleum engineer remembers me or that casual afternoon conversation at Stanford all those years ago.

I certainly remember him.

Related posts:
Making Renewables Work: Understanding Energy Density

Airlines, The EU ETS and Biofuels

Peak Oil: Will We Freeze or Roast?

Monday, 7 January 2013

UK Mandatory GHG Reporting - Data Collection Begins NOW

Happy New Year from the Carbon Clear team.

A reminder for companies affected by the UK's mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulations: If your fiscal year follows the calendar year, your 2013 financial report must include carbon footprint data for the entire year.  That means you should already be recording your greenhouse gas emissions data against Defra's new requirements.

Not sure if you're covered by the regulations? Don't know what to include in your footprint report? Want to be certain your approach follows best practice? We're here to help you make the right start - just get in touch.

Defra's Mandatory GHG Reporting: Some Answers, Even More Questions

Mandatory Carbon Reporting: From Compliance to Competitive Advantage

Mandatory Carbon Reporting: Lessons from the CRC

Mandatory Carbon Reporting: What's the Big Deal?