FLYING GREEN IN EAST AFRICA: THE CHALLENGE
AND THE DILEMMA
*Professor James J. Spillane, S.J. and Mr. Daniel Massawe
Tourism and Hospitality Management Department
St. Augustine University of Tanzania
P.O. Box 307. Mwanza, Tanzania
*Email: spillane43@gmail.com
jahmansage@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
A key stakeholder in the tourism industry in any country is the air transport sector. It is a
very crucial part of the infrastructure needed for tourism development. Today it has become
an area for policy analysis and strategies in managing sustainable tourism development in
developing economies. Suppliers of tourism services in travel destinations depend on air
transport to an extent determined by their geographical situation and their source markets.
Tanzanian Tourism Exit Surveys done over a period of 10 years clearly indicate that
Tanzania is a long haul destination for international travelers coming from primarily Western
Europe and the USA. Both the demand for passenger air transport and international tourism
benefit from the globalization process and the international division of labor. Technical
progress in the field of aviation was a major innovation for international tourism.
Yet in a shrinking world, air transport and international tourism are more than ever
influenced by exogenous factors that influence its sustainability and frequently involve
difficult tradeoffs. A question frequently being asked today is whether the “blue planet” can
cope in the long term with international tourism and the exponential growth of air transport
that goes with it. It is increasingly evident that there is environmental damage caused by air
transport. Air transport is already responsible for 13% of the world’s annual consumption of
fossil fuels. Aviation is responsive for some 2-3% of total man made CO2 emissions. As air
travel grows, this figure is expected to rise rapidly and is predicted to triple by 2050. Hence
flying will become one of the fastest growing producers of the green house gas. There is a
close correlation between the path taken by intercontinential air transport and the
concentration of pollution gases over the routes used.
Hence, this is a global problem and needs to be solved on a global basis and should avoid
unilateral action. Yet the European Union has recently decided to tax airlines using its air
space. This is a market based approach to reducing aircraft emissions. The International Civil
Aviation Organization [ICAO] has drawn up guidelines for a global emission trading scheme.
As a result, this has added an estimated US $ 54 to the price of a long haul flight. This paper
will discuss whether developing countries in East Africa should suppose this endeavor since
global warming is eroding many of the natural resources that form its comparative advantage
in the global tourism market especially nature parks and wildlife.
Keywords: stakeholder, air transport, sustainable tourism development, environmental
damage.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
One of the most highly published issues in tourism in the East African region is the current
controversy over whether to build a tarmac road through the World Heritage Serengeti Game
Park in northern Tanzania. Critics of this road claim that it will surely endanger the lives of
the precious wildlife living there. Yet another serious threat to their survival is rarely
connected to them, namely global warming which reduces the amount of vegetation they
need to survive. It is now an accepted fact that pollution caused by international air transport
is a significant contributor to global warming. How can something which happens in China
have an affect on Tanzania’s comparative advantage in tourism, namely its natural resources
and wildlife? Because changing Chinese consumption habits which include a significant
increase in air transport has an impact on global climate change. It will also affect the
environment in the Serengeti Game Park.
This paper will try to underline the ethical issue involved in increased global air travel
especially how it impacts all the stakeholders. These include Tanzanian wildlife who do not
have a voice in key decision making. There will also be a search for feasible solutions
including international agreements and market based solutions such as the one proposed by
the European Union. The 1992 Earth Summit and the June, 2012 Rio + 20 Conference in
Brazil are the most recent examples. In general, Africans do not have a strong voice in the
discussions and decision making at the international conferences on climate change and
global warming. Yet they suffer disproportionally from this danger even in tourism. Although
sustainability in tourism is often translated simply into “keeping the tourism business going”,
in the case of pollution caused by increased air travel it may become an instance of “killing
the geese that lays the golden eggs”. This question is truly an ethical dilemma faced by the
global community and not simply the East Africans working in tourism because international
tourism is heavily dependent on air travel.
1.1 The Role of Air Travel in Tourism Development
Descriptions of historical developments and trends in tourism highlight the close link
between tourism and transport advances [Prideaux, 2000]. Important technological
developments that changed tourism fundamentally were the increasing popularity of personal
car transport, passenger ships for intercontinental travel and jet aircraft. The development of
new aircraft technologies and concepts will not only influence where people travel, but how
much they have to pay for their travel and what environmental impacts they cause. [Becken
and Hay, 2007] Between 1990 and 2000 air travel grew at an average rate of 5.5% per year,
compared with 3.8% for road transport and a negative growth of -1.1% for rail travel. The
most recent changes in the tourism transport industry relate to the introduction of low-cost
airlines. Low cost carriers often receive incentives from regional governments to stimulate
regional economic growth. [Becken and Hay, 2007]. The generation of new demand through
substitution of cheap air travel instead of surface travel has important ramifications for green
house gas [GHG] emissions.
Thus, a key stakeholder in the tourism industry in any country is the air transport sector. It is
a very crucial part of the infrastructure needed for tourism development. Today it has
become an area for policy analysis and strategies in managing sustainable tourism
development in developing economies. Suppliers of tourism services in travel destinations
depend on air transport to an extent determined by their geographical situation and their
source markets.
Most countries collect and provide national data on the energy intensity of commonly used
transport modes. This information is typically provided in the form of “energy use per
passenger kilometer [MJ/pkm]” or ”energy use per vehicle-kilometer [MJ/vkm]. These
energy intensities can be applied directly in tourism analysis. [Becken and Hay, 2007]. Many
airlines provide information on fuel efficiency [e.g. “energy use per passenger revenue
kilometer”] of domestic flights in their annual reports. The distance travelled by a tourist can
be converted into energy use by multiplying it with the airline’s specific fuel consumption.
The energy intensity of a flight depends on several factors, namely the aircraft type
[including engine and airframe], the ratio of landing and take off cycle [LTO] time to cruising
time and the load factor. Lenzen (1999) estimates an energy intensity of 1.75 MJ/pkm for
long distance flights, taking into account an average number of LTO cycles. To convert
energy consumption into CO2 emissions, a factor of 69 g/MJ [Baines, 1993] to 74.9 g/MJ
[Australian Institute of Energy, no date] for kerosene needs to be applied. More refined
approaches could distinguish between emissions below 3000 feet [914 meters] and above,
and also count the number of LTOs per aircraft type [IPCC, 2000]. This approach would
allow estimating the effects of GHGs other than CO2.
The increasing demand for air travel is a major concern in the context of climate change. It is
also one of the major impediments to sustainable tourism. Aviation already contributes
substantially to the build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere. Effects could be larger than
currently estimated given the uncertainty associated with the climate effects of aviationinduced cirrus clouds. Policy responses relate to the mitigation of GHG emissions from air
travel. Very little is known about how climate change might impact on
aviation and how the tourism industry could adapt to those changes. [Becken and Hay, 2007].
1.2 Growth in Air Travel
The trend in passenger numbers has been relentlessly upwards despite periodic slumps caused
by economic downturns, oil shocks, wars and scares about the spread of diseases such as
SARS. In 2006 people took just over 2 billion journeys on scheduled airlines worldwide
according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. In 2010 another 500 million
joined them according to the International Air Transport Association [IATA], a trade group
that represents some 250 of the world’s airlines. [Markillie, 2007] Some European, Middle
Eastern and Asian carriers do well on international routes with reputations for high levels of
service, especially in business and first class cabins. Yet air travel will remain a cyclical
business subject to external shocks such as terrorism or a bird flu pandemic.
America’s air traffic system will face a rise in the number of flights from 45,000 a day in
2007 to 61,000 by 2016. [Markillie, 2007] In 2006 airline passengers took 179 million trips in
China [135 million on domestic services and 44 million on international ones]. The
government says that the numbers are increasing by around 15% a year and reached 270
million in 2010 – though it is only a third of America’s total in 2006. Demand could get even
higher if China’s aviation industry is liberalized further. India is a lot further behind with
some 50 million passengers in 2006 [26 million on domestic services and 24 million on
international flights] but traffic has been growing at a whopping 30% a year. Low cost
airlines are emerging all over Asia, which will contribute to making it the world’s biggest air
travel market.
1.3 Air Travel in East Africa
Tanzanian Tourism Exit Surveys done over a period of 10 years clearly indicate that
Tanzania is a long haul destination for international travelers coming from primarily Western
Europe and the USA. Both the demand for passenger air transport and international tourism
benefit from the globalization process. Yet this activity has implications for global pollution.
International aviation is an important source of GHG emissions. Aviation contributes about
3.5% of the total anthrogenic radiative forcing, excluding the potential effects of cirrus
clouds. Gossling (2002) estimated that at present tourists travel about 1,179 billion passengerkilometers [pkm] by air. This is equivalent to about 467 million tones of CO2 equivalents in
2001. It is difficult to estimate the total fuel consumption and resulting GHG emissions
attributable to air transport. There are three reasons for this: the absence of relevant data; the
difficulty of determining actual emissions of an individual flight (in particular for non-CO2
GHGs); and the scientific uncertainty around some of the effects aviation has on the
atmosphere, such as the generation of contrails. [Becken and Hay, 2007].
There are several sources of data on aircraft emissions, with a number of organizations [e.g.
Deutsche Luft and Raumfahrt, Dutch Civil Aviation Association and Inrets] operating
different models for estimating emissions. Aircraft manufacturers supply a performance
manual that provides certified information on fuel consumption under different operational
circumstances, including climb angle and cruise speed. However, these data are the property
of the airlines. They use the tables to predict their fuel consumption and to calculate fuel
requirements for a given flight. Airlines document each flight, including the amount of fuel
consumed. So far, there is no commonly agreed method for calculating emissions across
fleets, let alone the global aviation industry. [Becken and Hay, 2007].
A large proportion of aircraft emissions occur at an altitude of 9 -13 kilometers in the upper
troposphere or lower stratosphere. The tropopause, located at about 10 kilometer altitude,
separates these distinct regions of the atmosphere. The effectiveness of emissions from
aircraft depends on altitude and latitude, because of changes in chemical composition [
principally the abundance of trace gases] and differences in transport times of gases. The
troposphere is turbulent and as a result gases are mixed within several weeks. It is also rich in
water vapor and ozone concentrations are low, depending on nitrous oxides [NOx] and CH4
levels. The atmosphere is drier and rich in ozone, and more stable due to the temperature
increasing in altitude. The resulting lower rates of mixing means that gases emitted in the
stratosphere, including water vapor, stay there for a longer time. The emissions of GHGs
differ for the different flight phases. Thus any reductions in fuel consumptions also reduce
these types of GHG emissions. Once omitted to the atmosphere, CO2 is not involved in any
further chemical reactions. Therefore the altitude of emissions is not relevant. But other
GHGs (mainly NOx) influence the atmosphere indirectly by a complex interaction with other
compounds. The chemical reactions depend on altitude and therefore their contribution to
global warming is difficult to quantify. Overall, the IPCC [Penner et al., 1999) estimated the
total radiative forcing air travel to be 2.7 times the effect of CO2 emissions. This compares to
a factor of between 1 and 1.5 for other activities at the surface. [Sausen et al., 2005]
The environmental impacts and external costs [e.g. air pollution, noise, accidents,
infrastructure requirements and congestion] of air travel have been discussed in various
publications [e.g. Janic, 1999; Price & Probert, 1995]. The largest external costs of aviation
relate to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. It has been estimated that aviation
accounts for 13% of the world’s total use of fossil fuels and up to 3.5% of the anthropogenic
greenhouse effect. More than 80% is due to civil aviation. In the case of New Zealand,
tourism from European countries emit almost six times as much as tourists from Australia.
[Becken, 2002] As a result of the high per passenger emissions and the size of the market,
the UK is the largest contributor to air travel emissions from New Zealand tourism. The
footprint analysis of Gossling et al (2002) showed that the major environmental impact of
travel is the result of transportation to and from Seychelles.
Besides cooking the climate, aviation also causes local pollution, which poor countries suffer
more grievously than rich ones. Researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Cambridge University have estimated the impact on the ground of emissions from aircraft
flying at cruise altitude [about 35,000 feet], a problem typically ignored by regulations. They
have shown that emissions of nitrous oxides [NOX] and sulphur oxides [SOX] combine with
gases already in the atmosphere to create very fine particles that are especially dangerous to
human health. Such pollution is a huge problem in China. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
The researchers found that though most aviation emissions currently occur over North
America and Europe, yet about 3,500 of the 8,000 resultant premature deaths per year happen
in China and India. Many variables explain this, but the most important is that farming in
these heavily populated countries [unlike that in America] emits huge amounts of ammonia.
This interacts with the NOX and SOX to produce the dangerous small particular pollution
that leads to premature deaths. With air travel in China booming, the worry is that this
underreported public health problem will also boom. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012].
In October, 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] met in Nagoya, Japan to
negotiate a new deal on conserving biodiversity. CBD wants to significantly reduce the rate
of biodiversity loss as a contribution to poverty alleviation and the benefit of all life on earth.
There is plenty of evidence that the rural poor in developing countries rely on biodiversity for
food, shelter, income, fuel, health, quality of life and community. We also know that the poor
are often hardest hit by biodiversity loss, as they have few alternatives when local resources
are lost or degraded. [Roe, 2010] Ecologists believe that declines in wildlife population in
the Maasai Mara National Reserve between 1989 and 2003 are attributable to habitat
deterioration owing to recurrent drought, increasing human population and changing land use
in pastoral lands contiguous to the reserve. [Buwembo, 2010]. Tourism, one of the main
drivers of East Africa’s US $ 75.5 billion economy, is headed for tougher times thanks to
increasing destruction of wildlife habitats. The region’s parks have lost up to 60 per cent of
their large mammals in the past two to three decades. [Otieno, 2011]
Thus air travel and the pollution it causes is actually an ethical problem as well as an
economic one. Has modern long haul air travel become a form of neo-colonialism?
2.0 THE ETHICS OF POLLUTION
Modern industry has provided us with a material prosperity unequaled in our history. But it
has also created unparalleled environmental threats to ourselves and to future generation. The
emergence of international air travel is the latest contributor to this phenomenon. Despite
significant progress, significant environmental problems still remain, especially at the
international level. Bold and imaginative steps are needed toward improved social and
economic conditions, reduced fertility, better management of resources and protection of the
environment. Environmental issues raise large and technological questions for business
society including international airlines. [Valesquez, 1992]
After more than a year of negotiations and a 10 day conference involving 45,000 people, the
wide ranging outcome document of Rio + 20 – The Future We Want [49 pages] – was
lambasted by environmentalists and anti poverty campaigners for lacking the detail and
ambition needed to address the challenges posed by the deteriorating environment, worsening
inequality and a global population expected to rise from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050. [Daily
News, June 25, 2012] The 1992 Earth Summit put in place landmark conventions on climate
change and biodiversity as well as commitments on poverty eradication and social justice.
Since then, however, global emissions have risen by 48 per cent, 300 million hectares of
forest have been cleared and the population has increased by 1.6 billion people. Despite the
reduction in poverty, one in six people are malnourished. While the problems have grown,
the ability of nations to deal with them has diminished. Yet the Rio + 20 Conference avoided
the conflict and chaos that marked the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009. [Daily
News, June 25, 2012]
Carbon emissions vary hugely between countries. Rich people emit more than poor ones.
Carbon footprints also vary by age because average spending patterns vary over a lifetime.
Consumption
as
a
fraction
of
household spending typically peaks when people are in their 20’s. Consumption choices have
environmental results, because some kinds of economic activity are more heavily polluting
than others. Calculating the CO2 emissions implicit in consumption [the carbon footprint]
give a profile of emissions by age. Carbon emissions ebb as people enter old age. The
member of the heavily polluting age groups will produce more pollution until they retire.
This means that the climate change benefits of ageing population will not kick in until 2050
at the earliest. [The Economist, January 21, 2012]
Yet in a shrinking world, air transport and international tourism are more than ever
influenced by exogenous factors that influence its sustainability and frequently involve
difficult tradeoffs. A question frequently being asked today is whether the “blue planet” can
cope in the long term with international tourism and the exponential growth of air transport
that goes with it. Hence, this is a global problem and needs to be solved on a global basis and
should avoid unilateral action.
Though pollution data are best collected near the ground, a plausible estimate may be made
from the vantage point of a satellite by measuring how much light is blocked by particles, and
estimate from those particles’ chemical compositions the likely distribution of their sizes.
World Health Organization guidelines suggest that PM2.5 [the smallest solid particles in the
atmosphere which are less than 2.5 microns across] levels above ten micrograms per cubic
meter are unsafe. Almost every Chinese province has levels above that. Pollution and
development have always marched hand in hand, and the former may even be regarded as
tolerable as long as it is only a temporary blip on the road to prosperity. [The Economist, Feb.
11, 2012]
2.1
Stakeholders
Environmental issues in general are seen by some researchers as a problem that can best be
framed in terms of the duty to recognize and preserve the “Ecological Systems” within which
we live. Because the various parts of an ecological system are interrelated, the activities of
one of its parts will affect all the other parts. Thus the survival of one depends on the survival
of others thus giving rise to the concept of “space ship earth”. We should recognize our moral
duty to protect the welfare of human being and non human parts of this system. This
understanding has given rise to the relatively new field of ecological ethics. There are several
variations of ecological ethics, some more radical and far reaching than others. [Valesquez,
1992]
2.2
Three Approaches to Ethical Problems
In general, there are three moral standards that are use to analyze ethical problems and make
ethical decisions: utilitarianism [“the greatest good for the greatest number”], human rights
[“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”] and justice [“equals should be treated
as equals; unequals should be treated as unequals”]
2.2.1 Utilitarianism
Utilitarian standards must be used when we do not have the resources for attaining
everyone’s objectives, so we are forced to consider the net social benefits and social costs
consequent on the actions or policies we decide to choose to attain these objectives.
Measurements, estimates and comparisons constitute the information on which the utilitarian
moral judgment is based. This approach asks the following question about the action that one
is considering: “ Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize
social injuries?”
2.2.2 Human Rights
Our moral judgments are also partially based on standards that specify how individuals must
be treated or respected. These sorts of standards must be employed when our actions and
policies will substantially affect the welfare and freedom of specifiable individuals. This
approach asks the question: “Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those whom it
will affect?” An important concept here is that of “stakeholders”. Who are the people who
will be affected by decisions relating to air transport and the pollution it causes? Among
others these include the airlines [owners, employees, suppliers, customers], government and
local, national and international communities. Each of these stakeholders has a right NOT to
be treated as a means to some end. Therefore, they must participate in determining the future
direction of the firm or industry in which they have a stake. Air transport is today a truly
global industry that has an impact on people all over the world whether they fly or not. Each
stakeholder requires action of a certain sort and conflicting stakeholder objectives require
methods of resolution. [Evan and Freeman, 1993]
2.2.3 Justice
Our moral judgments are also in part based on standards of justice that indicate how benefits
and burdens should be distributed among the members of a group. These sorts of standards
must be employed when evaluating actions whose distributive effects will differ in important
ways. This approach asks the question: “Will the action lead to a just distribution of benefits
and burdens?”
2.3
Ethical Dilemmas
Bringing together different moral standards in this way requires that one keep in mind how
they relate to each other. Generally speaking, standards concerned with moral rights have
greater weight than either utilitarian standards or standards of justice. Standards of justice are
generally accorded greater weight than utilitarian considerations. But these relationships hold
only in general. If a certain action or policy promises to generate sufficiently large social
benefits or to prevent sufficiently large social harm, the enormity of these utilitarian
consequences may justify limited infringement of the rights of some individuals or departures
from standards of justice. There are, however, a number of rough criteria that can guide in
these matters of “sufficiently large” and “important enough”. We need to ask the following
three questions:
1. Whether the kinds of utilitarian values involved are clearly more important than the
kinds of values protected by the right?
2. Whether the most important kind of value also involves substantially more people?
3. Whether the actual injuries sustained by the persons whose rights are violated [or to
whom an injustice is done] will be minor?
Similar criteria can be used to determine whether in a certain circumstance or situation
considerations of justice should override an individual’s rights. But these criteria remain
rough and intuitive. [Valesquez, 1992]
3.0
FLYING GREEN AS A SOLUTION TO AIRLINE POLUTION
It is increasingly evident that there is environmental damage caused by air transport. Air
transport is already responsible for 13% of the world’s annual consumption of fossil fuels.
Aviation is responsive for some 2-3% of total man made CO2 emissions. As air travel grows,
this figure is expected to rise rapidly and is predicted to triple by 2050. Hence flying will
become one of the fastest growing producers of the green house gas. There is a close
correlation between the path taken by intercontinental air transport and the concentration of
pollution gases over the routes used.
Yet the new Boeing 787 Dream liner has carbon offsets lower than other aircraft because it
uses 20% less fuel than other jets and emits correspondingly less CO2. With half its primary
structure including the fuselage and wings made from composites, the 787 is much lighter
than any metal aircraft of similar size. That not only saves fuel but also allows other
improvements such as air that is nicer to breathe. With 200-300 seats and a range of over
8,500 miles, it allows airlines to offer long, direct flights that might otherwise have gone to
hub airports for connecting services. However, three Airbus A380s can also do the work of
four Boeing 747s on busy flight routes . [Markillie, 2007 ]
Every new aircraft improves on the generation before it, thanks to a combination of new
engines, better materials and more efficient flight systems and aerodynamics. Individually,
those gains are often relatively small. The tiny winglets that now appear on the tip of aircraft
wings, for instance, can produce fuel savings of perhaps 3% by improving aerodynamics
efficiency. And instead of using the engine to pump air into the cabin mechanically, the 787’s
engines power electric pumps, offering further fuel savings. These incremental improvements
add up. Even a 1% saving can represent hundreds of tones of fuel a year for the average
airline, and a similar reduction in emissions. Every ton of fuel burnt by a jet aero plane
produces 3.2 tons of carbon dioxide. It takes roughly 80 tons of fuel to fly even the least
thirsty aircraft from London to New York and back again. [Markillie, 2007].
Aircraft emissions could be limited by restricting flying. That could be achieved by imposing
higher taxes because a large part of the market [mostly leisure] is price sensitive. Many
environmentalists think this will become necessary. A report in 2006 by the Environmental
Change Institute at Oxford University predicted that aviation would consume such a large
proportion of Britain’s carbon emissions budget that the government would have to curb
growth in air travel. It acknowledged the industry’s efforts to make aircraft more fuel
efficient, but was skeptical about the scope for future improvements. [Markillie, 2007]
Many in the industry, however, are convinced that by using more sophisticated technology
and more efficient operating procedures they can make air travel a lot cleaner still. Not
unreasonably, they also point to the huge economic benefits that airports and airlines bring
and that harsher taxation might scupper. Some studies suggest that aviation may account for
as much as 8% of global GDP when you allow for tourism, which is possibly the world’s
largest industry and air cargo, which in now responsible for some 40% of interregional
exports by value. People do not want to fly less, they want to fly more. [Markillie, 2007]
Because there is little alternative to flying – and in the immediate future little alternative to jet
aircraft fuelled by some form of kerosene – aviation is one of the most costly areas in which
to cut CO2 emissions. Emission trading is a possibility, but IATA has a number of
reservations about how it might work. It wants an open and global system so that airlines can
trade permits to emit carbon with industries that can achieve reductions in more cost effective
ways, such as factories or power stations anywhere in the world. [Markillie, 2007]
The International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], a UN agency, has drawn up
guidelines for a global emissions trading scheme which were considered in 2007. But the
European Commission already introduced its own version in 2011 to cover all EU based
carriers. Airlines would initially be given some 90% of their carbon permits free but would
have to buy the remainder. Some experts reckon this could add about euro 40 [US $ 50] to
the price of a long haul flight. The EU applies its scheme to all carriers whose flights arrive
and depart in Europe, but faced a storm of criticism from other countries. This is a global
problem and needs to be solved on a global basis. Some feel that it is not a good idea to
bypass the ICAO and unilaterally impose a scheme that the rest of the world does not agree
with. [Markillie, 2007]
The commission decided to wait until 2013 before extending its emission trading scheme to
non EU airlines by which time the ICAO may have reached a consensus among its members.
In principle America has no objection to a market based approach to reducing aircraft
emissions but airlines already had every reason in the world to reduce their fuel consumption.
Fuel prices have doubled in recent years. Depending on where the airlines are based, fuel can
account for 10-30% of operating costs. If they reduce the amount of fuel that is used, they are
making the best step they can. Aircraft have already become more efficient and cleaner.
Flying a given number of passengers over a given distance today takes less than 70% of the
fuel it would have done 40 years ago. In part that is because early jet powered aircraft
guzzled fuel, even compared with the propeller driven planes they replaced. But jet engines
have also evolved a lot. The most obvious difference is that they have become bigger to
accommodate larger fans. These move a larger volume of air more slowly but more
efficiently and less noisily. They also produce a lot less smoke and soot. [Markillie, 2007].
Cutting down NOX emissions, however, has proved difficult. They are, in effect, producing
frying air and the higher operating temperatures needed for more efficient combustion can
produce more of them. Since 2000, however, engine manufactures have been getting better at
reducing these emissions too. So what could the industry do to save fuel? New designs might
solve some of the problems. Alternative fuels are another possibility. Biofuels, for instance,
can be blended with jet fuel. Electric aircraft would be cleaner. Around 15-20% of fuel
savings would come from new engines and a similar amount from new aircraft designs. The
remaining 10-15% would be achieved by operating aircraft in a more economical way.
[Markillie, 2007]
4.0 MARKET SOLUTIONS TO AIRLINE POLUTION
Responses to climate change by the aviation industry relate largely to mitigation, i.e. reducing
GHG emissions. GHG emissions from fuel consumed for international air transport are
recognized in the Kyoto Protocol [Article 2, Paragraph 2, bunker fuels]. Developed countries
are encouraged to account for those emissions and reduce them. To date countries have
largely focused on reducing GHG emissions from activities within their national borders. The
exclusion of international travel from the Kyoto Protocol’s binding targets also means that
aviation is isolated from activities such as emissions trading. [Becken and Hay, 2007]
The reasons for the exclusion of international transport emissions from the Kyoto Protocol
lies in the multilateral nature of aviation and shipping and the long history of special
treatment for fuels used in international transport. The Chicago Convention of 1944 is often
referred to as a milestone in a number of events that led to tax exemption status for fuels used
in international air travel. These considerations are now enshrined in about 3, 000 different
bilateral air service agreements between states [Meyers, 2005]. This means, effectively, that
international air and ship travel enjoy a competitive advantage over other transport modes, all
of which are subject to some form of fuel taxation. It is difficult to renegotiate bilateral
agreements.
Little progress has also been made in finding ways of allocating emissions to countries
involved in international air travel. This is a prerequisite to controlling such emissions. The
Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technological Advice [SBSTA, 1996] of the United
Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change [UNFCCC] suggested the following
options for allocating emissions:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
No allocation at all;
Allocation of global bunker fuel sales and emissions in proportion to a country’s
national emissions;
Allocation according to the country where the fuel is sold;
Allocation according to the nationality [or country of registration] of the airline;
Allocation according to the country of departure of the aircraft or, alternatively, a half
share of emissions between country of departure and arrival;
Allocation according to the country of departure or destination of passengers or owner
of the cargo;
Allocation according to the country of origin or destination of passengers or cargo;
4.8
Allocation to a country of all emissions in its national air space.
In 2007, no agreement has been reached regarding allocation of emissions. In the 35th session
of the Assembly of ICAO in October, 2004 it was decided that an emission charge will not be
introduced internationally for at least three years. [Becken and Hay, 2007]
4.1
Market Based Instruments
On July 6, 2006, the European Parliament gave its approval [by a vote of 439 to 74 with 102
abstentions] to recommendations relating to new fuel taxes, the ending of airlines’ value
added tax exemption and a closed emission trading scheme. These measures will help level
the playing field and bring fiscal as well as environmental benefits. The Parliament’s
recommendations must be turned into a bill, which will need the approval of EU member
states and the European Parliament. Around the same time, the environmental body of the
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection [CAEP] of ICAO discussed three market
based mechanisms for aviation, namely voluntary agreements, emission trading and emission
taxes or charges. For all of those it is probably pragmatic to initially address CO2 emissions
and to extend policies to other GHGs once scientific uncertainty associated with the effect of
non-CO2 emissions is reduced. It is the intention of ICAO that market based instruments are
not imposed on developing countries so as not to compromise their economic development.
The initiatives by the EU, described above, are therefore not welcomed by the ICAO.
[Becken and Hay, 2007]
Emission trading could follow two approaches. One option is to develop a trading scheme in
which interested states can participate voluntarily. This would involve determining a
maximum amount of GHG emissions for participating states, allocating this total through
emission certificates that can be traded among states or airlines. The advantage of this system
is that there is some assurance that the determined level of emissions would not be exceeded.
Also, emission reductions are made where it is most economical to do so. Another option is
to include international aviation in the trading schemes set up by states under the UNFCCC.
The lack of binding commitments for international aviation emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol makes the option politically more difficult. [Becken and Hay, 2007]. Lee et al.
[2005] argue that the stabilization of CO2 emissions will be difficult if the aviation sector is
able to continue growing at the expense of other sectors.
Another option for regulating international air travel is to impose some form of levy. Such a
policy could be primarily targeted at reducing demand, but could also serve as an incentive
for the airline industry to reduce fuel costs and minimize emissions. Levies on air travel could
also be imposed to generate revenue for the government in general or for climate change
related measures in particular. Such policies, however, have to be formulated with care. Price
elasticities of different markets would need to be considered. It is difficult to introduce levies
on air travel because of the clauses in the Chicago Convention and numerous bilateral
agreements. However, there are options to circumvent these constraints. A charge on tickets
is the most straightforward and simplest option to internalize the climate change costs of
aviation. Ticket charges could be staggered by distance. [Becken and Hay, 2007]. A small tax
on international airline tickets could raise US 10 billion a year to help people adapt to the
impacts of climate change, according to economists at the UK based International Institute
for Environment and Development [IIED]. The beauty of such a tax is that it would follow
the ‘polluter pays’ principle and transfer resources from those who cause the problem to
those who need to adapt to its effects. [The Citizen, April 7, 2011]
A tax on aviation fuels would provide incentives for reducing emissions and it would also
address the currently unequal taxation on different forms of transport. A fuel tax is directly
related to the amount of CO2 emissions as these are proportional to fuel consumption.
Practically, however, it is not possible to measure the different GHG emissions for each
flight. [Becken and Hay, 2007].
As an effort to make airlines pay for their pollution, the EU’s action is overdue. In global
terms, their emissions are modest, about 3% of the total. Yet they are rising fast: between
2003 and 2010 they grew by 11.2%. Meanwhile, the UN’s International Aviation
Organization [ICAO] which was charged with taking steps to mitigate them, has done
nothing of the sort. In 2004 it ruled out negotiating of a global deal to curb their airlines in
whatever national mitigation scheme they had in place. In 2010 it changed its mind,
announcing that it would, after all, initiate a “framework” whatever that might be – for a
global deal to address airline emissions. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
Unconvinced the EU decided to push ahead with its plan to make all flights into the EU
subject to the emissions trading scheme [ETS]. This is now enshrined in European laws. The
only ways foreign governments could extricate their airlines from it would be to stop them
flying into the EU, or making them subject to an equivalent mitigation regime of their own.
[The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
4.1.1 European Policy
Could a fresh row over airline emissions lead to a global trade war? This is the scariest
prospect raised in February, 2012 by China’s objections to the European Union’s new plan
for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from aeroplanes. The scheme, which came into
effect on January 1, 2012, forces airlines flying into the EU to buy tradable carbon credits as
part of its broader emissions trading system., [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012] Yet the
European Union has recently decided to tax airlines using its air space. This is a market based
approach to reducing aircraft emissions. The International Civil Aviation Organization
[ICAO] has drawn up guidelines for a global emission trading scheme. As a result, this has
added an estimated US $ 54 to the price of a long haul flight. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
Many countries are unhappy with this policy but China’s proclamations in February, 2012 –
official news agencies report that China has “banned” its airlines from participation without
specific government approval – appear to be an escalation. Not least because Chinese and
European officials met for high level talks in Beijing in March, 2012. It also raised the
temperature of the row in advance of a meeting of 26 dissenting countries including India,
China, Russia and America on February 21, 2012. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
Global plane maker Airbus has joined a chorus of concern that a European scheme to charge
airlines for carbon emissions risks triggering a full blown trade war, with implications for
plane deals and even Europe’s crippling sovereign debt crisis. [Suhartono and Fogarty, 2012].
Yet there is at least time to negotiate a way out. The airlines are not due to be billed for their
emissions until April, 2013. Even then, they will have to pay for only 15% of them. Under
the ETS, they are required to buy tradable permits for a gradually rising portion of their
emissions. In 2012, the EU gave the airlines permits to cover 85% of them. [The Economist,
Feb. 11, 2012]
The airlines, naturally, say the cost will be onerous nonetheless. The China Air Transport
Association, which represents China’s airlines, estimated the scheme would cost them 800
million yuan [US $ 127 million] in 2012 and more than three times as much in 2020. [The
Economist, Feb. 11, 2012] EU officials say the scheme, if passed on to the passengers, would
add no more than around euro 2.50 [US$ 3.30] to the price of a one way ticket between
Europe and China. By slapping ETS surcharges on tickets, as some non- Chinese airlines
have done, they may even profit from the scheme. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
4.2.2 Possible Responses of East African Airlines
The main objection to the EU’s policy is that it applies to air miles clocked up outside
European airspace. The EU argues that its approach is consistent with ICAO’s own
guidelines, and that it would be impossible to regulate otherwise. But the dissenters claim this
infringes their sovereignty and breaks the terms of the Chicago Convention which has
regulated aviation since 1944. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012] A group of American airlines
therefore launched a legal challenge to the policy; but it was dismissed by the European
Court of Justice in December, 2011. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012] There is a precedent
supporting the Europeans: American green laws insist that ships docking locally be double
hulled, even though that forces ship owners to pay for unwanted double hulls on international
waters en route to American ports. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
China also claims that the EU’s policy transgresses UN Climate Change Agreements which
ordain that mitigation costs should be lower for developing countries that rich ones. [The
Economist, Feb. 11, 2012] Yet, even setting aside the difficult issue of how much of a free
ride China can expect, the EU’s policy applies to individual companies, not countries, for
which there is no such dispensation. The best solution would be through the ICAO. In
November, 2011 it resolved to accelerate steps to introduce its own mitigation efforts. It has
dawn up a short list of options, including a carbon tax or cap- and – trade scheme that would
apply to all airlines. [The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012]
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper discussed whether developing countries in East Africa should suppose market
based endeavors for curbing the pollution caused by international air travel. This is actually
an ethical question because global warming is eroding many of the natural resources that
form its comparative advantage in the global tourism market especially nature parks and
wildlife. A detailed explanation of the technical aspects of air travel and its contribution to
global pollution was given.
Having recognized the dimensions of the problem, the global community is now faced with
an ethical dilemma: continue to allow the increase in air travel that significantly supposes the
development of international tourism which benefits many stakeholders especially those
working in this industry or use a market based approach based on the “polluter pays”
principle currently being used by the European Union to curb GHG emissions. The latter
solution seems to be much more effective and efficient than waiting for yet another
international conference on global warming. They only seems to end in frustration and
disappointment for environmentalist and anti poverty campaigners. Since many poor Africans
living in rural areas as well as precious wildlife do not participate in international air travel, it
is strongly felt that those who do so should contribute to solving the problems they have
created.
REFERENCES
Africa’s aviation industry set to maintain growth. 2012 The Guardian Feb. 25, 2012, ii.
Air passenger traffic ‘to rise’. 2011 The Citizen. Jan. 5, 2011, 11.
Airlines set fuel efficiency, carbon goals. 2009. The Citizen. October 12, 2009, 7.
Airline takes action to curb noise pollution. 2011. The Citizen. August 17, 2011,10.
Australian Institute of Energy, (no date) Energy Value and Greenhouse Emission Factor of
Selected Fuels. http:// www.aie.org.au/melb/material/ resource/fuels.htm. Accessed
12.07.05
Baines, J. T. (Ed.) 1993. New Zealand Energy Information Handbook. Christchurch: Taylor
Baines & Associates.
Becken, Susanne. 2002. Analyzing international tourist flows to estimate energy use
associated with air travel. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 (2), 114-131.
Becken, Susanne and Hay, John E. 2007. Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and
Opportunities. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Boynton, Graham. 2010 Booming tourism: Beginning of the end of Africa’s wilidlife? The
Guardian April 11, 2010, 10.
Buwembo, Joachim. 2010. Why our national parks have become dinosaurs. The East African
August 23-29, 2010, 21.
Castro, Haroldo. 2011. Nature calls the shots in Tanzania. The Citizen May 29, 2011, 7.
Clearing the air. 2012. The Economist February 11, 2012 , 76.
Climatical change affects migratory birds in East Africa. 2012. Daily News. June 13,2012,
11.
Climbing through the clouds. 2011. The Economist July 9, 2011, 54-56.
Edwin, Wilfred. 2010. Tanzanian airline scores a first in the reduction of air pollution. The
East African. Feb. 22-28, 2010, 38.
Evan, William M. and Freeman, R. Edward. 1993. A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern
Corporation: Kantian Capitalism in Beauchamp, Tom and Norman Borvice, Ethical
Theory and Business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gossling, S. 2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental
Change 12, 283-302.
Hamida Shariff. 2010. Minister decries abuse of wildlife. The Citizen. March 2, 2010 , 6.
Han, Bernice. 2012. Aviation Industry nervous over EU carbon tax. The Citizen. February 14,
2012, 9.
How to cut carbon emissions. 2012. The Economist January 21, 2012, 59.
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Control. 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Reporting Instructions. On WWW at http:
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs4.htm . Accessed 03.02.01
Janic, M.
1999. Aviation and externalities: The accomplishments and problems.
Transportation Research Part D 4D (3), 159-180.
Kenya opens carbon exchange for Africans to earn dividends. 2001. The Citizen. 31 March
2011, 20.
Kunyabwoya, Damas. 2009. Airline sets up fund to manage forests. The Citizen 4 Nov. 2009,
14.
Lake Tanganyika heats up sharply. 2010. The Citizen. May 18, 2010, 10.
Lenzen, M. 1999. Total requirements of energy and greenhouse emissions impacts of some
consumer choice, technology and government outlay options. Energy Economics 24,
377-403.
Markillie, Paul. 2007. Fear of Flying: A Special Survey on Air Travel The Economist June
16, 2007 , 3- 22.
Meijers, D. 2005. Tax flight. An investigation into the origins and developments of the
exemption for various kinds of taxation of international aviation International Center for
Integrative Studies [ICIS] Working Paper: IO5-E001.
Mfugale, Deodatus. 2010. Land of 79 rivers threatened by environmental destruction.
The Guardian Dec. 21, 2010, 10.
Nachilongo, Hellen. 2011. Alert: Udzungwa biodiversity in danger. The Citizen Feb. 11,
2011, 4.
Otieno, Jeff. 2011. Tourism, EA economies major losers as wildlife habitat is destroyed. The
East African. April 18-24, 2011, 7.
Penner, J., Lister, D., Griggs, D., Dokken, D. and McFarland, M. (Eds). 1999. Aviation and
the Global Atmosphere. A Special Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III. Published
for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Price, T. and Probert, D. 1995. Environmental impacts of air traffic. Applied Energy 50, 133162.
Prideaux, B. 2000 Links between transport and tourism – past, present and future. In B.
Faulkner, G. Moscardo and E. Laws (Eds.) Tourism in the 21st Century. London:
Continuum.
Rio + 20 Earth Summit: Campaigners decry final document. 2012. Daily News. June 25,
2012, 23.
Roe, Dilys. 2010. Political action needed to harness value of bioversity. The Guardian Nov.
2, 2010, 11.
Sausen, R., Isaksen, I., Grewe, V., Haughlustaine, D., Lee, D., Myhre, G., Koehler, M., Pitari,
G., Schumann, U., Stordal, F. and Zerefos, C. 2005. Aviation radiative forcing in 2000:
An update on IPCC (1999) Meteorologische Zeitschrift 14 (4), 4316-4329.
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice. [1996] Allocation and Control of Emissions
from Bunder Fuels. Methodological Issues. Comments from Parties and an international
organization. Fourth Session Geneva. 16-18 December 1996. on www at
http://unfcc.int/cop4/misc5a01.htm. Accessed 7.11.05.
Suhatono, Harry and Fogarty, David. 2012. EU aviation carbon tax concerns, may go to UN.
The Guardian. Feb. 14, 2012, 6.
Tanzania: A wonder world of unique wildlife. 2011. Sunday News June 12, 2011, 11.
Taxing flights can generate billions for environment. 2011. The Citizen April 7, 2011, 17.
The Wildebeest could finally be killed, by a road. 2010. The East African. June 28 – July 4,
2010, II.
Trouble in the Air, double on the ground. 2102. The Economist, Feb. 11, 2012, 62.
Velasquez, Manuel H. 1992. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.:
Prentice Hall.
Wassener, Bettina. 2011. Aviation industry turns to biofuels. The East African. Oct. 17-23,
2011, 28.