India needs to exploit its vast geographic expanse for cultivation of biofuel crops, while it’s globally acknowledged brain bank works on research to channelise biofuels into aviation. This would make commercial aviation less expensive, not only by providing alternatives to ever-costlier fossil fuels but also through neutralisation of market mechanisms targeting aviation impact on environment.

On October 24, the US House of Representatives passed a legislation prohibiting the US aircraft operators from participating in the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The overwhelming voice vote approving the ETS Prohibition Act was a significant milestone, not just in the longstanding trade war between the US and Europe, but also in the ongoing global cogitation on the subject of environment. Despite financial volatility that appears to afflict almost every nation, commercial airports and aircraft carriers across the world are under tremendous pressure to increase the quantum of passenger (and cargo) operations on account of rising demand. This increase in demand has raised concerns amongst groups and some other communities that the result could be detrimental to the environment at large. While the three environmental challenges posed by aviation—climate change, air quality and noise—are a small fraction of the big picture which includes all industries; environmental issues related to aviation tend to get more than their fair share of attention in environmental debates. Moreover, as every environmental initiative related to aviation has a cost attached to it, it is natural for commercial aviation to view environmental proposal as militating with the ‘mission’ of maximising returns on investments.

Europe has led the environment related campaign in respect of aviation through the ETS, a market based mitigation mechanism to combat climate change costs. Its effect on international aviation which is soon going to be adversely affected by it is impending, because in January 2009, the EU published Directive 2008/101/EC which confirmed that aviation would be included in the EU ETS from January 1, 2012, onwards. EU’s wisdom dictates that to avoid distortions of competition and improve environmental effectiveness, emissions from all flights arriving at and departing from EU aerodromes, are to be included in EU ETS. While non- European aircraft operators view the ETS as an arbitrary and unjust violation of international law that disadvantages all air carriers other than Europeans; the European Union iterates that EU law is a non-discriminatory first step to tackling pollution from airlines, and was enacted several years ago after countries spent a dozen years failing to agree on a programme in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to cut carbon pollution. Despite mounting international pressure, EU has strongly signalled that it would not relent on imposing emissions taxes on foreign carriers starting from January 1, 2012. In 2009, American, United and Continental Airlines and the Air Transport Association (ATA) had appealed against the ETS in the UK, the EU member state to which the US carriers most frequently fly. On October 6, 2009, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice issued a provisional ruling denying the appeal. The ruling disappointed not only the ATA but also the International Air Transport Association (IATA) which is supportive of measures to reduce aviation emissions, but maintains that emissions trading or any other approach must be a global scheme under the leadership of ICAO.

To understand the impact of commercial aviation on environment, it is important to iterate some scientifically proven figures. Global climate change is a direct result of the presence of greenhouse gas (GHG) in the lower atmosphere. The GHG which is of maximum impact on climate change is carbon dioxide (CO₂). Aviation accounts for only about two per cent of the total global CO₂ emissions and about 12 per cent of CO₂ emissions from all transportation sources. Aviation also produces non-CO₂ emissions which include water vapour, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, hydrocarbons and black carbon (soot)—the majority of these are emitted at altitudes between 26,000 and 40,000 feet. The CO₂ emissions from aviation, along with negligible amounts of water vapour, are the only GHG attributable to aviation—commercial or non-commercial; all the other aviation related emissions are not reckoned as GHG by themselves. Quantitatively, 95 per cent of CO₂ emissions come from aircraft in the air while the rest can be attributed to aircraft on ground and also other aviation related emissions like energy use in airport terminals, surface transport and infrastructure development (construction, etc). As can be seen in terms of proportion, aviation is a small contributor to climate change. However, as aviation tends to be viewed as an elitist activity as opposed to other industrial activity that universally benefits mankind, the attention aviation related environment issues get is disproportionate to their influence on climate change.

In India, the Directorate General Civil Aviation (DGCA), as the agency responsible for air transport services and for enforcement of civil air regulations, air safety and airworthiness, recognised the slowly but gradually intensifying global pressure on aviation with respect to environment and thus established an Environment Unit in 2009. The stated objectives of the Environment Unit are to help aviation stakeholders in India in reducing carbon footprints through feasible and economical measures. In August 2010, DGCA issued a circular on “voluntary measures for overall improvement in fuel efficiency and co-benefit of reduction of GHG emissions in the Indian aviation sector”. The goals of these voluntary measures are based on the metric of fuel efficiency (defined as fuel/revenue tonne kilometre) and the airlines are expected to improve upon their fuel efficiency every year. The circular is, in turn, based on an ICAO circular on “operational opportunities to minimise fuel use and reduce emissions” which focuses on a compilation of operational measures designed at achieving near-term reductions in aircraft emissions and those in supporting ground operations. The underlying philosophy appears to be that the most effective way to minimise aircraft emissions is to minimise the fuel used in operating each flight. It identifies areas where improvements can be made based on the knowledge gained by the civil aviation industry. While DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation appear to be convinced that emission reduction is an imperative, airlines are not convinced that the circular would achieve that laudable objective. Without going into the details of the actual fuel conservation methods contained in the circular, a point worth noting is that most of the options suggested in the DGCA circular have already been implemented by airlines since 2003 (due to the preponderance of the low-cost model in India). Residual gaps if any were filled stringently when the bleeding and cash-strapped airlines were assailed by the 2008 economic downturn. Thus there is not much scope for any worthwhile emission cuts by pursuing those fuel conservation measures that airlines have been employing in search of making operations less expensive. As can be expected, there is not much on the ground for the Environment Unit to show as results.