Passengers can now pay compensation for flight pollution – 03/06/2023 – Market

To get to the clouds, you have to burn kerosene, and a lot of it. Today, airlines are able to pinpoint how much pollution this generates, and now they invite passengers to help pay the bill to offset this.

Companies like Gol, Qatar and United have created programs for travelers to pay an extra amount and thus help finance ways to offset the emissions generated by travel.

A Gol flight from Congonhas airport (SP) to Santos Dumont (RJ), for example, produces five tons of CO2. Dividing this among the travelers, it comes to something around 34 kg per passenger, which can be compensated for R$ 2.78.

In January, Gol launched a function on its website so that customers can pay for compensation when purchasing a ticket, in the same way as paying for an extra bag. Before, there was a more complicated path to get to this option.

According to the company, from June 2021 to December 2022, 13,100 tons of CO2 were neutralized, through compensation made by customers and other actions. This would be equivalent to preserving 1.8 million trees.

On Air France-KLM, offsetting emissions on a flight from São Paulo to Paris costs around R$145. The option has been available since last year.

The calculation of how much money it costs to offset emissions is based on two pieces of information: on the one hand, mathematical models make it possible to estimate with increasing precision the amount of pollutants generated per flight. Consumption can be taken into account at each stage of the trip, such as taxiing on the runway, taking off and flying at altitude.

On the other hand, there is a market for carbon credits. On average, offsetting a ton of CO2 costs between US$10 and US$20. Dividing this amount among the passengers, and adding any administrative expenses, we arrive at the price charged, proportional to the kilos of pollution generated.

The idea of ​​compensation seems simple, but there are many issues. Generally, companies hire other institutions dedicated to environmental projects to carry out actions such as planting trees, recovering forests or creating clean energy projects.

Qatar Airways, for example, uses the money collected from passengers to maintain a wind energy park in India, which avoids the emission of 210 thousand tons of greenhouse gases per year, according to the company. As this production of clean energy replaces the use of thermoelectric plants, in theory, pollutants are no longer produced, which generates compensation.

However, there is debate whether it makes sense to use these funds to finance projects that could pay for themselves.

“Today the price of wind and photovoltaic energy [solar] has fallen so low that it no longer needs the help of carbon credits. The projects can be lucrative in themselves, and there are certifiers that no longer accept initiatives of this category”, says Shigueo Watanabe Jr., researcher at the Talanoa Institute and specialist in carbon credits

Watanabe also points out possible risks in compensation programs involving reforestation and nature preservation. “Integrity problems can happen, like doing a preservation project in an indigenous area, but without talking to the indigenous people, or that advances on a conservation area”, he ponders.

“There is also the issue that the tree captures carbon, but if it is cut down or burned, this carbon is released back into the atmosphere. So it is necessary not only to plant the trees, but to ensure that they remain standing, and for many decades”, explains the researcher.

Experts recommend that clients learn more about where their compensation money is going. “There are very well-designed projects, and others less so, which are cheaper”, warns Watanabe.

“In Brazil, the sectors that emit the most are those related to land use change and agriculture, and the largest share comes from deforestation. In these sectors, the country can benefit more by selling credits”, points out Mariano Cenamo, director of new Idesam’s business, an NGO that works on environmental compensation projects in the Amazon.

The aviation sector generates around 1% of carbon dioxide emissions in Brazil, according to SEEG (System for Estimating Emissions and Removals of Greenhouse Gases). In 2019, before the pandemic, planes emitted 17,400 tons of CO2 in the country (1.25% of the country’s total). In 2021, with fewer flights in operation, there were 10.9 thousand tons (0.71%).

The aviation sector has created a strategy to reduce pollutant emissions, called Corsia (International Aviation Carbon Footprint Reduction Scheme). The agreement provides for two phases: from 2021 to 2026, countries can adopt measures to mitigate emissions on a voluntary basis. Currently, 115 countries have joined, including Brazil.

As of 2027, the adoption of mitigation measures will be mandatory, with exceptions for very poor countries or with a low number of flights.

Corsia envisages four main actions: developing new technologies for aircraft, improving air traffic and airport operations to save fuel, using less polluting fuels and making carbon offsets.

Of the four tactics, however, the one that will have the greatest effect is the fuel switch. However, the advancement of SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) is slow. At the end of 2022, it represented less than 0.1% of the market. Despite this, companies hope it could become the standard fuel for decades to come.

Some companies, such as KLM-Air France and United, give the option for passengers to donate money to them to increase the purchase of SAF, which is still scarce in the market and therefore costs 2.5 to 5 times more than aviation kerosene.

In addition to matters of individual conscience, airlines seek to meet the demand of companies that buy corporate flights. The pollution generated by employees commuting on business trips enters the impact calculations made by companies, who want to reduce their carbon footprint to meet ESG goals.

The extra money is welcome by airlines, at a time when they are still trying to pay off the debts generated by the stoppage in the pandemic and when the volume of travel before the health crisis has not yet been recovered.

Despite this, the model generates complaints that companies may be placing an obligation on the customer that should be theirs. “It’s as if the Uber driver asked for an extra amount to stop at the gas station and fill up with ethanol, because it pollutes less”, compares Watanabe.