For too many years, municipalities, industry, and communities have relied on the properties of large bodies of water to diffuse persistent pollutants to below detectable levels. Now new research shows that dilution, which never was an environmentally acceptable solution to pollution, may not even behave as expected. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin have found much larger than expected concentrations of pollutants from personal care products as far as 3.2 km from shore. The concentrations away from the shore were identified as presenting a medium or high risk to the environmental health of the lake ecosystem. The researchers conclude their report:

The most frequently detected PPCPs [Pharmaceuticals and personal care products] were metformin [an antidiabetic drug], caffeine, sulfamethoxazole [an antibiotic], and triclosan [an antibacterial]. Given the widespread detection of PPCPs, these pollutants are not ephemeral and pose an environmental risk to the sixth largest lake in the world. Therefore, high dilution is not adequate to mitigate the risk from this cocktail of PPCPs and the potential ecological risk for large lake systems is much higher than previously understood.

The fact that many of the environmentally toxic substances used in PPCPs [in the case of caffeine, used in many beverages and not fully metabolized by the body] find their way through sewage treatment plants and out into the aquatic environment is by no means a new finding. The fact that these chemicals are not adequately diluted, if there is such a thing as adequate dilution, is adding to our body of knowledge. It can only be a matter of time before the public begins to consider the pollution of lakes as large as Michigan with toxic substances to be socially and environmentally unacceptable.

Industry will almost certainly be fingered as the transgressor. Governments will likely step in to regulate the use of common aquatic contaminants. Municipalities will seek money from PPCP manufacturers and brandowners to pay for sewage treatment plant upgrades to remove these substances from effluent discharges. Environmental groups will point fingers at what they consider to be the most polluting products.

In the case of polyethylene microspheres, some companies have shown that they can play a leadership role in removing the potentially harmful ingredients from their products (see, for example, http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/Respondingtostakeholderconcerns/microplastics/) It seems to GallonDaily that companies could benefit, by avoiding regulations, sewer levies, and criticism, if they worked more aggressively and more openly to remove these additional persistent environmental contaminants from their consumer products or, where removal may not be possible, as in the case of drugs, to inform consumers as to less environmentally harmful ways to use and dispose of the product.

A full list of the substances identified in Lake Michigan, their concentrations, the test methodology, and much more information is available in the paper published in the Elsevier journal Chemosphere at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653513010412

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has published what it claims is the first study to analyze the impacts of global food wastage from an environmental perspective, looking specifically at the consequences of food waste for the climate, water, land use, and biodiversity. This report is as alarming as anything published by environmental groups. According to the report, one third of all food produced goes to waste, with annual consequences:

•  food that is produced but not eaten consumes roughly  250 cubic kilometres of water, about half the volume of Lake Erie.
• emission of 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, more than four times Canada’s total GHG emissions.
• direct economic consequences of $750 billion.

The report, and an accompanying toolkit to assist in food waste reduction, underlines the multiple benefits that can be realized– in many cases through simple and thoughtful measures — by households, retailers, restaurants, schools and businesses that can contribute to environmental sustainability, economic improvements, food security and the realization of the UN Secretary General’s Zero Hunger Challenge.

The report states that 54% of the world’s food wastage occurs “upstream” during production, post-harvest handling and storage, while 46% happens “downstream,” at the processing, distribution and consumption stages. Developing countries suffer more food losses during agricultural production, while food waste at the retail and consumer level tends to be higher in middle- and high-income regions of the world.

A summary, with links to the report and to the toolkit for reducing food waste, is available at http://www.rlc.fao.org/en/press/news/food-waste-harms-climate-water-land-and-biodiversity-new-fao-report/ A more detailed summary will be included in a future issue of Gallon Environment Letter. Readers may also be interested in the ‘restaurant’ feature in the current issue of Gallon Environment Letter, a free subscription to which is available for a limited time (individuals only) by sending your email address to subscriptions@gallonletter.ca or, for organizational subscriptions, by visiting http://www.cialgroup.ca/subscription.htm

Cooling towers, part of the system to remove excess heat from the interior of large buildings, are usually hidden on the building roof and receive little public attention except when they may be associated with an outbreak of Legionella disease. The New York City based Environmental Defense Fund has calculated that buildings with cooling towers typically use 28% of their total water use for their cooling towers, In addition to the cost and environmental impact of that amount of water use, chemicals are added to the cooling tower water to extend its usable life by reducing precipitation of solids and killing bacteria.

Rather than calling for additional regulations or other government involvement, EDF has partnered with AT&T Inc. to develop and publish a toolkit through which building managers can develop their own  building-related water efficiency plan. The toolkit includes:

• WaterMapp, a multi-tabbed spreadsheet with a water scorecard and a water efficiency calculator. The scorecard is used to create visibility for water performance at facilities. The calculator estimates water and financial savings from cooling tower or free-air cooling improvements—key data for making the water-efficiency investment business case
• A cooling system efficiency guide and a series of 12 videos to provide more information on how a cooling system works and how systems can be managed to minimize their use of water, energy and chemicals.
• Water audit templates to assist in defining the unique water profile of a building. As regular readers of GallonDaily will know, measurement is an essential precondition for effective efficiency initiatives.

EDF is holding a free webinar on Wednesday October 2nd from 3 to 4 pm Eastern time to introduce the toolkit. Preregistration is required. The webinar is to be conducted by experts and will introduce building managers and other involved individuals to:

• Measuring and managing water use
• Optimizing building cooling
• Building the business case to realize an ROI on water management

The introduction to the building water efficiency toolkit, a link to the kit, and a link for registration for the webinar, can be found at http://business.edf.org/projects/attwater

Last week Walmart announced a new policy on ‘sustainable chemistry’ in consumable products. While GallonDaily usually holds comments until plans are actually implemented, because so many do not get fully implemented, this one has the promise of being such a game changer that we thought it worthy of mention upfront.

Our comments follow, but here is what Walmart announced:

• Walmart will work with suppliers on continuous performance improvement on The Sustainability Index to address chemical disclosure, risk assessment and hazard avoidance.
• Beginning in January 2015, Walmart will require suppliers to provide online public ingredient disclosure for items sold at Walmart.
• Walmart has prioritized a list of approximately ten chemical ingredients, as its initial list of high priority chemicals, for continuous reduction, restriction, and elimination, using informed substitution principles, and will regularly review if additional chemicals should be prioritized. Priority Chemicals will be shared with suppliers.
• Walmart will begin to label private brand cleaning products in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s Design for the Environment Safer Product Labeling program, to the extent possible, and will continue to assess the applicability of DfE as it expands to broader product areas.

There is more in the announcement, available at http://az204679.vo.msecnd.net/media/documents/wmt-chemical-policy_130234693942816792.pdf , but the additional commitments are more of a timing and administrative nature.  A broader review by Walmart of its Sustainability Index program is available at http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/09/12/walmart-highlights-progress-on-the-sustainability-index

The ‘Sustainability Index could be a real game changer on the matter of environmentally harmful ingredients in consumer products but the announcement has what GallonDaily considers some flaws:

• It only applies to Walmart’s US business. Why Walmart considers that US consumers need or want ‘sustainable chemistry’  ahead of Walmart customers in Canada and the rest of the world is very unclear.
• Walmart has not announced the approximately ten chemical ingredients that are on its priority list for removal from its consumer products. How does one have approximately ten ingredients? Something is either going to be targeted for removal or it is not.  Identification of chemicals for removal from consumer product formulations is a significant challenge. We suspect that the Walmart announcement is approximate because they have not yet made decisions on which chemicals to target for reduction or removal.
• Why do we have to wait until January 2015 to learn of the ingredients in Walmart products? They have wisely indicated that the information will be posted on a website, rather than being printed in a tiny font on the label. With a website, the information should be posted by January 2014.
• Why is Canada left out of this apparently significant initiative?

It is not too often that organizations air their policy differences at a business conference but that is exactly what happened during a session at the Conference on Canadian Stewardship yesterday afternoon.

Glenda Gies, speaking on behalf of Allen Langdon, Managing Director of Multi-Materials British Columbia, gave a presentation on the new BC Extended Producer Responsibility program, gave an overview presentation on how the new program, intended to come into effect next year, would work. Her presentation was followed by one from Mayor Wayne Wright of the City of New Westminster in Metro Vancouver.

It was clear from the Mayor’s presentation that municipalities in BC are not happy with the new EPR program. Saying that the devil is in the details, the Mayor challenged a number of aspects of the new initiative and suggested that it may not give BC residents the quality of recycling collection program that municipalities want. A number of municipalities have asked MMBC and the province to delay implementation of the program by 90 days to allow further review and negotiation of the program details. Wright and Gies could not even agree on the number of municipalities that have asked for the delay, with Wright claiming it to be 22 and Gies saying it is somewhat less than that!

Bureaucrats and program advisors should by now know that something that is absolutely taboo when working with government or quasi-government programs is to embarrass the Minister. Allowing this difference between MMBC and BC municipalities to be aired in a public forum should have been a big no-no. GallonDaily bets that municipalities will get their way, that the program will be delayed and possibly amended, and that the new BC EPR will be off to a very rocky start, if it takes off at all, because of inadequate consultation with municipalities and, now, interference from provincial politicians.

It is time that ‘experts’ recognized that they are not experts when it comes to the court of public and politician opinion.

This item is a GallonDaily original from the Conference on Canadian Stewardship. More from the conference in future articles. We will report more on the BC EPR program in Gallon Environment Letter as soon as the BC Environment Ministry determines the final form of the initiative.

In a strongly finger pointing report, researchers writing under the brand of the Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development have blamed European biodiesel policy for contributing to destruction of tropical forests and their replacement with palm oil plantations.

The report states:

• The EU-27 is one of the key consumers of palm oil globally; its share of global palm oil consumption has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years, ranging from 12 to 15 per cent.
• Over 2006–2012, the EU-27 countries increased their total use of palm oil by 40 per cent, from 4.5 to 6.4 million tonnes,
• In 2012, about 1.9 million tonnes were used for biodiesel production and 0.6 million tonnes for electricity and heat generation. The bulk, 3.9 million tonnes, was used by the non-energy sector, which is represented mainly by food production, but also by the personal care (cosmetics, detergents) and oleo-chemical (paints, lubricants) industries.
• On the EU-27 scale, the biofuels industry has increased its use of palm oil by 365 per cent over 2006–2012, which can be linked primarily to the growth in biodiesel production stimulated by government policies during the same period. The increase in palm oil consumption in the biofuels sector has amounted to 1.6 million tonnes, or 80 per cent of the total increase in palm oil consumption in Europe (1.9 million tonnes) over 2006–2012.
• According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, on average, land planted with palm oil produces 5 to 10 times more oil per hectare (including palm kernel oil) than any other vegetable crop: 3.41 metric tonnes per hectare for palm oil, compared with just 0.68 metric tonnes for rapeseed [canola] and 0.36 tonnes for soy.
• As a result of its increasing production and availability, palm oil has been by far the cheapest vegetable oil on the world market. For instance, in July 2013 a tonne of palm oil was 27 per cent cheaper than a tonne of rapeseed or soybean oil
• For every extra tonne of biodiesel produced in the EU in 2006–2012, there was an increase of 110 kilograms of palm oil consumed as biodiesel feedstock. It has to be noted, however, that biodiesel production in the EU actually decreased in 2010, and, though it increased in 2011 and 2012, it still did not return to its 2009 historic maximum: palm oil consumption in the biofuel sector in Europe steadily increased over the observed period.
• By 2020 the EU biodiesel sector will consume around 2.6 – 2.7 million tonnes of palm oil, or 40 per cent more than in 2012.
• The only unequivocal way to cut this trend and prevent the further increase of palm oil consumption in the EU is to freeze its biodiesel production and consumption at current levels in accordance with the European Commission’s legislative proposal of October 17, 2012 that seeks to limit the contribution of food-based biofuels to meeting the EU target of renewable energy in transport by 2020 to 5 per cent from the current 10 per cent target. If the EU does not cut its current subsidies to biodiesel, it may, in an indirect way, lead to the cutting down of more rainforests, the conversion of more forest and peat land for palm oil plantations, and the emission of more carbon into the atmosphere.

GallonDaily’s take on this report is that, while there is a connection between biodiesel policy in the EU and increased palm oil production, the linkage is indirect and could be addressed in ways other than shutting down expanded use of biodiesel. After all, if the EU limits biodiesel production, without other policy initiatives,  the result will almost certainly be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from use of fossil fuels.

On the other hand, the debate about palm oil use illustrates one of the significant challenges to product environmental claims such as  ‘renewable’, ‘bio-based’, and ‘made from agricultural resources’.  Just because a product is made from renewable resources does not necessarily mean that its environmental footprint is lower than that of the conventional product. Only a lifecycle analysis, or some similar lifecycle approach which considers unintended consequences as well as direct environmental effects, can determine whether a bio-based product is an appropriate solution to the environmental challenges that we face.

Canada’s IISD has rarely engaged in this kind of strident finger-pointing before, preferring to present factual reports that encourage readers to come to their own conclusions about environmental villains. Maybe this report indicates something of a new direction under the new President and CEO of IISD, Scott Vaughan, former Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

The IISD report The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?,  prepared for, and with the funding of Friends of the Earth Europe. can be found at http://www.iisd.org/media/press.aspx?id=254&utm_source=www.iisd.org&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=2013-09-16&utm_campaign=RSS2.0

In Canada the plastic shopping bag issue seems to have gone quiet, at least temporarily, since the City of Toronto recently set aside a proposal to ban single use bags. In Ireland, however, the issue has taken an unexpected but potentially scientifically correct twist.

Many readers will know that Ireland was the first country to apply a levy, currently the equivalent of a bout 22 cents, on single use plastic shopping bags. The levy was intended to discourage the use of such bags based on their purported negative environmental impacts.

The major Irish environmental group Friends of the Irish Environment has pointed out that ‘life cycle analyses (LCAs) show that paper bags have a greater adverse impact than a plastic bag for a number of the environmental issues’. The organization is calling on the government to impose the levy on paper shopping bags as well as plastic bags.

The groups states that ‘A paper bag weighs roughly six times more than plastic, is about four times more expensive and takes up to ten times more storage space. The plastic bag levy has led to a displacement to paper bags in which could be as high as 80% according to Irish industry sources. A higher incidence of double bagging of paper bags for strength as well as heavier paper bags is another result of the levy.’

It is encouraging to see an environmental group using LCA rather than emotion-based claims for its campaign efforts.

The full Friends of the Irish Environment press release is available at http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/friendswork/index.php?action=view&id=1087

In the G20 communiqué, reported on in yesterday’s GallonDaily article, there is a specific reference to a World Bank report ‘Toward a Sustainable Energy Future for All’ which was issued in July of this year. We thought we should take a look.

The report is fairly short and subtitled ‘Directions for the World Bank Group’s Energy Sector’. Among the conclusions:

• Economic growth, which is essential for poverty reduction, is not possible without adequate energy
• In rural, remote or isolated areas, off-grid solutions based on renewable energy combined with energy efficient technologies could be the most rapid means of providing cost-effective energy services.
• As part of a drive for universal access, financial solutions or guarantees will be made available for the most feasible energy options for the poor and for people living in fragile and conflict-affected states
• The WBG acknowledges the global challenge of balancing energy for development with its impact on climate change and will help client countries realize affordable alternatives to coal power.
• Efforts to improve energy efficiency—one of the most cost-effective ways to expand supply and reduce environmental impact—will be scaled up according to countries’ needs and opportunities.
• Sustainable development of run-of-river, pumped storage, and reservoir hydropower projects that meet environmental and social safeguard standards will continue. Despite its potential, hydropower remains largely untapped in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and other parts of the developing world, and for some may be the largest available source of affordable renewable energy
• The World Bank Group will help tackle regulatory and financial barriers to the adoption of climate-smart energy solutions. Steps include promoting deployment of energy solutions at scale to bring down costs, sending the right price signals, providing investors and the public with up-to-date information, and establishing and enforcing the right regulatory framework to accelerate the transition to a climate-smart future.
• The World Bank Group will continue to be a partner in innovation and technology transfer, particularly through demonstration projects to promote new clean energy technologies, innovative policy tools and market mechanisms, and capacity building.
• Resource opportunities for countries to make transitions to sustainable energy vary greatly. In some cases, natural gas is likely to make an important contribution.
• The World Bank Group will encourage developed countries to provide incentives for more efficient and environmentally sound energy production and consumption and support research and development for new energy technologies.
• The World Bank Group recognizes that leadership from developed countries and large emerging economies in pricing carbon, moving new technologies and other innovations to markets, and deploying them at scale is critical to address greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, achieving universal access would have a negligible environmental impact— increasing greenhouse gas emissions by less than 1 percent. While World Bank Group engagement will continue to favor renewable energy and increased efficiency, the approach will not punish the poor for the actions of others.

The report may be useful to businesses operating in the energy sector as a guide to the projects that the World Bank Group is likely to support in the future. However, as the report’s title suggests, the report is directional rather than quantitative and, in GallonDaily’s opinion, is almost completely lacking of a vision for a low carbon economy approach to meeting the needs of developing countries.

An abstract and a link to the full report can be found at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/07/18016002/toward-sustainable-energy-future-all-directions-world-bank-group%C2%92s-energy-sector

Although last week’s G20 meeting in Russia was overshadowed by the situation in Syria, the leaders did adopt a multi-faceted communiqué which included some elements related to the environment and sustainable development. Further, GallonDaily suggests that although the track record of the G20 is not great when it comes to implementation, public pressure through the media is making G20 decisions a little more likely to be at least partially implemented than this type of decision has been in the past.  These international meetings are useful to business if only as an indicator of global trends.

Potentially implementable G20 2013 commitments relevant to the environment and sustainable development include:

• Corruption impedes sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction, threatening financial stability and economy as a whole. We will hold ourselves to our commitment to implement the G20 Anti-Corruption Action Plan, combating domestic and foreign bribery, tackling corruption in high-risk sectors, strengthening international cooperation and promoting public integrity and transparency in the fight against corruption.
• We commit to enhance energy cooperation, to make energy market data more accurate and available and to take steps to support the development of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies to enhance the efficiency of markets and shift towards a more sustainable energy future. We underscore our commitment to work together to address climate change and environment protection, which is a global problem that requires a global solution.
• We recognize the importance of improving processes and transparency in the prioritization, planning, and funding of investment projects, especially in infrastructure, and in making better use of project preparation funds. Particular attention will also be given to ways to improve the design of and conditions for productive public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements.
• We understand the importance of regional trade agreements (RTAs) and their contribution to trade and investment liberalization. We commit to ensure that RTAs support the multilateral trading system. Realizing that enhancing transparency in RTAs and understanding of RTAs and their effects on the further development of multilateral rules are of systemic interest to all G20 members, we are committed to continue our work on RTAs in the WTO, and share our approach for Advancing Transparency in Regional Trade Agreements (Annex).
• Food security and nutrition will remain a top priority in our agenda. We recognize the importance of boosting agricultural productivity, investment and trade to strengthen the global food system to promote economic growth and job creation. We encourage all ongoing efforts in the agricultural sector to further reduce hunger, under-nutrition and malnutrition, through increased coordination in the G20 to promote the identification and implementation of effective actions in support of production and productivity growth as well as enhancement of food security and nutrition for vulnerable population through, among others, nutrition sensitive policies and comprehensive social protection systems, with particular emphasis on low income countries. We support discussions in the WTO to respond to legitimate food security concerns, without distorting trade, including those related to carefully targeted policies to protect vulnerable populations. We recognize that the agricultural market situation needs closer attention and that the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) is generating better transparency and still needs more efforts to be fully implemented.
• We welcome the substantial progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) since 2000 and the success in galvanizing global action to reach specific targets globally, as well as in individual countries, particularly in eradicating extreme poverty and promoting development. However, the prospects for achieving all of the MDGs differ sharply across and within countries and regions. We remain committed to accelerating progress towards achieving the MDGs, particularly through the implementation of our development agenda and our focus on promoting strong, sustainable, inclusive and resilient growth.
• We call for an agreement on an integrated post-2015 development agenda with concise, implementable and measurable goals taking into account different national realities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities, focused both on the eradication of extreme poverty, promoting development and on balancing the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development.
• We welcome efforts aimed at promoting sustainable development, energy efficiency, inclusive green growth and clean energy technologies and energy security for the long term prosperity and well being of current and future generations in our countries. We will continue in cooperation with international organisations sharing national experiences and case studies regarding sustainable development, clean energy, and energy efficiency as well as development, deployment and broader application of related technologies and will take forward work, on a voluntary basis, on corresponding policy options and technologies. We take note of the new World Bank report ‘Toward a Sustainable Energy Future for All’, which aims to promote access to reliable and affordable energy in developing countries and recognise the importance of the sustainable and responsible production and use of modern bioenergy and the role played by the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) in this regard.
• We reaffirm our commitment to rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption over the medium term while being conscious of necessity to provide targeted support for the poorest.
• Sizable investment, including from private sources, will be needed in the G20 and other economies in energy infrastructure in the years ahead to support global growth and development. It is our common interest to assess existing obstacles and identify opportunities to facilitate more investment into more smart and low-carbon energy infrastructure, particularly in clean and sustainable electricity infrastructure where feasible. In this regard we encourage a closer engagement of private sector and multilateral development banks with the G20 Energy Sustainability Working Group (ESWG) and call for a dialogue to be launched on its basis in 2014 that will bring interested public sector, market players and international organizations together to discuss the factors hindering energy investment, including in clean and energy efficient technologies and to scope possible measures needed to promote sustainable, affordable, efficient and secure energy supply.
• Many countries are trying to improve their energy mix and use, such as by promoting renewable and/or nuclear energy. Nuclear power is a low-carbon option, but it is capital intensive and comes with responsibilities for nuclear safety, security and safeguards/nonproliferation. G20 countries, whether nascent or established nuclear power producers should strive for the highest possible level of nuclear safety, to foster robust nuclear safety and nuclear security cultures and, as called for in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, we encourage multilateral cooperation towards achieving a global nuclear liability regime.
• We are committed to support the full implementation of the agreed outcomes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its ongoing negotiations. We strongly welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to mobilize political will through 2014 towards the successful adoption of a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the convention applicable to all Parties by 2015, during COP-21 that France stands ready to host.
• We also support complementary initiatives, through multilateral approaches that include using the expertise and the institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), based on the examination of economically viable and technically feasible alternatives. We will continue to include HFCs within the scope of UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol for accounting and reporting of emissions.
• Taking note of the developments over the past year, we support the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). We welcome the report of the G20 Climate Finance Study Group on G20 countries’ experiences on ways to effectively mobilize climate finance taking into account the objectives, provisions, and principles of the UNFCCC.

The G20 Leaders Declaration and a number of background papers are available at http://www.g20.org/news/20130906/782776427.html

In the run up to the triennial Assembly of the UN International Civil Aviation Organization, where climate change is positioned as a significant item on the agenda, scientists from the Centre for Aviation Transport and the Environment at Manchester Metropolitan University (UK) have published a science-based report on the best and most cost-effective way of mitigating future aviation emissions. Although aviation is responsible for only about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the sector is frequently a target of criticism, in part because it is seen to have among the highest emissions per passenger-km and because it appears to be a rapidly growing sector.

The report analysed 23 incremental mitigation scenarios for aviation CO2 emissions for their reductions in radiative forcing/temperature response by 2050 over a business as usual (BAU) aviation technology/operational improvements scenario. The mitigation measures included five levels of technology/operational improvements, three levels of biofuel market penetration, and two levels of geographical coverage of an emissions trading system.

The research found that emissions trading, as designed by the European Union, would provide the largest single incremental improvement in radiative forcing and temperature response by 2050 of ~15% (range 12 to 17%) over BAU. The next largest single potential contributor, as a measure, to reductions in aviation CO2 radiative forcing by 2050, was a maximum feasible reductions scenario of reductions in aviation CO2 emissions from technological and operational improvements of 6.4% (range 6.1 to 6.9%). The additional introduction of “likely” levels of biofuels over BAU gave the smallest reduction, as a single measure, in aviation CO2 radiative forcing by 2050 over BAU of 1.1% (range 1.0 to 1.2%). By combining MFR technology/operational improvements with biofuels at “speculative” levels, reduced aviation CO2 radiative forcing over BAU by 9% (range 8.3 to 9.6%). Combining all possible measures – MFR technology/operations, “speculative” biofuels, and the EU-ETS, reduced aviation CO2 RF by 19.5% (range 16.1 to 21.5%) over BAU.

The researchers found that the reason that emissions trading schemes result in such marked radiative forcing reductions is their inherent ability to achieve emission reductions quickly, which is vital when considering the effectiveness of any CO2 mitigation action, because of the accumulative nature of CO2 in the atmosphere. The timing as to when reductions in CO2 emissions occur matters – not just the achievement of an emissions goal by some future date. The data show that early reductions in CO2 emissions produce the best environmental response.

The full paper, and a summary, are both available at http://www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/projects/mitigating-future-aviation-co2-emissions-timing-is-everything/ 

The ICAO Assembly takes place in Montreal from 24 September to 4 October 2013.