COPENHAGEN--For years international civil aviation has experienced growth higher than that of the world economy, and forecasts indicate continued high growth. Yet, nobody knows the real environmental consequences, and there is no binding international regulation limiting air traffic pollution. International negotiations about regulation have come to a stalemate, and there is no sign of a change in near future.
"We won't see any real regulation, before we know the impact of the emissions," said Anthony Rowland from the General Directorate on Environment of the European Commission. "And we won't know the impact before the scientist have collected the data and analyzed them, and they say it will take at least five years before they have anything ready."
Air traffic is one of the fastest growing means of transport, especially in Asia and in the United States. In the US, air traffic grows twice as fast as car traffic. During the period of 1960-1990, world civil aviation increased by a mean of 9.9 percent each year according to the UN International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. During the same period, the world economy grew at a rate of 3.8 percent a year. ICAO expects that civil air transport will continue to grow at an average of 6 percent annually.
Carbon dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen, are believed to be the most important emissions from aircrafts. Both emissions have consequences for the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. How much is uncertain. According to Giovanni Angeletti with the R & D section of the EU environmental directorate, an initial report will be published this summer, but it won't give a complete view of the problem.
The lack of documentation does not mean that there is no broad consent among environmental groups that air traffic is one of the most polluting means of traffic. Rule-of-thumb is, the greater the journey distance the more competitive air travel becomes. When the journey is longer than 2,000 kilometers it is worthwhile flying from an environmental perspective. When the journey is 500 kilometers, flying is the most polluting method of transport.
"For four years we've been fighting to get an agreement in ICAO of a 16 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen, but the Americans have blocked it. We are now trying to get the EU Commission to adopt it, and then work on it internationally," said Rowland.
The only regulation today is a non-binding guideline from ICAO on how much the engine - not the air traffic as a whole - may pollute. "Consumers want to fly, the constructors want to build, and airlines want to sell tickets, but there is a consequence to the environment, when air traffic is allowed to double in only a decade. Maybe we will come up with a new technology to reduce emissions, but it is not around the corner," said Rowland.
Many nongovernmental groups are trying to put the question on the international agenda. Recently, a group of nongovernmental organizations met in Holland to agree on a strategy on how to get attention from the politicians and consumers.
"When we gather across borders we find out what different countries are doing about the problem. Sweden, for example, has a environmentat tax on air traffic, and that has forced Sweden's airline Linjeflygg to buy better engines which pollute much less," said Arne Lund who works with the Danish NGO, Noah Trafik.
One clear problem according to many NGOs and some European governments such as the Danish and the Dutch, is a EU-directive which blocks governements from collecting tax on fuel used by planes and ships. Trains, busses and cars are paying a lot of taxes but planes and ships, who are strong polluters, do not.
The Dutch government recently proposed such a tax at a meeting at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, but the chance of getting it adopted is vague.
"There are so many interests against regulation and taxes. The French are building planes, and British are traditionally very pro air traffic. The industry has a strong lobby," said Rowland who believes a funrealistic.
There are many ways to try and slow down the explosive growth of air traffic.
The NGOs suggest that planes use more of their capacity. Many air lines often fly half empty, the Scandinavian airline, SAS, for example, only had a capacity of 63.4 percent last year.
Approaching politically conscious consumers is another way. When deciding which airline to use, they could chose airlines such as Swiss Air and the German Lufthansa. They both have many new planes which pollute less than older planes of e.g. the Spanish Iberia or the Russian Aeroflot and even SAS.
Helping the train industry to build high-speed trains is another way. Generally, trains are the most environmentally correct means of transport when it comes to inter-continental distances.
A one percent pollute-to-pay-principle is also being discussed to raise enough money to pay for extensive research on air traffic pollution. New technology may also be a way to limit the air traffic.
"Why do so many European politicians have to fly to Brussels four times a month to meet?" asked Niels Zibrandtsen from a Danish NGO fighting against an expansion of Copenhagen Airport who plans to more than double its traffic within a decade. "European politicians could do what many private companies have started doing. Have some more virtual meetings using video and tele conferences. It is cheaper and much more environmentally sound."