(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
NHO and the airlines are desperately fighting for a new flight charge of 88. The powerful industry claims both that the fee will not have a climate effect and that it will lead to the closure of air routes. This is not related.
It is startling that the NHO believes that the market mechanism is not working. The point of environmental taxes is to change behavior and reduce the demand for consumption with negative environmental impact. This means that providers, in this case the airline industry, are affected. Of course, this will require restructuring. A flight charge may therefore mean that some less profitable flight routes must be closed down.
Irresponsible. That it threatens 5000 – 6000 jobs, as NHO claims, seems unlikely. But the fee will help Avinor and the industry think about it before continuing with their plans for further growth. So far, airport expansion plans have been heralded by irresponsible politicians. It should now end, at least if we are to believe NHO ourselves: If the industry bleeds as a result of a fee that costs about the same as a pint of beer – yes, then there is a great risk that new runways and airport terminals ends up as the gas power plants in Western Norway – loss bombs planned by short-thinking builders and approved by irresponsible politicians.
Doubling. Norwegians make an average of 2,7 domestic flights a year, while an EU citizen flies 0,3 times. Five million Norwegians thus fly as much domestically as more than 40 million EU citizens. NHO Aviation and Avinor do not think this is enough, adding up to a doubling of air traffic in ten years. At the same time, they claim that emissions should not increase. Biofuels, efficient engines and a questionable quota trading plan will solve aviation's climate problem. But it's not likely.
The growth is incompatible with the two-degree target, and shows that the airline industry has no plans to take its share of the emissions cuts.
Efficient motors? Various reports suggest an annual reduction in fuel consumption per fleet of about one percent. When aviation adds up to a doubling of traffic, the climate effect of energy efficiency is quickly eaten up.
The greenhouse effect. Nor does biofuels solve the aviation industry's climate problem. Although some increased extraction of biomass can be made environmentally sound, it is uncertain for what purposes it should be used to provide the greatest climate benefit. There are promising bioenergies, such as algae-based fuels. However, an EU study considers this technology so unfinished that it is uncertain when it can contribute. In the short and medium term, biofuels in large quantities are not available for aviation.
Aviation also exaggerates the climate effect of biofuels, because CO2 emissions make up only about half of aviation's climate impact. Condensation streaks and cirrus clouds from aircraft, as well as emissions of other gases, amplify the greenhouse effect.
Aviation's international interest organization IATA realizes that new technology will not make aviation emission-free, and will therefore have an international regime for emission quotas. However, IATA will not submit to the UN system under the Climate Convention, but will create its own system. IATA has been saying this since 1997, but has zero results to show.
Increase the tax. Air transport accounted for a formidable increase in emissions in Norway from 1990 to 2010: 110 per cent for foreign and 60 per cent for domestic. The growth is not compatible with the two-degree target, and shows that the aviation industry has no plans to take its share of the emission cuts.
In sum: Despite new aircraft and aircraft engines, route optimization, new landing and taxiing procedures and some use of biofuels, the increase in traffic ensures that emissions increase. Norwegian Aviation's own «sustainability report» calculates strong emission growth in the period 1990–2020.
Therefore, it is necessary to impose increased taxes on flights. To prevent users of the short-haul network in the districts from being unnecessarily affected, the state can use some of the revenue to support these.
The UN Climate Panel says that the world must break business as usual in consumption and production, if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. In 2050, countries such as Norway must have greenhouse gas emissions close to zero. Aviation must contribute on an equal footing with other sectors.
