This document discusses the potential role of establishing a CO2 emissions standard for new aircraft to address the growing climate impact of the aviation industry. It notes that while industry claims fuel efficiency is driven by fuel prices, evidence shows efficiency gains have stagnated in recent decades. A CO2 standard could incentivize new technology deployment and optimize aircraft design. However, a standard alone cannot price carbon emissions or improve existing fleets. The document examines key design challenges for an effective standard and argues it should be one part of a comprehensive strategy including market-based measures and operational efficiency improvements.

1. The Role and Design of
a CO2 Standard for
New Aircraft
Dan Rutherford, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher
NGO Observer to ICAO Emissions and Technology
Environmental Working Group
2degreesnetwork webinar
14 April 2010

2. Overview
 Overview of the climate challenge
 Introduction to an aircraft CO2 standard
– Recent policy developments
– Why an aircraft standard?
– Key design criteria
 What can’t a standard do?
 Conclusions

3. Business As Usual: 4X CO2 by 2050
ICAO 2050 projection
(CAEP/8 forthcoming)
Mt CO2/yr
Source: IPCC Working Group III 4th Assessment Report, 2007.
In total, 3.5~5.0% of global RF in 2005, counting NOx
and cirrus impacts (Lee 2009)

4. Aviation CO2 missing from international
climate agreements
Kyoto protocol coverage of global aviation CO2 emissions
assuming no post-2004 growth
700
600
CO2 emissions covered (MMT)
500
400
300
200
100
0
Worldwide total Kyoto now
Source: ICCT, from data in SAGE Version 1.5 Global Aviation Emissions Inventories for 2000 through 2004.

5. What is the international community doing?
 ICAO High Level Declaration (10/2009)
– 2% fuel efficiency improvement target to
2020
– 2% “aspirational goal” 2020~2050
– Development of a CO2 standard for
new aircraft “types”
 UNFCCC/COP-15 (12/2009)
– Ultimately silent on the issue of
“bunkers”
– Much interest in marine and aviation as
source of adaptation funding
 CAEP/8 (2/2010)
– Reaffirmed intent to set CO2 standard
for new aircraft
– Work may be completed 2013 with
possible interim deliverables

6. Why an aircraft CO2 standard?
 Traditional industry position: Aviation is fuel price sensitive
--> sufficient driver for efficiency already
 Evidence suggests room for improvement:
– Efficiency gains from new equipment declined markedly after 1990,
approximately flat since 2000
– Large jet manufacturers slow to develop new single-aisle aircraft
– Race for speed and range impose efficiency penalty
– Under-optimization of aircraft to allow for general use (stage length,
belly freight capacity)
 An aircraft CO2 standard, properly designed, can:
– Provide an incentive to deploy new technologies
– Minimize emissions vs. performance tradeoffs
– Promote increased optimization of aircraft to mission
– “Force” technology???

7. New aircraft efficiency flat today

8. Lack of new designs driving stagnation
Average Age of Aircraft Manufacturer Production Lines, 1960-2008
25 100
20 80
Seat-km Fuel Burn (1960=100)
Age of Production Line (yr)
Engine family
15 60
10 40
Aircraft series
5 20
0 0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
ICCT (2009). “Efficiency Trends for New Commercial Jet Aircraft, 1960 to 2008.”

9. Emissions and performance tradeoffs exist
Two flight options, San Francisco to Italy
907 kg
CO2
517 kg
CO2
62 kg
277 kg
CO2
CO2
Estimated CO2 emissions (one-way)
Ave EIS:1993
SFO-ZRH-FLR (6100 miles): 969 kg CO2
18% reduction
Ave EIS:1985
SFO-JFK-PSA (6700 miles): 794 kg CO2
ICCT analysis, kayak.com and Piano-X model

10. Standard design issues
 Metrics: How to measure/compare aircraft efficiency?
 Applicability: cover all new aircraft or just new designs?
 Thresholds: need to cover turboprops, BJs?
 Certification procedure: what is an aviation “duty cycle”
 Stringency: How strict?
 Compliance:
– Pass/fail at the aircraft level?
– Averaging within an aircraft family?
– Corporate averaging?
 Criteria for cost/cost effectiveness

11. Certification test points matter
Relative block CO2 reductions at various operating points for
an historical narrowbody replacement
ICCT analysis using Piano-X model

12. Alternative compliance mechanisms important
for an aircraft CO2 standard
 Efficiency standards enforced on a “pass/fail” basis tend not to raise
fleetwide efficiency
– “Pass/fail” used to regulate vehicle emissions, but rarely efficiency, and
only in developing markets with large gap between best and worst
– Sets up high stakes game where viability of particular models and even
manufacturers is on the line
– Favors “bottom scraper” rather than “top runner” standards
 Need to think flexibly about alternatives to traditional certification
– Averaging within an aircraft family (commonality issue)
– Corporate average: set a single target for a manufacturer --> let
comply through means of their choice
– “Soft” (e.g. financial, etc.) penalties for non-compliance?
– Labeling
– Other ideas?

13. What can’t an aircraft CO2 standard do?
 A standard cannot:
– Put a general price on aviation carbon
– Improve the efficiency of in-service aircraft
– Promote operational improvements in fuel burn (ATM,
CDAs, etc.)
– Address NOx, AIC impacts
 Aircraft standard is only one part of a comprehensive
climate strategy for aviation
– Market-based measures
– Incentives for operational improvements
– Measures to address non-CO2 impacts of aviation
– Others?

14. Non-CO2 climate impact may be the low hanging fruit
Normalized operating costs vs. normalized 100 yr global warming impact
for various designs of a narrowbody aircraft
Schwartz, E. and Kroo, I.M. Aircraft Design: Trading Cost and Climate Impact. AIAA 2009-1261.

15. Conclusions
 Aviation climate challenge is a massive one that
requires new thinking
 ICAO work on aircraft CO2 standard underway
 Potentially, standards can:
– Speed technology deployment
– Manage emissions vs. performance tradeoffs
– Promote better optimization of aircraft to mission
 Standard one part of a comprehensive strategy
– MBMs to price carbon
– Measures to improve operational efficiency
– Action on non-CO2 climate effects

16. Acknowledgements
 ClimateWorks and Hewlett Foundations
 Mazyar Zeinali, Fanta Kamakate, and
Drew Kodjak (ICCT)
 CAEP WG3 colleagues