EasyJet, Ryanair, and Wizz Air are making efforts to challenge the new rule by long-haul airlines to limit new European Union (EU) regulations on non-CO2 emissions. The European Union has decided to implement the new rule on airlines. According to this rule, airlines have a responsibility to report non-CO2 emissions including contrails. The visible vapour trails ejected from the aeroplanes when flying in the sky are called contrails. Many officials said that the implementation of this rule is compulsory in order to track the climate record and manage the environmental crisis.
Also, this rule manages the environmental impact of air travel more accurately. By coming together, the budget airlines are supporting the idea that all flights, whether short or long-haul, should adhere to the same environmental standards. After following this rule, it might be possible that many climate issues will be resolved and also make aviation more environmentally responsible.
IATA is one of the leading trade organizations for the aviation industry. They are pushing the European Union to give some relaxation in its new law. According to this group, the law should be optional and only for flights within Europe. They have the firm belief that the industry would benefit from less stringent rules. At the same time, the group of low-cost airlines strongly opposed the IATA perspective. They have joined forces to challenge this idea. In a letter to the European Commission, these airlines expressed confusion over IATA’s push to weaken the MRV scheme.
They question why some parts of the industry are reluctant to explore the science behind non-CO2 environmental impacts. The airlines argue that IATA’s stance does not reflect the views of most of Europe’s largest carriers. They believe understanding the effects of non-CO2 emissions is vital for advancing the industry’s environmental goals and are troubled by the resistance to this critical scientific inquiry.
What is the drawback to limit the MRV scheme within Europe
Limiting the MRV scheme to only flights within Europe is not a good idea. In this way, much important information would be excluded and one can not find the exact issue. In order to understand the complexity it is important for all nations to follow this rule.
Despite stricter rules on carbon emissions for the aviation industry,there is no any data about the effects of things like contrails, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur. The letter says that the MRV scheme could be better given the scientific reason for the problems and also assist in making good policies that control the situation. If the scheme is only applicable in Europe then it might be possible to miss the important information that helps to find the root cause for the problem.
To better address the environmental impact, it’s important to include data from a wider range of flights, not just those within the EU.
Intercontinental flights that makeup 6% of all flights from Europe are responsible for 52% of the carbon emissions from aviation. This is the main problem because EU policies don’t yet figure out the full environmental impact of these flights.
Especially their non-CO2 effects, which could be even greater due to when and where the flights occur. The airline industry argues that it is the responsibility of the European Union to address this gap.
With all of this, contrails are also becoming a major concern. They are made from humid air and contribute to about 35% of aviation emissions worldwide. According to recent studies, up to 10% of the skies above the North Atlantic could be covered by contrail clouds, mostly from long-haul flights. So, it is important to focus on every point to find the major culprit that increases the climate crisis. The only possible solution for it is to revise the climate policies.
Krisztina Toth from Transport & Environment says that for the last 25 years, non-CO2 emissions have been the main climate problem. According to her, this new rule is the first step to better understand aviation’s full climate impact. However, she opposed some traditional airlines that were trying to refuse this proposal. Their useless efforts could stop the EU from fully understanding the situation and finding a solution.
