A “greenhouse gas balance” for aviation in line with the Paris Agreement

Bibliographic Data

ID12929508
AuthorsJan S Fuglestvedt (0000-0001-6140-8374, CICERO Center for International Climate Research, corresponding author), Marianne T Lund (0000-0001-9911-4160, CICERO Center for International Climate Research), Steffen Kallbekken (0000-0001-6539-992X, CICERO Center for International Climate Research), B H Samset (0000-0001-8013-1833, CICERO Center for International Climate Research), David S Lee (0000-0002-5984-8861, Manchester Metropolitan University)
Year2023
Volume14
Issue5
Publication date2023-06-12
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1757-7780 • E-ISSN: 1757-7799
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/wcc.839
OpenAlexW4380355599
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited45

The effects of aviation on climate pose unique policy challenges. A large fraction of the CO 2 emissions (65%) is international and not (explicitly) included in the Paris Agreement. The interpretation of Article 4.1 on achieving a “balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” is ambiguous in the context of aviation because of the substantial non‐CO 2 effects associated with the sector. For the achievement of the temperature goal in Article 2, both CO 2 and non‐CO 2 effects are important. The non‐CO 2 effects contribute 66% of the sectoral total climate effect (in terms of Effective Radiative Forcing; ERF) at present, with significant uncertainties. The largest of these non‐CO 2 effects, contrail‐cirrus and the net‐effect of NO x , are not caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions, representing another ambiguity as to whether they should be included in the balance concept. We discuss the role of aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement, and present illustrative calculations of a hypothetical aviation “greenhouse gas balance.” Several questions are addressed: Which components should be included? If an aggregate of components is adopted for the “balance,” which metric should be used? How can the large differences in timescales as well as the large intrinsic underlying ERF uncertainties be handled? We demonstrate that these choices result in very different requirements for CO 2 ‐removal from the atmosphere and different temperature outcomes over time. The article provides policymakers with an overview of issues and choices that are important regarding which approach is most appropriate for defining and achieving a greenhouse gas balance for aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework Climate and Development > Knowledge and Action in Development Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Climate Forcing

Aerosol · Atmospheric sciences · Aviation · Balance (ability · Cirrus · Context (archaeology · Earth's energy budget · Economics · Geography · Greenhouse gas · Meteorology · Metric (unit · Operations management · Physics · Radiative forcing · Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies · Air Quality and Health Impacts · Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols · Engineering · Environmental Science · Aerospace Engineering · Radiation

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access