- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18104463
Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.
The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.
The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.
You must log in or register to comment.
So? Buy some more carbon credits or plant some more trees to offset.
Just dropping the goal entirely makes me think you weren’t really taking it seriously anyway.
But carbon credits are essentially bullshit…
I guess people are a little shocked at the honesty from a corporate.
See the other comment and article https://www.vox.com/23817575/carbon-offsets-credits-financialization-ecologi-solutions-scam
TL;DR: It’s better than doing nothing.
Yeah, Unfortunately carbon credits have been gamed by ineffectual eco projects so, they pretty much do nothing but allow a company a way to pretend they aren’t the problem.
An imperfect response to a perfect storm.
Everyone we spoke to is adamant: offsets can never be the total solution or a get-out-of-climate-regulation-free card. But even this may be thinking about it in the wrong way. John Holler, a climate expert at the World Wildlife Fund, who used to work at Verra, says carbon trading isn’t really about offsetting at all. Instead, it’s simply a tool for routing money toward good things: low-carbon stoves, forests, community solar energy. “You’re purchasing carbon credits to contribute to global decarbonization,” he says, “not making a claim against your own emissions.”
A humbler, less satisfying goal. But perhaps a more honest one.
You’re letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Routing money from polluters to anyone willing to try less polluting stuff is still an improvement on doing nothing at all.
You make an excellent point. I was merely pointing out it’s not a silver bullet.
And I believe the goals that Air NZ was targeting were not “net” but actual emission targets. So they cannot simply offset their way out of them.
Honestly, having them declare failure early is a better outcome than getting to the zero hour and saying “we can’t do it” this means they are actually tracking their progress and taking the promises seriously.
actually tracking their progress and taking the promises seriously.
I hadn’t thought of it that way.
Good point.
This kinda sucks, but reading the article the main strategies that the industry is using is newer more efficient planes and SAF (sustainable aviation fuels). Both of which are in short supply.
I think Air NZ is being realistic here, if you can’t buy the SAF and your new planes are delayed…and they are the two main strategies, it isn’t too surprising that they are going to miss their targets.
Perhaps they could consider setting new targets before axing the old ones?
Yeah, weird to drop the target now and say they are working on a new one. Why not just stay silent until the new target is decided.
Edit: new theory, is this a negotiation tactic? Announce this stuff, tell the government they need help to save NZ’s reputation, and get some government backing?
Maybe, we can’t make the current strategy and there isn’t a new strategy available.
Yeah, but why announce it then? A lot can change between now and 2030, and the target was only set 2 years ago.
I think this is their way of asking for government help.
