sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The New Zealand aviation industry is making bold climate claims and risking anti-greenwashing litigation, James Higham argues

Business / opinion
The New Zealand aviation industry is making bold climate claims and risking anti-greenwashing litigation, James Higham argues
airlines
Flights of fancy: unsupportable claims about sustainability are increasingly under scrutiny. Getty Images.

By James Higham*

On the same day last week that Air New Zealand announced the purchase of its first fully electric aircraft, Christchurch Airport announced it had reached “a new standard for decarbonisation”. On the face of it, great news for reducing aviation emissions in Aotearoa.

The reality is a little more complex – and risky. As the climate warms, so too is the temperature in boardrooms and courtrooms. The aviation industry is under increasing scrutiny for its sustainability claims, and climate litigation is on the rise.

At the same time, “net zero” strategies in general are being challenged. The United Nations High-Level Expert Group was established at last year’s COP27 summit, as Secretary General António Guterres explained, because “net zero suffers from a surplus of confusion and a deficit of credibility”.

The expert group has put forward a set of net-zero guidelines to put a “red line through greenwashing”. The guidelines underpin the UN’s approach to net zero, which requires corporate entities to advance ambitious climate mitigation actions based on rigorous and comprehensive science-based targets.

Among other things, the targets must include emissions reductions from the entity’s full value chain and activities. These include emissions from sources the entity owns and controls directly (known as scope 1); emissions the entity causes indirectly (scope 2); and emissions not produced by the entity itself, but arising up and down its value chain (scope 3).

The expert group also notes that voluntary carbon credits (offsets) cannot be counted towards interim emissions reductions required on the pathway to Net Zero 2050. This is because carbon offsetting has been shown to be troublesome at best, and in many cases a scam.

Airlines in the firing line

Key players in the global aviation industry that make unsupportable claims have become targets for climate litigation.

A recent greenwashing complaint to the European Commission, for example, was filed by consumer groups in 19 countries against 17 airlines. Virgin Atlantic and British Airways are facing formal complaints filed by a climate charity and law firm over sustainable flight claims.

Advertisements for Air France, Lufthansa and Etihad have been banned in the UK for greenwashing, following complaints to the UK Advertising Standards Board that phrases such as “protecting the future”, “sustainable avitaion” and “low-emissions airline” are misleading consumers.

Delta faces a class action lawsuit for claiming to be “the first carbon neutral airline on a global basis” in a case brought by a California resident claiming the airline has grossly misrepresented its climate impact.

And KLM is being sued for greenwashing by law firm Client Earth, which successfully argued the Dutch airline’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign consitutes misleading advertising under EU law while KLM is growing its number of flights rather than reducing emissions.

Long-haul growth versus decarbonisation

Cases like these raise questions about Air New Zealand’s “Flight NZ0strategy and marketing, which focuses on sustainable aviation fuel and next-generation aircraft (including its recently bought electric Beta Alia), complemented by carbon offsetting and operational efficiency.

The focus on sustainable fuel will have to overcome significant scientific, energy, scalability and cost barriers. Solutions to these complex problems are likely to be decades away at least.

While Air New Zealand promotes the Beta Alia – with its inherent altitude, payload and range limitations – it also aims to significantly increase its long haul network, and is setting its sights on the “ultra long haul experience”.

The contradiction between long-haul growth and decarbonisation strategies is expressed in the airline’s own 2017 sustainability report, in which the sustainability advisory panel chair wrote:

And that’s the dilemma for anyone who cares passionately about addressing the multiple threats of climate change: either stop flying altogether (the logical but somewhat unworldly idealist’s position), or fly as little and as discriminatingly and responsibly as possible (the often uncomfortable pragmatist’s position).

As consumers and environmentalists focus more on the validity of climate claims and the viability of carbon reduction strategies, Air New Zealand may find it harder to defend its net zero pathway.

Airports on the radar

The environmental claims of other players in the wider aviation system – notably airports – are also likely to attract critical attention.

Airports Council International (ACI) is the global industry body for airports, with over 550 airports taking part in its Airport Carbon Accreditation program, including many in New Zealand (most recently Invercargill Airport).

Christchurch Airport has been in the program for longer, and makes significant climate claims. In April 2022, it announced “another world class sustainability achievement”, going “beyond carbon neutral, to become climate positive”.

But this doesn’t account for scope 3 emissions, mainly associated with flights in and out of the airport, which make up 95.39% of total emissions. Airports can only appear to be climate-neutral by not accounting for the high and growing emissions of the planes that are their core business.

Stakeholder reputations on the line

Key stakeholders are also exposed to any potential accusations of greenwashing. Christchurch City Council own 75% of the airport through a holding company, and the government owns 25%. Both have declared climate emergencies and made emissions reduction commitments.

Industry groups are involved, too. Tourism Industry Aotearoa, which represents businesses across the tourism industry, last month announced Christchurch Airport the winner of its Tourism Environment Award.

It cited the airport’s “climate positive” status and hailed it as being “at the forefront of airport environmental initiatives globally”. Such claims can be technically true if one accepts the limited parameters used to measure them.

But the Tourism Industry Aotearoa will need to ensure its environmental awards keep pace with developments in this rapidly changing field – including the increasing risk of litigation over unsustainable claims about sustainability.The Conversation


*James Higham, Professor of Tourism, Griffith University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

18 Comments

Good article. 

Air NZs Antarctica claim was a classic greenwash - cynical in the extreme. 

 

Up
4

Fighting against human nature. Humans have always travelled since the beginning of time. The extreme view here is that we cannot travel, but that is fighting human nature. But again the article is indicative of the ignorance of the bigger problem which will not go away and will prevent these niche targets from being realised. Too many people on the planet - we need to stop breeding. Not just slow it down, but stop. And then undertake a managed global population decline, where breeding is to a sustainable target what ever that is.

Up
4

I reckon there are too many baby boomers - you go first.

Up
2

Ignorant answer deserves to be treated with contempt. To make it simple for the simple minded; the solution is less about killing the people here today (although that is happening through all the wars and inequalities), but to stop having babies. The attitude of entitlement around breeding that is firmly rooted in religious teachings in all cultures is going to destroy this planet, to the point where people cannot survive. Your attitude clearly indicates that you don't care what you leave for your children so long as you get what you want. 

Yes I'm a boomer, but I didn't have kids until I was confident I could afford to raise them properly. I did not grow up expecting overseas holidays, big cars and all the trappings. We did not know about or understand the limits to growth at the time. The internet and information networks didn't exist. But I'd bet that with the attitudes of my time, if we had known the world would be a very different place today. Any You might not have been born!

Up
1

You are getting you wish - being played out in South Korea right now. Amusing how you think stopping travel is an extreme view but stopping procreation is desirable. You sure put a lot of faith in boffins computer models. Surely you are old enough to recall what a crock of crap "The Population Bomb" fantasies turned out like - record energy and food production and the lowest levels of starvation in history.

"a depopulation exceeding what the Black Death delivered to Europe in the 14th century."

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Society/New-South-Korean-statistics-w…

 

 

Up
2

Christchurch airport one of your clients Profile?

Up
1

Bless. agnostium has little profile fantasies and posts them online in his spare time.

Up
1

The problem is a global one not a national one. We may find in time that Korea is significantly better off and ahead of the rest of the world  because of what is happening there. But that is not where the problem is. The problem lies primarily is places like India, the US, China and anywhere where there is the short sighted attitude that population growth equates to economic growth.

Up
1

Well said - it's 'per head' all the way.

Up
0

You suggest there are two possible solutions to the same required outcome; stop travel or stop breeding. I suggest you are wrong. If we stop travel but don't stop breeding ecological collapse will still happen. Nature has demonstrated that many times where too many of a species in an environment inevitably results in that environmental collapse. Travel is never a part of the picture. Reduce the worlds human population to sustainable levels and travel will still be able to happen. depending on the levels set travel may be highly modified.

Up
0

I'm not a totalitarian - I don't think you should stop either. Fertility levels have been declining since the 1960's you are fighting yesterdays war. Most people now live in places with declining fertility.

Speculation about environmental collapse fantasies is not a basis for stopping people having children. Having a totalitarian decide who can breed and travel has been tried a few times in the 20th century and didn't end so well. People are perfectly capable of making there own decisions without Murray86 telling them what to do.

From the NY Times the other day -

"Economists and demographers who study population size project that the world’s population will reach a peak of about 10 billion people around 2085, if not earlier. Thereafter, the population is not expected to plateau, but instead decline to less than two billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. "

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/11/16/learning/PopulationDeclineLN…

 

Up
0

The world has already passed 9 billion people. Why do scientists expect the population to decline? Without that little snippet this is nothing more than speculation. Environmental collapse is not a fantasy but a likely probability if we do not change.

Up
0

No, the population has not passed passed 9 billion - you are out by a cool billion. You don't believe demographers but do believe in environment collapse fantasy - that even the IPCC doesn't predict. 

The population is getting higher currently because we are healthier and living longer lives, and have historically low wars and starvation. We can't get older forever so once that effect wears off (2100) the educated population doesn't have the fertility levels to keep the population up. Many countries are already in decline and most have non replacement levels of fertility.

"Until 2100, the world's population is expected to be ageing. Whereas people over 60 years made up less than 15 percent of the world's population in 2022, this share is estimated to reach 28 percent in 2100. On the other hand, the share of people between zero and 14 years was expected to decrease by eight percentage points over the same period. "

Up
0

Of course companies will greenwash.  In the absence of regulation, what more can we expect?

That these COP agreements are non-binding, there is no reason for any government in the world to regulate private enterprise to actually reduce its emissions - and, we can only expect that private enterprise will follow suit in this non-committal way, and respond by 'magicking up' PR about its good-corporate citizen credentials.

And bureaucracy is of course one of the major, major, major customers of air travel - including the bureaucracy of the IPCC;

https://www.ipcc.ch/activities/

They're down here in Christchurch in a big way next year:

21st Editorial Board Meeting and 21st Data Meeting for the IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB)

16-May-2023 - 19-May-2023

Christchurch, New Zealand

Gotta spread the atmospheric pollution equitably around the globe, of course.

 

Up
0

Maybe they are more comfortable in flat-earth locations.

:)

Actually, that was this year gone? 

Up
1

Oops, indeed it was!

Up
0

Greenwash as much as possible and burn that jet fuel to get tourists here so we can improve the current account deficit.  I'm contributing to the current account deficit by buying overseas goods, not that what I buy is made in NZ

Up
0
Up
0