You Won! Averting Climate Change with Monetary Incentives

The unfortunate truth about climate change is that it is our fault. Human activities are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse gases currently polluting the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most common form of greenhouse gas, and unless levels of carbon emissions decrease soon, the planet will undoubtedly experience dramatic and permanent climate change. In an article published in the London Guardian on 2 December 2008 entitled “Whistling in the Wind”, author George Monbiot argues that in order to avert the catastrophic global warming predicted by even the most optimistic models, immediate emergency measures must be taken. His suggestions take the form of regulatory controls meant to quickly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. One particular suggestion made by Monbiot pertains to the aviation industry. He argues that the level of air traffic must be severely reduced by “setting a cap on the number of [airport] landing slots, which will fall every year until it reaches 5% of current capacity” (Monbiot, 2008). While forcibly limiting the number of aircraft permitted to fly will certainly lead to a notable reduction of carbon emissions, I believe there is a more effective, albeit slightly unconventional, method by which the emissions produced by the aviation industry can be lessened. It calls for the development of new, more environmentally-friendly types of aircraft, through implementation of an economic incentive in the form of a monetary prize.

Flying in an airplane may be one of the greatest negative environmental impacts an individual can make; this is made painfully clear in a previous article submitted to the Guardian by Monbiot (Monbiot, 2006). Although the carbon emissions per person and per unit distance of a jet aircraft are about half that of a conventional automobile, the vast distances travelled by airplanes and the large number of passengers they carry mean that the overall amount of carbon dioxide produced per flight is about 1.2 tonnes per person. Another issue with high-flying jets is the contrail they produce. These small, high altitude clouds can trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect 2.7 times that of carbon dioxide. To make matters worse, there is no known “technofix” to these problems: according to the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, “[The basic gas turbine engine] has been the dominant form of aircraft engine for 50 years and there is no serious suggestion that this will change in the foreseeable future” (Monbiot, 2006). There is no easy and economically desirable way to lower the amount of emissions produced by the aviation industry, argues Monbiot. Therefore, regulatory controls must be enforced.

One potential form of control is to tax aviation fuel. However, this proves to be impossible, because the taxation of aviation fuel is prohibited under international law (Monbiot, 2006). Therefore, the only feasible form of control is to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly. Monbiot’s argument makes sense, but I believe it would prove extremely difficult to implement. According to the US Bureau of Transport Statistics, American airports alone receive nearly 9.5 million individual flights annually, and that number is increasing every year (BTS, 2009). The modern global economy relies on aircraft for the fast transport of people and goods across the world. Even those flights which serve only to convenience wealthy vacationers cannot be eliminated, for it would wreak havoc in regions heavily dependent upon tourism as a source of income. To do away with the vast majority of international air travel would have serious negative effects upon the world’s social and economic systems, and is therefore unacceptable. While the aviation industry’s emissions must be drastically reduced, Monbiot’s regulatory control over air traffic levels may not be the most effective method.

With neither taxation nor flight capping feasible options, perhaps attention should be again turned to the notion of a “technofix”. Although there is little innovation left in the gas turbine engine, other propulsion systems and types of aircraft may let prove effective at meeting the aviation industry’s needs, while keeping carbon emissions to a minimum. It is therefore my suggestion that, instead of placing restrictions on airlines, an economic incentive should be provided to aircraft manufacturers to promote the development of alternative styles of air travel. This could be in the form of a monetary prize similar to the X Prize. Many different X Prizes are currently available in a wide array of fields, including environmental research. The most successful X Prize to date has been the Ansari X Prize, which, through the promise of $10 million for the first privately-funded team to build and launch a spacecraft into orbit, literally created the commercial space industry. Surely, a prize for the first non-fossil fuel powered aircraft to carry a certain payload from London to New York could accomplish a similar feat. Such a prize could prove far more effective at reducing the aviation industry’s carbon footprint than any regulatory control. Rather than cause social and economic instability, a prize could foster economic growth and further scientific and technical understanding as new companies are founded and new technologies are developed. If the new aviation technologies prove affordable enough, then the prize could result in eventual replacement of the global air fleet. Thus, regulatory control and economic incentive may bring about similar results: a dramatic reduction in the number of operating jet-powered aircraft. The key difference is that one is brought about by forceful restriction, while the other comes through encouragement of creativity and experimentation.

When it comes to carbon emissions, the aviation industry is one of the world’s most guilty parties. In the absence of taxations or effective technological fixes, the only possible options are to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly, or develop an entirely new form of environmentally friendly aircraft. George Monbiot’s flight-capping plan would certainly work, but it may come at a very high social and economic cost. Thus, given the options, the establishment of a prize as an economic incentive is far more appealing. The world faces a very real threat of catastrophic climate change. The worst-case scenarios predicted by many scientists will almost certainly come to pass unless a focused and concerted effort is made to reduce our carbon emissions. Action must be taken; will history view our era as a time of oppressive regulations, or of remarkable innovation?

REFERENCES

Bureau of Transport Statistics. (2009). "Flights - All Carriers, All Airports". Table. United States Bureau of Transport Statistics. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=2. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot,George (2008). "Whistling in the Wind". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/dec/02/climate-change-lord-turner. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot, George. (2006). "On the Flight Path to Global Meltdown". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving. Accessed 11 November 2009.