Greenhouse emissions draw controversy

The cap-and-trade legislation currently making its way through Congress wouldn’t improve the environment from the airlines’ standpoint, according to Delta Air Lines vice president of global sales, Steve Sear. 

In fact, the well-meaning efforts would set back this industry’s progress to date, he argues:

Between 1978 and 2007, airlines have calculated a 110-percent in fuel efficiency, which mean they produce only 2 percent of total worldwide man-made carbon emissions. Delta alone has “decreased our carbon emissions and fuel burn by more than 30 percent since 2000 through fleet renewal, more efficient operating and maintenance procedures, upgraded facilities, replacement of older ground equipment, reduced water usage and expanded recycling efforts.

“And we’re already hard at work to meet the industrywide goal set by the Air Transport Association to be 30 percent more fuel-efficient by 2025. That ambitious target can be met, in part, by the realization of the much-needed Next Generation air traffic modernization, which would result in a 12 percent to 15 percent improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency for the entire U.S. aviation industry. More progress will come from investments in new engines, airframes, avionics and alternative fuels, while increasing regulation of oil speculators,” Sear insists. 

Then along comes the House’s cap-and-trade idea (officially named the American Clean Energy and Security Act, like anyone is going to remember that snazzy title), which Delta’s guy says would limit overall carbon emissions and require fuel and energy companies to buy and sell the right to pollute. It sounds expensive, and these already financially stressed airlines would have to pass the costs on to travelers. 

Anyone who works in tourism today knows that’s not a money-making idea.

And if Delta isn’t making money, it can’t afford to pay for technology that reduces those greenhouse gases the Congress is up in arms about. Plus, there’s always that lost jobs thing that goes hand-in-hand with businesses not making money.

Environmentalists v. Travel Industry

So far, I’m understanding Sear’s position. I’m not the American Clean Energy and Security Act’s biggest fan to start with, either as a citizen or a small-business owner. But I have to part company with his solution, which is “We urge anyone who has a stake in aviation, transportation or travel to contact his or her senators and ask them to vote no on a climate change bill unless it is modified to exempt U.S. aviation fuels from the cap-and-trade scheme in favor of a more effective plan that allows aviation’s contributions to be governed by the International Civil Aviation Organization.”

In other words, go ahead and pass it but leave us out of it. Hmmph. If it’s not a sound business idea for airlines, what would make it a sound business idea for any other industry? Why would vacationers want to buy an airline ticket to a destination if they can’t afford the cost of energy at the hotel after they arrive? Delta is essentially asking us to help them off the hook even though it would leave the rest of the travel industry holding the bag. Talk about self-serving.

Protest if you dislike a bill, and certainly pass out those numbers to prove your case. But to stop at merely asking for exemption as opposed to killing the bill is a slap in the face of everyone you expect to assist with your fight.

Photography: Chas Redmond, Didby Graham