GREENAIR NEWSLETTER 27 MARCH 2015
This is a text-only version. If you would like to see the full version of any article with images, videos, related articles, comments, etc, then click on the headline of the article.
Momentum builds for airport sector’s global carbon reduction programme as major airports join up
Fri 27 Mar 2015 – Since it went global last November, a total of 122 airports across the world have now been certified under the industry’s Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) programme, with 20 airports having reached carbon neutral status. The programme was launched by ACI Europe, the trade body for European airports, in 2009 as part of a commitment to reduce the sector’s carbon emissions, and has now become adopted by all ACI regions. This month, Dubai Airports entered both its airports, Dubai International and Al Maktoum International, into the programme and join fellow UAE airport Abu Dhabi International, which is among the 24 certified airports in the Asia-Pacific region. ACA is independently administered and has the backing of ICAO, the European Union and the United Nations Environment Panel (UNEP).
The programme has four levels of accreditation covering all stages of carbon management, ranging from Mapping through to Neutrality. “An impressive 1.67 billion air passengers now travel through airports certified at one of the levels – equivalent to 26.5% of global air passenger traffic,” said Olivier Jankovec, Director General of ACI Europe, and Angela Gittens, Director General of ACI World, in a joint statement. “Most promisingly, we are seeing a lot of airports moving up the levels of the programme – making real progress in the way they manage their carbon footprints.”
In Europe, Antalya, Venice and Rome Fiumicino airports have recently upgraded to Level 3+ Neutrality certification and Nice has successfully reached Level 3 Optimisation. Three airports – Stavanger, Marseille and Cannes – have just joined the programme at either Level 1 Mapping or Level 2 Reduction. Airports in Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Turkey and the Czech Republic have also renewed their certifications.
Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji International has recently achieved certification at Level 3 Optimisation, which requires the airport to not only reduce its own emissions but also widens the scope to include other third parties operating at the airport, such as airlines and service providers.
Dubai Airports says its engagement with the programme is part of ambitions for more sustainable operations. It recently announced plans for a 100-panel solar array at Al Maktoum International, which will have a capacity of 30KW and generate about 48.8MWh of electricity per year, equal to around two-thirds of the power used by the airport terminal building.
Since the start of the programme in North America six months ago with Seattle-Tacoma as the launch airport, six airports in the region have been certified and Montreal Trudeau has become the second to be accredited, at Level 2 Reduction. The other four airports are Victoria (Level 1 Mapping), and the three Portland airports – International, Hillsboro and Troutdale – at Level 2 Reduction.
Airports that have committed to apply in the coming months for certification at one of the four levels include Denver and San Francisco in North America; Libreville and Abidjan in Africa; and Galapagos and Quito in ACI’s Latin America & Caribbean region.
The full results of the sixth year of the programme will be released in June at ACI Europe’s annual assembly in Prague.
Links:
Airport Carbon Accreditation , ACI World – Environment , ACI Europe
Hainan Airlines partners with Sinopec and Boeing on first biofuel-powered Chinese domestic commercial flight
Mon 23 Mar 2015 – Hainan Airlines has become the first China-based carrier to carry out a commercial flight using sustainable aviation biofuel. Both engines of the scheduled flight on Saturday (Mar 21) between Shanghai and Beijing of a CFM56-7B-powered Boeing 737-800 aircraft carried a fuel blend made up of around 50 per cent of biofuel sourced from waste cooking oil that came from Chinese restaurants and mixed with conventional jet fuel. The biofuel was supplied by China’s biggest oil refiner Sinopec, which last year was awarded a licence by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) permitting the use of its jet biofuels in commercial flight operations. The Hainan flight was to have coincided with another flight on the same day of an Airbus A330-300 by Cathay Pacific subsidiary Dragonair between Shanghai and Hong Kong using the same batch of fuel but this did not take place due to certification issues with the fuel (see updated article).
Commenting on the Hainan flight, the airline’s Vice President, Pu Ming, who piloted the plane, said: “We are honoured to see our airplane fly on sustainable aviation biofuel from Shanghai to our nation’s capital. As a fast-growing domestic and international carrier, Hainan Airlines is demonstrating our environmental commitment by showing that aviation biofuel can play a safe and effective role in China’s air transport system.”
In May 2013, Sinopec produced and supplied a blended biofuel made up of waste cooking oil and palm oil for a test flight carried out from Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport by a China Eastern Airlines’ Airbus A320 aircraft (see article).
The Hainan Airlines flight, carried out together with Boeing and China National Aviation Fuel, was another milestone, said Sinopec. “For many years, Sinopec has maintained a leadership role in China in terms of development and application of biomass fuel including aviation biofuel and bio-diesel,” said a spokesperson. “This full represents an earnest commitment to continuously advance scientific and technological innovation and promote green and low-emission development.”
Boeing’s record on aviation biofuels in China goes back to 2011, when it partnered on China’s first-ever aviation biofuel demonstration flight of an Air China 747-400 that used China-grown jatropha-based biofuel. It is currently cooperating with fellow aircraft manufacturer COMAC and several research institutions, including Chinese Academy of Science’s Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, on aviation biofuel development.
According to its Current Market Outlook, Boeing forecasts China will require over 6,000 new commercial aircraft by 2033 to meet fast-growing passenger demand for domestic and international air travel. The country is said to have abundant biomass resources and huge quantities of waste cooking oil, estimated at around 28 million tonnes a year.
Links:
Hainan Airlines – Responsibilities , Sinopec , Boeing – Sustainable Aviation Biofuel
Boeing starts ecoDemonstrator 757 flight testing of fuel-reducing technologies to improve aerodynamic efficiency
Fri 20 Mar 2015 – Boeing’s ecoDemonstrator programme has moved into a new phase with flight testing of a 757 aircraft nearing the end of its operational life that focuses on improvements to aerodynamic efficiency. Over the next few months, Boeing will be collaborating with NASA and airline group TUI to evaluate new technologies that improve fuel and environmental performance. On the left wing of the 757, which has been supplied by TUI to Boeing for the programme, a Krueger shield has been installed that can protect the leading edge from insects and so reduce the adverse effect of the residues on natural laminar flow. Under a contract with NASA’s Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project, bug-phobic coatings have been added to the leading edge of the right wing to enable more drag-reducing laminar flow over the remainder of the wing.
On the vertical tail, NASA and Boeing are testing active flow control to improve airflow over the rudder and maximise its aerodynamic efficiency. Boeing says that based on wind-tunnel testing, active flow control could improve the rudder’s efficiency by up to 20% and may allow for a smaller vertical tail design in the future.
“Having a relevant test bed like Boeing’s ecoDemonstrator to help mature technology concepts is extremely important to NASA’s ERA Project,” said the project’s manager Fay Collier. “Our researchers have been working hard to develop technologies to reduce airplane fuel consumption, noise and emissions. Being able to prove those concepts in flight tests gives them a better shot of getting into the commercial fleet.”
Later this year, Boeing indicated it would announce additional tests with the 757, after which it intends working with the Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association and the lessor of the airplane to recycle it using environmental best practices.
“We are very pleased to partner with Boeing for the next phase of their ecoDemonstrator programme, as TUI Group is highly committed to achieving further environmental efficiency across our whole business and remaining the industry leader on carbon efficiency with our airline,” said Jane Ashton, Director of Sustainability for the Europe-based group, which includes six airlines.
Boeing said that since the launch of the programme in 2011, more than 40 technologies had been tested on a Next-Generation 737 and a 787 Dreamliner.
“The programme is focused on putting new, more environmentally efficient technologies and airplanes in the hands of our customers sooner,” said Mike Sinnett, VP Product Development, Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
Links:
Boeing ecoDemonstrator , NASA ERA Project , TUI Group – Sustainable Development
Cathay steps up sustainable development ambitions with first-ever Chinese commercial international biofuel flight
(This article was updated 27 March after biofuel flight was postponed – see end of article)
Mon 16 Mar 2015 – Hong Kong-based airline Dragonair, which is part of the Cathay Pacific Group, will later this week become the first to operate a commercial international flight from Mainland China using a biofuel blend. A Rolls-Royce powered Airbus A330-300 flight on Saturday from Shanghai’s Hongqiao Airport to Hong Kong will use a 50/50 blend of fossil-based jet fuel and a certified bio-based jet fuel refined from used cooking oil as feedstock. As well as reducing emissions by around 25 tonnes, Dragonair says the purpose of the flight is to demonstrate the Group’s commitment to using sustainable aviation biofuels as a part of achieving its corporate target of carbon-neutral growth from 2020. Cathay Pacific recently took a stake in US biofuel company Fulcrum BioEnergy, a decision which, said Biofuel Manager Jeff Ovens, was based as much on being a viable business case as on environmental grounds.
“With biofuels, the majority of the work carried out at most airlines is by the environmental team,” Ovens, who has spent most of his 10-year service at the airline in an engineering capacity, told GreenAir at the recent World Bio Markets in Amsterdam. “Our approach on biofuels is that this is a business as well as an environmental target. Our CFO wants to know whether the figures add up and it works on a standalone basis. We see our involvement in Fulcrum as a commercial venture – no other airline has done that so far.
“Most airlines are happy just to sign an offtake agreement with a biofuel supplier but we have invested our own money at a corporate level.”
In the short term, he accepts there will be an industry-wide premium for jet biofuels but is confident that despite the challenge, the price will come down to a “palatable” level close to parity with the fossil equivalent. “Eventually it will happen so we want to be involved today. If we can play an active role in the supply chain then that will put us in a very good position,” he said, adding that in the long term, the use of sustainable fuels may become a mandated requirement.
Ovens will not disclose the size of the investment in Fulcrum, except to say it is “significant”, but confirmed that as part of the deal, Cathay has an option for a bigger shareholding in the company and has entered into a long-term agreement to purchase an initial 375 million US gallons of biojet fuel over a 10-year period.
The airline was impressed with the low-key approach of Fulcrum, which had been under the radar even within the biofuels sector. “Like many, we hadn’t actually come across them before but when we drilled down into what they had actually achieved we found they had already done a lot of the necessary work, had a number of key management in place from different backgrounds and had various technology components that made sense to us,” explained Ovens.
Fulcrum’s technology is based on converting municipal solid waste (MSW) to fuels through gasification and Fischer-Tropsch, which has already been approved for commercial aviation fuels production. Cathay has focused most of its attention on fuel pathways from wastes and residues over the past few years, Ovens reported. Unlike other biofuel companies, Fulcrum could actually demonstrate that its technology worked and could produce fuel, he said.
Last September, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it had awarded a $105 million loan guarantee to Fulcrum that would help finance the construction of a $266 million MSW-to-jet fuel facility in Nevada that is expected to produce 11 million gallons of fuel annually. This was the first loan guarantee USDA had made for the production of jet biofuel.
To reach the anticipated jet biofuel production scale required, which Ovens believes will be from 2020 onwards, further facilities will have to be built and Ovens said that potential sites had been identified, some of which were at the advanced planning stage.
Ovens credits British Airways’ pioneering involvement with Solena for Cathay’s interest in the MSW route but says the key difference in approach is that his airline has directly invested in the company producing the fuel rather than just a facility, in BA’s case the proposed East London plant. Another difference, he added, was that BA sees it as an environmental initiative whereas for Cathay it is a business venture.
The airline doesn’t expect to use all the jet fuel eventually produced by Fulcrum but as a shareholder, Cathay will benefit from further offtake agreements made with other airlines and also the US military, which has shown an interest.
Another argument for the MSW route is Hong Kong’s own desperate waste problem. Cathay’s Head of Environmental Affairs, Dr Mark Watson, said local landfills are predicted to be full by around 2020 and sending waste to the Chinese mainland was not an option.
Added Ovens: “There is no official waste charging structure at the moment, as there is in London to help the financial viability of the Solena/BA plant, but clearly there is a potential opportunity for a facility in Hong Kong.” However, he said, there were technical issues over having to remove the high moisture content in the large amounts of food waste, which would affect fuel yields. A feasibility study has just been completed, reported Ovens, to find a way around this problem but with another partner, not Fulcrum.
Watson said local authorities, such as the Environmental Protection Department, were supportive of the development of biofuels from waste but it would be up to Cathay to take this forward.
“When we survey passengers and staff, the waste problem has shown to be a big environmental concern, perhaps even a more important issue than climate change,” he added. “That tells you we have to act now.”
On the broader contribution of aviation biofuels, Watson is in no doubt they will play an important part in the industry’s carbon-neutral growth challenge post 2020 and said he will be interested to see how they are treated in the global market-based measure under development at ICAO.
Update Fri 27 Mar 2015:
The Dragonair flight between Shanghai and Hong Kong last Saturday did not, in fact, use biofuels as planned. The flight was to use the same batch of fuel that was also to be used for the Hainan Airlines commercial flight of a Boeing 737-800 between Shanghai and Beijing, which did take place (see article). According to a Cathay Pacific official, the fuel was found not meet its and Airbus certification requirements for aviation fuel containing synthesised hydrocarbons. “The flight has been postponed until we are happy with the technical certification standard being used for our fuel,” he said.
Links:
Cathay Pacific – Sustainable Development , Fulcrum BioEnergy
COMMENTARY: Why taxes are not an option in addressing international civil aviation’s carbon footprint
Thu 26 Mar 2015 – While the aviation sector continues to implement new technological and operational measures to mitigate its carbon footprint, including the development of sustainable alternative fuels, these initiatives by themselves will not be sufficient to offset the growth in its emissions and resolve the sector’s climate change dilemma. Given mounting international pressure, regulatory intervention will be required. Some outside the sector, and now even voices within the discussion of ICAO’s Environment Advisory Group (EAG) tasked with developing a global market-based measure (MBM), argue that the easiest way to address the problem is through the imposition of carbon taxes. Dr Alejandro Piera examines the legal barriers embedded in the international civil aviation legal regime that preclude this option.
Environmental regulations attempt to internalise external environmental costs. It was Arthur C. Pigou who first argued that to internalise externalities, governments needed to impose taxes. Although airline advocates view taxes in general as a risk to the industry, in theory at least, taxation may be a viable policy tool to control growth or to reduce fossil fuel dependency. As legal philosopher Lon L. Fuller suggested, taxation quite often seeks not to “raise revenue, but to shape human conduct in ways thought desirable by the legislator.”
Although taxation is an option to address climate change, such an alternative faces numerous hurdles in the international aviation context where fuel – the common denominator for measuring emissions – has traditionally been exempted from taxes.
The tax immunity that aviation fuel enjoys internationally derives primarily from two sources: the Chicago Convention and language that appears in more than 4,000 existing air services agreements, or bilaterals. Although there was no similar provision in its predecessor, the 1919 Paris Convention, Article 24 of the Chicago Convention exempts fuel on board aircraft upon arrival and retained on board upon leaving the territory of another ICAO Member State from taxation.
To understand the rationale of the tax immunity afforded to international aviation fuel, it is worth looking at the proceedings of the Chicago Convention to examine the intention of the drafters when they came up with this tax exemption. The wording of Article 24 finds its origin in the US Proposal of a Convention on Air Navigation submitted to the 1944 Chicago Diplomatic Conference, which suggested exempting from customs duties and taxes fuel on board any aircraft arriving into the territory of another Contracting State.
The proposal also recommended that fuel so introduced into another country’s territory should be afforded national and most-favoured nation treatment. While not explicitly exempting fuel uplifted upon arrival, the proposal sought to ensure that the State of arrival did not discriminate against foreign operators by imposing undue taxes or customs levies that could not be demanded from national operators. The US did not provide a raison d’être for its proposal.
The Netherlands went even further and submitted another proposal to exempt fuel “introduced in the territory of any contracting State if intended solely for use by aircraft on international services.” Industry parlance often refers to this as uplift fuel. During deliberations at the Chicago conference, the Netherlands explained that such an exemption status for fuel was needed in light of already existing conflicting tax treatments given by different countries at the time. While some opted for exempting uplift fuel, others levied very high taxes and charges. In practice, this forced aircraft operators to take extra fuel on board when flying to highly taxed destinations instead of revenue-generating payload.
Although in essence the Netherlands pursued a purely economic interest – that is to avoid disposing of cargo as a result of having to uplift extra fuel on its carriers’ outbound flights – it might also have indirectly helped to prevent environmentally unfriendly practices such as fuel tankering. In the end, the Dutch proposal was not fully incorporated into the final text of the Chicago Convention, which only exempts from taxes and customs duties fuel already on board the aircraft upon arrival into another Contracting State. The proceedings of the Convention fail to provide an explicit explanation as to why a tax exemption was not accorded to uplift fuel.
The proceedings did, however, provide some additional recommended guidelines for Member States. Since the final text of the Convention did not embrace the notion of freedom of the air, retaining instead the principle of exclusive sovereignty over airspace, the drafters knew that States would be compelled to enter into bilateral negotiations in order to gain market access to other countries where their aircraft operators would want to fly. Thus, in Resolution VIII, the Conference adopted a Standard Form of Agreement for Provisional Air Routes intended to guarantee as much “uniformity as possible in any agreements that may be made between States for the operation of air services.”
Following the original US proposal, this model agreement granted to fuel introduced in the territory of one State party by an aircraft operator from another State party national and most-favoured nation treatment in connection with the imposition of customs duties and taxes. The sample clauses contained in the model agreement have inspired the language incorporated in almost all of the bilateral agreements that later followed the Convention and that are still in force today.
Although only 52 States originally signed the Convention on 7 December 1944, the vision of its drafters has influenced aviation practices for seven decades. The renowned Bermuda Agreement (Bermuda I) entered into between the US and the UK in 1946 followed verbatim the model agreement. The model US open skies agreement exempts both fuel on board and, on the basis of reciprocity, fuel supplied in the territory of one State party to an airline of the other party.
Nearly all bilateral air services agreements have now followed this formula, including the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Transportation (MALIAT) and the highly praised US-EU Open Skies Agreement of 2007. This exemption is generally applied to consumption taxes, such as VAT. However, in most cases, this exemption does not cover ‘service fees’ that the airport operator charges to fuel supplying companies. This cost is in most cases later transferred to airlines.
Creative responses from some states
As a consequence of the barriers to taxing fuel directly and internalising aviation’s environmental costs to society in general, a number of European countries have been very creative in levying taxes of an environmental nature upon passengers departing on international flights from their airports. These taxes work as genuine excise duties, where the taxable event constitutes the act of exiting the country by air. Technically speaking it is not a tax imposed directly on the use of aviation fuel. The most renowned example is UK’s Air Passenger Duty (APD), which is levied at different rates depending on the distance flown by the passenger.
Similarly, in 2007 the Netherlands announced a proposal to introduce a ticket tax (DTT) on all passengers departing from Dutch airports. The ticket tax would have ranged between €11.25 ($12) for flights within the European Union and €45 ($49) for flights to all other destinations. The Dutch government reversed the implementation of the tax in July 2009, fearful of the tax’s potential to divert air traffic from Dutch airports to neighbouring locations.
Similar initiatives have been discussed in France, Germany and Norway. Although the legality of these ‘excise’ taxes may nonetheless be questioned, for they may conflict with the provisions of the Chicago Convention, in practice, some courts in Europe have already rejected the idea that aviation’s Magna Carta prevents States from levying international departure/embarkation taxes. According to this rationale, States retain the sovereign rights to impose these taxes.
UNFCCC push for an aviation levy
In preparation for the 21st Conference of Parties that will take place in Paris in December, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action met in Geneva in February. Reflecting the diverse views of its constituents and lack of agreement on various issues, the draft text still contains numerous square brackets. For the sector it is worth noting that one of the options suggests that in order to meet the 2°C objective, States should “agree on the need for global sectoral emission reduction targets for international aviation and maritime transport and the need for all Parties to work through [ICAO and IMO] to develop global policy frameworks to achieve these targets.”
This language is indicative of the views of some States within the UNFCCC context that international aviation should be much more active in addressing its carbon footprint. The sector’s objective should not simply be to offset its growth, but rather to establish emission reduction targets. The proposed text does not specify whether these targets should be binding upon States, or whether they should follow the ICAO approach and remain in a non-attributable manner. At this stage of the negotiations, one would assume that they will not be binding. In order to achieve the targets, the proposed text tasks ICAO and IMO with developing a global policy framework. Here it is not clear whether the drafting intention is to suggest a global MBM scheme, such as the one that ICAO is developing, or merely a framework or set of common principles that States could take into account, if and when they decide to implement measures to address international aviation’s GHG emissions.
At the UNFCC meeting in Geneva, States also proposed text to encourage both ICAO and IMO “to develop a levy scheme to provide financial support for the adaptation fund.” In other words, in order to compensate for the environmental externality it generates as a result of the growth of its activity, international aviation should help fund climate change adaptation. For a long time, industry has rejected this proposition. The industry would prefer to reinvest these revenues within the sector to speed up the deployment of cleaner technology. From a climate change perspective, these funds should be used where it is more efficient to achieve environmental objectives. Given the sector’s notoriously high abatement costs, it makes more sense to allocate these funds for climate change activities.
The proposed text does not clarify what this levy scheme would be. If the intention is to develop a carbon tax on fuel used in international flights, the legal argument against it will be very strong as the Chicago Convention prohibits taxing fuel on board aircraft. Similarly, most bilateral air services agreements clearly state that uplift fuel for international operations should not be subject to taxes. However, if the idea is to levy embarkation taxes on passengers departing on international flights for climate change purposes, the sector’s legal position to fight them is certainly weaker. Here the argument would be whether such levies are tantamount to an excise tax for the sole purpose of leaving, entering or transiting a given country, which is in fact contrary to the spirit of Article 15 of the Convention. In various cases, European courts have rejected this rationale and upheld the validity of such taxes.
Implications for the future
ICAO’s unwavering support of tax exemptions on aviation fuel can only be interpreted as a logical approach if one considers that its very own Assembly is of the view that, because “air transport plays a major role in the development and expansion of international trade and travel”, taxes on aircraft fuel “may [only] have an adverse economic and competitive impact on international air transport operations.” Given the clear emphasis that ICAO constituents place on the growth and development of air transport, it is unrealistic to expect any amendment to the existing international legal regime that would permit the imposition of taxes on fuel.
Although a tax on fuel could be one of the easiest ways to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation, the long-standing tax immunity precludes this option. Cognisant of this legal barrier, several States as mentioned have taken steps to bypass the Chicago Convention and have imposed various embarkation taxes for environmental purposes. In the context of the UNFCCC, States have – once again – suggested the idea of a levy scheme to tax international aviation and use the proceeds for non-aviation related activities, such as climate change adaptation.
This is a matter of serious concern to the industry given the financial impact could be substantial. In order to prevent the spread of these practices, it is in the sector’s best interest to put in place a system to limit or reduce its carbon footprint. In this regard, the development and successful implementation of ICAO’s global MBM becomes extremely necessary.
An international offsetting scheme seems like a viable option. However, strong political will from major players is required. Likewise, the whole negotiation process should be significantly much more open. For a large number of actors outside aviation circles, more transparency is desirable. We must all realise that the entire international aviation community should be engaged in this process, not just some of the major actors.
Alejandro Piera is a founding partner at the Asunción, Paraguay-based law firm of Guanes, Heisecke & Piera. He specialises in corporate, environmental and aviation law. For a number of years, he served as Permanent Advisor to the Diplomatic Mission of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the ICAO Council in Montreal, where he advised on legal, policy, regulatory and environmental issues. Alejandro also served as rapporteur and Vice-Chair of ICAO’s Legal Committee. Prior to joining the UAE Delegation, Alejandro served as Senior Legal Counsel of IATA. He holds a Doctoral Degree in Law and LLM from McGill University, and a law degree from the National University of Asunción. Alejandro is the author of a new book, ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation – Legal and policy challenges’. He may be contacted at alejandro.piera@ghp.com.py
A PDF version of this article is available here
New book: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Aviation – Legal and Policy Challenges
By Alejandro Piera
Publisher’s synopsis:
While the aviation sector has introduced a number of technological and operational measures to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, these will not offset the emissions expected from its projected growth. This book examines the legal framework underlying the international aviation and climate change discourse. It analyses the suitability of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) institutional setting to address climate change and provides a critical assessment of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Finally, the author makes several recommendations to facilitate the adoption, implementation and, ultimately, compliance with ICAO’s global market-based measure scheme to limit greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation.
Table of Contents can be accessed here
Sample chapter can be accessed here
Publisher:
Eleven International Publishing, The Netherlands
Hardcover: ISBN 978-94-6236-467-7 €90.00/£83.00/$135.00
Ebook: ISBN 978-94-6274-143-0 €59.99/£55.50/$90.00
