The aviation industry is at a critical juncture for sustainability. As it struggles to decarbonise, it proactively slows climate-aligned policy behind closed doors.
In this position, this industry is a great example of what should and shouldn't be done in order to align with global climate goals, in particular by trade associations. It illustrates the struggles of high-emitting industries as well the ongoing wrestle between short-term and long-term interests.
It demonstrates what many other industries are experiencing: a struggle to reconcile conflicting goals, as well as a search by associations for the role they should establish (or revitalise) to provide appropriate leadership.
Moreover, it shows the influence of associations and big corporations over climate policy - and perhaps most importantly, that the right kind of governance is the key to global alignment, if not defined by it.
Political Influence Slowing Down Decarbonisation
Beyond technological hurdles, a major obstacle to aviation’s decarbonisation is the industry's considerable political influence.
A recent article by The Guardian reveals significant industry influence over the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), with a 10-to-1 ratio of industry delegates to environmental group representatives at the latest committee meeting.
This imbalance raises concerns that industry dominance may impede effective measures to reduce aircraft carbon emissions. ICAO's lack of transparency, including charging for meeting documents and requiring non-disclosure agreements from observers, further complicates the situation.
Additionally, a 2024 report by InfluenceMap, which analysed lobbying efforts by the aviation industry in Europe, revealed how airline lobby groups have worked extensively behind the scenes to shape climate policy in their favour.
Rather than supporting immediate and robust regulatory action, these groups advocate for a “technology-first” approach without demonstration of the scaling potential of the technologies they rely on, emphasising the future potential of SAFs and efficiency improvements while resisting firm emissions caps or taxation on aviation fuel.
InfluenceMap found that lobbying has led to the watering down of key European Union (EU) climate policies, including the scope of emissions trading schemes and the implementation of stricter environmental standards for airlines.
In several cases, regulatory proposals aimed at reducing aviation’s carbon footprint have been delayed or significantly weakened due to industry pressure.
One notable example involved the European Commission’s push to expand the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to cover all flights departing from the EU, rather than just those operating within it.
Despite initial support from climate policymakers, the final legislation was heavily diluted following lobbying from the airline industry, which argued that such a move would damage competitiveness.
This pattern of influence is not unique to the EU - similar tactics have been observed in the UK, where aviation interests have consistently opposed tighter regulations on emissions and air passenger duty reforms.
The Consequences of Delay
The long-term consequences of these lobbying efforts are significant. By prioritising voluntary commitments and long-term technological solutions over binding emissions reductions, the industry is effectively delaying the systemic changes required for meaningful decarbonisation.
The aviation sector risks becoming one of the last remaining high-carbon industries as other sectors, such as energy and land transport, make faster progress towards net zero.
As other industries decarbonise, aviation’s share of global emissions will inevitably rise, placing it under greater scrutiny. A recent study suggested that if aviation continues on its current trajectory, it could account for 22% of global CO₂ emissions by 2050.
This is an alarming prospect given that the Paris Agreement’s climate targets depend on drastic emissions reductions across all sectors - and according to some reports, the Paris Agreement's targets implicitly tolerate a 50% risk of overshoot, implying they are not ambitious enough.
There are also financial risks associated with delaying action. Governments are likely to impose stricter climate regulations in the coming years, and airlines that fail to prepare could face significant penalties or be forced into expensive last-minute transitions.
Investors, too, are paying closer attention to aviation’s environmental impact, with several major financial institutions already setting emissions reduction targets for their portfolios.
The Industry's Decarbonisation Pathway
Current research suggests aviation is responsible for approximately 3.5% of net anthropogenic radiative forcing - a measure of human-induced climate warming.
This proportional impact is larger than the industry's contribution to global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, as its emissions account for only about a third of aviation’s total climate impact.
The remaining two-thirds arise from non-CO₂ factors such as nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), contrails, and particulate emissions, all of which amplify the industry's warming effect.
What makes aviation’s environmental challenge uniquely difficult is its deep dependence on kerosene-based fuels. Unlike road transport, where electric and hydrogen alternatives are increasingly viable, aviation remains locked into high-energy-density fossil fuels.
Sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) offer a partial solution, but their current production levels are far too low to make a meaningful difference.
Additionally, availability of these SAFs could arguably face limited growth in the future due to competition around the use of raw materials to produce them, technological barriers, and even simply limited supply of essential resources. Similarly, electric planes face a massive technological barrier due to the weight of currently available batteries.
Meanwhile, air traffic volumes continue to rise, offsetting any emissions reductions gained through improvements in fuel efficiency. Even the most modern aircraft, which are significantly more fuel-efficient than models from three decades ago, cannot counteract the sheer scale of aviation’s growth.
So how will the sector manage to decarbonise? The answer is three-fold:
address radiative forcing head-on
Adapt behaviours
Influence relevant stakeholders.
It is the same as for every other sector.
But for the airline industry, one of these answers could explain why a portion of the industry is attempting to delay climate action. Firstly, the industry needs to reduce its effective radiative forcing. The most effective way to reduce the climate impact of aviation is by prioritising contrail management.
A reduction of 60% in contrail formation could lead to a 20-30% reduction of aviation’s climate impact. This could be achieved by adjusting less than 2% of flights. Strategies involve modifying flight plans to fly at altitudes where humidity levels are not conducive to contrail formation. A deviation of ±2000 feet could limit contrail effects by nearly 60%, with only a 0.014% increase in fuel consumption.
Because of their massive impact, non-CO₂ factors therefore need to be included in other climate commitments.
The other part of the equation is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. To achieve that, it is necessary to ensure that the growth SAF supply is on track to meet industry needs over the next few years and decades.
Now, the second answer other than directly addressing radiative forcing factors, is to tackle the volume of flights. In other words, unless a technological and/or industrial breakthrough is made (which has yet to be demonstrated), the world can't afford the industry to grow due to it's enormous hard-to-abate emissions and the current technological gap - this is why the industry is trying to slow down climate policy, and this is where the conflict between short-term and long-term interest comes into play. The human psychology relies on what is called temporal discounting: a high-cost, low-benefit short term outcome is often preferred by humans to a low-cost, high-benefit long term outcome - especially if the costs are paid in the future. That's a driving factor behind engaging in unhealthy and risky behaviours, from the individual to the civilisational level.
As CAFA has covered in other insights, the risks we face are not existential, but they are cataclysmic on a scale that humans have rarely (if ever) faced throughout our history - and we should address them.
Yet, we still struggle to build or even envisage a future where the airline industry (and others) doesn't double its impact over the two decades that instead need to be entirely dedicated to mitigating the climate risk.
Let's face it: a societal reflection should be made on which uses of air transport should be prioritised in a low-carbon world.
We can reduce the need to travel by using video conferencing and reduce the number of business trips, while also shifting to alternative modes of transport such as high-speed rail for necessary travel. We can equally ensure high plane filling rates and optimise operations to minimise the overall CO2 impact at the fleet level.
Some think-tanks also recommend eliminating air transport where a satisfactory rail alternative exists and mandating modal shift to trains for well-served routes, except for justified uses, while taxing private aviation based on CO2 emissions.
While these recommendations can seem to contradict short-term interests, they are necessary unless SAFs become widely available in a very short timeframe, and could offer an opportunity for different growth or stability pathways within the industry to compensate for decreased flight numbers - notably through increased prices and innovative business models.
Such strategies (and others that would be too long to list) would also support radiative forcing reductions: decreases in traffic allow for better optimisation of trajectories.
The third answer to the airline decarbonisation question is at the core of the mission of industry associations: influence.
Associations need to advocate for effective, climate-aligned policies that positively address all of their members interest in the long-run rather than solely that of big corporations - which includes addressing and mitigating climate risks through adaptation and reductions.
These big corporations have a massive role to play too, by enabling the development of the new technologies that they will need in the next few years and decades.
Such policy advocacy should tackle aviation’s non-CO2 emissions, contrail management as the greatest priority for reducing its climate impact, while incorporating non-CO₂ effective radiative forcing into additional targets and Net Zero commitments.
Their influence also spans supply chains and industry coordination - airlines could participate in data sharing and collaboration to raise awareness of non-CO₂ impacts, which associations can coordinate and facilitate. Value chains need to be monitored and grown through a coordinated approach to ensure planes are full, alternative transportation methods are used, SAFs are scaled, and travel routes are optimised.
---
Join Climate Action for Associations today to take meaningful steps toward shaping the future of climate action within your industry. Learn more here.
Sources:
Commentaires