As waves of coordinated climate protests spread across the globe, what might have once been dismissed as mere militant outrage from a few fanatic activists gluing themselves onto runways has matured into a societal shift genuinely moving the needle and shaping political agendas everywhere.
A small minority of the people we spoke to bristled at aviation’s “bad guy” image, quickly pointing out that contrary to popular belief, aviation “only” accounts for 2.5 percent of global carbon emissions. That may well be the case, and while the 2.5 percent figure is correct, it doesn’t quite paint the whole picture given that the European Commission (EC) had this figure at 2 percent only two years ago.
The EC also notes that aviation generates 13.9 percent of all transport emissions, making it the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. To complicate matters, if the current trajectory continues to snowball, carbon emissions from commercial flights could triple by 2050.
All eyes are up and firmly fixed on aerospace; with demand skyrocketing, OEMs will be working tirelessly to balance meeting demand with sustainability commitments. In line with its order book, Airbus Canada confirms its intention to double the A220 model output to 14 aircraft per month by 2026. This sentiment was echoed by Zean Nielsen, CEO Cirrus: “We have a one-to-one book-to-build ratio, with a backlog of about 1,000 SR Series aircraft and 250 Vision Jet orders. We're not constrained by demand but by our production capacity.”
The most transformative technologies are within grasp, but as things stand, are too expensive and still in their infancy. Aviation’s sincerity in its desire to phase out fossil fuels might not be in question, but its means might be. Multiple avenues including electric, hydrogen, and alternative fuels will require significant support and investment.