ABSTRACT

Approximately 50–75% of aviation's climate impact is caused by non-CO₂ effects, like the production of ozone and the formation of contrail cirrus clouds, which can be effectively prevented by re-routing flights around highly climate-sensitive areas. Here, we discuss options how to incentivize re-routing approaches and apply multicriteria trajectory optimizations to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept of climate-charged airspaces (CCAs). We show that although climate-optimized re-routing results in slightly longer flight times, increased fuel consumption and higher operating costs, it is more climate-friendly compared to a cost-optimized routing. In accordance to other studies, we find that the averaged temperature response over 100 years (ATR${}_{100}$) of a single flight can be reduced by up to 40%. However, if mitigation efforts are associated with a direct increase in costs, there is a need for climate policies. To address the lack of incentivizing airlines to internalize their climate costs, this study focuses on the CCA concept, which imposes a climate charge on airlines when operating in highly climate-sensitive areas. If CCAs are (partly) bypassed, both climate impact and operating costs of a flight can be reduced: a more climate-friendly routing becomes economically attractive. For an exemplary North-Atlantic network, CCAs create a financial incentive for climate mitigation, achieving on average more than 90% of the climate impact reduction potential of climate-optimized trajectories (theoretical maximum, benchmark).

Key policy insights

• Existing climate policies for aviation do not address non-${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2$ effects, which are very sensitive to the location and the timing of the emission.

• By imposing a temporary climate charge for airlines that operate in highly climate-sensitive regions, the trade-off between economic viability and environmental compatibility could be resolved: Climate impact mitigation of non-${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2$ effects coincides with cutting costs.

• To ensure easy planning and verification, climate charges are calculated analogously to en-route and terminal charges. For climate mitigation it is therefore neither necessary to monitor emissions (${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2,$ ${\mathrm{N}\mathrm{O}}_x$, etc.) nor to integrate complex non-${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2$ effects into flight planning procedures of airlines.

• Its implementation is feasible and effective.

摘要

大约 50-75% 的航空气候影响是由非 CO ₂效应引起的，例如臭氧的产生和轨迹卷云的形成，可以通过在高度气候敏感地区重新安排航班来有效地防止这种影响。在这里，我们讨论了如何激励重新路由方法和应用多标准轨迹优化的选项，以证明气候充电空域 (CCA) 概念的可行性。我们表明，尽管气候优化的改道会导致飞行时间稍长、燃油消耗增加和运营成本更高，但与成本优化的航线相比，它对气候更友好。根据其他研究，我们发现 100 年的平均温度响应 (ATR${}_{100}$) 的单次飞行最多可减少 40%。然而，如果减缓努力与成本的直接增加相关，则需要气候政策。为了解决缺乏激励航空公司将其气候成本内部化的问题，本研究侧重于 CCA 概念，该概念对在高度气候敏感地区运营的航空公司征收气候费用。如果（部分）绕过 CCA，则可以降低航班的气候影响和运营成本：更气候友好的航线在经济上具有吸引力。对于典型的北大西洋网络，CCA 为减缓气候变化提供财政激励，平均实现气候优化轨迹（理论最大值、基准）的气候影响减少潜力的 90% 以上。

关键政策见解

• 现有的航空气候政策没有解决非${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{哦}}_2$ 效应，它们对发射的位置和时间非常敏感。

• 通过对在高度气候敏感地区运营的航空公司征收临时气候费用，可以解决经济可行性和环境兼容性之间的权衡问题：${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{哦}}_2$ 效果与削减成本不谋而合。

• 为确保轻松规划和验证，气候费用的计算类似于航路和终端费用。因此，对于减缓气候变化，既不需要监测排放（${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{哦}}_2,$ ${\mathrm{N}\mathrm{哦}}_X$等）也不能整合复杂的非${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{哦}}_2$ 对航空公司飞行计划程序的影响。

• 其实施是可行和有效的。