Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution...." (Principle 16)
The UNFCCC provides further guidance on the thinking underlying the precautionary principle (UNFCCC, 1992). Article 3 states:
"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change and [to] mitigate its adverse effects. Where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into
account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve
this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks, and
reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by
interested Parties."
The precautionary principle is a guideline that indicates when mitigation action should be taken. CBA is a useful analytical tool to guide policy decisions. The "polluter
pays" principle establishes upon whom the cost should fall.
10.3.2. The Application of Economic Analysis
Studies examining the economic impact of environmental measures affecting aviation have included the ICAO policy framework for imposing operating restrictions on
certain noisier aircraft, global implementation of CNS/ATM, and potential noise and emissions stringency reduction options available to ICAO. Although the precise
methodologies have differed according to the circumstances and available information, the common approach in all of these studies has been the use of a cost-benefit
framework.
The ICAO study, "The Economic Implications of Future Noise Restrictions on Subsonic Jet Aircraft," estimated operating cost and revenue loss implications of early
replacement of Chapter 2 aircraft as a result of certain states' implementation of operating restrictions on these aircraft for noise reasons (ICAO, 1989). The benefit of
the proposed noise restrictions was analyzed by estimating the land area and population around affected airports with and without the proposed restrictions on noisy
aircraft. The cost of the phaseout to air carriers would be acceleration of the fleet modernization process, reducing the value of the operators' assets and requiring
them to make capital commitments earlier than might be justified from purely commercial considerations. A similar study was conducted for Chapter 2 phaseout of
noisy aircraft in the United States (U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration, 1991). These types of issues would need to be examined if
proposals for operating restrictions to limit emissions were put forward. Studies on the economic impact of implementation of CNS/ ATM are discussed in Chapter 8
and summarized in Table 8-1. Similarly, a report conducted for CAEP's third meeting (CAEP/3) (ICAO, 1996a) described steps required to carry out an economic
analysis of environmental policy measures for aviation (EASG, 1995). It considered alternative methodologies for appraising policy options and judged that CBA was
the most appropriate economic appraisal methodology to apply to aviation environmental issues. This methodology was applied to noise and emissions stringency
options under consideration at CAEP/3. CBA methodology was also applied to the emissions stringency option considered at CAEP's fourth meeting (CAEP/4) (FESG,
1998).
A number of issues and uncertainties have arisen in the application of CBA to potential environmental issues affecting aviation:
. The absence of transparent cost data capable of independent validation (related to industry commercial confidentiality)
. The need to forecast over a sufficiently long appraisal period to reflect the gradual buildup of benefits from emissions stringency measures
. Scientific uncertainties regarding the impact of aviation emissions, leading to the use of estimated reductions in the amount of pollutant emitted as a surrogate
measure for benefits
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/152.htm (2 von 4)08.05.2008 02:44:42