Air New Zealand says it will immediately remove its 2030 science based carbon intensity reduction target, and withdraw from the SBTi. That seems an unexpected thing to do for an airline that officially prides itself on being sustainable, so what's going on here?
Have you heard of the SBTi? If not, you're probably not alone. The abbreviation stands for the Science Based Targets Initiative, and on the face of it, it looks like a very worthy global organisation to help keep corporations on the straight and narrow.
SBTi is a joint initiative by CDP (which no longer stands for the Carbon Disclosure Project) that provides ways to measure emissions; the United Nations Global Compact for sustainable and socially responsible policies; the World Resources Institute that's been advocating for sustainable business practices since 1982; and the World Wide Fund for Nature that needs no introduction.
Money for the SBTi comes from big heavy-hitting corporations such as IKEA, Amazon (and the founder Jeff Bezos' Earth Fund), the Rockefellers' philanthropic fund, and the United Parcel Service (UPS).
SBTi worked out the world's first net zero standard, with a science based target of limiting global warming from the pre-industrial era to 1.5 degrees centigrade.
Why drop out of the SBTi then? AirNZ chief executive Greg Foran gave these reasons:
“In recent months, and more so in the last few weeks, it has also become apparent that potential delays to our fleet renewal plan pose an additional risk to the target’s achievability."
"It is possible the airline may need to retain its existing fleet for longer than planned due to global manufacturing and supply chain issues that could potentially slow the introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet."
"As such and given so many levers needed to meet the target are outside our control, the decision has been made to retract the 2030 target and withdraw from the SBTi network immediately," Foran said.
AirN Z said it would replace its Boeing 777-300ER jets with Boeing 787-10 Dreamliners, which are more fuel efficient than earlier generations of planes. Boeing's currently embroiled in a quality problem scandal for its planes, with the US Federal Aviation Administration investigating the company.
On top of plane delivery delays, Air NZ cited the affordability and availability of alternative jet fuels - the airline has even tried using cooking oil derived fuel - and the lack of global and domestic regulatory policy support.
That does indeed sound like mission impossible for Air NZ. It makes you wonder if the airline will reach its 2050 net zero carbon emissions target by 2050 that it's committed to, as chair Therese Walsh said.
Regulatory policy support globally and domestically is probably the most critical factor here. What little is being done officially to limit global warming is far from enough. As a result, the world's already past the 1.5 C warming threshold that was agreed to in Paris in December 2015 that we mustn't overshoot. Last year was the hottest on record.
A sense of "oh well, that was just too difficult" seems to imbue global carbon reduction efforts which have to be pretty dramatic and fast, with emissions needing to halve by 2030 to slow down the globe's cooking from human activity. This seems unlikely to happen, as we continue to build energy intensive industries like artificial intelligence and IT in general, which use a ridiculous amount of energy and create huge carbon and particulate emissions.
SBTi meanwhile is mired in controversy after its board decided that it was fine for companies to use carbon credits and other environmental attribute certificates towards their net zero goals. Staff at SBTi are furious at the board statement, quite rightly saying "carbon credits are not permitted for emissions reductions according to the Corporate Net-Zero Standard, nor the Financial Institutions Guidance".
Looking at the above, maybe it was the honest thing for Air NZ to do, to drop out of the SBTi. Also, who knows what destinations there will be left to fly to in 25 years time, even if the world reaches the net zero target? Perhaps the best thing to do is to start dialling down the immediate future travel and freight plans?
60 Comments
Like one of my extended family, whose favourite activity on social media was posting Instagram stories of her jetting off to endless climate-related meetings and summits as part of some fairly nebulous seeming policy position (always in business class, sometimes even in first class if she got lucky) but always at pains to inform that it was ok because she took the carbon offset option.
Huge tragedy though as due to budget cuts she has to face the ignominy of having to fly premium economy now.
Yeah, like when you purchase a new appliance which comes in a huge box packed with polystyrene, and printed on the outside is the claim it is green packaging (because they allegedly planted a tree to offset it all). People believe it, and then they go take the packaging to the dump, where it is buried in the ground.
No surprise.
For all the talk, it doesn't matter what companies, governments, or any other agency wants. As ultimately the consumer, i.e. you and me, want our current lifestyle to be maintained at the cheapest price possible.
The fact it can't be this way indefinitely is irrelevant.
I want it all, I want it all
I want it all, and I want it now
I want it all, I want it all
I want it all, and I want it now
Feeling strongly about what's wrong
Is way easier than doing something about what's wrong
The only way you'd see real change is via authoritarian regime (although you can argue we're getting that by stealth anyway), or actual disruption to current lifestyles by nature or conflict.
Despite all our progress we haven't moved the needle much with psychological technology. Still mostly habitual beings, driven by primal instincts.
I don't care at all about global warming, the climate's quite normal here, it's all BS cranked up by thousands of civil servants with their hands out, living the life on our taxes.
And if you want proof, check out COP28, a massive talkfest in the desert organised by a country that makes billions out of oil and gas.
And if that isn't enough, all those so-called 'experts' flew there in hundreds of private jets, precipitating the biggest carbon event in history.
COP 29 is going to be held in Azerbaijan in November, so they can spend millions more of our dollars on a talkfest and high living, while travelling there in JetA1 guzzling private jets.
While boosting the local economy (at our expense) on high living and a massive talkfest which will achieve SFA in another country where the economy relies on oil and gas.
The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering. I wonder if the long-suffering NZ taxpayer will have to cough up for some delegates to attend and squander your money on this racket?
Yes, your taxes hard at work folks, there will indeed be an official NZ delegation. No doubt travelling business class.
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/environment/climate-change/working-with-the…
is this a Luxon 'fail' then?
https://newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/16/air-nz-on-track-to-be-the-worlds-leas…
The son of Arthur Porritt, the New Zealand governor-general between 1967 and 1972, and a former leader of the UK Green Party said airlines around the world face an “existential challenge” in responding to climate change.
Porritt acknowledged his comments were “not really what you describe as Luxon language”, referring to the airline’s chief executive, Christopher Luxon. He has committed Air New Zealand to a challenging target of achieving carbon-neutral operations by 2020.
Firstly, most flight, and certainly long-haul flight, is dependent on burning something - to break a carbon bond thus releasing energy.
There is no like-for-like replacement for fossil energy - therefore flying's days are numbered. (despite the dinosaur bleatings upthread).
That goes for all of our society - we have built a fossil-energy-dependent construct; but we're half-way through the resource.
And the time has passed, to have built the next with the prior.
We are f---ed. Sure, some will survive the bottleneck; sure, some culture will emerge. But it won't look anything like this one.
We have more than 100 years of fossil fuels left. Talking to someone a few days ago they told me the V8 they purchased 15 years or so ago used to use > 25 L of gas per 100km. SUV with the same power now, uses less than 9. That’s three times more efficient. So, the economy will grow for sure, but use of resources will become more efficient. Nothing to do with climate concerns, it’s a no brainier because it just costs less to do the same stuff. So more than likely we have 100s of years of fuel left to burn just at a more efficient rate. Some smart person will come up with an alternative energy source in the mean time. Game on I say.
Are you still alive?
I'll rephrase; How are you still alive?
First of all, why do you insist on thinking linearly? Because '100 years of fossil fuels left' is a linear comment. Exponential growth is non-linear - just saying. So do you mean 'at current rates of extraction'? Meaning 100 million barrels a day, every day, for 36,500 days? Did you really think that through before you blurted?
Then this: 'That’s three times more efficient. So, the economy will grow for sure, but use of resources will become more efficient.' Again, your linear thinking shows, but this time is allied to the flawed idea that past trends can be extrapolated indefinitely. On that basis, you'd be very tall at 70, if you just went off your childhood growth charts. No growth goes forever within a Bounded System - but you problem is more fundamental - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and old man Carnot). There are thermodynamic limits to energy efficiencies (and no, human ingenuity cannot surmount the 2nd Law).
Some smart person? So not you, but on the basis that you aren't smart enough, you think you're qualified to say game on? Do you not see the irony in that? (hint: it's bl--dy obvious).
He was more fun when he was a entry level peak oil tragic.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hubberts-peak-vs-actual-oil-producti…
"The commission said Texas oil production hit a record 1.92 billion barrels in 2023, about 51 million barrels more than the previous record of 1.86 billion barrels set in 2019. Texas natural gas production set a record at 12.01 trillion cubic feet, besting the previous record by over 13%"
"Industry estimates say the Permian, which helped put the United States on the path to becoming the world's largest crude producer, has recoverable reserves that exceed all oil and gas produced there over the last 90 years, according to the Texas Railroad Commission."
"It would take approximately four
years of drilling at the rate Texas currently drills for oil
and gas to produce the equivalent energy of all oil and
gas used for electricity and heat production currently
in the State from Texas’ geothermal resources.
An aggressive geothermal drilling program at ‘home’ such as this may
serve to free up Texan natural gas for export, instead of
being required for domestic electricity production.
Source: Future of Geothermal Energy in Texas, 2023."
Yep. One day in the news, not long from now, there will be an announcement that oil reserves have been found that dwarf all remaining reserves and all that has even been consumed. Peak oil never happened, because it was a scam…and all the subsequent discoveries over the decades since that proclamation was made has made it look even more far fetched.
Ah, I see. Imagined it was a 15yo model, not a 30, 40yo car. So do you think improvements in vehicle economy have kept up with the sheer volume of ICEs manufactured since then in terms of gross consumption Considering oil and oil like products are at a global production high at the mo, I'd suggest Jeavons paradox in action.
We were told decades ago that all the oil on the planet would be depleted by the year 2,000. Suckers rioted over it.
24 years on there shtloads of the stuff and there will be for hundreds of years. NZ has heaps of it.
New technology's emerging all the time, making these greenies look stupid. Us ute drivers are the villains, but see if any of these greenies vilify Russian thug Putin for invading Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands, using billions of gallons of oil and demolishing cities.
Hey, it took Greenies to get Olaf Scholz off his (don't rock the business boat conservative) ass! No one wants to see the little mafia tsar with a limp in his strut more than Greenie me! Peak oilers predicted HALF the planets recoverable oil would be burnt by 2005, which is about correct. That's what the peak means! Calling all sorts of other product oil doesn't change that fact. Whether it's biofuels, NGLs, or bitumen sands goo, only an idiot wouldn't recognise these sources wouldn't be competitive unless actual crude oil was in decline! Wake up!
Simmons said Saudi Arabia would experience a sudden decline in production , there would be an oil shock and oil would exceed US$200 per barrel.
Has it? Globally, about 19% more oil is being produced now than in 2005 when Simmons' book was published.
There certainly are lots of dreamers out there.
Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.
The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.
Punching above our weight yet again - go NZ!
We are getting down to the nitty-gritty now. Time to be accurate, and dispassionate.
Firstly, we are down to fracking, deep-water and tar-sands - so the idiot comments upthread are just that.
Secondly, we built a complex system which relied on a finite resource - which wasn't very bright, in hindsight.
Thirdly, we could - until perhaps 1990 - have built our way out of it (using the grunt and resources still untouched, to build whatever comes next. We're too late for that, and still building fossil-predicated stuff; tractors, planes, ships...
Fourthly, the majority seem not to be able to think beyond expecting repetition of the immediate past (The fellow who warned Fukushima would happen, was rebutted by Wingman types - who said it couldn't happen, and that the tsunami in the 800s was 'too long ago'). So we will continue, until we can't (I've been to two lectures on this topic, this week; 30 and 40 attendees; no media despite invites. I call it chosen ignorance.
So the question becomes - what can we do for our grandchildren, given they have the potential to live through and out the other side?
I have friends who made that choice when they were young - they're now retired. I have them on; point out that their genes are the ones we need to be reproduced, whereas the Bill English/Marama Davidson ones need to be eliminated. In jest, of course. But it does point to an evolving dumbing-down of the species, with repercussions for democracy. These points need to be discussed; the bottom-end was kept from the vote for a long time, but not on intellectual terms - it was via wealth. In a way, we've got that again; wealth can out-spend - via Bernays - to capture votes.
But the whole is headed for a cliff, an inexorable physics-based cliff. As we go over it, all bets are off. My picking is that we will get very local, very fast, and that some will be inspiredly-led, while some will not. It may be that some genes are more applicable in the new paradigm; ruthless self-aggrandizement may not be one of them.
They have been convinced Grattaway. We are all going Japanese.
"No nation that has had its TFR drop below 2.0 has ever seen it rise back above 2.0.
Assuming the continuation of the current trajectory of our fertility and mortality (and even with some variation), the exponential population growth of the mid-20th century (doubling time of 37 years) is about to flip to an asymptotic decline, with the population halving every about 40 years.
...So, within not too many hundreds of years, and depending on the TFR, there are likely to be less than one billion people alive, and possibly only one-tenth of that, lower than it was 10 000 years ago."
https://insightplus.mja.com.au/2024/8/health-care-in-for-a-roller-coast…
Physics may be absolute, but ultimately you are dealing with people, and that is all psychology. Psychologically speaking, when people are trying to just survive through today, they do not think about what happens tomorrow, let alone the following week, month, year, decade, or century.
Absolutely agree - Jonathan Livingston Seagull's Breakfast Flock.
But they are still cranially-conditioned by bought propaganda, which compounds. And we can trace that to Bernays. That divergence from truth was bad enough, before algorithms applied Bernays to every computer screen. Now a serious effort is needed to ascertain truth from dross.
Important thing to get people wealthy enough.
"It turns out that when a country reaches a certain level of income, around $5,000 per person per year, it starts reforesting. This is because people become wealthy enough to stop relying on wood fires for cooking and to use electricity or gas instead. Bangladesh, for example, was desperately poor in 1980 but is now rich enough to be significantly increasing its forest cover today."
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/against-environmental-pessimism/
Yes - the remaining forest are toast, the moment our system collapses - and even if it just ran out of fuel.
Except there would be a cross-over, as the biological impacts of the cull, bit into the human-life-support envelope.
And a lag-time on that, to compound/confound things.
Deforestation peaked in the 1980's. If you can afford coal or other hydrocarbons you can afford much cheaper uranium.
The vast change in population will come the asymptotic decline that is baked in to out current birth rates. So expect to see plenty more forests.
"Assuming the continuation of the current trajectory of our fertility and mortality (and even with some variation), the exponential population growth of the mid-20th century (doubling time of 37 years) is about to flip to an asymptotic decline, with the population halving every about 40 years."
Peaked? But is STILL HAPPENING.
Spin is easy to detect.
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/
Your topic-association is therefore bollocks. And displacing finite energy stocks, will result in deforestation accelerating.
Deforestation has peaked mate, long before population peaked. You still get politicians that prefer EV's, windmills, solar panels from Indonesian jungle coal, and Indonesian jungle nickel, to uranium - all the while professing to care about CO2 emission and Orang Utans.
"We can see that the UN does estimate that deforestation rates have fallen since the 1990s. However, there was very little progress from the 1990s to the 2000s and an estimated 26% drop in rates in the 2010s. In 2022, the FAO published a separate assessment based on remote sensing methods; it did not report data for the 1990s, but it also estimated a 29% reduction in deforestation rates from the early 2000s to the 2010s."
https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.