A Cathay Pacific Boeing 747 approaches Hong Kong International Airport

Pity the airlines. They’ve been trying to generate profits for their shareholders by cutting costs, paring fares to the bone, offering special deals aimed at filling seats and generally becoming more efficient all round. For many of them, last year this worked fine and profits were up. But now they’re beset by “green” politics, accused of causing major damage to the environment and threatened with special taxes as penalties.

As if that wasn’t enough, they’re also being hit by massive rises in fuel costs as the price of crude oil surged through US$140 a barrel in late June and pundits talked of the possibility of US$200 a barrel in the near future.

By default, the airlines have had to become environmental enthusiasts, talking eagerly about green initiatives such as exchange programmes through which passengers can volunteer to offset their next trip’s pollution by buying into schemes that plant trees.

They’re also worrying about a European Union plan that threatens to force them into a financial scheme to limit their output of carbon dioxide (CO2), judged a major greenhouse gas among the several produced by aircraft engines. The scheme would set limits for CO2 allowable for each airline, beyond which the airline would have to trade its overrun by buying part of another carrier’s underused CO2 quota. Obviously, this does nothing to reduce the total CO2 produced – it merely creates opportunities to shift money around in the trades, doubtless with part of the money going to a government as taxation or to an official administrator of the scheme.

It’s not as if airlines are the worst polluters in the world. Far from it. According to United States think-tank the World Resources Institute, they produce 1.6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally, compared with 24.6 percent from electrical power and heat generation, and 11.9 percent from other transport such as ships, trains, cars and lorries. Even agriculture produces 13.5 percent (cattle, for instance, emit methane gas) and changes in land use (clearing forests, for instance) bring another 18.2 percent by removing plants that absorb CO2 and return oxygen to the atmosphere.

Aviation’s total is actually a little more, according to the airline industry grouping, the International Air Transport Association. IATA says civil air transport is responsible for 2 percent of global CO2 emissions; 12 percent of CO2 emissions from all transport sources, compared with 74 percent from road transport, and 3 percent of the total man-made contribution to climate change. Even given a huge (and now because of fuel prices, perhaps only theoretical) expansion of air travel to double its current level by 2050, IATA says that airlines will still be responsible for only about 5 percent of mankind’s contribution to climate change.

Having said all that, the science of climate change is far from exact and is open to much dispute. While there is no doubt that the world is in a global warming cycle at present, there is considerable doubt about how much mankind is really contributing to the change; in short, can efforts to reduce greenhouse gases actually stop or at least slow down what some scientists say is a natural warming/cooling cycle that recurs about every 1,500 years? Even IATA says the effects of condensation trails on cloud formation at high altitude and the problems or possible benefits of nitrogen oxides in general are unknown.

No matter. Politics have overtaken the science, and airlines cannot argue to a skeptical public that they are not guilty (or at least not as guilty as people may think). There is, however, only a limited amount that airlines as such can do. For instance, in their own interests, airlines want to use the best technology in aircraft so that they burn less fuel, which in turn means lower levels of emissions. Engine and airframe technology, however, is outside their control, and the manufacturers are saying that the next major “step change” in technology is probable 15 to 20 years away.

Then there is the question of shortening air routes so air journeys can be flown more efficiently, saving time and hence fuel, not to mention flight crew working hours and aircraft time between overhauls. But air routes too are outside airlines’ control, falling firmly into the ambit of governments, which need to negotiate with each other to straighten air routes, possibly (as in the case of China) having to wrest control of airspace from a reluctant military. Even taxiing times on the ground are not controlled by airlines, but by airport authorities (often governments, again).

Nevertheless, the airlines are trying, and are making much ado in public about their efforts to be more efficient. Fleets are being renewed, older aircraft are being sold off or grounded, the weight of equipment carried for catering and passenger amenities is being reduced, and new types of lightweight seat are being designed. The figures for fuel burn have been falling for many years as new technology has been introduced on a regular basis – a particular aircraft or engine may have been designed 15-20 years ago, but shifts in regulations and engineering advances mean that many improvements will have been incorporated during the products’ working lives.

Airlines are showcasing their efforts via annual reports on their progress in reducing their carbon and other environmental footprints, and even in the case of Germany’s Lufthansa, holding a second annual Quality Day (on June 16). Media from around the world were briefed on different aspects of Lufthansa’s commitment to protecting the environment and sustainable development.

European carriers face broader challenges than their Asian colleagues. With 195 flights a week to 23 destinations in the region, but on a larger worldwide scale with 208 destinations in 81 countries, Lufthansa is in the thick of the European political infighting over pollution and how to control it. Last year, Lufthansa made a profit of €1.4 billion (US$2.2 billion) and, perhaps remarkably, says it expects the same level of profit this year. Lufthansa is seeking greater efficiencies, and says it has increased its CO2 efficiency by 30 percent since 1991.

Among Asia-based carriers, Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific Airways, for instance, declared a profit of $7.023 billion (US$900.38 million) for 2007, up 71.8 percent over the previous year, though even with its up-to-date fleet current fuel costs make such a bonanza unlikely this year. Last year Cathay said its fuel efficiency had improved by 20 percent since 1998, a figure widely regarded as typical. Another top regional and international carrier also renowned for its young fleet, Singapore Airlines, made a profit of S$2.05 billion (US$1.504 billion) in the year ending March 31, ahead of expectations but down 3.7 percent on last year because of one-time gains and a tax write-down last year. Five new giant Airbus A380s have joined the fleet, bringing overall fuel consumption down closer to the industry’s target figure of 3 litres per 100 passenger kilometres – that’s about 78 miles per gallon per passenger, or far better than most cars.

Alas, whatever the airlines can do, the cost to the end-user – the customer – is bound to increase. Fuel price rises mean more fuel surcharges, and more gates at airports and possibly more air-traffic controllers mean higher airport and navigation charges that will be passed on. But the major worry is that environmental politics may increase the costs still further. Lufthansa is even more evangelistic than most about the need for efficiency and caring for the environment, but as Chairman and CEO Wolfgang Mayrhuber says, “We do not need eco-populism; only eco-realism can get us further.”