EasyJet: A Role Model or a Pyromaniac Firefighter?

This article was originally published in our "Décryptage Mobilité" newsletter. To receive future articles by email as soon as they are published, Subscribe now.

By Stéphane Amant – Senior Manager

The news caused quite a stir in the aviation industry—and beyond—as many general-interest media outlets reported on it [1] [2] [3]: EasyJet announced its decision to offset all emissions from its flights starting at the end of November [4]. It is the first airline in the world to set such ambitious goals, well beyond Air France’s recent announcements, which we analyzed in a previous article [5]. That said, should the British airline serve as a model for all players in the airline industry?

While very few other sectors achieve such energy efficiency gains year after year (around 2% per year as a long-term trend), adopt a common emissions standard (the ICAO CO2 Standard [6]), or adopt a common target compatible with the Paris Agreement (halving CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2050 [7]), the answer to this question is not so obvious. As ambitious as it may seem, the strategy ofEasyJet isn't necessarily a model to follow.

Is our argument impertinent? Perhaps, but it’s backed by some solid points. Let’s start by looking at the numbers: Who can seriously believe that simply by putting 30 million euros on the table (or about 4€ per metric ton of CO2), EasyJet can claim to have achieved the ultimate climate goal of carbon neutrality? Is it enough to plant enough trees (and thereby absorb the equivalent of the 8 million metric tons of CO2 that EasyJet emits annually into the atmosphere [8]) to resolve the thorny issue of aviation’s place in a world where the climate is constantly becoming more unstable? If it were that simple, why wouldn’t we all have thought of it sooner? More seriously, at a price of €4 per metric ton of CO₂, one can legitimately question whether The credits purchased by EasyJet provide a solid guarantee for the long-term storage of millions of metric tons of CO2 issued by the company each year. The company itself acknowledges this in the details of its strategy [4]: "[...] we’ll offset carbon [...] by investing in projects that include tree planting or measures to prevent deforestation, the production of renewable energy—including solar and wind power—and working with local communities to find ways to reduce emissions in their daily lives". As we discussed at length in our article on Air France [5], the “offsetting” strategies adopted by companies must prioritize initiatives aimed at genuinely reducing emissions and achieving additional carbon sequestration. However, such projects are generally more expensive, especially if monitoring and ensuring the permanence of storage are required. Furthermore, projects aimed at preserving forests do not contribute to either absorbing or reducing emissions, which is problematic when it comes to achieving carbon neutrality (see our article on JetBlue, [9]). Finally, the last assertion regarding local communities is shocking because it implicitly suggests that it would be a good idea for local communities in the developing South to reduce their own emissions, so that airline passengers can continue to fly without giving it a second thought. After all, why would we reduce our emissions when we can offset them?

That is where the profound misunderstanding between EasyJet’s approach (shared and promoted by many stakeholders, including those outside the aviation sector) and what global carbon neutrality requires. To put it simply, this global carbon neutrality (the only kind that makes sense in purely physical terms) requires that our global emissions be REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 3 TO 4 over the next 30 years, and that, at the same time, carbon sinks be INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF 1.5 TO 2. However, what EasyJet is promoting focuses primarily on the second lever and only marginally on the absolute reduction of emissions—which should nevertheless be the priority given the ratios mentioned. Whether the company likes it or not, claiming to be “carbon neutral” may be accurate given the current definition of “corporate carbon neutrality,” but this claim lacks credibility in light of the absolute emissions reductions required by the climate emergency.

And to be a little provocative, by loudly and proudly advocating this approach to neutrality, EasyJet is like a firefighter who sets fires (to the climate) : Above all, it adds fuel to the fire by shifting the blame away from travelers (thereby driving an increase in transportation flows and, in effect, exacerbating climate change), all while assuming that sprinkling a little water around the fire will be enough to offset the impact… Not at all. So, does that mean it’s better to do nothing at all? No, of course not, EasyJet should be encouraged to fund projects related to reforestation, the protection of endangered forests, and renewable energy for vulnerable populations, but Under no circumstances should it be treated as the be-all and end-all of a carbon-neutrality strategy. Such triumphant communication establishes the harmful notion that "business as usual" is possible, simply by planting trees or installing wind turbines and solar panels until the end of time, without questioning the growth in traffic. Of course, by taking such a public stance in its communications, EasyJet is the focus of our critical scrutiny here, but our remarks are directed at the entire industry. Be brave, EasyJet, Air France, JetBlue, and all your fellow airlines: bring the issue of growth into the public arena!

Sources: [1] Euronews [2] L'Express [3] Le Temps [4] EasyJet [5] Carbon 4 [6] ICAO [7] IATA [8] Reuters [9] Carbon 4