Despite its strong development on the automotive market, the electric vehicle is still often viewed with suspicion by the general public, as it raises many questions and contradictory opinions. Carbone 4 aims to shed light on the debate to separate fact from fiction by answering these questions with a scientific and quantified approach.&nbsp;&nbsp; This FAQ is divided into 4 themes.&nbsp;

<h2>Carbon impact&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2><h3>1. Are the emissions related to the manufacturing of the battery taken into account in the carbon comparisons?&nbsp;</h3>The carbon footprint of a product is calculated by counting the significant greenhouse gas emissions over the product’s lifetime, from the extraction of raw materials to its end of life. Thus, to calculate the carbon footprint of a car, we consider not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions emitted during the use of the vehicle, but also the GHG emissions emitted upstream (manufacture of the battery, production of electricity to power the car, etc.) and downstream (treatment of the vehicle at the end of its life, recycling of the battery, etc.)&nbsp;<h3>2. Kilometer tipping point: after how many kilometers is the electric car better than the internal combustion engine (ICE) car in France? Or rather, why is this question wrongly phrased?&nbsp;</h3>It is a fact that producing an electric car emits more greenhouse gases (CO2e) than its ICE equivalent, mainly because of the &nbsp;manufacturing of the batteries. This would be a problem for the climate only if the excess of CO2e were not more than largely offset by the reductions in emissions during use. However, this is indeed the case, since over its lifetime in France, an electric car emits 3 to 4 times less CO2e than its ICE equivalent. In fact, the question is badly put and serves above all by its semantics to discredit the electric vehicle. Our evaluations show that it is necessary to drive around 30 to 40,000 km (i.e. 2 to 3 years of use for an average usage) for the electric car to become better for the climate than its ICE equivalent "light hybrid". A car will cover about 200,000 km over its lifetime (the longevity of the batteries is absolutely not an obstacle for that, on the contrary)... so that any electric vehicle put on the road today instead of a light hybrid will in fact reduce emissions in an undeniable way over its lifetime. The only point of concern could be the "second" vehicles of households that are very little used, typically less than 3,000 km per year. But in practice, the low cost per kilometer of electric cars is a strong incentive to use them, so that these second vehicles can become the first in terms of usage.&nbsp;

large_GraphFAQanglais001.png

medium_GraphFAQanglais001.png

small_GraphFAQanglais001.png

thumbnail_GraphFAQanglais001.png

GraphFAQanglais001.png

Average carbon footprint of a car sold in 2020 according to its mileage - D Segment | gCO2e/km

<h3>3. And elsewhere? Is the electric car better than the ICE car everywhere in the world?</h3>The climate benefits of electric vehicles compared to ICE vehicles come from their much lower energy consumption over their lifetime (despite the more emissive manufacturing of electric vehicles). The less carbon-based the electricity production, the greater the gap. Even when they are fueled with a coal-dominated electricity mix, as in Australia, China or Poland, the lifecycle emissions of electric cars are already lower than those of ICE cars. Thus, electric cars are already better for the climate than ICE cars in most countries of the world, and this is all the more true as almost all countries aim to decarbonize their electricity mix over time, i.e. by the end of the vehicle's life. In only about twenty countries is the electric car less virtuous than the ICE car (assuming that the electricity mix does not change). These are India, some African and Middle Eastern countries, and island countries such as Cuba, Haiti and Indonesia.

large_GraphFAQanglais002.png

medium_GraphFAQanglais002.png

small_GraphFAQanglais002.png

thumbnail_GraphFAQanglais002.png

GraphFAQanglais002.png

Average carbon footprint of a car sold in 2020 depending on the country and the decarbonization of the electric mix - D Segment - 200 000 km | gCO2e/km

<h3>4. Let's go back to France: is an electric car better for the climate, regardless of its weight?&nbsp;</h3>No, not necessarily, because a heavy electric vehicle requires more material and a bigger battery to meet its energy needs. And therefore more emissions linked to the manufacturing of the vehicle (which represents the main part of its carbon footprint, contrary to the ICE vehicle) as well as more emissions linked to the use phase because of this mass increment. In this respect, replicating the model of the internal combustion engine SUV with an electric vehicle is a perfect example of a "false good idea": an Audi e-tron has a carbon footprint twice as large as a Volkwagen e-Up over its lifetime (150,000 km). We need to think about cars that consume less energy, regardless of their type of energy, and to do this we need to make them lighter. But the current trend is towards bigger and heavier vehicles that consume more fuel : in the last 30 years, the weight of cars has increased by 30% on average in France.&nbsp;&nbsp;

medium_GraphFAQanglais003.png

small_GraphFAQanglais003.png

thumbnail_GraphFAQanglais003.png

GraphFAQanglais003.png

Average carbon footprint of electric cars in France depending on the model - 150 000 km | gCO2e/km

<h3>5. Is the plug-in hybrid vehicle a good compromise between the electric vehicle and the ICE vehicle?&nbsp;</h3>The plug-in hybrid vehicle seems to be the ideal solution today to meet the climate challenge:&nbsp;&nbsp;<ul><li>it is a convenient way for manufacturers to meet their regulatory obligations (in Europe), thanks to an emissions certification protocol that gives the plug-in hybrid vehicle a considerable advantage in terms of actual emissions.</li><li>it is a reassuring technology for car owners who are concerned about environmental issues, but are not yet ready to take the step to 100% electric.</li></ul>However, this technology suffers from real flaws that make it difficult to reconcile with the ambition of almost completely decarbonizing individual mobility within 20 years:&nbsp;&nbsp;<ul><li>the electric mode is little used in reality (less than 40% of kilometers), because of the existence of the combustion engine</li><li>its combustion engine is generally less efficient than the state of the art of comparable gasoline/diesel vehicles...</li><li>... and all the more so as the presence of two engines, plus the battery, significantly increases the mass of such a vehicle, and therefore its consumption (ICE or electric).</li></ul>Thus, the plug-in hybrid vehicle generally only allows a carbon gain of 15-20% (compared to 60-70% for a 100% electric vehicle), which is insufficient in relation to climate issues and is only relevant in rare cases.&nbsp;&nbsp;Overall, the plug-in hybrid vehicle is the typical example of economic irrationality regarding cars: the choice of car drivers is most often dictated by the most restrictive use case instead of the most frequent use case (e.g.: purchase of a large powerful car with 5 seats, for 4 full trips in the year exceeding 500 km, while 90% of the time of use is devoted to trips of a few tens of kilometers with 1 or 2 people at most on board). The plug-in hybrid vehicle corresponds perfectly to this irrational choice, based on the apparently good idea of combining the "best of both technologies" (electric and ICE) to cover all cases of use. In reality, the situation appears to be sub-optimal economically (the vehicle is more expensive and more complex to maintain) and environmentally.&nbsp;

medium_GraphFAQanglais004.png

small_GraphFAQanglais004.png

thumbnail_GraphFAQanglais004.png

GraphFAQanglais004.png

Average carbon footprint of a car sold in France in 2020 - D Segment - 200,000 km | gCO2e/km

<h2>Environmental impacts (excluding carbon)&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2><h3>6. Do batteries use a lot of rare earths elements?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>Contrary to what their name suggests, “rare earths elements” are not so rare on Earth in quantity. They are in fact as abundant as nickel or copper, but much more dispersed in the earth's crust, hence the name. Because of their similar properties, they are used in the manufacture of high-tech products. Today, there are no rare earths elements in the majority of batteries used in electric cars, and some electric motors may contain rare earths elements, but alternatives exist. However, there is still a raw materials issue because batteries use highly critical metals, i.e. the supply of which is a particularly important issue. Examples include cobalt and lithium, but also metals that are less critical today, but which could become so, given the expected exponential production trajectories, such as nickel, graphite and copper. While there is no identified risk of a physical shortage of resources by 2030, the strong growth in demand could lead to supply risks and market imbalances. The expected pressure on raw materials for battery production should naturally favour the development of recycling as a supply or of new battery chemistries to reduce the use of highly critical metals.&nbsp;<h3>7. Are batteries recyclable?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>&nbsp;Recycling of battery materials is crucial to reduce the pressure for virgin materials and thus limit the impacts associated with their extraction. Contrary to common belief, Li-ion batteries are recyclable, currently up to 50% by pyrometallurgy (by mass), and potentially up to 80-90% with new hydrometallurgical and mechanical processes. However, recyclable does not mean recycled, and currently less than 5% of end-of-life Li-ion batteries are. To be recovered and recycled, it is necessary to wait until the batteries reach the end of their life. As electric vehicles are only just emerging on the market, the industrial recycling sector is not yet mature. It should develop as these electric vehicles leave the market and as the pressure on raw materials increases. The resources then available will enable the industry to achieve real economies of scale and to seek to make recycled materials as competitive as raw materials. In this respect, the European Commission is proposing to set targets for the content of recycled materials in batteries placed on the EU market: from 2030 onwards, they will have to contain at least 12% recycled cobalt, 85% lead, 4% lithium and 4% nickel, and these proportions will rise to 20% recycled cobalt, 10% lithium and 12% nickel from 2035 onwards. But recycling, even if done optimally, will not be enough to meet demand. Any increase in battery production will require additional mining activity, that will need to be limited to ensure that only the right needs are met , and conducted using the best available processes. So it remains important to reverse the current race to increase battery sizes!&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>8. Does producing a battery pollute? And do children work in the mines?&nbsp;</h3>Beyond the climate impact (greenhouse gas emissions) and air quality impact (pollutant emissions during use), it is important to consider other social and environmental impacts of electric vehicles. Electric vehicle batteries and motors, like all complex electronic products, contain a large number of materials whose extraction and refining are not without impact. The debate often focuses on the lithium and cobalt needed to produce batteries. These issues are very real: for example, the impact on water resources in the Andean "salars" (where lithium is extracted) or the working conditions in the cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, these two metals represent 4% of the average weight of a battery. Copper (9%), graphite (9%), steel (9%) and aluminium (29%) are used in much greater quantities, and sometimes with equally important environmental and social issues, albeit less publicized. There are many risks and controversies (waste management, water pollution, air pollution, working conditions, etc.) as illustrated by the transition mineral tracker (https://trackers.business-humanrights.org/transition-minerals/). Sobriety and recycling still appear to be among the key elements to answer these questions. Furthermore, to avoid an exaggerated image, these specific problems with minerals for batteries (for electric vehicles as well as for many of our electronic devices) must be set against the controversies surrounding the oil industry. Oil spills and human rights abuses, in addition to the armed conflicts that have marked the history of oil, are a tragic reminder that conventional vehicles also depend on a controversial extractive activity.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>9. Is the electric car better for air quality?&nbsp;</h3>The public debate is most often focused on the comparative climate impacts of electric and combustion vehicles. The focus is therefore mainly on CO2e emissions, increasingly in a life cycle approach, which is a good thing. However, there is much less talk about a major virtue of electric engines: the total absence of exhaust pollutant emissions (nitrogen oxides NOx and particulate matter PM). Nothing for a battery-powered vehicle and just water vapour for a hydrogen vehicle. According to Santé Publique France, outdoor air pollution in our country causes 40,000 premature deaths per year (i.e. 9% of mortality in France) and a loss of life expectancy at age 30 that can exceed 2 years. As transport is one of the main contributors to this local pollution, the progressive replacement of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by electrified vehicles (cars, buses) for journeys that cannot be made on foot or by bicycle is an excellent solution. There is still particulate matter from tyres and brakes. As electric vehicles are generally heavier, tyre abrasion at ground level is generally higher. On the other hand, thanks to the energy recovery devices fitted to these vehicles, the brake pads and discs are less stressed, so that less particulate matter is emitted during braking. All in all, this results in a comparable level of fine particle emissions between the two types of vehicles. So, overall (exhaust pollutants and particulate matter), an electric vehicle is clearly better than a combustion vehicle for air quality.&nbsp;

<h2>The use of electric vehicles&nbsp; &nbsp;</h2><h3>10. Does it cost more?&nbsp; &nbsp;</h3>The question of the cost of electric vehicles often comes up in the debate, which is quite logical. Indeed, for a given range, the purchase price of an electric vehicle is higher than a internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle today, even with public aid when it exists (as in France). However, any car owner knows very well that the cost of a vehicle is not limited to its purchase price: energy, insurance, maintenance, parking, tolls, etc., are all added to it. However, for the first two components, i.e. energy and maintenance, the electric vehicle is much less expensive than a conventional vehicle, particularly if it is recharged at home. As a result, for certain uses with a high mileage, the electric vehicle already has a better total cost of ownership (TCO) than the equivalent ICE vehicle (see, for example, the latest edition of the Arval dedicated booklet on the subject). To say that an electric vehicle is "expensive, very expensive" is therefore simplistic and reductive. As soon as the use cost is taken into account, the gap narrows considerably. Furthermore, as it is the purchase cost that represents the biggest obstacle for potential buyers, all manufacturers now communicate on a monthly rental, which allows the additional cost to be smoothed out over several years, as would be the case for a bank loan for the purchase of a conventional vehicle. Finally, one of the gateways to the electric vehicle should be the second-hand market, which promises to grow considerably in the years to come (x2 in 2021), particularly because the difference in purchase price compared to a conventional vehicle is narrowing.<h3>11. What is the average life of a battery?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>The life of a battery in an electric car is not measured in kilometers but in the number of charge-discharge cycles*. For a lithium-ion battery (the technology used by most electric cars), the theoretical life before obsolescence of the battery (i.e. when the battery reaches 70-80% of its original capacity, which makes it still relevant in a second life for stationary use, for example) is estimated at between 1000 and 1500 cycles. Thus, for a vehicle driving an average of 15,000 km per year, the theoretical life of the vehicle's battery is between 15 and 20 years. In practice, this means that there is no need to change the battery over the lifetime of a vehicle. It should be noted that several factors can affect the life of the battery: climate (heat), long periods without use, frequency of charging, charging power (particularly in the case of ultra-fast charging with too much power).<h3>12. Is the range of electric cars suitable for long distances?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>Among the obstacles to the adoption of electromobility by motorists, the issue of autonomy is systematically in the top 3. Even though 95% of car journeys never exceed 300 km for the overwhelming majority of French people, the obligation of having to recharge to cover long distances remains a strong psychological barrier. In practice, there are now around 60,000 public charging points in France, to enable long distances to be covered. This is still not enough if we look ahead to a fleet of several million electric vehicles, but the public authorities have shown greater ambitions to develop this network. However, depending on the regions and urban areas, there is a great deal of heterogeneity, which can occasionally cause problems due to difficulties in accessing charging points (e.g. tourist resorts during busy periods). In practice, long-distance travel is always combined, regardless of the type of vehicle, with breaks to reduce the risks of fatigue. Electric mobility requires these stops to be made at places with charging points, which is why it is important to position them near places where people would stop anyways (eg. Restaurants or resting areas). In the end, long-distance driving with an electric car is perfectly possible, provided that you plan your journey a little more carefully and accept spending a little more time on the road (about 1 to 2 hours more for a journey of between 300 and 500 km). By agreeing to this obligation, let's not forget that we reduce the impact of the journey on the climate by a factor of 3 to 4. Isn't it worth it?&nbsp;<h3>13. Is it true that there is less maintenance on an electric car?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>Maintenance of electric cars is simpler in several respects: fewer parts in the engine, no wearing parts in the engine (belt, exhaust hose), no clutch system, brake pads that are less stressed thanks to the recovery of braking energy, etc. These advantages more than compensate for the specific needs of electric cars such as the control of high voltage electrical circuits. Daily maintenance costs are therefore reduced by around 20% to 40% and technical visits are spaced out (every 30,000 km compared with 15,000 and 20,000 km for a petrol or diesel car according to the manufacturers).&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>14. Aren't batteries dangerous because they can catch fire?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>Batteries can indeed catch fire as a result of thermal runaway, which can have several causes (mechanical damage, internal short-circuit, overload, etc.). The result is a fire that is difficult to control (metal fire), with the release of toxic fumes. This is why manufacturers provide a lot of protection both in the battery cells and in the BMS (Battery Management System) which manages the charge/discharge of the battery, and sometimes monitors the internal temperature. The risk of fire is inherent in batteries and should not be overlooked. However, it remains very rare : Tesla indicates in its impact report that, on a per-kilometre basis, there were 11 times fewer Tesla fires than the average (internal combustion engine) vehicle in the United States over 2012-2020.&nbsp;<h3>15. Will there be enough charging points?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>The French government's "100,000-charging point target" for 2021 has not been met and has been postponed to 2022, but the acceleration of the deployment of charging points is nevertheless a reality. The number of charging points open to the public in France has increased by 55% in 2021<a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-1">[1]</a>, and all service areas on the motorway network will be equipped with fast charging points by the end of the year<a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-2">[2]</a>. Today, 1 on-street charging point is available for every 15 vehicles, a ratio that falls to 1 charging point for every 1.3 vehicles if we include private charging points<a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-3"><a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-3">[3]</a></a> in private homes, condominiums, company car parks, etc.). However, the number of electric and hybrid vehicles in the French car fleet should continue to increase and reach more than 1 million in 2022 and, possibly, 5 to 6 million by 2030<a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-4">[4]</a>.&nbsp; &nbsp;The objectives in terms of the number of public charging points are not yet well defined, but overall, public and private combined, the Government aims to have 7 millions charging points installed by 2030<a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-5">[5]</a>. 5] This objective would make it possible to maintain the current ratio of one charging point for every 1 to 2 vehicles. To this end, legislative and regulatory measures aimed at removing obstacles to the deployment of charging points and financial aid for their installation have been put in place.&nbsp;&nbsp;If deployment proceeds at the right pace, the experience of queuing up during holiday rushes should be the exception, rather than the rule. Note that Tesla is experimenting (at least in France) with free charging on the eve of holiday rushes, at some of its stations, to smooth out demand and avoid too great a rush on a single day.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ---&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *A charge-discharge cycle corresponds to a theoretical full charge from 0 to 100%, and not the number of times the car can be charged. In practice, the car is charged before it is completely empty. Thus, the actual number of charges is greater than the number of charge-discharge cycles.&nbsp;

<h2>Other questions&nbsp; &nbsp;</h2><h3>16. Will the electricity grid hold?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>This question raises the issue of the power demanded by the charging of electric cars, which could jeopardise the balance of the network (on a national or more regional scale). On this subject, the models carried out by RTE <a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-6">[6]</a> indicate that the impact could be absorbed without difficulty if we assume "smart" load management (use of smart grid functionalities and tariff signals). More precisely, the electrical power that the load of 8 million electrified vehicles would represent without control would be 8 GW during the winter peak at 7pm, taking into account the spread of load use (for an average winter working day and compared to a situation without electrified vehicles). The French electricity grid has a peak capacity of over 100 GW. According to RTE, it is also interesting to note that the evolution of other electrical uses by 2030 has an impact of reducing the peak by a similar amount. With load management, the power required by the 8 million electrified vehicles at the 7pm winter peak would be much less: 3.5 GW. In this case, for the same reasons as above, the 7pm peak would not increase but decrease compared to 2016. The large-scale development of the electric car in France is therefore not out of reach for the electricity network over the next 10 years, even in the hypothesis of limited “smart” recharging, provided of course that the levels of controllable electricity production capacity are similar to the current level. However, this analysis leaves a blind spot on geographical adequacy: at the local distribution level, overload is likely to occur and would require strengthening of the distribution network. In the longer term, if we anticipate a fleet of around 20-25 million vehicles (or more, which is not necessarily desirable), investments will of course have to be made in the network, but at levels that the players in electricity production, transmission and distribution can cope with, as long as this is anticipated <a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-7">[7]</a>. The role of public authorities will be decisive in this respect.&nbsp;<h3>17. If we replace all conventional cars with electric cars, do we need to build new nuclear power plants or thousands of wind turbines?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>Electricity consumption in connection with the development of electric mobility is not an issue in terms of electricity production, even with a very large volume of vehicles. To be convinced of this, we only need to compare two figures: 12 million electric cars (including plug-in hybrids) would generate an electricity demand of about 30 TWh according to RTE, i.e. a quantity equivalent to about 5 to 6% of the current national production. How so? Simply because an electric motor is 3 to 4 times more energy efficient than a combustion engine. Moreover, this consumption of electricity for individual electro-mobility would not be added to current consumption because it would be largely offset by the general drop in consumption in the medium term for other uses (effect of energy efficiency in industry or the residential-tertiary sector).&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>18. Is it true that it will be possible to charge by induction?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>Charging by electromagnetic induction, or "wireless", exists in two forms: at a standstill and while driving. The first form would take place in a parking space and would replace the charging station as we know it today. This solution would simply avoid the need to go around the vehicle to plug in the cable or pass the badge on the terminal: charging would start automatically. The so-called "dynamic" form would allow the car to be charged while driving thanks to a device integrated under the road. This solution would be particularly interesting because it would significantly improve the range of electric cars and reduce the size of their batteries. Initial tests have been carried out and turned out to be promising. However, although some manufacturers are proposing to adapt existing models, the electric cars currently on the market are not adapted to this type of charging (as they are not equipped with receiver coils), and the rapid fall in the cost of batteries could postpone or kill the innovation.&nbsp;<h3>19. Geopolitics: will the electric vehicle create new dependencies on foreign countries?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>When looking at vehicle production, the internal combustion engine car has traditionally been a topic of European economic sovereignty. Europe is a net exporter and European manufacturers are among the most successful, thanks in particular to their mastery of the complexity of combustion engines. For electric cars, the market was until very recently dominated by Chinese manufacturers (driven by very strong domestic Chinese demand), although the situation could change. In 2020, new electric car registrations in Europe surpassed those in China for the first time. Going into more detail, however, it can be seen that even when it takes place in Europe, the manufacture of electric vehicles relies in part on the import of batteries from abroad. In 2020, European battery production was slightly lower than demand. However, this could change very quickly. Indeed, the numerous announcements of European gigafactories suggest that Europe could become a net exporter of batteries as early as 2023 <a class="footnoteLink" href="#footnote-8">[8]</a>. So would the problem of sovereignty be solved? The situation is not so simple. Indeed, even when they are manufactured in Europe, batteries are made with materials that are mostly mined outside Europe - for example, cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo and lithium from the "lithium triangle": Argentina, Bolivia, Chile - and most often also refined outside Europe. In this respect, the few European projects for local production of lithium, for example via mines in Portugal or recovery from Alsatian brines, remain below the required level. Thus, when we look at vehicle production from the point of view of economic sovereignty, it is clear that the electric car is causing Europe to lose the historical advantage it had with internal combustion engines. Faced with this observation, Europe's response of promoting electric cars while investing in locating in Europe as much as possible (battery production, even if it means importing raw materials from elsewhere) seems relevant. In a world that is moving towards electric vehicles anyway, we might as well act to take advantage of what we can. Finally, this debate on vehicle production should not overshadow the use phase of the vehicles. While the ICE combustion car creates a dependence on oil-producing countries, the electric vehicle makes it possible to get rid of this dependence by relying on an electrical mix composed of several primary energy sources and therefore via several supplier countries. It is for a reason that the latest IEA plan to reduce dependence on Russian oil gives considerable weight to the development of electric vehicles!&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>20. What impact will the development of electric cars have on jobs?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>The transition to electric cars will have a strong impact on jobs in the automotive industry. Indeed, the manufacture of an electric car requires about 40% less labour hours than a combustion car, as the electric car is simpler to produce with fewer parts and components, but also less assembly time required. OEMs and suppliers focused on combustion engines are particularly at risk. However, the growth of electric cars will lead to the emergence of new jobs, particularly in the manufacture and assembly of batteries, but also as installers of charging stations, cable technicians, etc. New mobility services could also develop (e.g. long-distance, as indicated in our episode 3). For this transition to be an opportunity, it is necessary to anticipate and invest in the transformation of the automotive industry, in particular in (i) the creation of a competitive European battery manufacturing and end-of-life sector, in order to relocate production in Europe and (ii) in the support of employees to train them in the new skills required and to help them witch jobs.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Note: methodological details and assumptions are available in our <a href="https://www.carbone4.com/en/publication-road-transportation-what-aternative-motorisation-are-suitable-for-the-climate">publication</a>.&nbsp;

large_roger-starnes-sr-VUuBpG5avLY-unsplash.jpg

medium_roger-starnes-sr-VUuBpG5avLY-unsplash.jpg

small_roger-starnes-sr-VUuBpG5avLY-unsplash.jpg

thumbnail_roger-starnes-sr-VUuBpG5avLY-unsplash.jpg

roger-starnes-sr-VUuBpG5avLY-unsplash.jpg

Enedis (<a href="https://data.enedis.fr/explore/dataset/nombre-total-de-points-de-charge/table/?sort=-trimestre">https://data.enedis.fr/explore/dataset/nombre-total-de-points-de-charge/table/?sort=-trimestre</a>)

Ministère de l’Économie des Finances et de la Relance (<a href="https://www.economie.gouv.fr/plan-de-relance/accompagnement-deploiement-bornes-recharge-rapide-vehicules-electriques">https://www.economie.gouv.fr/plan-de-relance/accompagnement-deploiement-bornes-recharge-rapide-vehicules-electriques</a>)

Ratios calculés à partir des données Avere France (<a href="https://www.avere-france.org/mobilite-electrique-une-annee-2021-record-une-annee-2022-qui-en-promet-encore-plus/#:~:text=Dans%20ce%20contexte%20particulier%2C%20la,355%20%25%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202019">https://www.avere-france.org/mobilite-electrique-une-annee-2021-record-une-annee-2022-qui-en-promet-encore-plus/#:~:text=Dans%20ce%20contexte%20particulier%2C%20la,355%20%25%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202019</a>)

The automobile &amp; the company (<a href="https://www.auto-infos.fr/article/on-a-besoin-d-etoffer-le-maillage-de-bornes-sur-le-territoire-pour-rassurer-les-conducteurs-dans-l-itinerance.240992">https://www.auto-infos.fr/article/on-a-besoin-d-etoffer-le-maillage-de-bornes-sur-le-territoire-pour-rassurer-les-conducteurs-dans-l-itinerance.240992</a>)

Ministry of Ecological Transition (<a href="https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/bornes-electriques-developpement-des-infrastructures-recharge#:~:text=Il%20ambitionne%20l'installation%20de,de%20ces%20points%20de%20ravitaillement">https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/bornes-electriques-developpement-des-infrastructures-recharge#:~:text=Il%20ambitionne%20l'installation%20de,de%20ces%20points%20de%20ravitaillement</a>)

RTE, «&nbsp;Les besoins électriques de la mobilité longue distance sur autoroute&nbsp;», 2021

Transport &amp; Environnement, «&nbsp;Weak climate rules put Europe’s battery boom at risk», 2021

Misconceptions about electric vehicles

From its beginning, aviation has been a subject of dreams and fears, raising strong interest in society. It is now caught up in the storm of climate transition. On one side, green aircraft is praised as the solution to every issue, on the other side “flygskam”, the “shame of flying”, emerged to denote a mean of transport to be banned. In this context, Carbone 4 aims to lighten up the debate by answering a series of questions with a scientific and quantified approach.&nbsp;

<h2>Links between aviation and climate change</h2><h3>1. Isn’t the impact of aviation on climate change minor?</h3>Commercial aviation represented 2.6% of greenhouse gases emissions worldwide in 2018, and 5.1% of anthropic global warming between 2000 and 2018 taking into account non-CO2 effect. That corresponds to approximately 1 billion tons of CO2, equivalent in order of magnitude to the emissions of Japan (3rd global power and 5th emitting country). It is far from being insignificant.Even more so when zooming&nbsp;on the individual scale: as an example, a round trip flight from Paris to New-York (1.7 tCO2e considering non-CO2 effects) represents 20% of the annual emissions of an average French person. Definitively significant. In view of the high awaited growth of the sector (approximately at least +3%/year according to estimates of the sector), its share in global emissions can easily explode and therefore weigh even more in climate change.<h3>2. The non-CO2 effects of aviation are too uncertain to be considered…</h3>&nbsp;Certain human activities can influence climate differently than by emitting greenhouse gases&nbsp;(GHG). Aviation is one of these activities: beyond GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel, it has an impact through physical and chemical atmospheric processes. The main non-CO2 impact of aviation is the effect of the contrails (condensation trails) appearing in an aircraft’s wake. They are the well-known white trails one can spot in clear skies. These trails can persist in a sufficiently wet and cold air and evolve into&nbsp;cirrus clouds (ice clouds) when the meteorological conditions are met. These kinds of clouds have an overall warming effect on climate. They reflect towards earth the radiation it emits without no equivalent albedo effect (reflecting sun’s radiation towards space). But these clouds are too small and unstable to be considered in climate models. Therefore, the magnitude of their effect remains uncertain, but this uncertainty is evaluated, as in every scientific work. Latest studies show that their effect is equivalent to double or even triple the radiative impact due to GHG emitted by aircrafts. Evaluation of non-CO2 effects is yet to improve, but their significance is demonstrated. By counting them to zero, one is sure to be mistaken!

large_Aviationgraphs01.png

medium_Aviationgraphs01.png

small_Aviationgraphs01.png

thumbnail_Aviationgraphs01.png

Aviationgraphs01.png

Climate effect of contrails

<h3>3. And air cargo?</h3>In 2020, air cargo represented less that 0.5% of transported goods in Europe but 10% of overall freight emissions. Indeed, on the distances for which it flies, a plane &nbsp;is 2 to 5 times more emissive than a truck and 200 to 400 times more emissive than a train or a cargo ship! With a stable share until the beginning of the Covid crises, goods air transportation has greatly risen since, especially with the development of online shopping. It has progressed by 19% between 2020 and 2021, and it’s a trend that should continue according to the international air transport association (IATA), an increase of emissions will follow.&nbsp;Today, 70% of payload is transported in the cargo compartment of passenger aircraft. Cargos&nbsp;can be seen as a co-product of commercial flights, but it is a share that could decrease. Big transport companies and integrators plan to acquire more cargo planes (in average 2 times more emissive per ton) to remedy to the explosion of online retail responsible of the increase of the share of air cargo.&nbsp;However, to put the subject back into perspective, freight accounts for 15% of aviation emissions, whereas the 85% remaining correspond to passenger transportation.

large_Aviationgraphs03.png

medium_Aviationgraphs03.png

small_Aviationgraphs03.png

thumbnail_Aviationgraphs03.png

Aviationgraphs03.png

<h3>4. Should aviation fear the physical effects of climate change?&nbsp;</h3>In comparison to other means of transport, aeronautics facilities has a relatively small infrastructure footprint: no railway, road, bridge nor tunnels. It would be easy to wrongfully conclude that aviation isn’t exposed to climate change’s physical impacts.&nbsp;Most airports are located on coastal, low altitude zones, making them sensible to sea level rise. It is probably the first risk factor for the sector: submersion. 269 airports are already subject to this risk. In a 2°C scenario, respecting the Paris agreement, the number already rises by 30% in 2100. In a more pessimist scenario, this number could rise by 50% and affect 13% of global air traffic. The annual number of disruptions due to submersions would be multiplied by 18. These impressive numbers don’t even consider possible interactions between sea level&nbsp;rise and other climate hazards such as river floods or the increasing intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms.&nbsp;Other climate hazards can also disrupt air traffic from running smoothly. The heat wave that stuck 50 planes to the ground in Phoenix (Arizona, USA) in 2017 was an illustration of the vulnerability of aviation to heat. No taking off on too short runways or with some types of regional aircrafts (hot air is less dense, reducing lift), and accelerated wearing of the tarmac with time. It raises the question of the future of some hubs, such as Dubaï, fourth global airport in frequentation in 2019…

<h2>The different levers available to decarbonize aviation</h2><h3>5. Hasn't aviation already halved its consumption since 1990?</h3>Fuel cost is a very important expense item for airlines (20 to 40% of the operational cost depending on the company structure). They are&nbsp;therefore naturally driven to minimize fuel consumption. Thus, with new generations of aircrafts and operational optimizations (eco-piloting, on-board weight limitation), fuel consumption per passenger-kilometer has been divided by more than 2 between 1990 and 2018, and consequently carbon intensity as well.However, carbon intensity (i.e. emissions per passenger.km) must not be confused with emissions in absolute terms! As air traffic has multiplied by 4.6 over the same period, total emissions have more than doubled. This reflects a phenomenon called the "rebound effect": as fuel is saved, flying costs less, and therefore we fly more...&nbsp;

large_Evolution of global air transport emissions.png

medium_Evolution of global air transport emissions.png

small_Evolution of global air transport emissions.png

thumbnail_Evolution of global air transport emissions.png

Evolution of global air transport emissions.png

<h2>6. Aviation already has its own tool to fight climate change!</h2>Promoted as the standard-bearer of aviation's environmental commitment, CORSIA (for "Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation") is a scheme whose aim is to "offset" any annual increase in CO2 emissions above a specific baseline (set at 85% of 2019 emissions) and thus contribute to the industry's commitment to "carbon neutral growth" from 2020 (CNG2020). It was adopted in October 2016 by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), for gradual implementation as of 2021, only for international aviation (more than 60% of global traffic). The scope of application also proposes exclusions based on certain criteria (total emissions &lt; 10,000 tCO2, island countries, least developed countries, etc.).In practice, this should force every eligible airline to buy "offsetting credits" on the voluntary carbon markets, up to the amount of emissions exceeding the defined baseline emissions. However, as there are (crucial) issues concerning carbon credit integrity (which is highly contested in this scheme, including by scientists) and the use of "offsetting" instead of emissions reductions (see our NZI framework), the implementation of this scheme means that operators are under little constraint. Indeed, it only covers additional emissions (emissions before 2020 are not included), on a limited perimeter, for voluntary countries or companies until 2027 (then mandatory until 2035). Currently, 81 States have volunteered (77% of international traffic), and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are notably missing. It should be noted that it is possible to use SAF ("Sustainable Aviation Fuels") to reduce offset obligations, due to reduced emissions compared to conventional jet fuel.CORSIA is long to set up, only concerns a very limited scope of emissions, is based on carbon offsetting and is also a tool that does not help aviation to reduce its emissions. For all these reasons, this scheme is not up to the challenge to really fight climate change. Moreover, if&nbsp;the European Union&nbsp;uses CORSIA voluntarily for extra-European flights, it still maintains the EU-ETS market for emission allowances on intra-European flights,&nbsp;while European airlines would have liked to see the latter abandoned and switch to 100% CORSIA.&nbsp;As the latter is much less restrictive than the European mechanism, one can understand their position...

large_Capture d’écran 2022-11-17 à 14.11.53.png

medium_Capture d’écran 2022-11-17 à 14.11.53.png

small_Capture d’écran 2022-11-17 à 14.11.53.png

thumbnail_Capture d’écran 2022-11-17 à 14.11.53.png

Capture d’écran 2022-11-17 à 14.11.53.png

Projected annual and cumulative emissions from international aviation (combustion only)- MtCO2 (ICCT 2018)

<h3>7. Will hydrogen or electric aircrafts decarbonize aviation by 2050?</h3>Flying airplanes using electricity or hydrogen is promising&nbsp;because these energy carriers can be produced in a low-carbon way.In the case of hydrogen, this could reduce the carbon footprint by up to -65% (non-CO2 effects included). However, this remains highly speculative for the moment because many technological elements are not ready yet, while aviation has set targets for 2050, less than 30 years from now.Hydrogen has a better energy density per unit of mass, but not at all per unit of volume: even in its liquid form (which requires cooling to -253°C!), it takes three times more space than kerosene, and also has greater safety constraints than the latter. Hydrogen therefore suffers from some of its physical characteristics, which also requires modifying the entire airport ecosystem and infrastructure (hydrogen production, storage, aircraft refueling, etc.).In addition, Airbus recently announced its plan to develop a hydrogen-powered single-aisle aircraft that would enter service in 2035 at best and cover a radius of 1,500 km, i.e. a regional range, which corresponds to ... 6% of aviation emissions today. For longer-range aircrafts, we would have to wait until 2040-2045. And even with a lot of political will, it will take time for these breakthrough technologies to spread and have a significant impact on the global fleet, while the sector has set targets for 2050. The NGO ICCT estimates, for example, that hydrogen could contribute to the decarbonization of aviation by 6 to 12% by 2050, and even IATA considers that it would only represent one tenth of the fuel used by that date.Regarding true electric power, the main concepts under study are focused on hybridization,&nbsp;not on 100% electric power (except for light aviation), because of the weight of the batteries, which is much too high for an aircraft. EasyJet's recent reversal in its decarbonization strategy (from an ambition towards electric power to a partnership with Rolls-Royce on a hydrogen engine) is an example of this trend...<h3>8. Will we be able to continue flying like we currently do thanks to alternative fuels (known as "SAF")?</h3>There are two types of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/eco/eaer/topics/sustainable-aviation-fuels/what-are-sustainable-aviation-fuels#drop-in-saf-production-pathways">Sustainable Aviation Fuels</a> (also known as “SAF”) : biofuels produced from biomass and e-fuels produced from electricity, water and CO2 (synthetic electrofuels, or PtL for Power-to-Liquid).&nbsp;Regarding GHGs, new fuels can reduce CO2 emissions by replacing fossil kerosene: combustion is counted at 0 thanks to CO2 storage upstream (plant growth, use of captured CO2), and by taking into account processing and transport emissions, a reduction of up to -70/80% is obtained for bio-kerosene, or even more for future synthetic kerosenes with CO2 capture (still at the R&amp;D stage). On the other hand, CO2 is not the only element that disturbs the atmosphere (see question n°2): these new products (i) do not have an impact on NOX or water, because it is the same type of combustion, and (ii) contrails, although reduced by the lesser presence of aromatics in the fuel, remain present. Thus, the reduction in non-CO2 effects would only be about 12%, which translates into an overall reduction of up to 50% in climate impact.In terms of production, biofuels represented 0.01% of the fuels used in aviation in 2018, and several physical, economic and technological barriers will most likely not allow them to surpass conventional kerosene by 2050 according to the ICCT. Sustainable biomass resources to produce biofuels are also limited and will be contested between different means of transport (maritime, rail, road) and different sectors (heavy industry, energy production, cosmetics, etc.). Even if the quantity of sustainable biomass is sufficient if we only consider aviation, it is not sufficient if we take into account all sectors. Moreover, the massive production of intensively cultivated biofuels has other environmental consequences and can weaken the soil, threaten biodiversity or alter the water cycle.For e-fuels, their production from low-carbon electricity and their use in an aircraft turbojet has a low energy efficiency of 20-25%. And here too, there will be competition for uses of decarbonized electricity, the production of which will not be infinite.Finally, biofuels are currently 2 to 5 times more expensive than fossil kerosene, and even in industrial production, biofuels as well as e-fuels should remain the most expensive (excluding carbon tax or other financial mechanism) and therefore increase the price of airline tickets.The development of SAFs is therefore an important but insufficient lever for aviation: on the one hand, the different types of SAFs have different carbon footprints, sometimes greater than that of fossil kerosene, and on the other hand, resources needed to produce them are limited and coveted by other sectors.

large_wheel to wake.png

medium_wheel to wake.png

small_wheel to wake.png

thumbnail_wheel to wake.png

wheel to wake.png

Comparison of the complete carbon footprint of different types of SAF - gCO2e/MJ (ICCT, 2021)

<h3>9. Can aviation meet its climate targets without reducing growth?</h3>In order to keep global warming below +2°C, the aviation sector has set a target of zero net emissions (with ~135 MtCO2 of residual emissions, i.e. a reduction of 85%, according to ATAG). This challenge will be all the more ambitious given that it anticipates a growth in passenger traffic ranging from 3.1% to 3.6% per year, i.e. a multiplication by at least 2.5 by 2050.To decarbonize its activity, the civil aviation sector can rely on 3 different levers:<ul><li>Energy efficiency (improvements in aircraft and operations)</li><li>Decarbonization of energy carriers (alternative fuels, low-carbon hydrogen, etc.)</li><li>Activity volume (passengers and freight)</li></ul>Technological improvements with new generations of aircraft are contributing to the decarbonization of the sector by substantially reducing fuel consumption per passenger (by 15% to 30% between two generations). Breakthrough programs, potentially using other energies such as hydrogen or electricity, could achieve fuel savings of up to 50%. However, they are not expected to start production before 2035 for short/medium-haul aircraft and 2040-2045 for long-haul aircraft, which means that they will only be able to make a small contribution to the 2050 objective&nbsp;(see question 7). Thus, even with an accelerated renewal of the world fleet in 15 years (compared to ~22 years on average today), this lever will hardly be able to contribute to more than 25% of the decarbonization effort required for 2050, not to mention the financing constraints imposed on airlines and the induced rebound effect (see question n°5).At the same time, improving load factors (already high, between 80 and 85%) to 95%, eliminating part of the Business class in favor of more passengers, as well as the electrification of ground operations and optimal flight paths, could make it possible to achieve up to 8% of the decarbonization effort.Finally, the development of alternative fuels (SAFs) will be the major complementary lever that could make it possible to achieve more than 35% of the total decarbonization objective, according to our analyses. However, the supply of these sustainable fuels will remain limited (see question 8).Therefore, even summing up the optimistic contributions of these levers, aviation would still need to reduce its emissions by an additional ~30% to achieve its decarbonization objective. Sufficiency, i.e. traffic moderation with lower, or even zero or negative growth if the previous levers do not have the estimated potential, is the only remaining lever to achieve this transition. For short flights (in 2019, 17% of civil aviation emissions are linked to flights of less than 1,000 km, with regional and medium-haul aircraft, according to the ICCT), there are alternatives with lower carbon impacts, such as bus or train in regions where the rail network is already well-developed (e.g., Europe, China, Japan). More generally, it will be crucial to question the real need to travel, for professional purposes and more importantly for private purposes.All levers, both technological and behavioral, will be key to decarbonizing air transport: forgetting one, such as the effort to limit traffic, makes the decarbonization plan unsustainable.

large_Air transport CO2 emissions.png

medium_Air transport CO2 emissions.png

small_Air transport CO2 emissions.png

thumbnail_Air transport CO2 emissions.png

Air transport CO2 emissions.png

Evolution of CO2 emissions (combustion and upstream) of global air transport (excluding regional traffic), respecting a 2°C budget defined by ISAE Supaéro

Even in the very optimistic case of a strong development of technological levers alongside a production of alternative fuels equal to the current kerosene consumption (~300 Mt), limiting growth will be essential to respect the carbon budget.

<h3>10. Can we continue to fly by offsetting?&nbsp;</h3>The purchase of carbon credits is not necessarily bad from a climate point of view (although all credits are not equal!) because they allow to accelerate the action towards the collective net zero. However, this has nothing to do with air travel: this contribution can be considered in a decorrelated way, and it has no impact on the flight emissions. It is therefore misleading to try to create a link&nbsp;between the emissions induced by an airplane flight and the avoided or captured emissions associated with the funded project, this being true for any type of "offset", and not only for air travel (for more details, see our&nbsp;<a href="https://www.carbone4.com/publication-referentiel-nzi">NZI framework</a>).&nbsp;Likewise, a company may decide to fund projects to avoid or capture CO2e emissions in order to contribute to carbon neutrality, but these actions do not reduce its carbon footprint.Thus, in the case of a passenger who, while being aware of the climate emergency, wishes to take the plane, the most consistent approach is to first reduce his or her use of planes (in terms of kilometers flown), then if needed to choose the least emissive flight (direct flights, new generation planes), and to finance the purchase of sustainable fuel. However, carbon credits are not a reduction lever. Their purchase remains a good action but is separate from travel.<h3>11. Is it better to travel by plane or by car, even alone?</h3>We often hear that an airplane consumes about 3L per passenger per 100 km while a car rarely uses less than 5L per 100. From this perspective, the question of which vehicle is the most emissive is quickly answered. But fuel consumption is not enough to evaluate the carbon footprint of a means of transport. Including non-CO2 effects (see question 2), 260 gCO2e/passenger.km are emitted by an airplane compared to 196 gCO2e/passenger.km for a thermal car with only one passenger (source: Carbone 4), while long distance trips carry 2.2 passengers per car on average.The other point that is often made, especially against trains, is that the impact of infrastructure is not taken into account. Beyond the fact that it only makes sense to take them into account in the long term for the construction of new infrastructures (as airports or rails are not going to change until you make your next trip), one can see on the graph below that it does not change the carbon hierarchy of transport.Solo-driving and air transport are the two most emissive means of passenger transport. In France, if one hesitates between the two, it is generally because one has forgotten to look at the alternatives: trains (TGV) or buses cover the main national roads and emit much less than airplanes, solo-driving or even car-sharing.&nbsp;

large_Carbon intensity short term long term.png

medium_Carbon intensity short term long term.png

small_Carbon intensity short term long term.png

thumbnail_Carbon intensity short term long term.png

Carbon intensity short term long term.png

Carbon intensity of a 400-1000 km trip, short term (without construction) and long term (with construction) - gCO2e/passenger.km

<h3>12. Is it better to travel in economy class rather than in business class?</h3>For each passenger, the carbon footprint of a flight increases when the occupancy rate of the plane decreases (because each passenger carries a larger share of the flight's emissions). And the larger the seat, the more space it takes up in the aircraft cabin, contributing to a decrease in the number of passengers allowed on a plane. In addition, first class and business class cabins are usually less occupied than economy class. Emissions per passenger in business class are therefore about 3 times higher than in economy class, and up to 6 times higher in first class, with a ratio depending on the amount of space occupied in the cabin. Thus when choosing to travel by plane, travelling in Economy class rather than Business or Premium Economy will significantly reduce the associated carbon footprint.It should be noted that this optimization with very dense and filled cabins has been well adopted by low-cost airlines, primarily for economic reasons, and they thus have the lowest CO2e emissions per passenger. However, the issue is different with low-cost airlines, as their business model is based on an increase in traffic. With their unbeatable prices, they are certainly stepping on the toes of historical airlines by conquering their market share, but they rely above all on attracting new passengers who are now tempted by going on weekends at the other end of Europe for a few tens of euros, or even at the other end of the world for a few hundred euros. Their business model is therefore no less harmful to the climate.&nbsp;<h3>13. Is buying SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) with your ticket a good idea?</h3>Biofuels can indeed significantly reduce the emissions of flights, thus buying SAF can really reduce the carbon footprint of a trip, unlike carbon offsetting.Currently, the supply of biofuels remains very limited (and the supply of e-fuels almost non-existent), and airlines buy very small quantities compared to their kerosene consumption, equivalent to only a few percent. Moreover, biofuels are poured into airport fuel tanks and mixed with fossil fuel for safety reasons (an aircraft cannot carry more than 50% SAF at the moment), and then distributed to airlines independently of their SAF purchases. The link between biofuel purchased by a passenger and fuel used during the flight is essentially conventional and not physical.&nbsp;However, unlike electricity, SAF are storable, so there is no issue with spatiotemporal consistency: a liter of SAF produced in May in Spain can be used in September in France, and replace a liter of kerosene. Therefore, this conventional link, although less rigorous than a physical link, does not diminish climate benefits coming from the SAF.Nevertheless, as mentioned in question number 8, although the use of biofuels is an important lever, the amount of biomass remains limited, and the development of this energy vector will require combining it with a decrease in the number of flights.<h3>14. How can companies play a role?</h3>Business travel accounts for a significant share of aviation emissions,&nbsp;for example 30% of travel in Europe. Companies must therefore do their part to reduce the impact of their trips.Several solutions exist. The first and most efficient one is to travel less by plane. The experience of Covid-19 lockdowns has been instructive on this matter, demonstrating that many business trips can be avoided and that videoconferences are adequate for the majority of needs. It is also necessary to prioritize other modes of transportation such as the train whenever possible: many companies encourage or even require their employees to use rail when the trip is short, for example for a duration of less than 4 hours by train. If air travel is really necessary, certain actions can be taken to reduce the carbon footprint, such as the choice of airline, the shortest route possible, or the purchase of biofuel (see question 13).In order to tackle this issue and get their employees on board (no pun intended), companies must ensure that their service providers - travel agencies and self-booking tools - provide them with the means to take action: clear carbon information for employees who choose their mode of transport and book their ticket, and relevant management indicators for the purchasing or sustainable development departments. To go one step further, there are many options: raising employee awareness, implementing strict travel policies, gamifying carbon footprint via individualized meters, or even setting up an internal carbon price.

<h3>15. Is air transport for the elite only?</h3>At a global level, aviation remains reserved for a very limited number of people.&nbsp;Here are some figures to illustrate:&nbsp;less than 1% of the world’s population is responsible for more than 50% of commercial aviation emissions. This is not surprising considering that 80% of the world’s population has never flown. Among those lucky enough to be able to travel by plane, the concentration of emission is also very high: 2% of travelers represent 40% of emissions.The observation is the same in France.&nbsp;If, in average, 33% of French people never fly, which is less than the world average, this share fluctuates with incomes: it increases to 47% for those earning less than 900€/month and decreases to 19% for those earning more than 2 500€/month, the reason mentioned being mostly the price. And if the drop in ticket prices with the development of low-cost airlines has allowed the lowest deciles to travel a little more, it has also allowed the highest deciles to travel more frequently. Other fast modes of transport such as TGV are the prerogative of the most affluent categories&nbsp;(upper socio-professional categories (CSP+) represent 48% of TGV users for 10% of the French population), with nevertheless a much lower carbon footprint. While air travel may not be the only elitist mode of transportation, it is the most carbon intensive.<h3>16. What are the avenues for an economically fair access to air transport?</h3>In the frame of the Paris Agreements, where emissions of all sectors, including aviation must be reduced, the question arises of how to fairly distribute the effort among citizens. How can the aviation carbon budget be distributed fairly? In order to aim at a system that does not indiscriminately affect all users with a simple price increase, while penalizing more strongly the modest households, two particularly interesting tracks have been identified:<ul><li>The first one is the Frequent Flyer Tax. This is the exact opposite to the Frequent Flyer Program (Airline loyalty program). It consists of a progressive taxation of tickets per person over a given period (e.g. 3 years), each additional flight being taxed more heavily than the previous one. The objective is to tax more heavily the wealthy elites who represent the largest share of emissions (see question 17)</li><li>The second is quotas. This measure, which can take various forms (limitations of kilometers traveled, of trips over one or more years), aims to free people from their wealth to ensure equal access to Icarus’s dream for all citizens.&nbsp;</li></ul><h3>17. Private jets: real impact or just a symbol?</h3>After a controversy during the summer of 2022, the issue of private jets has fallen back into relative obscurity (and we are struggling to identify the concrete next steps of the Transportation Minister Clément Beaune who announced to regulate the sector). The question raised is however major: Should private jets flights be regulated?The answer is not black or white. On an individual scale, yes, a private jet flight emits a lot: 5 to 14 times more than a commercial flight, and moreover, most often over distances that can be easily covered by train (50% of European business jet flights cover less than 500km). However, on the scale of the aviation sector, private jets only represent about 2% of the emissions in France. The question of regulation is therefore not primarily a question of direct impact, but a question of social justice.&nbsp;Indeed, without action on these high-carbon luxury products, it will be difficult to make ordinary people accept to moderate their use of air travel, or more generally to adopt low-carbon behaviors.

<h4>Glossary</h4>ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization, a UN agency that regulates international aviationIATA: International Air Transport Association, a private trade organization and airline lobbyATAG: Air Transport Action Group, a coalition of organizations and companies from the airline industry and lobbyIEA: International Energy Agency, an autonomous agency of the OECD, producing energy and climate transition scenariosICCT: International Council on Clean Transportation, an independent non-profit NGO&nbsp;T&amp;E: European Federation for Transport and Environment, a European organization uniting about fifty NGOs active in the field of transport and environment.

large_philip-myrtorp-iiqpxCg2GD4-unsplash.jpg

medium_philip-myrtorp-iiqpxCg2GD4-unsplash.jpg

small_philip-myrtorp-iiqpxCg2GD4-unsplash.jpg

thumbnail_philip-myrtorp-iiqpxCg2GD4-unsplash.jpg

philip-myrtorp-iiqpxCg2GD4-unsplash.jpg

Preconceived ideas on aviation and climate

Clément Mallet is manager at Carbone 4, which he joined in 2020 . As a member of the Mobility and Physical Risks teams, he works with organizations in a variety of sectors (rail, air, road and sea transport, manufacturers and equipment suppliers, actors in the agrifood and publishing industries, etc.). He advises these organizations in defining their climate strategy to reduce their impact and increase their resilience. He also contributed to the development of the OCARA methodology (Operational Climate Resilience Assessement) &nbsp;for assessing the physical risks posed by climate change.Before joining Carbone 4, Clément spent nearly 4 years as an auditor and sustainable development consultant at EY (formerly Ernst &amp; Young).&nbsp;In this capacity, he audited the sustainable development publications of major companies such as Airbus, Engie, Bouygues Telecom and Dassault Systèmes. He has also contributed to high-impact publications such as the "Global Roadmap of Action" for the World Bank's SUm4All (Sustainable Mobility for All) initiative.&nbsp;

Clément Mallet

Education

Areas of expertise

Resources by this author

Join us