Mccollum, David L Gould, Gregory Greene, David L: Institute of Transportation Studies Uc Davis

Institute of Transportation Studies
UC Davis
Title:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation and Marine Transportation: Mitigation Potential and
Policies
Author:
McCollum, David L, University of California - Davis
Gould, Gregory, University of California - Davis
Greene, David L, University of California - Davis
Publication Date:
01-01-2010
Publication Info:
Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5nz642qb
Keywords:
UCD-ITS-RP-10-01
Abstract:
Combined, aviation and marine transportation are responsible for approximately 5 percent of total
greenhouse (GHG) emissions in the United States and 3 percent globally and are among the
fastest growing modes in the transportation sector. Controlling the growth in these emissions
will be an important part of reducing emissions from the transportation sector. A range of near-,
medium- and long-term mitigation options are available to slow the growth of energy consumption
and GHG emissions from aviation and marine shipping. Implementation of these options could
result in reductions of more than 50 percent below BAU levels by 2050 from global aviation and
more than 60 percent for global marine shipping. For these reductions to be realized, however,
international and domestic policy intervention is required. Developing an effective path forward
that facilitates the adoption of meaningful policies remains both a challenge and an opportunity.
Aviation and Marine Transportation: GHG Mitigation Potential and Challenges presents an
introduction to aviation and marine transportation and a discussion of the determinants of GHG
emissions from transportation; gives overview of current emissions and trends and growth
projections; explains the technological mitigation options and potential GHG emission reductions;
and discusses policy options at both the domestic and international level to achieve deep and
durable reductions in emissions.
eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing

services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

from Aviation and Marine
SOLUTIONS WHITE PAPER SERIES
Transportation: Mitigation
Potential and Policies
by
David McCollum
Gregory Gould
David Greene
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

from Aviation and Marine
Transportation:
Mitigation Potential and Policies
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
by
David McCollum
Sustainable Transportation Energy
Pathways Program & Institute of
Transportation Studies
University of California, Davi s
Gregory Gould
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering & Institute
of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davi s
David Greene
Corporate Fellow
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
December 2009
The authors and the Pew Center would like to thank the many reviewers for their time
and expertise. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support provided by the
Pew Center, particularly Steve Seidels insightful contribution to the policy discussion
and the valuable advice and guidance provided by Sanjana Ahmad and Judi Greenwald.
Any remaining errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.
The Pew Center gratefully acknowledges the following individuals for their review of
earlier drafts: Jasper Faber, CE Delft; Lew Fulton, IEA; Michael Rossell, UK Permanent
Representative to ICAO; and staff at the Federal Aviation Administration and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of the reviewers.
Contents
1. Introduction and Summary
2. Overview of Aviation and Marine Transportation

2.1 Current Emissions and Trends
2.2 Aviation and Marine Transportation Demand

2.3 Business-As-Usual Growth Projections
3. Technological Mitigation Options and Potential

3.1 Aviation
14
3.2 Marine Transportation
18
3.3 Alternative Fuels and Power
20
3.4 Alternative Modes of Transportation
13
21
4. Policy Options: Achieving Deep and Durable Reductions
24
24
4.2 International Emissions 25
5. Conclusion 32
4.1 Domestic Emissions
Appendix I: Expanded Discussion of Mitigation Technologies
43
49
References
Endnotes
34
1. Introduction and Summary

This paper provides an overview of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation and marine transportation
and the various mitigation options to reduce these emissions. Reducing global emissions by 50 to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050reductions scientific studies suggest are necessary to stabilize the climate and
avoid the most destructive impacts of climate change (IPCC 2007)will require lowering GHG emissions across
all sectors of the economy. Aviation and marine transportation combined are responsible for approximately 5
percent of total GHG emissions in the United States and 3 percent globally1 and are among the fastest growing
modes in the transportation sector. Controlling the growth in aviation and marine transportation GHG emissions
will be an important part of reducing emissions from the transportation sector. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reports that global demand for aviation increased by 5.9 percent and demand for marine
transportation by 5.1 percent, during 2005 alone (IPCC 2007). Business-as-usual (BAU) projections for CO2
emissions from global aviation are estimated at 3.1 percent per year over the next 40 years, resulting in a 300
percent increase in emissions by 2050 (IEA 2008b). The projected growth rate of global marine transportation
emissions is more uncertain. BAU growth projections by the IEA (2008b) and IMO (2008) are between 1 and 2
percent per year. By 2050, international marine transportation emissions are estimated to increase by at least 50
percent over 2007 levels.
There are several determinants of greenhouse gas emissions from any transportation mode. Schipper et al.s
(2001) ASIF identity (shown below) provides a useful framework for thinking about these drivers.
Transportation sector GHG Emissions = A Si Ii Fi,j
In the identity, GHGs are a product of the following:

A: the transportation sectors total activity,
Si: each subsectors share of total activity,
Ii: the energy intensity of vehicles used in each subsector, and
Fi,j: the carbon intensity of the fuel types used in each subsector, where i: mode of transportation,
j: fuel type.
Reducing parameters A, Ii, or Fi,j reduces overall transportation sector emissions. Reducing Si reduces the
emissions from that particular subsector; however, whether it reduces overall emissions depends on whether
that subsectors share of transportation activity is shifted to a higher or lower GHG emitting mode. In the
context of aviation and marine shipping, GHGs can be mitigated by reducing overall activity (A) (e.g., passenger-
1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation and Marine Transportation:
miles or freight-miles); reducing the mode share (Si) of a carbon-intensive mode by shifting to a transportation
mode with lower emissions; increasing the mode share of a less carbon-intensive mode (Si) by shifting away
from a transportation mode with higher emissions; reducing energy intensity (Ii) through improving vehicle fuel
efficiency; and reducing the carbon intensity of the fuel used (Fi,j) by switching to low- or no- carbon energy
sources such as biofuels, hydrogen, wind, and solar.
While aviation and marine shipping efficiencies have been steadily increasing over the past several
decades, demand has grown more rapidly than efficiency improvements, causing GHG emissions from these
subsectors to continue to increase (IEA 2008b; IMO 2008). Under a BAU scenario where the global economy
continues to grow and there are no specific policies targeting aviation and marine transportation GHG
emissions, these trends are expected to continue.
A range of near-, medium- and long-term mitigation options are available to slow the growth of energy
consumption and GHG emissions from aviation and marine shipping. Improvements in operational efficiency (e.g.,
advanced navigation and air traffic management systems for aviation and slower marine vessel speeds) have the
potential to reduce GHG emissions below BAU projections by about 5 percent for aviation and up to 27 percent
for marine shipping in the near to medium term (to 2025). Looking out to 2050, advanced propulsion systems
and new airframe designs could further reduce aviation CO2 emissions by up to 35 percent below BAU projections.
For marine transport, larger ships, new combined cycle or diesel-electric engines, and optimized hull and propeller
designs could provide an additional 17 percent reduction in emissions below BAU projections by 2050.
Reducing the carbon intensity of the energy sources used in aviation and marine transportation, by
transitioning to alternative fuels and power sources, also could reduce GHG emissions over the medium to long
term, although the level of potential reductions is uncertain. Aircraft and marine vessels could be powered by lowcarbon biofuels or perhaps even hydrogen. While numerous technical challenges still exist, the main challenge
to the use of alternative fuels will be the ability of aviation and shipping to compete with other transportation
subsectors for a potentially limited supply of low-carbon biofuels. This could particularly be an issue with marine
shipping, where the industry currently consumes the lowest-cost fuels available, namely residual fuel oil. Marine
vessels could also benefit from switching to lower-carbon, conventional fossil fuels (e.g., liquefied natural gas and
marine diesel oil) or to other renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power.
Beyond technical measures, reducing the demand for aviation and shipping could achieve GHG reductions,
though the potential impacts are probably limited. The challenge for these subsectors is that there are few
suitable alternatives for the services provided by aviation and marine shipping. High speed rail could replace
some passenger air travel, but currently there are few alternatives to marine shipping. Marine shipping is already
the most efficient, lowest-cost form of transportation, aside from pipelines, which compete with shipping in just
a few markets. With only modest cost increases likely to be achievable through policy intervention,2 and a limited
number of alternatives, a large reduction in demand compared to BAU seems unlikely from these subsectors.

Globally, the majority of GHG emissions from the aviation and marine transportation are still unregulated.
While some countries have enacted domestic policies, most have not. Independently, New Zealand, Australia,
and the European Union have already taken steps to include aviation in their domestic GHG cap-and-trade
programs. The United States does not yet regulate GHGs at the national level, although the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency may soon initiate such regulation under the federal Clean Air Act and there are legislative
proposals under consideration in the U.S. Congress to incorporate these emissions in a domestic, economywide, GHG cap-and-trade program.
Addressing GHG emissions from international aviation and marine shipping is especially challenging,
because they are produced along routes where no single nation has regulatory authority. Internationally, unlike
other sources of GHG emissions, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) specifically excludes international emissions from aviation and marine transport from
developed countries national targets. Instead, the Protocol calls for limitations or reductions in emissions
from these sectors to be achieved by working through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and
the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In response to this mandate, both organizations have initiated
activities aimed at addressing emissions from their respective sectors, but thus far neither has reached
agreement on substantive binding actions aimed at limiting GHG emissions, and many of the key issues remain
unresolved. In response to the stalemate on this issue, some countries have proposed alternative options for
addressing these emissions in a future climate agreement scheduled for conclusion in late 2009. Meanwhile,
the EU has taken a unilateral measure to include international aviation in its GHG emission trading system (i.e.,
by covering emissions from all flights either landing at or departing from airports within the European Union).
In summary, the potential for mitigating GHG emissions from aircraft and marine vessels is considerable
reductions of more than 50 percent below BAU levels by 2050 from global aviation and more than 60 percent
for global marine shipping are possible. For these reductions to be realized, however, international and domestic
policy intervention is required. Developing an effective path forward that facilitates the adoption of meaningful
policies remains both a challenge and an opportunity.
3
2. Overview of Aviation and Marine Transportation

There are three major types and uses of aircraft and marine3 vessels: commercial, recreational, and military.
While all contribute to GHG emissions, of the three, commercial aviation and marine transportation account
for the large majority of total aviation and marine emissions and are thus the focus of this paper. Commercial
aviation and marine transportation demand and GHG emissions are also growing rapidly as a result of increasing
international trade and economic growth (Table 1). Military and recreational aviation and marine transportation
have vastly different objectives and employ somewhat different technologies; however, some of the mitigation
options and policy solutions discussed herein may apply to these transportation modes as well.
Virtually all the fuels used in aviation and marine transport are petroleum-based. Kerosene-type jet fuel is
by far the predominant aircraft fuel, accounting for about 99 percent of all aviation fuel consumed (EPA 2006).
Domestic marine vessels consume a mix of distillate (diesel) fuel and residual fuel oil. International marine
vessels predominantly use residual fuel oil. Aviation and marine fuels consumed during international trips are
commonly referred to as bunker fuels to differentiate them from domestic uses of such fuels.4
2.1 Current Emissions and Trends

Domestic GHG emissions from ships and aircraft are those produced during trips between origins and
destinations within the same country; emissions from trips between two different countries are considered
international emissions. Emissions from domestic U.S. aviation and marine transport have been relatively
stable since 1990 (Table 1), despite a lack of any policies regulating GHGs at the national level (EPA 2008a).
Increasing energy efficiency in aviation (primarily motivated by market forces, e.g., fuel prices), and a decline
in domestic shipping (driven by increasing competition from other modes), largely explain why this has been the
case. Worldwide, international aviation and marine transportation emissions have been increasing steadily. This
is largely due to globalization of the world economy and economic growth, which has made air travel affordable
for a larger share of the population and contributed to an increased demand for traded goods, most of which are
transported by marine vessels at some point in their supply chain, particularly to and from developing countries.
4
Table 1: U.S. And World Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Year
Units: million metric tonnes CO2-eq
Total
World
Aviation
Marine
Total
Transport
Marine
Notes
39,400.0
49,000.0
24%
Fossil Fuel Combustion Only
20,987.6
27,146.3
29%
641.0
255.4
388.8
52%
651.0
357.9
551.6
54%
All Anthropogenic Sources, Domestic
6,148.3
7,129.9
16%
Fossil Fuel Combustion Only, Domestic
4,724.1
5,731.0
21%
e, f
All Subsectors, Domestic
1,488.1
1,874.5
26%
e, f
All Subsectors, Domestic + International
1,601.8
1,997.1
25%
136.7
150.4
10%
e, f
33.9
16.9
-50%
e, f
e, f
Total (Domestic + International)

International Bunkers
Total (Domestic + International)
Military, Domestic
Aviation
2005
All Anthropogenic Sources
Commercial, Domestic
United
States
1990
% Change
(1990 to
2005)
General Aviation, Domestic
9.4
13.8
47%
46.2
68.2
48%
Total, Domestic
180.0
181.1
1%
Total, Domestic + International
a, b
e, f
226.2
249.3
10%
Ships and Other Boats, Domestic
32.5
28.1
-14%
e, f
Recreational Boats, Domestic
14.0
17.4
24%
e, f
68.6
55.6
-19%
Total, Domestic
Total, Domestic + International
46.5
45.5
-2%
115.1
101.1
-12%
e, f, g
g
Notes
a Includes all GHG emissions due to human activities throughout the world: CO2 from fossil fuel use and other sources; CO2 from deforestation,
decay and peat; CH4 from agriculture, waste and energy; N2O from agriculture and others; and F-gases
b Data for 2005 not available; uses 2004 data instead
c Includes all GHG emissions due to fossil fuel combustion throughout the world
d Does not include military or general aviation
eD
oes not include international aviation or marine bunker fuels, in keeping with UNFCCC guidelines
f Includes only CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel combustion. Does not include CH4, N2O, and HFCs, PFCs, or SF6
gF
igures are not completely reliable due to potential data collection problems on reported residual fuel oil
consumption and the difficulty in differentiating between domestic and international fuel consumption
Sources: EPA 2008a; IEA 2008a; IPCC 2007
The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that combined aviation and marine transport produce three
percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions globally, with each mode contributing to half of this share (Figure
1). Within this 3 percent, over two-thirds of the total emissions are caused by international transport (i.e., trips
between two or more countries), with international marine shipping comprising the larger share of this (Figure
1 and Figure 2). However, the magnitude of marine transportation emissions is highly uncertain and potentially
much greater than IEA estimates. Marine fuel sales data reported to IEA and used in top-down emission
estimates are widely believed to be unreliable because of inconsistent reporting methods in non-OECD member
5
countries. Bottom-up, activity-based methods (Corbett and Koehler 2003; Corbett and Koehler 2004; IMO
2008) estimate fuel consumption by considering the number of ships in the world fleet and estimating how
often they are used (hours of operation), their power requirements, and how much fuel would be used to meet
these requirements. While the data used in bottom-up methods may be more reliable than IEA fuel statistics,
both methods contain many uncertainties, resulting in some debate about what is actually the best estimate of
marine fuel use (Endresen, Srgrd et al. 2004). According to the most recent study, which relies on a bottomup approach, CO2 emissions from marine transportation may be 50 percent greater than the IEA estimates
shown here (IMO 2008), thus representing about three percent of global CO2 emissions in 2007.
Figure 1: Global GHG Emissions from Domestic and International Aviation and Marine Transportation
in 2005
International Marine
43%
All Other
Anthropogenic Sources
97%
International Aviation
30%
Domestic Marine
8%
Domestic Aviation
19%
Source: IEA 2008a; IPCC 2007; Kim, Fleming et al. 2007
In the United States, aviation and marine transportationboth domestic (within the United States) and
international (travel between the United States and another country)contribute five percent to total reported
GHG emissions (Figure 3). In contrast to the global picture, U.S. emissions are dominated by domestic travel,
specifically domestic aviation. However, the method for calculating the international portion of U.S. marine
transport emissions may not offer an accurate estimate of the total share of international GHGs for which the
United States is responsible. Currently, as specified per UNFCCC guidelines, international emissions attributed
to the United States are based solely on U.S. sales of international bunker fuels. This may misrepresent the
potential U.S. contribution to international marine transportation emissions, since ships can visit U.S. ports
without refueling.
6
Figure 2: Global Growth in International Aviation and Marine CO2 Emissions

1,000
CO2 Emissions (million tonnes)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1971
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Source: IEA 2008a
Figure 3: U.S. GHG Emissions from Domestic and International Aviation and Marine Transportation
in 2005
16%
19%
All Other
Anthropogenic Sources
95%
Domestic Marine
13%
Domestic Aviation
52%
Source: EPA 2008a
2.2 Aviation and Marine Transportation Demand

Demand for commercial aviation and marine transportation is growing rapidly, driven largely by increasing
economic growth, globalization, and international trade (Boeing 2008; UN 2008).
Developing regions, notably Asia, account for the largest share of marine transportation demand through
the export of manufactured goods and the import of petroleum products, grains, and raw materials (UN 2008).
The principal trading partners of these regions are developed countries in North America and Europe, although
7
Figure 4: Global Marine Shipping Traffic Density* for Ships Greater than 1000 Gross Tonnes During 2005.
(Dark Shading Indicates A Higher Concentration of Ships.)
Traffic density is the amount of traffic per shipping area and used as a proxy for illustrating marine transportation emissions. It is calculated as
the number of ships per area weighted by the installed power capacity for each ship.
GIS map data are from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. More information available athttp://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/GlobalMarine/impacts. A similar map in color using this data has previously been published by Halpern, B.S., S.
Walbridge, et al. (2008).
Figure 5: Growth in U.S. Domestic and international Marine Transportation Demand, 19702005
1600
1400
Domestic
International
Million Tons Shipped
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Source: ORNL 2008
intra-regional trade, especially within Asia, is increasing as well. In 2007, as a group, Asia, the United States,
and Europe accounted for most of the worlds international trade81 percent of global exports and 94
percent of global imports on a tonnage shipped basis. Asia alone accounts for slightly more than half of this
sharemore than the United States and Europe combined. Global shipping patterns clearly indicate the vast
amount of trade that occurs between Asia and the United States and Europe (Figure 4). Between 2000 and
2007, as the global economy grew rapidly, the volume of world merchandise exports increased at an average
rate of 5.5 percent per year, nearly twice as fast as world GDP (WTO 2008); over 80 percent of this volume

Figure 6: Growth in U.S. Aviation Transportation Demand, 19702005*

900,000
800,000
45,000
Freight
40,000
Includes all U.S. air transport

(domestic and international)
by certificated air carriers
35,000
600,000
30,000
500,000
25,000
400,000
20,000
300,000
15,000
200,000
10,000
100,000
5,000
0
1970
Million Ton-miles (freight)
Million Passenger-miles
700,000
Passenger
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Source: ORNL 2008

*Passenger-miles (or passenger-km) and Ton-miles (or tonne-km) are calculated by multiplying the total number of passengers or weight
aboard a vehicle by the distance traveled.
was transported by marine vessels (UN 2008). International trade continues to drive growth in demand for
international shipping in to and from the United States as well, which increased at a rate of 2 percent per year
between 2000 and 2005 (Figure 5) (ORNL 2008).
Demand for air travel (passenger and freight5) is driven by both domestic and international leisure and
business travel, as well as economic growth and international trade. Air travel experienced exceptionally high
growth over the past several years. Between 2000 and 2006, global demand for passenger aviation grew at an
average annual rate of 3.8 percent (Boeing 2008), with much of this growth taking place outside the United
States. For example, demand for domestic air transport within China grew at 15.5 percent per year from 2000
to 2006 (Boeing 2008), while demand within the United States grew at just 2.2 percent per year (Figure 6)
(ORNL 2008). Globally, most air traffic occurs within and between North America, Europe, and Asia (Kim,
Fleming et al. 2007). With a slowing in global economic activity in 2008 and 2009, demand for air travel has
also declined; however, it is still expected to continue to grow in the future.
2.3 Business-As-Usual Growth Projections

Demand for aviation and marine transportation is expected to grow substantially in the long term. Since
most growth will take place outside the United States, the U.S. percentage contribution to aviation and marine
shipping emissions is expected to gradually decline over time (Table 2).
The rising demand for aviation and shipping is expected to significantly increase GHG emissions from these
sectors under a BAU scenario where no new policies are adopted to control GHG emissions. This will happen

Table 2: Aviation and Marine Sector Demand Projections

Sector
Aviation
Market
Annual Growth Rate

(%/yr)
U.S. domestic passenger
0.8
U.S. international passenger
2.7
95% by 2030
146% by 2030
3.5
124% by 2030
199% by 2030
Rest of World passenger (domestic + international)

U.S. air freight (domestic + international)
Rest of World air freight (domestic + international)
Marine
Total Growth from

Current Levels
U.S. domestic
Global international
27% by 2030
27% by 2030
2.13.3
150300% by 2050
Source: EIA 2009; IMO 2008.
Table 3: Aviation and Marine Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections

Sector
Market
U.S. passenger and freight (domestic + international)
Aviation
Marine
Global passenger and freight (domestic + international)

Global shipping
Total Growth from

Current Levels
3135% by 2030
60% by 2030
300% by 2050
120220% by 2050
Source: EIA 2009; FAA 2009; IEA 2008b; IEA 2008c; IMO 2008.
because growth rates for aviation and marine travel are higher than energy efficiency improvements. Furthermore,
low-carbon fuels are not expected to achieve significant enough market penetration to lower GHG emissions, from
the aviation and marine transportation sectors in a BAU scenario due to their relatively high costs (Table 3).
Advances in the efficiency of the aviation sector have been substantial; however, annual improvements
have significantly slowed over the past two decades (IEA 2008b; ORNL 2008). A variety of technological and
operational efficiency improvements, including changes in new aircraft and engines, as well as increased load
factors (number of passengers per plane) led to these efficiency gains. Market forces (i.e., fuel costs) and
government-sponsored research and development (R&D) efforts were primarily responsible for motivating these
technological and operational improvements. These motivating factors are likely to continue in a BAU future, as
fuel is a significant component of airline costshistorically 25 to 65 percent of combined direct operating and
investment costs (DOC+I), or 12.5 to 32.5 percent of total airline costs (Lee, Lukachko et al. 2001).6 However,
to drive aviation advancements beyond BAU, policies and incentives will be required.7
The global shipping fleet relies almost entirely on diesel engines, which have gradually grown more efficient
over the years (IMO 2008). However, there is little information available on historical trends in overall shipping
energy efficiency. While new diesel engines have made new ships more energy efficient, changes in operations
(for example increased speeds) have countered these improvements to some extent. What little research
has been conducted suggests there has been little change in marine shipping efficiency over the past 20 to
30 years (Faber, Boon et al. 2007).
10
Non-CO2 Emissions from Aircraft and Marine Vessels

In addition to carbon dioxide emissions, other, non-CO2 emissions from aircraft and marine
vessels have a significant impact on radiative forcing (RF)* and climate change (Endresen, Srgrd
et al. 2003; IPCC 1999; Schfer, Heywood et al. 2009). The principal GHG emitted by ships and
planes, and the main focus of this paper, is CO2. However, aircraft and marine vessels also emit other
chemical compounds that impact RF. These include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOx), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). In some cases,
these emissions are a function of more than just fuel consumption: altitude, humidity, fuel quality, and
engine operating conditions also play a role. In addition, aircraft emit water vapor (H2O) as a result of fuel
combustion, which forms contrails (or condensation trails) under certain atmospheric conditions. NonCO2 emissions and contrails tend to be much shorter-lived than CO2 emissions, and depending on where
they occur may have a positive (warming) or negative (cooling) RF.
Aircraft and marine vessels emit significant amounts of NOx, which at high altitudes promote the
formation of ozone (O3), a radiatively active gas with a regional warming effect (Endresen, Srgrd et al.
2003; Schfer, Heywood et al. 2009). Yet, NOx emissions can also accelerate the removal of atmospheric
methane. Since methane has a strong warming effect, removing methane has a cooling effect on the
climate that is believed to be global in nature. In addition, aircraft and marine vessels emit large amounts
of particulate matter and water vapor; this can promote cloud formation with varying impacts on RF.
Water vapor and fine particulates from aircraft flying at high altitudes in cold, moist air produce contrails.
Once formed, contrails can spread and eventually form clouds resembling natural cirrus. The increased
cirrus cloud cover alters the atmospheres radiation budget, because contrails trap outgoing radiation
at a greater rate than they reflect incoming radiation. While subject to considerable uncertainty, this is
generally thought to have a regional net warming effect (Ponater, Marquart et al. 2005; Schfer, Heywood
et al. 2009). A similar phenomenon referred to as ship tracks has been observed with oceangoing
marine vessels (Durkee, Noone et al. 2000; Lauer, Eyring et al. 2007). Although the exact physics are
not well understood, it appears that black carbon and sulfate particle emissions from diesel exhaust
promote cloud formation in the marine boundary layer (a thin layer of air near the ocean surface). The
low elevation of ship tracks results in less trapping of infrared radiation than for contrails, resulting in
a cooling effect (Endresen, Srgrd et al. 2003). The total radiative forcing of contrails, ship tracks,
and other emissions from airplanes and ships remains highly uncertain and is an area of active research
(Brasseur 2008; Endresen, Srgrd et al. 2003).
Lee et al. (2009) estimate that if aviation-induced cirrus cloud formation is ignored, radiative forcing
due all global aviation emissions accounted for 3.5 percent of total RF from all anthropogenic sources
in 2005. If aviation-induced cirrus clouds are considered, this figure rises to 4.9 percent. When these
estimates are compared to aviations 1.5 percent share of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, it becomes
clear that non-CO2 emissions from airplanes and ships are very important. Dealing with these emissions
through policy has proven to be especially challenging, however, due to scientific uncertainties and a lack
of consensus in preferred policy approaches. Hence, CO2 is still the main focus of existing GHG policies.
11
To date, no agreement has been reached on a suitable metric for calculating the radiative forcing
effects of non-CO2 emissions on an equivalent basis to CO2 (Lee, Fahey et al. 2009). This is due to the
inherent difficulty in treating short-lived (non-CO2) and long-lived (CO2) species the same way (Marbaix,
Ferrone et al. 2008). Taking into account the potentially significant RF effects of contrail formation,
nitrogen oxides, and other non-CO2 compounds, as well as their lifetimes, the climate change impacts of
high-altitude aircraft emissions (H2O, NOx, SOx, and PM) are likely 50 to 300 percent greater than if the
same emissions were released at ground levelthough it is important to note that these estimates are
still highly uncertain and are the subject of considerable debate. Because of the difficulty in comparing
non-CO2 and CO2 emissions, some have proposed more direct policy instruments that deal with such
emissions on a case-by-case basis as the best option for dealing with the non-CO2 effects of aviation and
marine transportation (Lee, Fahey et al. 2009).
* Radiative forcing refers to an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earths climate
system, which may lead to changes in climate parameters.
12
3. Technological Mitigation Options and Potential

GHG emissions from aviation and marine transportation are a product of each modes activity (distance
traveled), energy efficiency of the vehicles, and the fuel carbon intensity. This section provides an overview of
technological options to reduce GHG emissions. For a more detailed discussion of aviation technologies, as well
as alternative fuel options in both the aviation and marine transportation sectors, see Appendix I.
In the short term, efficiency can be increased through system improvements that reduce travel distances
and congestion, and by optimizing the way each aircraft or ship is operated in order to save fuel. Improving
efficiency through the design of new aircraft, ships, and propulsion systems offers potentially significant,
though more uncertain, medium- (2025) to long-term (2050) GHG reductions. The potential GHG benefits
from reducing the carbon intensity of energy used in the aviation and marine transportation sectors, primarily
through switching to lower-carbon fuels such as biofuels, natural gas, or hydrogen, is also uncertain but could
be significant. The success of shifting to low-carbon fuels will depend on their availability and the ability of the
aviation and shipping sectors to compete with other modes and sectors for them. Ensuring that biofuels can be
produced with low lifecycle GHG emissions will also determine their success, though significant uncertainty still
remains (Pea 2008).
Reducing the demand for aviation and shipping could help mitigate GHG emissions to some extent. This
could be accomplished either through shifting to less GHG-intensive transportation modes or by reducing total
transportation demand. Market-based policies, such as a cap-and-trade program that includes transportation,
may have little impact on reducing transportation demand unless carbon prices are very high. For example,
the European Union has estimated the reduction in transportation demand from including aviation in its GHG
Emissions Trading Scheme, and initial results show only small changes (Batchelor 2008). In terms of mode
shifting, there is some potential to reduce the demand for passenger air travel by switching to high speed rail;
however, high speed rail is not a substitute for long-distance or transoceanic flights. Finally, while advanced
telecommunications and teleconferencing technologies have also been discussed as a possible substitute for air
travel, the extent to which they can substitute on a global scale is unknown (Mokhtarian and Salomon 2002).
An estimation of the GHG mitigation potential from the global aviation and marine transportation
subsectors is summarized in Figure 7 and Table 4. Combining the various abatement options, the potential
exists to reduce annual emissions from global aviation by more than 50 percent below BAU in 2050.
Reductions of more than 60 percent are possible from global marine shipping. This potential is moderately
optimistic in terms of technological innovationit only includes technologies that are currently envisioned,
13
though does depend on their full utilization. In the authors judgment, these levels of mitigation should be
achievable in a future world with emission prices of $50 to $100 per metric ton of CO2. Even with a price on
carbon dioxide, a concerted R&D effort to bring these technologies to fruition will be necessary. Higher levels
of GHG reductions could be achieved if the aviation and marine transportation subsectors are able to make
much greater use of low-carbon alternative fuels than what is assumed here, which would also likely necessitate
strong policy intervention.
Figure 7: Global GHG Mitigation Potential from Aviation and Marine Transportation (Based on Authors
Calculations Using Multiple Sources, see Text and Table 4)
4,000
3,500
Operations
Aircraft/Ship and Propulsion
Alternative Fuels and Power
CO2 Emissions
Mitigation
Potential from
Baseline
Million Tonnes CO2 per year
3,000
2,500
2,000
Mitigation
Potential from
Baseline
1,200
1,000
500
0
2007
2050
Marine
2005
2050
Aviation
3.1 Aviation
A number of technological and operational options are available to limit the rapid growth in aviation GHG
emissions expected in a business-as-usual future. These include improved navigation systems in the near to
medium term and advanced propulsion systems, lightweight materials, improved aerodynamics, new airframe
designs, and alternative fuels over the medium to long term. Combining the various abatement options, the
potential exists to reduce annual GHG emissions from global aviation by more than 50 percent below BAU
projections in 2050 (Figure 7 and Table 4).
14
Table 4: Summary of GHG Reduction Potentials in 2050 by Abatement Option and Sector
Sector
Additional
Reductions from
BAU emissions in
2050 (%)
Combined
Reduction
Potential
(% in 2050)
More efficient turbofan (jet) engines,

Advanced lightweight materials,
Improved aerodynamics (e.g., winglets,
increased wingspans)
30
30
Unducted fan (open rotor) engines

where feasible, Greater application
of advanced lightweight materials,
Improved aerodynamics (e.g., laminar
flow control), New airframe designs
(e.g., blended wing body)
35
35
Medium term: Biofuels; Long term:

Biofuels, Hydrogen
24
24
Category
Operations
Aviation
Reductions under
BAU Conditions
(% in 2050)
Airframe
Design and
Propulsion
Alternative
Fuels
Measure
Advanced CNS/ATM systems
(e.g., NextGen, SESAR)
Total Reduction from BAU Emissions in 2050
Marine
53
Operations
Speed reduction, Optimized routing,

Reduced port time
20
27
47
Ship
Design and
Propulsion
Novel hull coatings, propellers, Fuel

efficiency optimization, Combined cycle
operation and Multiple engines
20
17
37
Alternative
Fuels and
Power
Marine diesel oil (MDO), Liquefied

natural gas (LNG), Wind power (sails)
38
40
Total Reduction from BAU Emissions in 2050
62
Notes
* BAU reductions are the expected effeciency improvements and corresponding GHG reductions under a business as usual scenario. Additional
reductions are those emission reductions that can be achieved under more agressive technology penetration and alternative fuel use scenarios;
they are shown as percentage reduction in 2050 emissions from the BAU baseline.
* Within each sub-sector, total GHG reduction is multiplicative in order to avoid double counting (e.g., (1-0.1)*(1-0.2) = 0.72 = 1-0.28, a 28
percent reduction rather than a 30 percent reduction).
* Technological and operational mitigation potentials are based on authors calculations. Marine estimates are from MARINTEK (2000), and BAU
projections from IMO (2008). Aviation estimates are from various sources discussed in text, and BAU projections from IEA (2008b).
* Alternative fuels consumption in aviation sector assumes that 30 percent of global petroleum-based jet fuel demand in 2050 is replaced with
biofuels (no hydrogen) and that the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuels are 80 percent lower than petroleum fuels (both assumptions consistent
with IEA (2008b)). Annual biofuels demand in 2050 is roughly 9,420 PJ (66 billion gallons), requiring approximately 18,839 PJ (1.26 billion dry
tonnes) of biomass, or 12.6 percent of the estimated annual global supply of sustainable biomass in 2050 (IEA, 2008b).
Operational Efficiency
In the near term, the most promising strategies for improving the efficiency of aircraft operations are
improvements to the aviation system: advanced communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) and
air traffic management (ATM), as opposed to changes to the aircraft itself. In the United States, these
improvements are embodied in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative, which
has the potential to decrease aircraft fuel consumption and improve aviation operations by shortening travel
distances and reducing congestion in the air and on the ground (GAO 2008). A similar project, Single European
Sky ATM Research (SESAR), is being developed in Europe. ICAO estimates that by 2015, airlines in the United
States and Europe will achieve a five percent fuel savings as a result of currently planned changes in their CNS/
15
ATM systems (GBD 2005). Even greater savings5 to 10 percentare possible in the medium term (Schfer,
Heywood et al. 2009).
Under a BAU scenario, market forces are unlikely to drive the adoption of these systems; hence policy will
be needed. Aircraft infrastructure and CNS/ATM systems are heavily regulated and, in the case of NextGen and
SESAR, dependent on government support (see Section 4). The development of NextGen is one of the main
R&D goals of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as stated in its annual report to Congress, the
National Aviation Research Plan (NARP).8
Moreover, it is important to note that the bulk of fuel savings reported for advanced CNS/ATM systems will
be achieved upon initial implementationi.e., a step-change in operational efficiency will be followed only by
incremental further improvements. In addition, GHG reductions from the increase in system efficiency will be
negated to some extent by the higher demand caused by the increase in capacity that these systems will create.
This is similar to what is typically observed when highway capacity is increased by adding more lanes. Faber et
al. (2008) estimate that in the European Union, for example, half of the benefits of the SESAR initiative will be
offset by an increase in demand.
Aircraft Efficiency
As conventional aircraft move closer to an optimal configuration, annual efficiency improvements are
slowing (Figure 8) (IEA 2008b; ORNL 2008). However, the efficiency of the U.S. and global aircraft fleets
will continue to improve as older, less efficient aircraft are retired and then replaced with new, more efficient
aircraft. The Air Transportation Association of America (ATA), which represents the nations leading airlines,
has set a goal of increasing the industrys fuel efficiency by 30 percent from 2005 to 2025 (ATA 2009); this
translates into a 23 percent reduction in energy intensity. According to Lee, Lukachko et al. (2001), if historical
trends in technology continue to 2025, a decline in new airplane energy intensity of 1.2 to 2.2 percent per year
could be expected. Due to long aircraft lifetimes (typically 20 to 30 years), new technology that is commercially
available by 2025 is expected to represent the fleet average by 2050 (Lee, Lukachko et al. 2001). Hence,
under a BAU scenario, the energy intensity of U.S. aviation (e.g., fleet-average megajoules per passengermile) is expected to decrease by at least 30 percent between now and 2050. This reduction will be achieved
by utilizing currently known technologies: more efficient propulsion systems (engines), advanced lightweight
materials, and improved aerodynamics (e.g., winglets, increased wingspans) (IEA 2008b; Lee, Lukachko et al.
2001; Schfer, Heywood et al. 2009). Varying combinations of these technologies have already been employed
on existing state-of-the-art aircraft, such as the existing Airbus A380, and they will also be utilized on the
future Airbus A350 and Boeing 787.9
Going beyond BAU is possible with further energy efficiency improvements. Widespread application of
current state-of-the-art technology combined with the adoption of more advanced technologies (e.g., laminar
16
Figure 8: Evolution of Aircraft Energy Intensity, New Aircraft and U.S. Fleet Average
6.0
B720-000
5.5
Long range
B720-000B
Short range
5.0
Energy intensity (MJ/RPK)
B707-300
4.5
US fleet average
DC9-10
B707-100B
4.0
B707-300B
DC9-30
3.5
DC9-40
3.0
B727-200/231A
B737-100/200
2.5
DC10-40
DC10-10
B747-100
MD80/DC9-80
1.5
B747-400
A320-100/200
B757-200
1965
1970
1975
MD11
B737-300
B767-200/200ER
A300-600/R/CF/RCF
1960
B737-500/600
B737-400
B737-200/300
2.0
1.0
1955
A310-300
L1011-500Tristar
DC10-30
1980
B777
B767-300/300ER
1985
1990
1995
2000
Notes: 1) The bar for each aircraft reflects varying configurations; the line shows estimated fleet average for the United States across all existing
aircraft. 2) RPK = revenue passenger kilometer = number of passengers carried x distance flown (in km).
Source: IEA 2008b
flow control and new engine designs) could increase reductions in energy intensity to 50 percent below
current levels, or 20 percentage points beyond BAU by 2050 (IEA 2008b; Lee, Lukachko et al. 2001; Morris,
Rowbotham et al. 2009; QinetiQ 2008). The most advanced, and thus most uncertain, technologies (e.g.,
full body laminar flow control and blended wing body airframes) have the longer-term potential to contribute
an additional 10 to 15 percentage point reduction by 2050. In total by 2050, global adoption of these more
advanced aircraft technologies could reduce aviation GHG emissions by as much as 35 percent below what is
expected under BAU projections (Figure 7 and Table 4).
Early aircraft retirement programs might be able to push this mitigation potential slightly higher by 2050.
However, given that early aircraft retirement is one of the most expensive GHG abatement options, either fuel
or carbon prices (or both) will need to be quite high for this mitigation strategy to become attractive (Morris,
Rowbotham et al. 2009). Airlines already change older aircraft engines for new ones and modify the airframes
(e.g., by adding winglets) of their aircraft fleets on a periodic basis, and this will continue in a BAU future.
Thus, the added benefits of early retirement programs (beyond BAU) may not be large.
The costs of achieving GHG reductions through the abatement options described above are still uncertain
in many cases (Dray, Evans et al. 2009; Morris, Rowbotham et al. 2009). Morris et al. (2009) have conducted
the most comprehensive and rigorous study to date on marginal abatement costs (MAC) in the aviation sector.
Their analysis, which focuses on the UK and European aviation fleets, finds that MACs range widely depending
on abatement option and timeframe: in the case of Europe in 2025, costs range from -148 to +205 per
17
ton of CO2 (-$222 to +$308 per metric ton CO2),10 assuming an oil price of $75 per barrel. Actually, most of
the abatement options, accounting for greater than half of all potential GHG reductions, can be achieved at
MACs below 73 ($110) per ton. These include all abatement options except for biofuels and early aircraft
retirement. In fact, many technologies and strategies have negative costs (i.e., they yield net positive economic
benefits through fuel savings over their lifetimes)for example, CNS/ATM improvements and increased use of
turboprops, winglets, and lightweight materials. Examples of abatement options with positive costs, though still
less than 73 ($110) per metric ton CO2, include engine upgrades or replacement, open rotor (UDF) engines,
and blended wing body airframes.
3.2 Marine Transportation

GHG emissions can be mitigated from shipping by increasing efficiency (i.e., decreasing fuel consumption/
ton-mile) and using less GHG-intensive fuels or power sources. Operational measures, such as speed reduction,
offer a large and near-term mitigation option, while improving the energy efficiency of new ships and switching
to alternative fuels provide longer-term potential. However, absent a technological breakthrough, application
of all available technological mitigation options could slow, but is not likely to be enough to stop, the rising
emissions caused by increasing demand for shipping (IMO 2008).
Immediate reductions in GHG emissions are available from all ships by reducing speed. For example,
a 50 percent reduction in viscous resistance (resistance between the hull and water) is achieved by just a
3 knot (3.5 MPH) reduction in speed for a typical container ship (MARINTEK 2000). Some shippers have
reduced their speeds in response to high fuel prices (Corbett, Wang et al. 2009). However, reducing speed also
reduces shipping capacity. To maintain shipping supply, more frequent trips or increasing ship utilization (the
load factor) is required. The extra trips or cargo also increase fuel consumption, but overall the result is a net
reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Corbett et al. (2009) find that reducing speeds by 10 to 50
percent can reduce CO2 emissions from container ships by 20 to 70 percent if no extra ships are needed to
maintain supply, or 5 to 40 percent when they are. However, high carbon prices from $36 to $200 per metric
ton of CO2 would be required to drive these changes (carbon prices on the European ECX have been $10 to
$40 per ton of CO2 over the past year). Reductions for other types of ships would be less, due to their already
slower speeds. The reduction in shipping supply from reduced speeds can also be countered by increasing port
efficiency and by optimization of complementary land-side intermodal transport systems, allowing for faster
ship turnaround times. For the entire shipping sector, the maximum feasible mitigation potential from speed
reduction, considering the requirements of shippers and their customers, has been estimated at 40 percent
(MARINTEK 2000).
18
Additional optimization of shipping logistics, routing and maintenance could reduce CO2 emissions by 3
to 12 percent (MARINTEK 2000). Efficiency could be improved through increased ship utilization (increased
load factor), improved and more consistent maintenance practices, optimized ship control, and route planning
optimized for current weather conditions and ocean currents (IMO 2008; MARINTEK 2000). The maximum
mitigation potential available from all operational improvements is about 27 percent after accounting for
expected BAU improvements out to 2050.
Ship Efficiency
Technological mitigation options for new ships, aside from alternative fuels and power, include larger ship
sizes, hull and propeller optimization, more efficient engines, and novel low-resistance hull coatings.
Larger ship sizes improve efficiency by exploiting economies of scale (IMO 2008)one large ship with the
volume of two smaller ships weighs less and has less hull area in contact with the water, reducing resistance.
Doubling the size of a ship could increase energy efficiency by up to 30 percent (Interlaboratory Working Group
2000). Thus far, the industry trend has been towards massive container and cargo ships (UN 2008). However,
practical limitations to increasing ship size exist: canal size, harbor depths, port cargo handling equipment,
ability to aggregate cargo into fewer larger shipments, and capacity of ground transportation networks (IMO
2008; MARINTEK 2000). To some extent, these limitations are being overcome, but they are costly and take
time to implement (UN 2008).11
Hull and propeller optimization is available for new ships, and has the potential to reduce CO2 emission by
a combined 28 percent for each new ship (MARINTEK 2000). The relative costs would be minimal for larger
ships, but the full mitigation potential will not be realized until the current fleet of ships is retired (ships have a
typical life time of 20 or more years) (MARINTEK 2000).
Ninety-six percent of commercial shipping power is produced by highly efficient low- to medium- speed
diesel engines (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005). These engines commonly achieve efficiencies near 50 percent,
which is higher than most diesel engine applications, since ships typically operate at steady state under high
load conditions (Interlaboratory Working Group 2000; Lovins, Datta et al. 2005). However, there still is some
potential for further gains. Currently, engines are optimized for a specific ship design speed, and operation
outside of optimized conditions results in reduced efficiency (IMO 2008). A more flexible design utilizing a
series of smaller diesel-electric engines, each optimized for a single speed, that power an electric drive may
lead to greater efficiencies. This type of configuration is currently the trend in fuel-efficient diesel locomotive
design (EPA 2008b); however, there seems to be some disagreement over the potential benefits when applied
to ships (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; MARINTEK 2000). Combined-cycle diesel engines, which recover energy
from waste heat, as is current practice in many stationary power plants, could also increase the efficiency of
ships (MARINTEK 2000).
19
Technological mitigation options are available for the existing fleet include tuning engines for energy
efficiency and novel hull coatings. Increasing the efficiency of existing engines could reduce their energy
consumption by up to 7 percent (MARINTEK 2000). Novel hull coatings and similar technologies, which
reduce resistance (for example, perhaps by using special polymers or tiny air bubbles), have a large mitigation
potential, but such coatings are still under development and are thus considered a longer-term option. Most
diesel engines are also optimized for NOx reduction, which consequently decreases fuel efficiency. Development
of advanced NOx after-treatment retrofit technologies could allow engines to be re-optimized to save fuel (Eyring,
Khler et al. 2005; MARINTEK 2000).
Overall, the potential to reduce GHG emissions from marine transportation is large (Figure 7 and Table
4). Changes in operations (mainly speed reduction) could reduce marine transportation emissions by up to
47 percent from todays shipping fleet (MARINTEK 2000). Additional technical fixes (e.g., upgrading current
engines) for the existing fleet could reduce emissions by up to 7 percent. For new ships, increased size,
optimized hull and propeller designs and even more efficient diesel engines could reduce emissions by up to
37 percent from todays shipping fleet (MARINTEK 2000). A recent IMO (2008) study estimates that by 2050
under a BAU scenario, operational efficiency improvements and ship and engine efficiency improvements
will each yield a 20 percent reduction in emissions. That leaves an additional 27 percent mitigation
potential available from operational efficiency improvements and 17 percent from ship and engine efficiency
improvements. However, the costs of most mitigation options for marine transportation are not well understood
or reported. Improved estimates of mitigation potential and costs should be available in a new study by the
IMO, scheduled to be completed by mid-2009.
3.3 Alternative Fuels and Power

Alternative fuels and power sources also have the potential to significantly reduce or eliminate GHG
emissions from ships and aircraft (Figure 7 and Table 4). Yet as with other sectors, alternative aviation and
marine fuels face numerous challenges with respect to their production, distribution, and cost, and it is not
entirely clear what quantity of these fuels will be available and when, or what magnitude of GHG benefits
can ultimately be achieved by using them (Fargione, Hill et al. 2008; IPCC 2007; Pea 2008; Searchinger,
Heimlich et al. 2008). The availability of alternative fuels (particularly the biological feedstocks needed for
biofuel production) and the ability of aviation and marine transportation to compete with other modes and
sectors for them are uncertain. Additionally, to significantly contribute to GHG mitigation, the lifecycle carbon
footprints of these fuels needs to be significantly lower than the conventional fuels they replace.
The marine transportation sector could also utilize alternative energy sources currently in use or under
development for application in other sectors. (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; IMO 2008; MARINTEK 2000). In the
near to medium term, a 4 to 15 percent reduction in GHGs can be achieved by substituting marine diesel oil or
20
liquefied natural gas for heavy fuel oil (i.e., residual fuel oil). The IMO study implies that under a BAU scenario,

the use of LNG will result in a small 2 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from current levels by 2050. However,
there appears to be a much greater potential to use LNG aboard most ships if constraints on the availability of LNG
at ports can be overcome. The use of LNG, coupled with alternative energy sources, such as wind power (sails), can
reduce emissions by up to 40 percent from current levels by 2050. Other alternative fuel and power sources, such
as biofuels, solar photovoltaic cells and fuel cells, appear to be more uncertain, longer-term options.
The potential for fuel switching on jet aircraft is rather limited in the near to medium term, at least
compared to on-road vehicles (Lee, Fahey et al. 2009; Saynor, Bauen et al. 2003). The only feasible options
for drop-in replacements to petroleum-based jet fuels include hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel (HRJ)12
and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels.13 A plant- or animal-based oil can be hydroprocessed to create a synthetic biobased fuel that is chemically identical to petroleum-based jet fuel. The FT process can also use any of several
biomass or fossil feedstocks (potentially with carbon capture and storage at the point of fuel production) to
produce a jet fuel replacement. It is important to note that these types of jet fuel-like alternative fuels are not
the same as those being discussed for road transport applications (e.g., ethanol and biodiesel). Liquid hydrogen
(via any number of low-carbon pathways) may offer a potentially longer-term alternative fuel option, though
significant challenges exist, such as the redesign of aircraft and engines to use hydrogen fuel (GBD 2005;
Janic 2008; Saynor, Bauen et al. 2003). There is significant interest from airlines and aircraft manufacturers in
using alternative fuels. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set a goal for its member airlines
to use 10 percent alternative fuels by 2017 (IATA 2009). Over the past year, several airlines and aircraft
manufacturers have successfully conducted test flights with bio-based HRJ.
3.4 Alternative Modes of Transportation

Shifting air or marine transportation to alternative modes has some additional potential to reduce GHG
emissions.
High speed rail (HSR) can potentially substitute for short-distance passenger air travel, mitigating GHG
emissions through greater efficiency and use of less carbon-intensive energy (e.g., electricity from renewables)
(Givoni 2007; IEA 2008b). The energy use per passenger-mile for HSR could be as much as 65 to 80 percent
less than air travel. However, the energy intensity and carbon footprint of HSR depend strongly on the design of
the system, namely operating speeds and distances between stops, and passenger load factors, which depend
on demand for HSR service between cities (CHSRA 2009; IEA 2008b). The European and Japanese experience
has shown high speed rail to generally be competitive with air travel on routes of up to 300-500 miles (500800 km), where there is existing high demand for intercity travel and where several high-population areas can
be connected along a single corridor (de Rus and Nombela 2007; GAO 2009; Givoni 2007; IEA 2008b; Jamin,
Schfer et al. 2004; Park and Ha 2006).
In the United States, there are several dozen proposals for HSR projects in 44 specific transportation
corridors; some of these corridors have the characteristics of existing, successful HSR corridors elsewhere in the

21
world (Figure 9). A rigorous study by Jamin et al. (2004) shows that if high speed rail systems were to connect
major metropolitan areas throughout the United States, the energy and emissions benefits would be relatively
modest due to insufficient traffic volumes in many cases: less than a 3 percent reduction in total U.S. domestic
air traffic volume would be achieved, with consequently modest reductions in energy use and emissions. On the
other hand, recognizing that connecting major downtowns is not the only potential market for HSR, Johnson
et al. (1989) argued that high speed rail should be thought of as a complement to air travel rather than as
a competitor with it. The authors estimated that if U.S. airlines integrated HSR into their hub-and-spoke
networks, substituting HSR for feeder service flights to major hubs, domestic airlines could achieve fuel savings
of 12 to 17 percent.14
In addition, high speed rail may provide other benefits compared to air travel, such as reductions in local
air pollution, noise, and air and roadway congestion; moreover, combined with strong land-use and urban
planning policies, HSR has the potential to re-structure urban development patterns. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (i.e., the economic stimulus package) includes more than $8 billion to help
finance high speed rail corridors throughout the United States (P.L.-111-5 2009). This represents only a
fraction of what would be needed to build an expansive HSR network; for example, Californias proposed high
speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles is estimated to cost $45 billion15 (GAO 2009). HSR
also holds promise as a mitigation strategy for the developing world, where adequate on-land transportation
infrastructure often does not exist.
GHG emissions can also be reduced by shifting goods movement and transportation from more energyintensive modes (e.g., trucks and freight rail) to ships, where feasible. The concept is known as short sea
shipping and is defined as the relatively short distance transport of goods by smaller ships between ports (TEMS
2008). This would increase emissions from marine transportation but would have an overall effect of reducing
total emissions from goods movement. The main challenge facing short sea shipping is its slow speed compared
to other modes. However, this gap can be reduced through the use of roll-on/roll-off ships (known as ROROs,
ships that trucks can drive on and off of, similar to a ferry) and by off-loading large container or bulk carrier
ships directly onto smaller ships for delivery to nearby ports, both of which can reduce cargo handling times at
ports (drayage). While short sea shipping is unlikely to achieve comparable speeds to land-based transportation,
it potentially offers large cost savings due to its energy efficiency and reduced drayage costs. The mitigation
potential of a mode shift to shipping from land-based freight ultimately depends on the balance of shipper
preferences for speed vs. low costs.
22
Figure 9: Population of Cities Along Selected Foreign (Top) and Current and Proposed U.S.
(Bottom) High Speed Rail Lines
23
4. Policy Options: Achieving Deep and Durable Reductions

As this paper has discussed, the technological and operational potential for reducing international and
domestic GHG emissions from aircraft and marine vessels is considerable; however, the rate of improvement
under business-as-usual conditions is unlikely to be sufficient to eliminate the projected growth in emissions
from steadily increasing demand (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; IEA 2008b; IMO 2008). To slow and eventually
reverse this growth, policy intervention is required in the form of regulations or incentives to accelerate the
adoption of fuel-saving advanced technologies and operational measures. This section outlines domestic and
international policy options for reducing GHG emissions from aviation and marine transportation. Whereas
GHG emissions from domestic aviation and shipping are clearly the responsibility of the nations where those
emissions occur, the assignment of responsibility and the determination of the relative merits of policy options
for international emissions are less straightforward.
4.1 Domestic Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions from a given countrys domestic aviation and shipping sectors are undisputedly
the responsibility of the country where those emissions occur. In the United States, a recent Supreme Court
decision clarified that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate GHG
emissions under the existing federal Clean Air Act (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency,
549 U.S. 497 (2007)). Domestic regulations could take the form of emission, aircraft or engine efficiency
standards, limits on the carbon intensity of fuel, or possibly the inclusion of aviation and shipping and other
GHG sources in a comprehensive cap-and-trade regime. In fact, EPA has been petitioned specifically to begin
regulating GHGs from aviation and marine transportation under the Clean Air Act.16 In legislation recently
debated in Congress, domestic GHG cap-and-trade programs would cover all transportation fuels, including
all jet and marine fuels, sold in the United Statesthus, both domestic GHGs and a portion of international
aviation and marine shipping GHGs would be covered under the proposed system.
Other countries have recently begun to develop policies to regulate GHG emissions from domestic aviation
under their national programs. For example, New Zealand, Australia, and the European Union have already
taken steps to include domestic aviation in their domestic GHG cap-and-trade programs. The European Union
has acted to expand its GHG trading system to include emissions from the aviation sector beginning in 2012.
The EU regulations include emissions from all flights either landing at or departing from airports within EU
member countries. As a result, the EU system would include all domestic aviation emissions and the portion of
24
international emissions with origins or destinations in the EU, regardless of where the fuel was purchased or the
nationality of the airline.17
In addition to possible regulations, government-sponsored research and development (R&D) can be
an effective driver of innovation, especially when it is targeted at basic research that is beneficial to many
industries (e.g., low-carbon fuels and advanced lightweight materials) or is focused on risky projects (e.g.,
radical changes to airframe designs and novel hull coatings for ships) that individual companies may not be
willing to fund. Public R&D has been a particularly important driver of aviation innovation in the past (GAO
2008), and while this has raised trade concerns and World Trade Organization challenges at the international
level, an increase in U.S. R&D funding could accelerate the rate of innovation. Current R&D programs in
the United States include the FAAs Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program and
NASAs Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project. Moreover, expanded federal R&D support for the
aviation industry in the United States would have both domestic and global impacts, particularly due to U.S.based Boeings position as one of the worlds two dominant commercial aircraft manufacturers, along with the
European Airbus. Increasing federal government funding for marine vessel R&D, if carefully targeted, could
also be effective. While only a small share of global ship building actually takes place in the United States
(Figure 10), R&D efforts could focus on technological innovations aimed at making ship components that are
manufactured here more fuel efficient. Moreover, international collaboration and technology transfer could be a
possible option to facilitate R&D across countries.
Finally, increased government spending on infrastructure could also play a role in mitigating GHG
emissions. In the case of aviation, certain strategies to reduce congestion, such as airport expansion and
advanced CNS/ATM systems, are beyond the direct control of airlines and are strongly dependent on government
regulation and support. For this reason, the funding provided to NASA in the economic stimulus package of
2009 for the development of NextGen technologies is helpful (P.L.-111-5 2009), but more resources from
both the public and private sector are needed to make this system an operational reality. Similarly, while plans
for the SESAR project will continue to progress in Europe, incentives may be needed to motivate all aircraft
to comply with SESAR requirements and adapt to its usage (Dray, Evans et al. 2009). Airport congestion
could also be reduced by greater regulation of aircraft arrival and departure times, possibly via pricing and/or
auctioning strategies (Janic 1999). Finally, in some cases marine transportation emissions could be reduced
through dredging of ports and waterways to accommodate larger vessels. Improvements in cargo handling
equipment and land transportation networks could also reduce delays.
4.2 International Emissions

The current structure for addressing GHG emissions from international aviation and maritime sources
was established as part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and related decisions under the UNFCCC. In accordance
with IPCC and UNFCCC reporting guidelines, emissions from international bunker fuels (i.e., emissions from

25
fuels used in international aviation and maritime

shipping), to the extent possible, are to be included
Figure 10: Orders Received for Manufacturing of New

Ships by Country During 2003 (Percent of Global
DWTS Ordered)
as part of Parties national GHG inventories, but are

to be excluded from national totals and reported
separately. These emissions are not subject to the
limitation and reduction commitment of Annex
United States
1%
Rest of World
19%
Japan
33%
I Parties under the Convention and the Kyoto

Protocol. Unlike GHG emissions from all other
China
12%
sources, which were included under the national

targets for developed countries established under
South Korea
35%
the Protocol, Article 2.2 carved out a different

approach for international emissions from aviation
and marine shipping.
Source: Birkler, Rushworth et al. 2005
The Parties included in Annex18 I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of

greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker
fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International
Maritime Organization, respectively.
[Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, 1998]
ICAO19 and the IMO20 have traditionally been the international organizations responsible for the
development of policies affecting these sectors. For example, they have implemented standards for emissions
of conventional pollutants and to limit noise from aircraft, and they have also set fuel quality standards (Annex
16, Volume II of the Chicago Convention and Annex VI, MARPOL respectively). Leading up to the global
climate agreement reached in Kyoto, an important, unresolved methodological issue concerned how best to
assign international GHG emissions from these sectors to specific countries. An agreed rule governing how to
calculate international emissions in national inventories would be required in order for these emissions to be
assigned to and dealt with under countries national GHG policies. The UNFCCCs Subsidiary Body on Science
and Technological Advice (SBSTA) set forth a number of options in a working paper it issued in 2003 (UNFCCC
2003). But in the six years since this issue was first discussed, little progress has been made on what is
the appropriate methodology for assigning responsibility for international emissions to countries.21 The most
promising option appears to be dividing the emissions between the countries of origin and destination for either
the aircraft/ship or its passengers/cargo (Faber, Boon et al. 2007). Other options, such as assignments based on
national fuel sales, the nationality of the carrier or shipper, or country of vehicle registration could cause serious
market distortions and evasive behavior. For instance, national emissions could be mitigated by purchasing
26
fuel elsewhere, changing the nationality of carriers and shippers, or registering aircraft and marine vessels in
another country.
Market distortions and evasive behavior would be most severe for maritime shipping. The majority of
shipping capacity is comprised of vessels flagged in countries that engage in relatively little international trade,
and similarly the ownership of a large portion of the global shipping fleet does not correspond to international
trade flows (Figure 11). The potential for evasion is also high in the marine sector since changing vessel flags is
easy and large quantities of fuel can be bunkered onboard a ship, affording great flexibility in choosing where to
flag a vessel and purchase fuel in order to minimize costs.
While dividing international transport emissions between origins and destinations provides the least
opportunity for evasion and market distortions, the approach is still hindered by practical and political issues:
how to split emissions from multi-stop trips, how to estimate emissions produced during a trip, and how to treat
emissions from developing nations.
For the specific purposes of reporting emissions under the Framework Convention, countries have been
instructed to report based on the sales of bunker fuels within their countries, regardless of where the fuel is
actually consumed or by whom it is consumed. This method is not the most representative of international trade
and travel, especially in the case of international marine transport where fuel can readily be bunkered (ships, for
example, need not refuel at every port they visit). It is important to note that this method is used for the purposes
of reporting only, as required of Annex 1 Parties, and that the emissions from international bunker fuels are not
currently included in calculating or accounting with respect to a countrys target for GHG reductions.22
Figure 11: Comparison of International Trade (Percent of Global Value of Merchandise Trade), Vessel Flag
(Percent of Global Deadweight Tons, DWTs), and Vessel Owner (Percent of Global DWTs) by Country
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Vessel Owner
0%
Panama
Liberia
Sources: DOT 2006; World Bank 2007
Vessel Flag
Greece
Japan
International Trade
China
United States
27
Policy Activities to DateICAO

ICAO responded to the mandate from the Kyoto Protocol and incorporated activities related to measures
to reduce GHG emissions in its work program soon after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. ICAO staff and
public and private sector experts participated in the development of the IPCCs Special Report on Aviation
(IPCC 1999) and have worked with other experts on methodological issues related to modeling and reporting
of GHG emissions from aviation. ICAO has also explored a number of policy options including: encouraging
voluntary programs; developing and evaluating designs for an emissions trading program for aviation emissions
and issuing draft guidance for incorporating international aviation emissions into national emissions trading
schemes; analyzing the possible use of a fuel tax or charge; examining the potential for improved operational
measures to reduce fuel burn, and exploring the possible design and use of emissions or efficiency standards.
At the 36th Session of the ICAO Assembly in 2007, the member countries discussed a range of policy
options along with issues related to reconciling the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities
contained in the UNFCCC with the concept of non-discrimination contained in the Chicago Convention under
which ICAO operates. This issue specifically arose in the context of the European Unions emissions trading
scheme, which is designed to apply to all airlines flying into or out of EU airports. The countries at the
Assembly adopted guidelines for countries to use in developing their own national emissions trading schemes.
A key element of these guidelines was that participation in any national emissions trading regimes should
only be on the basis of the mutual consent of the countries involved. Because of the potential conflict with
the European Unions emission trading system, 42 European countries reserved their position regarding this
element of the resolution (ICAO 2007). Moreover, a number of nations have expressed concern that the EU
decision was not based on the mutual consent of the countries involved and may seek to challenge the legality
of including aviation emissions within the European Unions emissions trading regime under the terms of the
Chicago Convention. In seeking to advance efforts to address GHG emissions from the aviation sector under
ICAO, the 36th Session of the Assembly also established a Group on International Aviation and Climate Change
(GIACC) with the task of developing a program of action to address this issue. This group was to establish a
possible global aircraft fuel efficiency goal and a menu of options for achieving this goal from which countries
can choose (ICAO 2007).
Following a series of meetings, GIACC issued a final report in June 2009 (ICAO 2009a). This report
recommends an approach where individual countries develop action plans to suit their circumstances guided
by a global aspirational goal for GHG emissions. GIACC recommends an aspirational goal of 2 percent per
year improvement in fuel efficiency. For context, average passenger growth is forecasted to be 5 percent per
year, with emissions growth at 3 percent, under business as usual conditions. Thus, GIACCs aspirational goal
would slow but not offset the expected growth in emissions. The Group discussed options related to carbonneutral growth or goals aimed at reducing total emissions over time, but the group did not achieve consensus in
28
support of these proposals. In addition, GIACC recommended that countries select from the basket of measures

developed by ICAO, which include aircraft-related technology development, improved air traffic management
and infrastructure use, more efficient operations, economic/market-based measures, and regulatory measures.
GIACC also recommended that ICAO continue to develop a CO2 standard for new aircraft types. While reaching
agreement on the Programme of Action, no consensus emerged from the GIACC discussions on issues related to
the extent of involvement of developing countries or the need for market-based strategies (ICAO 2009a).
Furthermore, in October 2009, members of the airline industry trade group, the International Air Transport
Association (IATA), also announced fuel efficiency improvement targets. IATA pledged that the industry would
improve fuel efficiency by 1.5 percent a year through 2020. As a long-term goal, the industry would aim to
reduce GHGs by 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2050.
Finally, some UNFCCC parties have proposed levies on international aviation to provide new financial
resources for mitigation and adaption. ICAO has expressed concern over the proliferation of charges and taxes
on air traffic and has drawn attention to the need to recognize existing ICAO policies on charges and taxes
(ICAO 2009a).
Policy Activities to DateIMO

IMO also initiated a work program in response to the mandate contained in the Kyoto Protocol. It created
a Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships to develop proposals aimed at reducing this
subsectors emissions. Its work has focused on possible technical measures, operational measures, and marketbased measures (e.g., fuel taxes and emissions trading) to reduce GHG emissions. The working group developed
an initial estimate of GHG emissions from shipping in 2000 and has developed an Energy Efficiency Design
Index for new ships aimed at guiding the design of more efficient ships in the future. Several years ago, the
IMO developed and encouraged Member States to begin pilot testing an Energy Efficiency Operational Index
(now renamed the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator) aimed at measuring over time the energy efficiency
of ships. However, at present the IMO has not concluded that this tool is suitable for conducting comparisons
for similar ships of their relative fuel efficiency. Finally, the working group discussed a draft Ship Energy
Management Plan that provides guidance on best practices for improving fuel efficiency. These proposals, as
well as the work on market-based options, considerations of the impacts on developing countries of possible
IMO measures, and the final update of IMOs GHG study was presented to the IMOs Marine Environmental
Protection Committee23 for consideration at its 59th Session in July 2009.
Policy OptionsPost Kyoto

Activities within IMO and ICAO and by individual countries and regions will provide the backdrop for any
decisions taken by the UNFCCC that will determine how international emissions from aviation and marine
shipping will be incorporated into future international agreements. Two broad options appear most likely:
1) International aviation and maritime emissions continue to be excluded from national limitation and
reduction commitments and work continues under ICAO and IMO. Under this option, the existing language

29
in Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol would simply be carried forward under the Kyoto Protocol or into a new
agreement, and ICAO and IMO would continue to have broad discretion about the magnitude and timing
of any specific measures to reduce GHG emissions in these sectors. Alternatively, to bring emissions from
these sectors in line with restrictions on other sectors, the UNFCCC could request ICAO and IMO to achieve
targets, standards and timetables similar to those reached in any new international climate agreement. If work
continues under this option, it is likely that ICAO and IMO would continue to explore the use of a wide range
of policy tools for countries to employ. These might include voluntary agreements; emissions trading and other
market-based mechanisms; levies; efficiency or emissions standards or indices; operational and system-wide
efficiency measures; and fuel standards. These organizations would also continue to seek ways to reconcile the
common but differentiated responsibilities principle mandated under the UNFCCC with their own organizations
approaches to dealing with actions by developed and developing countries.
2) Responsibility for international aviation and maritime emissions is assigned to nations and included in
national limitation or reduction commitments or national plans, to be addressed as part of countries national
efforts.24 Under this option, countries would first resolve the issue of how to assign international aviation and
shipping emissions, and then these emissions would be incorporated into national commitments or plans
under a post-2012 agreement. One advantage of this approach is that by including emissions from aviation
and marine shipping in their national commitments, countries would be able to decide what policies they
believe are appropriate to enact over time. Under this option, whatever obligations are taken on by developed
and developing countries would also apply to aviation and maritime emissions and therefore would avoid any
conflicts with the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The range of policy tools
available to nations includes the same suite of options that have been considered by ICAO and IMO, but
consideration would have to be given to possible disadvantages if individual nations took disparate or conflicting
approaches. Alternatively, nations could decide to work cooperatively to develop a sector-based approach for
international shipping and aviation, in which case they would likely turn to ICAO and IMO to assist in this effort.
For example, agreements among interested nations could be reached on aircraft or engine efficiency standards
or low carbon fuel standards. But any reductions from these sectoral agreements would be counted as part of a
nations efforts to achieve its overall commitments under a post-2012 agreement.
Countries have a number of options that could be considered when implementing controls on aviation
and shipping. One option has already been adopted by the European Union as part of the implementation of
its emissions trading regime. This regime requires that all airlines flying into or out of airports in EU territory
must hold allowances to cover emissions resulting from those flights. If all OECD nations implemented similar
measures that cover shipping and aviation emissions for any trip beginning or ending in its territory, 57 percent
of all international emissions from these sectors would be covered (IEA 2008a). Such a route-based approach
(e.g., restrictions placed on all routes beginning or ending in a developed country or region) could begin to
30
address concerns that restrictions on only developed country airlines or ships would put them at a competitive
disadvantage against developing country counterparts. At the same time, however, this approach could also
raise objections from developing countries and their airlines. An alternative would be to require allowances only
for those companies owned or licensed in a developed country. Under this approach, for example, a British- or
American-owned airline would be required to hold allowances for emissions that result from flights that begin
or end in a developed country airport, but a developing country airline would not be required to hold allowances
in this case. In order to avoid competitiveness concerns, these airlines from developed nations could be granted
free allowances to cover some or all of their emissions in the time period prior to when firms in developing
countries are restricted. This approach is similar to that which was adopted in order to minimize competitive
impacts on energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries (e.g., iron and steel and aluminum manufacturing) in
a cap-and-trade program in the European Union and is under consideration in the United States as well. This
approach would cover fewer emissions than the first option but would potentially raise fewer concerns from
developing country interests.
31
5. Conclusion
The technological and operational potential for mitigating international and domestic GHG emissions from
aircraft and marine vessels is considerable, and there is a range of mitigation options over the near, medium,
and long term to slow the growth in energy consumption and GHG emissions.
In the near to medium term, improvements in operational efficiency have the potential to reduce CO2
emissions below BAU projections by about 5 percent for aviation and up to 27 percent for marine shipping.
For aviation, these improvements include advanced air traffic management systems. In marine transportation,
slower marine vessel speeds, optimized routing, and reduced port time can improve shipping operations. Over
the long term, technological options, such as advanced propulsion systems and new airframe designs, could
reduce aviation CO2 emissions by up to 35 percent below BAU projections. Larger ships, new combined cycle
or diesel-electric engines, and optimized hull and propeller designs could provide an additional 17 percent
reduction in marine transportation emissions, below BAU projections, by 2050.
Switching to alternative fuels and power sources is another potential route to reducing GHG emissions over
the medium to long term. Aircraft and marine vessels could be powered by low-carbon biofuels or perhaps even
hydrogen. Marine vessels could benefit from switching to lower-carbon, conventional fossil fuels (e.g., liquefied
natural gas and marine diesel oil), or to other renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power. While
numerous technical issues still exist, the main challenge to the use of alternative fuels will be the ability of
aviation and shipping to compete with other modes and sectors for a potentially limited supply of low-carbon
biofuels. This could particularly be an issue with shipping, where the industry currently consumes the lowestcost fuels available, namely residual fuel oil.
Combining the various abatement options, the potential exists to reduce annual emissions from global
aviation by more than 50 percent below business-as-usual (BAU) in 2050. Reductions of more than 60
percent are possible from the global marine sector (see Table 4 and Figure 7). For these reductions to be
realized, however, policy intervention is required. The rate of technological improvement under BAU conditions
is unlikely to be sufficient to eliminate the projected growth in emissions from steadily increasing demand.
Furthermore, based on current studies and technology, it appears unlikely that currently available options
will be able to achieve absolute reductions in emissions from these subsectors. If absolute reductions were
achievable, they would likely come from greater use of alternative fuels than assumed in the mitigation
estimates presented in this paper and strong policy intervention to drive such use.
32
While the policies to regulate domestic GHG emissions are relatively straightforward, as these emissions are
undisputedly the responsibility of the countries where they occur, international aviation and maritime shipping
pose a greater challenge. Two broad policy options are available for controlling emissions from international
transportation: The status quo of excluding international aviation and maritime emissions from national totals
and continuing work under ICAO and IMO; or assigning responsibility for these emissions to parties for inclusion
in national commitments or national plans, to be addressed individually as part of countries national efforts or
collectively through sectoral approaches. How international aviation and marine emissions will be dealt with in
any post-2012 agreement remains uncertain. A number of potentially attractive technological and operational
measures appear feasible, but developing an effective path forward that facilitates the adoption of meaningful
policies remains a challenge.
33
Appendix IExpanded Discussion of Mitigation Technologies

A. Aviation
To sustain flight, airplanes must produce lift and overcome aerodynamic drag. This operation is driven
either by propellers, fan blades, or turbines, which provide thrust via the combustion of liquid fuels. More than
98 percent of modern commercial aircraft are of the conventional tube and wing (i.e., swept-winged) design
powered by two or four high bypass (ducted) turbofans (a type of jet engine). Propeller-driven turboprops
account for a far smaller share of aircraft in use (Kim, Fleming et al. 2007).25 The amount of energy an
airplane needs to sustain flight is determined by its size, weight, range, speed, engine configuration, and other
performance characteristics. Maximizing efficiency entails optimization of these factors. Yet efficiency depends
on more than just aircraft design alone: logistics and operations also play a role in shortening route distances,
reducing congestion, and decreasing fuel burn.
Reducing aviation fuel use directly reduces CO2 emissions. Through a variety of technological and
operational improvements, the energy intensity of the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet (fuel consumption
per passenger-kilometer) decreased 70 percent from 1970 to 2006, averaging 3.2 percent decrease per
year (ORNL 2008). This allowed a significant increase in aviation demand, while GHG emissions grew
only moderately. These efficiency gains were not motivated by regulation, but rather by market forces and
government-sponsored R&D efforts. Fuel costs have historically comprised 25 to 65 percent of airlines
combined direct operating and investment costs (DOC+I), or 12.5 to 32.5 percent of total airline costs (Lee,
Lukachko et al. 2001).26 Thus reducing fuel use can lower airlines operating costs significantly.
A key operational strategy that airlines have employed to save fuel is to achieve high average load factors
on their flights (number of passengers per plane), which have approached 80 percent in recent years. This was
made possible by their now-ubiquitous hub-and-spoke networks, which airline industry deregulation helped to
motivate. At the same time, this network structure also led to the use of smaller, less efficient aircraft (e.g.,
regional jets), offsetting some of the efficiency gains that higher load factors achieved. While it may be possible
for airlines to reduce travel distances by restructuring their network configurations and offering more point-topoint service, such a strategy would not necessarily reduce fuel consumption, as load factors would probably
also fall.
34
In the near term, promising strategies for operational efficiency gains are advanced communications,
navigation and surveillance (CNS) and air traffic management (ATM) systems. In the United States, these
improvements are embodied in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative, which
has the potential to decrease aircraft fuel consumption and improve aviation operations by shortening travel
distances and reducing congestion. The centerpiece of NextGen is the Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B) satellite aircraft navigation system, which will allow for more precise control of aircraft
during en-route flight, take-off, and landing; more direct routing; improved situation awareness in the cockpit;
and closer, safer separation distances (GAO 2008). ADS-B will facilitate the expanded use of Continuous
Descent Arrivals (CDA), which compared to the conventional step-down approach, allow aircraft to remain
at cruise altitudes longer as they approach a destination airport and then descend at near-idle power levels
to touchdown, thus reducing fuel burn (see Figure 12). Only a limited number of U.S. airports currently
incorporate CDA into their operations (GAO 2008). Other CNS/ATM advancements allowing aircraft to descend
on more precise, efficient routes include Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance
(RNP), which are already being utilized by at least 54 U.S. airports. In addition, while still in an early stage of
development, the FAAs High-Density Terminal and Airport Operations initiative should help to reduce ground
taxiing times, as well as separation requirements during take-offs and landings (GAO 2008).27
The government has an important role in the development of advanced CNS/ATM systems and in ensuring
that aviation policy and regulations do not hinder their adoption. To this end, the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)along with the European Commission and a number of airlines, aircraft manufacturers,
and providers of aviation navigation servicesis a member of both the Asia and South Pacific Initiative
to Reduce Emissions (ASPIRE) and the Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE),
two multinational consortiums which have performed several test flights in the past two years (with more
planned), demonstrating the capability and facilitating the development of advanced CNS/ATM systems.28 As
an example, in November 2008, a United Airlines flight from Sydney, Australia, to San Francisco, California
(USA), implemented CNS/ATM technology to save more than 15,000 liters of fuel and 19 metric tons of carbon
emissions by periodically updating its route based on wind and weather conditions (something that is generally
not possible with todays technology) and utilizing a smooth, continuous descent approach rather than a
traditional step-down approach.
A second option to achieve small, near-term GHG reductions is through improved airport ground operations,
which account for about 1 percent or less of total aviation emissions (Hansen, Smirti et al. 2008; Vigilante
2009). Strategies include supplying parked aircraft with ground-based auxiliary power (for electricity,
heating, and cooling), instead of generating it with the jet fuel in the airplanes engines, and operating ground
equipment (tractors, conveyor, etc.) with alternative fuels. On-site production of renewable electricity at airports
is also an option. In fact, several U.S. airports (e.g., Denver, Fresno, and Boston) are cutting their emissions by
35
Figure 12: Comparison of Continuous Descent Arrivals (CDA) and the Conventional Step-Down Approach
installing on-site wind turbines and solar panels (Vigilante 2009). The FAA is funding many of these projects in
the United States through its innovative Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program (VALE) program.29
Aircraft Efficiency
As the conventional swept-winged aircraft has moved closer to an optimal configuration, the potential for
efficiency gains has become exceedingly limited, and annual improvements have slowed (IEA 2008b; ORNL
2008). According to Lee, Lukachko et al. (2001), if historical trends in technology continue to 2025, a decline
in new airplane energy intensity of 1.2 to 2.2 percent per year could be expected (i.e., a 30 to 50 percent
cumulative reduction below 2000 levels by 2025). Similar estimates are provided by QinetiQ (2008), IEA
(2008b), and Morris et al. (2009). This will require advanced technologies in the following areas: propulsion
(engines), lightweight materials, aerodynamics and new airframe designs, and operations and navigation systems.
State-of-the-art aircraft, such as the currently operating Airbus A380 and the future Airbus A350 and Boeing
787, make use of a number of advanced technologies. Widespread adoption of these aircraft, and the even more
advanced designs that follow, will be needed to ensure that trends in declining energy intensity continue. Due to
the long lifetimes for aircraft (typically 20-30 years), new technology commercially available by 2025 could be
expected to represent the fleet average by 2050 under a BAU scenario (Lee, Lukachko et al. 2001).
Opportunities exist to improve the energy efficiency of aircraft propulsion systems through new designs.
Theoretically, the fuel consumption of modern jet engines can still be reduced by approximately 30 percent
through higher pressure ratios and combustion temperatures, strategies that led to past efficiency gains
(Karagozian, Dahm et al. 2006). Yet higher pressures and temperatures also increase emissions of nitrogen
36
oxides (NOx), unless there is also a change in combustor technology (Allyn 2008). While the science is
still uncertain, increased NOx emissions potentially negate some of the CO2 reduction benefits (see Box 1).
Additionally, the adoption of increasingly stringent NOx emission standards for air pollution reasons will limit
the potential engine efficiency gains to 20 to 25 percent, unless revolutionary NOx control technologies can be
developed (IPCC 2007). General Electric (GE), Rolls-Royce, and Pratt & Whitney are all currently developing
more efficient, lower-NOx aircraft engines.30 For example, GEs goal for its new GEnx jet engine, which will be
used on many of the new Boeing 787s, is for it to achieve NOx emission levels that are 50 percent lower than
the ICAO standards approved in 2005 while reducing fuel consumption by 15 percent compared to its previous
generation engine technology (the CF6).31,32 Similarly, the new Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 jet engine, which Virgin
Atlantic will employ on its fleet of Boeing 787s, will reduce fuel consumption 15 percent compared to its
previous generation engine (the Trent 800).33 This will be achieved through improved compressor operation and
advances enabling the engine to run more efficiently at slower speeds, which is especially important during
aircraft descent.34 Finally, Pratt & Whitney has developed a geared turbofan engine, which they claim will
achieve a 12 percent reduction in fuel consumption while halving NOx emissions, compared to current engines.
After extensive flight testing, the engine is expected to be introduced into service in 2012.35
Similar reductions in fuel consumption (20 to 30 percent) may be achieved from unducted fan (UDF)
engines with contra-rotating blades (Figure 13)also known as propfans, open rotors, or ultra high bypass
turbofans (Lee, Lukachko et al. 2001). UDF technology combines certain benefits of a turbofan with the fuel
efficiency of a turboprop and represents the theoretical limit of propulsive efficiency (GBD 2005). Despite the
UDFs benefits, it is unclear whether the technology will gain public acceptance. UDF engines can be loud,
and the public may view propeller-driven aircraft, in general, as old-fashioned and dangerous (IPCC 2007). In
addition, the efficiency of UDFs comes with a speed penalty. Maximum cruising speeds of an UDF airplane
would be less than 400 miles per hour (mph) compared
to 550 mph (885 km/h) for conventional turbofan aircraft.
Figure 13: Pratt & WhitneyAllison Unducted

Fan Engine
Therefore, UDFs are likely limited to operations where speed

is less important, such as short- and medium-haul flights
(less than 2500 km) which account for about half of all
aircraft fuel use worldwide (GBD 2005).
Reducing aircraft weight using advanced materials
is perhaps the most straightforward approach to improve
efficiency and has recently been a major focus of aircraft
manufacturers. Since aircraft have lifetimes of 20 to 30
years, this strategy offers longer-term mitigation potential.
A typical aircraft operating in todays fleet is constructed
of 65 percent aluminum, 15 percent steel, 15 percent
Source: www.flightglobal.com

37
composites, and 5 percent titanium (GBD 2005). Replacing aluminum and steel with composites (carbonfiber reinforced plastics), which are lighter and stronger, is one option (IEA 2008b). Both the new Boeing 787
and Airbus A350 will replace aluminum with composites in the wings and fuselage. In fact, fifty percent (by
weight) of the 787 will be constructed of composite material, accounting for an estimated one-third of its 20
percent total fuel efficiency gain. Another option is fiber metal laminate (FML), a layer of fiber sandwiched
between one or more thick layers of aluminum. The first civil aviation application of FML is for the fuselage
skin of the new Airbus A380 (IEA 2008b). It is likely that all future aircraft designs will incorporate at least
some amount of advanced lightweight materials (GBD 2005).
Improving an airplanes aerodynamics, in particular increasing the lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio,36 offers perhaps the
greatest potential for reducing aircraft fuel burn and GHG emissions over the long term (IEA 2008b). There are
several ways to raise an aircrafts L/D ratio including increased wingspans, winglets, laminar flow control, and flying
wing or blended wing body (BWB) airframe designs. The addition of winglets to wingtips is one of the most likely
near-term strategies. Winglets were developed by NASA in the 1970s and 80s and are now quite common on newer
aircraft.37 As they are added to more aircraft in the existing fleet, their GHG reduction benefits will accumulate over
time. Winglets reduce aerodynamic drag caused by vortices that develop at the wingtips and also provide a small
amount of extra thrust from otherwise wasted energy, much like a sailboat traveling upwind (Figure 14). Winglets
can reduce fuel consumption by up to 7 percent, but they also add weight which reduces the savings for short
flights where a greater portion of time is spent climbing (NASA 2004). They come in several different shapes and
sizes and can be installed on newly built aircraft or as retrofits to existing planes (Airline world 2008).
Figure 14: Winglets and Their Effect on Vortices at Wingtips
Source: Airline world 2008
Laminar flow control (LFC) is a medium- to long-term option that could also provide significant efficiency
improvement. LFC increases efficiency by smoothing an aircrafts boundary layer (the thin layer of air that
38
clings to its surface), which is generally turbulent. This reduces aerodynamic drag and, consequently, fuel burn

(NASA 2009). One option is to use natural (passive) LFC by shaping the wing profile to achieve laminar flow
conditions on the front half of the wing. A more advanced option is hybrid (active) LFC, in which mechanical
suction devices are used to remove a portion of the boundary layer through porous material, slots in the wing, or
tiny perforations in the wing skin (NASA 2009). Maximum efficiency gain could be achieved by applying hybrid
LFC over the entirety of an aircrafts surface; however, cost, reliability, and susceptibility to inclement weather
are important considerations that must be addressed (GBD 2005). When applied to just the wings, tail, fins,
and engine housing, hybrid LFC could potentially reduce the fuel burn of a medium-range aircraft by up to 16.5
percent (GBD 2001), while more modest and less costly applications could yield efficiency improvements of 2
to 5 percent (GBD 2005).
New airframe designs present the most revolutionary and long-term approach to increasing efficiency through
improved aerodynamics. These include flying wing or blended wing body (BWB) aircraft. BWBs, a hybrid between
a flying wing and a conventional tube and wing aircraft, smoothly blend together the wings, fuselage, and
engines, reducing aerodynamic drag and generating lift with the entire airplane instead of just the wings (Leifsson
and Mason 2004). A design study by Boeing found that a 32 percent reduction in fuel burn could be achieved
by a large, long-range BWB aircraft similar in size and performance to an Airbus A380 (Liebeck 2004). However,
capital costs of the BWB are not yet known, and passenger acceptance issues (e.g., fewer windows) could impact
its commercial success (GBD 2007). A substantial research and engineering effort will be needed to bring the
BWB concept to reality (Leifsson and Mason 2004). NASA, Boeing, and the U.S. Air Force are collaborating in
this area (Risch 2008). The technology might first be used in military or freight applications; a civil passenger
BWB aircraft will not likely be seen before 2030 (GBD 2007). The long time horizon would limit fleet-wide
energy intensity reductions from BWBs to 10 to 15 percent by 2050 (IEA 2008b).
As the older, less efficient airplanes are retired and newer, more efficient ones come into service,
fleetwide efficiencies will improve. Under business-as-usual (BAU) conditions, the fleet average energy
intensity of U.S. aviation (e.g., fleet-average megajoules per passenger-km) can probably be expected to
decrease by at least 30 percent between now and 2050 utilizing known technologies, including more efficient
propulsion systems (engines), advanced lightweight materials, and improved aerodynamics (e.g., winglets,
increased wingspans) (IEA 2008b; Lee, Lukachko et al. 2001; QinetiQ 2008; Schfer, Heywood et al. 2009).
Widespread application and success with these technologies combined with the adoption of the more advanced
technologies (e.g., laminar flow control) and navigation systems (e.g., NextGen) could extend the energy
intensity reductions to 50 percent below current levels, or 20 percentage points beyond BAU. However, this is
unlikely without policy intervention in the form of incentives or regulation. The most advanced, and thus most
uncertain, technologies (e.g., full body laminar flow control, blended wing body airframes) have the longerterm potential to contribute an additional 10 to 15 percentage point reduction beyond BAU by 2050. In total
by 2050, global adoption of these more advanced aircraft technologies could potentially reduce aviation GHG
emissions by as much as 35 percent below what is expected in a BAU future.

39
B. Alternative Fuels and Power
Figure 15: Boeing X-48B Blended Wing Body

Experimental Aircraft
Aviation
Decarbonization of aviation fuels offers a potential
path to low-carbon flight. The options for fuel switching
on jet aircraft are more limited than for road vehicles,
however, where liquid and gaseous fuels and electricity
all can be used as energy sources. These limitations
are due to the demanding requirements of aircraft and
jet engines, as well as challenges with fuel storage.
An energy- dense liquid fuel is thought to be needed.
Source: Boeing/NASA
Synthetic bio-based fuels, Fischer-Tropsch (FT)38 kerosene-type jet fuels, and liquid hydrogen are considered to
be the only feasible options (Lee, Fahey et al. 2009; Saynor, Bauen et al. 2003). As in other sectors, alternative
fuels face numerous challenges with respect to their production, distribution, and cost, and it is not entirely
clear what quantity of these fuels will be available and when, or what magnitude of GHG benefits can ultimately
be achieved by using them (Fargione, Hill et al. 2008; IPCC 2007; Pea 2008; Searchinger, Heimlich et al.
2008). To contribute to considerable GHG mitigation, the carbon footprint of jet fuel substitutes will need to
be significantly lower than conventional petroleum-based jet fuel, and they will eventually need to achieve
cost-competitivenessboth of which are possible with concerted research, development, demonstration, and
deployment (RDD&D) efforts. The U.S. EPA has developed a comprehensive methodology to determine the
lifecycle GHG emissions, including direct and indirect land use change effects, for a range of biofuels under the
Renewable Fuel Standard program.39 A recent ICAO report summarizes lifecycle GHG emissions estimates for a
number of alternative jet fuel production pathways (ICAO 2009b).
Synthetic bio-based fuels include bio-based jet fuels, derived from oils from plants such as Jatropha
and Camelina and also from algae and other feedstocks. Any of these plant- or animal-sourced oils can be
hydroprocessed to create jet fuel (HRJ) that is chemically identical to (i.e., a drop in replacement for)
petroleum jet fuel. If able to meet the stringent specifications of high altitude flight, bio-jet fuels could become
a drop-in replacement for petroleum-based jet fuel. Other bio-derived hydrocarbon fuels produced through
advanced fermentation processes are also under development. And finally, FT jet fuel (via thermochemical
gasification) can be produced from biomass or a mixture of fossil fuel and biomass, possibly employing carbon
capture and sequestration.
Liquid hydrogen produced from renewable sources (e.g., renewable electricity or biomass) offers a
potentially longer-term alternative fuel option as it would require new airframe designs to accommodate a large
volume of hydrogen stored onboard the aircraft (GBD 2005; Janic 2008; Saynor, Bauen et al. 2003). The
added storage space would likely increase aerodynamic drag and aircraft weight, although the latter would be
40
compensated for by the much lower weight of liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen aircraft could use conventional jet
engines modified for cryogenic operation40 (Janic 2008). However, emissions of H2O at high altitudes would
increase, potentially negating some of the CO2 reduction benefits of hydrogen aircraft through increased contrail
formation (Saynor, Bauen et al. 2003). In addition, as in other sectors, the challenge and expense associated
with developing a hydrogen supply infrastructure would be considerable.
The aviation industry is moving forward in its search for a drop-in jet fuel replacement. The International
Air Transport Associations (IATA) has set a goal for its member airlines to be using 10 percent alternative
fuels by 2017 (IATA 2009). Over the past year, several airlines have successfully conducted test flights with
bio-based HRJ. The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), a consortium of airlines, airports,
and aircraft manufacturers, is leading some of these efforts.41 CAAFIs goals are to certify a 50 percent
synthetic FT aircraft fuel (i.e., non-petroleum based, but possibly from natural gas or coal) by late 2009, a 100
percent synthetic fuel by 2010, and an HRJ biofuel by 2013, though the latter could happen as soon as 2010
(GAO 2008). It is important to note that unless made in part by biomass or other low-carbon sources (e.g., lowcarbon hydrogen in the long term), some synthetic fuels might provide little or no climate benefit, and in the
worst case they could generate even greater lifecycle emissions than the jet fuels they replace (e.g., those from
FT synthesis using coal). Still, demonstrating the feasibility and reliability of all synthetic aviation fuels is an
initial step along the path towards the utilization of those fuels, which have markedly lower carbon footprints.
Marine
Alternative fuels and power sources also have the potential to significantly reduce or eliminate GHG
emissions from ships. In a sense, large shipping vessels are power plants on water. Hence, most alternative
energy sources currently in use or under development for application in other sectors could be applied to ships
as well: biofuels, solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel cells (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; IMO 2008; MARINTEK
2000). However, as in aviation and other sectors, large uncertainties still remain.
The most promising near-term options are substitution of current marine fuels with lower-carbon, fossilbased fuels. Residual fuel oil (also called heavy fuel oil (HFO)) can be replaced by diesel (also called marine
diesel oil (MDO)) or liquefied natural gas (LNG), both of which produce lower carbon emissions per unit
of energy. Replacing HFO with MDO can reduce CO2 emissions by 4 to 5 percent (MARINTEK 2000), and
replacing HFO and MDO with LNG can reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent (IMO 2008). Vegetable oil and
biodiesel can also replace HFO and MDO (MARINTEK 2000). Limitations to fuel switching are mainly posed
by the comparatively low cost of traditional fuels. Currently, MDO prices are 70 percent, LNG prices 20 percent
and biodiesel prices 480 percent higher than HFO which costs $0.95/gallon.42 Storage space for LNG may also
41
be a limitation on certain types of ships because it requires 2.5- to 3-times the space as HFO, although tankers
could potentially store LNG above deck without compromising cargo space (IMO 2008; MARINTEK 2000).
Alternative power plant technologies are also feasible for ships. Nuclear power is promising because it
produces virtually no carbon emissions, but at present the technology is largely reserved to military use because
of security and safety concerns and high costs (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; IMO 2008). Solar photovoltaic cells
are also an attractive option because they produce no GHG emissions during operation, but they are currently
impractical because of their high costs and the limited surface area aboard ships available to generate sufficient
power (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005). Solar cells might find niche applications in offsetting a portion of ships
auxiliary power needs. Wind power generated by large sails has also been considered, and some limited tests have
shown mitigation potential of 10 to 50 percent (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; MARINTEK 2000). In the long term,
introduction of fuel cells could offer a large mitigation potential, but ultimately this depends on the success of
ongoing research. Studies by the U.S. military and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) estimate that fuel
cells using either diesel or natural gas could reduce ship fuel consumption by 17 to 30 percent (Interlaboratory
Working Group 2000). Hydrogen can offer even greater mitigation potential, depending on the availability of lowcarbon or carbon-free hydrogen production. It could be used directly in marine engines or in a fuel cell to power
ships (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005; MARINTEK 2000). In fact, a few very small ships are currently powered by
hydrogen fuel cells (Eyring, Khler et al. 2005). Based on the current state of fuel cell technology, the biggest
limitations for shipping applications are fuel storage space, weight, and cost (MARINTEK 2000). However,
marine vessels may offer an attractive initial application of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Farrell et al. (2003)
argue that the costs of introducing hydrogen fuel are lowest for modes with few, large vehicles that are operated
by highly trained workers and which transit between few pointse.g., shipping.
42
References
Airline world. (2008, January 15, 2009). Aircraft winglets. Retrieved from http://airlineworld.wordpress.
com/2008/10/01/aircraft-winglets/.
Allyn, D. (2008). Technical Design Interrelationships. 2008 Aviation and the Environment: A Primer for North
American Stakeholders, Boeing and ICCAIA Chairman.
ATA (2009). Alternative Aviation Fuels Q&A. Retrieved from http://www.airlines.org/economics/energy/
altfuelsqanda.htm.
Batchelor, D. (2008). Extending the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to Aviation. Air Transport Emissions Trading
Scheme Workshop, UK Department for Transport, European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy
and Transport.
Birkler, J., D. Rushworth, et al. (2005). Differences Between Military and Commercial Shipbuilding. Santa
Monica, CA, RAND.
Boeing (2008). Current Market Outlook 2008-2027. Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/
index.html
Brasseur, G. P. (2008). A Report on the Way Forward: Based on the Review of Research Gaps and Priorities,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI), Sponsored by
the Environmental Working Group of the U.S. NextGen Joint Planning and Development Office.
CHSRA (2009). Questions & Answers: Protecting Our Environment. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/environment.htm.
Corbett, J. and H. Koehler (2003). Updated emissions from ocean shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research
108(D20): 4650-64.
Corbett, J. and H. Koehler (2004). Considering alternative input parameters in an activity-based ship fuel
consumption and emissions model: Reply to comment by yvind Endresen et al. on Updated emissions
from ocean shipping. J. Geophys. Res 109(D23).
Corbett, J., H. Wang, et al. (2009). The Impacts of Speed Redcutions on Vessel-Based Emissions for
International Shipping. Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
de Rus, G. and G. Nombela (2007). Is Investment in High Speed Rail Socially Profitable? Journal of
Transport Economics and Policy 41(1): 3.
DOT (2006). Fleet Statistics (10,000 Deadweight Tons or Greater). U.S. Department of Transportation.
Retrieved from http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm.
Dray, L. M., A. Evans, et al. (2009). Opportunities for Reducing Aviation-Related GHG Emissions: A Systems
Analysis for Europe, Omega, University of Cambridge Institute for Aviation and the Environment.
43
Durkee, P. A., K. J. Noone, et al. (2000). The Monterey Area Ship Track Experiment. Journal of the
Atmospheric Sciences 57(16): 2523-2541.
Endresen, ., E. Srgrd, et al. (2004). Substantiation of a lower estimate for the bunker inventory: Comment
on Updated emissions from ocean shipping by James J. Corbett and Horst W. Koehler. J. Geophys. Res
109.
Endresen, ., E. Srgrd, et al. (2003). Emission from international sea transportation and environmental
impact. J. Geophys. Res 108(D17): 4560.
EPA (2006). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S. Transportation Sector, 1990-2003. Washington, DC,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA420-R-06-003.
EPA (2008a). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. Washington, DC, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA430-R-08-005.
EPA (2008b). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines
and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder, US Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA420-R-08-001.
Eyring, V., H. W. Khler, et al. (2005). Emissions from international shipping: 2. Impact of future
technologies on scenarios until 2050. J. Geophys. Res. 110.
Faber, J., B. Boon, et al. (2007). Aviation and maritime transport in a post 2012 climate policy regime,
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Faber, J., D. Greenwood, et al. (2008). Lower NOx at Higher Altitudes: Policies to Reduce the Climate Impact
of Aviation NOx emission, CE Delft.
Fargione, J., J. Hill, et al. (2008). Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science 319(5867): 1235-1238.
Farrell, A. E., D. W. Keith, et al. (2003). A strategy for introducing hydrogen into transportation. Energy
Policy 31(13): 1357-1367.
GAO (2008). Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development Are Keys to Reducing
Emissions and Their Impact on Health and Climate. Washington, D.C., Government Accountability Office,
Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham.
GAO (2009). High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other
Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role. Washington, D.C., Government Accountability Office.
GBD (2001). The Technology Challenge. Report of the Technology Sub-Group, Greener by Design.
GBD (2005). Mitigating the Environmental Impact of Aviation: Opportunities and Priorities. Report of the
Greener by Design Science and Technology Sub-Group, Greener by Design.
GBD (2007). Annual Report 2007-2008, Greener by Design.
Givoni, M. (2007). Environmental benefits from mode substitution: comparison of the environmental impact
from aircraft and High-Speed Train operations. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 1(4):
209-230.
Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, et al. (2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science
319(5865): 948-952
44
Hansen, M., M. Smirti, et al. (2008). A Comparative Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Strategies for the Maritime Shipping and Aviation Sectors, University of California, Berkeley.
IATA (2009). Fact Sheet: Alternative Fuels. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.iata.org/pressroom/
facts_figures/fact_sheets/alt_fuels.htm.
ICAO (2007). Resolutions Adopted at the 36th Session of the Assembly. Montreal, International Civil Aviation
Organization.
ICAO (2009a). Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) Report, International Civil Aviation
Organization.
ICAO (2009b). Review of aviation emissions related activities within ICAO and internationally: Opportunities
for Mitigating Climate Impacts, International Civil Aviation Organization, Presented by the U.S. Member to
ICAO, Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) Third Meeting.
IEA (2008a). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion (2008 Edition). Paris, France, International Energy Agency,
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
IEA (2008b). Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. Paris, France,
International Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
IMO (2008). Updated Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Interlaboratory Working Group (2000). Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. Oak Ridge, TN and Berkeley, CA,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
IPCC (1999). Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Jamin, S., A. Schfer, et al. (2004). Aviation emissions and abatement policies in the United States: a citypair analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 9(4): 295-317.
Janic, M. (1999). Aviation and externalities: the accomplishments and problems. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment 4(3): 159-180.
Janic, M. (2008). The potential of liquid hydrogen for the future carbon-neutral air transport system.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 13(7): 428-435.
Johnson, L. R., D. M. Rote, et al. (1989). Maglev vehicles and superconductor technology: Integration of highspeed ground transportation into the air travel system. Argonne, IL. Argonne National Laboratory.
Karagozian, A., W. Dahm, et al. (2006). Technology Options for Improved Air Vehicle Fuel Efficiency: Executive
Summary and Annotated Brief. Washington, D.C., United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
Kim, B. Y., G. G. Fleming, et al. (2007). System for assessing Aviations Global Emissions (SAGE), Part 1:
Model description and inventory results. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
12(5): 325-346.
Lauer, A., V. Eyring, et al. (2007). Global model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on aerosols,
clouds, and the radiation budget. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 7(19): 5016-5079.
45
Lee, D. S., D. W. Fahey, et al. (2009). Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmospheric
Environment In Press, Corrected Proof.
Lee, J. J., S. P. Lukachko, et al. (2001). Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and
Emissions. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 26(1): 167-200.
Leifsson, L. T. and W. H. Mason (2004). The Blended Wing Body Aircraft. Blacksburg, VA, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Liebeck, R. H. (2004). Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport. Journal of Aircraft 41(1):
10-25.
Lovins, A. B., E. K. Datta, et al. (2005). Winning the Oil Endgame. Snowmass, CO, Rocky Mountain Institute.
Marbaix, P., A. Ferrone, et al. (2008). Inclusion of non-CO2 effects of aviation in the ETS: a summary, Aviation
and the Belgian Climate Policy : Integration Options and Impacts (ABC Impacts), Centre dEtudes
Economiques et Sociales de lEnvironnement, Universit libre de Bruxelles.
MARINTEK (2000). Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships. Final Report to the International
Maritime Organization. Trondheim, Norway, Performed by Norwegain Marine Technology Research Institute
(MARINTEK) for the International Maritime Organization.
Mokhtarian, P. L. and I. Salomon (2002). Emerging Travel Patterns: Do Telecommunications Make a
Difference? In Perpetual motion: travel behavior research opportunities and application challenges, edited
by Hani S. Mahmassani, 143-182, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Morris, J., A. Rowbotham, et al. (2009). A Framework for Estimating the Marginal Costs of Environmental
Abatement for the Aviation Sector, Omega, Cranfield University.
NASA (2004). Technology Facts, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NASA (2009). Fact Sheets. U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved from http://www.
nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-12-DFRC.html.
ORNL (2008). Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27. US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
P.L.-111-5 (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R.1). Washington, D.C., 111th
Congress of the United States of America.
Park, Y. and H. Ha (2006). Analysis of the impact of high-speed railroad service on air transport demand.
Transportation Research Part E 42(2): 95-104.
Pea, N. (2008). Biofuels for Transportation: A Climate Perspective, Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Ponater, M., S. Marquart, et al. (2005). On contrail climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32.
QinetiQ (2008). Aviation CO2 Emissions Abatement Potential from Technology Innovation, Final Report to the
Committee on Climate Change, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Risch, T. K. (2008). X-48B Flight Research Progress Overview, Dryden Flight Research Center.
Saynor, B., A. Bauen, et al. (2003). The Potential for Renewable Energy Sources in Aviation, Imperial College
London.
46
Schfer, A., J. B. Heywood, et al. (2009). Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World. Cambridge,

Massachusetts, The MIT Press.
Schipper, L., F. Unander, et al. (2001). Indicators of energy use and carbon emissions: explaining the energy
economy link. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 26: 49-81.
Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, et al. (2008). Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases
Through Emissions from Land Use Change. Science 319(5867): 1238 - 1240.
TEMS (2008). Impact of High Oil Prices on Freight Transportation: Modal Shift Potential in Five Corridors
Technical Report, Prepared by TEMS for the Marine Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
UN (2008). Review of Maritime Transport 2008. New York, United Nations.
UNFCCC (2003). Emissions Resulting from Fuel Used in International Aviation and Maritime Transportation,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Vigilante, M. (2009). Reducing the Carbon FootprintWhat Works. Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting, Washington, D.C., Synergy Consultants.
World Bank (2007). Trade Statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://go.worldbank.org/
VDYJ5GA960.
WTO (2008). International Trade Statistics 2008, World Trade Organization.
47
Endnotes
1.
The actual effect of aviation and marine transportation emissions on the climate is potentially much greater,
considering the radiative forcing effects of non-CO2 emissions (see Box 1) and the large uncertainties in marine transportation
emissions (see Section 2.1).
2.
Many policies, which aim to control GHGs from these and other subsectorseither directly or indirectly through taxes
and allowances or technology and efficiency standardsincrease the cost of transportation. In theory, increased costs will reduce
demand as some of the costs are passed on to customers who then take the higher price into consideration in their transportation
decisions.
3.
The terms marine and shipping are used in this paper to refer to all types of waterborne vessels utilized at sea and
on inland waterways and lakes.

4.
Traditionally, bunker fuels were considered to be those used aboard ships (e.g., heavy fuel oil and residual fuel oil)
because they were stored in the ships bunkers. However, for purposes of GHG accounting, it has become quite common to refer
to the fuel consumed for both international air travel and marine voyages as international bunker fuel.
5.
A large share of freight traffic is carried in the bellies of passenger airplanes during normal commercial passenger
service.
6.
In 2007, fuel costs accounted for over 40 percent of U.S. airline operating expenses (DOC+I), up from 25 percent just
a few years earlier (Boeing 2008). Current Market Outlook 2008-2027.]

7.
See Section 3, Figure 8 for a graph showing the declining trend in aircraft energy intensity over time.
8.
For more information, see the following webpage: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_
units/nextgen/research_planning/narp/.
9.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is currently under development and is scheduled to enter service in 2010. The Airbus
A350 is currently under development and is scheduled to enter service in 2013.

10. Using a conversion rate of 1.5 US dollars per British pound (consistent with early 2009 exchange rates).
11. For example, the expansion of the Panama Canal is estimated to cost $5.2 billion. See http://www.pancanal.com/eng/
plan/documentos/propuesta/acp-expansion-proposal.pdf for more information.
12. Hydroprocessing a plant- or animal-based oil is similar to the process of conventional crude oil refining. First, the oil
is hydrotreated by adding hydrogen, which increases the oils hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. Then, the molecules that result are
cracked, yielding a finished jet fuel product.
13. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of transportation fuels involves gasification of a carbon-containing feedstock (e.g., biomass,
coal) and production of a synthetic crude oil, which can then be processed into refined liquid fuel products.
14. This level of reduction is more optimistic than current estimates and not included in Table 4.
15. Latest California High Speed Rail Authority estimate, available at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/financing.htm.
16. For a description of these petitions, see Section VI. Mobile Source Authorities, Petitions, and Potential Regulation,
Subsection C. Nonroad Sector Sources in Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 73 Federal Register 4435444520 (July 30, 2008).
17. Note, the legality of this policy may be challenged by one or more nations under the terms of the ICAOs Chicago
Convention.

49
18. Signatories to the UNFCCC are split into three main groups: Annex I countries (developed countries); Annex II
countries (a subset of Annex I developed countries that have a special obligation to provide new and additional financial
resources and facilitate the transfer of climate-friendly technologies to developing countries to help them tackle climate change);
and developing countries.
19. ICAO has 190 Contracting States. For more information see http://www.icao.int
20. IMO has 168 Member States. For more information see http://www.imo.org
21. For more information on the SBSTAs work on Emissions Resulting from Fuel Used for International Transport:
Aviation and Marine (Bunker Fuels), see http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/emissions_from_intl_transport/items/1057.php.
22. Statement from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to the Twenty-Sixth Session of the UNFCCC
Subsidiary Body for Science and Technological Advice (SBSTA); Bonn 7-18 May 2007.
23. IMOs Marine Environmental Protection Committee is responsible for marine environmental concerns, including GHG
emissions.
24. Statement without prejudice to the outcome/s of the UNFCCC Ad-Hoc Working Groups on Long-term Cooperative
Action and the Kyoto Protocol.
25. Piston-powered (reciprocating engine) aircraft account for only 2 percent of commercial propeller aircraft (piston and
turboprops) and just 0.05 percent of global commercial aircraft fuel burn.
26. In 2007, fuel costs accounted for over 40 percent of U.S. airline operating expenses (DOC+I), up from 25 percent just
a few years earlier [Boeing (2008). Current Market Outlook 2008-2027.]
27. Under the High-Density Terminal and Airport Operations, busy airports would be able to better and more safely assign
arriving and departing aircraft to multiple runways, especially in bad weather or low visibility conditions. Enhanced navigation
capabilities and automated controllers will be needed to bring this initiative
to fruition.
28. For more information on ASPIRE, see the following webpage: http://www.aspire-green.com/default.asp. For more
information on AIRE, see the following webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/environment/aire_en.htm.
29. For more information on VALE, see the following webpage: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/
environmental/vale/.
30. For more information on these advanced engine technologies, see the original source from which this discussion was
summarized: EPAs Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
73 Federal Register 44470 (July 30, 2008).
31. General Electric, Press Release, Driving GE Ecomagination with the Low-Emission GEnx Jet Engine, July 20, 2005,
available at http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20050720.html.
32. The NOx standards adopted at the sixth meeting of ICAOs Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) in
February 2004 were approved by ICAO in 2005.
33. Rolls-Royce, Trent and the environment, available at www.rolls-royce.com/community/downloads/trent_env.pdf and the
Rolls-Royce environmental report, Powering a better world: Rolls-Royce and the environment, 2007, available at http://www.rollsroyce.com/community/environment/default.jsp
34. Green Car Congress, Rolls-Royce Wins $2.6B Trent 1000 Order from Virgin Atlantic; The Two Launch Joint
Environmental Initiative, March 3, 2008, available at http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/rolls-royce-win.html.
35. Engine Yearbook, Pratt & Whitney changing the game with geared turbofan engine, 2008, at page 96.
50
36. The L/D ratio is a measure relating the forces that provide an aircraft with lift (L) compared to the frictional drag (D)
forces that slow it down. The higher the ratio, the less energy is needed to fly the aircraft.
37. For example, Aviation Partners Boeing claims that their winglets have been sold to 140 airlines and that 95 percent
of all Boeing 737NG airplanes are fitted with them [Airline world. (2008, January 15, 2009). Aircraft winglets. from http://
airlineworld.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/aircraft-winglets/.]
38. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of transportation fuels involves gasification of a carbon-containing feedstock (e.g., biomass, coal)
and production of a synthetic crude oil, which can then be processed into refined liquid fuel products.
39. See the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
renewablefuels/index.htm#regulations).
40. Cryogenic operation means operation at extremely low temperatures. In the case of hydrogen aircraft, the hydrogen
would have to be stored at a temperature less than -253 degrees Celsius (-423 degrees Fahrenheit) in order to keep it in the
liquid phase.
41. For more information on CAAFI, see the following webpage: http://www.caafi.org/.
42. Comparison made between costs per BTU based on the authors calculations. Fuel prices from EIA Spot Prices and
bunkerworld.com for 2/26/2009, biodiesel prices from DOE (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_oct_08.pdf).
51
This paper provides an overview of greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions from aviation and marine transportation and the
various mitigation options to reduce these emissions. The
Pew Center on Global Climate Change was established in 1998
in order to bring a cooperative approach to the debate on
global climate change. The Pew Center continues to inform the
debate by publishing reports in the areas of policy (domestic
and international), economics, environment, and solutions.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

2101 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 550
Arlington, VA 22201 USA
Phone: 703.516.4146
www.pewclimate.org

Mccollum, David L Gould, Gregory Greene, David L: Institute of Transportation Studies Uc Davis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mccollum, David L Gould, Gregory Greene, David L: Institute of Transportation Studies Uc Davis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mccollum, David L Gould, Gregory Greene, David L: Institute of Transportation Studies Uc Davis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institute of Transportation Studies

eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1. Introduction and Summary

2. Overview of Aviation and Marine Transportation

2.2 Aviation and Marine Transportation Demand

3. Technological Mitigation Options and Potential

3.2 Marine Transportation

3.3 Alternative Fuels and Power

3.4 Alternative Modes of Transportation

4. Policy Options: Achieving Deep and Durable Reductions

Appendix I: Expanded Discussion of Mitigation Technologies

1. Introduction and Summary

A: the transportation sectors total activity,

Si: each subsectors share of total activity,

Ii: the energy intensity of vehicles used in each subsector, and

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation and Marine Transportation:

2. Overview of Aviation and Marine Transportation

2.1 Current Emissions and Trends

Table 1: U.S. And World Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Fossil Fuel Combustion Only

All Anthropogenic Sources, Domestic

Fossil Fuel Combustion Only, Domestic

All Subsectors, Domestic

All Subsectors, Domestic + International

Total (Domestic + International)

All Anthropogenic Sources

General Aviation, Domestic

Total, Domestic + International

Ships and Other Boats, Domestic

Recreational Boats, Domestic

Source: IEA 2008a; IPCC 2007; Kim, Fleming et al. 2007

Figure 2: Global Growth in International Aviation and Marine CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions (million tonnes)

Source: IEA 2008a

Source: EPA 2008a

2.2 Aviation and Marine Transportation Demand

Million Tons Shipped

Source: ORNL 2008

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation and Marine Transportation:

Figure 6: Growth in U.S. Aviation Transportation Demand, 19702005*

Includes all U.S. air transport

Million Ton-miles (freight)

Source: ORNL 2008

2.3 Business-As-Usual Growth Projections

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation and Marine Transportation:

Table 2: Aviation and Marine Sector Demand Projections

Annual Growth Rate

U.S. domestic passenger

U.S. international passenger

Rest of World passenger (domestic + international)

Total Growth from

Source: EIA 2009; IMO 2008.

Table 3: Aviation and Marine Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections

Global passenger and freight (domestic + international)

Total Growth from

Non-CO2 Emissions from Aircraft and Marine Vessels