In 2022, Air New Zealand revealed that it hoped to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2030 by almost 29%. This was a very ambitious goal, as the global aviation industry only expects to reduce overall emissions by around 5% by the start of the next decade.
There’s now a major update, as the airline has revealed that it no longer thinks it’s realistic to achieve this.
In this post:
Air New Zealand withdraws from Science Based Target initiative
Air New Zealand has announced that after careful consideration, it is removing its 2030 science based carbon intensity reduction target, and will withdraw from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). As mentioned above, this set the goal of reducing emissions by nearly 29% by 2030.
The airline explains that many of the levers needed to meet the target, including the availability of new aircraft, the affordability and availability of alternative jet fuels, and global and domestic regulatory and policy support, are outside the company’s control, and remain challenging.
Here’s how Air New Zealand CEO Greg Foran describes this development:
“In recent months, and more so in the last few weeks, it has also become apparent that potential delays to our fleet renewal plan pose an additional risk to the target’s achievability. It is possible the airline may need to retain its existing fleet for longer than planned due to global manufacturing and supply chain issues that could potentially slow the introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet. As such and given so many levers needed to meet the target are outside our control, the decision has been made to retract the 2030 target and withdraw from the SBTi network immediately.
Indeed, delivery of new aircraft remains a major challenge, as so many airlines are dealing with delays for new aircraft deliveries. For example, Air New Zealand has a bunch of Boeing 787s on order (which are supposed to feature new business class seats), but their delivery has been delayed significantly.
Sustainable aviation fuel is an even trickier topic, if you ask me. While the concept of sustainable aviation fuel is great, I question whether we’ll get to the point where it meaningfully reduces emissions in the industry, both in terms of availability and pricing.
Air New Zealand still hopes to be carbon neutral by 2050
While Air New Zealand is withdrawing from its 2030 science based carbon intensity reduction target, that of course doesn’t mean the airline is giving up on its environmental goals.
The airline is now working on considering a new near-term carbon emissions reduction target that could better reflect the challenges relating to aircraft and alternative jet fuel availability within the industry. The industry overall remains committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Here’s how Air New Zealand Chair Therese Walsh describes this development:
“Air New Zealand remains committed to reaching its 2050 net zero carbon emissions target. Our work to transition away from fossil fuels continues, as does our advocacy for the global and domestic regulatory and policy settings that will help facilitate Air New Zealand, and the wider aviation system in New Zealand, to do its part to mitigate climate change risks.”
Bottom line
Air New Zealand has withdrawn from its 2030 climate goal, as the airline acknowledges that it’s no longer realistic. This is largely due to delayed aircraft deliveries, plus sustainable aviation fuel not being more widely available and economical.
Air New Zealand was one of the most aggressive airlines with its climate goal, and those efforts were commendable. However, the industry faces some uphill battles, and this is clearly one of them.
What do you make of Air New Zealand updating its climate goal?
The world is beginning to recognize that the entire climate emergency scam is falling apart. Witness EV battery projects failing and auto companies abandoning the EV fad when the reality that most electric power if available is still produced by fossil fuels.
Biologists are suggesting that carbon neutral will have severe negative effects on agriculture as plants NEED CO2 to grow and thrive. The worlds deserts are shrinking as we are approaching good CO2...
The world is beginning to recognize that the entire climate emergency scam is falling apart. Witness EV battery projects failing and auto companies abandoning the EV fad when the reality that most electric power if available is still produced by fossil fuels.
Biologists are suggesting that carbon neutral will have severe negative effects on agriculture as plants NEED CO2 to grow and thrive. The worlds deserts are shrinking as we are approaching good CO2 levels.
Good on ANZ.
Does anyone know during this passage of time, how much volcanic activity is occuring right now??? Hawaiian Islands? Iceland? Italy? New Zealand? Phillipines? Indonesia? Japan? Costa Rica? Peru? Recently Yellowstone NP? et al.
How much carbon do these monsters emit that attack our atmosphere during the passage of time? I think that we need to concentrate on how to stop these faults in the earth before we attack a company that transports people, safely,...
Does anyone know during this passage of time, how much volcanic activity is occuring right now??? Hawaiian Islands? Iceland? Italy? New Zealand? Phillipines? Indonesia? Japan? Costa Rica? Peru? Recently Yellowstone NP? et al.
How much carbon do these monsters emit that attack our atmosphere during the passage of time? I think that we need to concentrate on how to stop these faults in the earth before we attack a company that transports people, safely, from far places across the earth. Maybe the US Congress should pass Trillion $ bills waiting for the President's signature to fix volcanic activity; and charge vocanic carbon violators who promote volcanic activity. We shouldn't accept the excuse of a mostly peaceful eruption.
When you think about it... there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do.
Devils advocate here... Maybe its obvious, but wouldn't nuclear options work better?
We must become unburdened by what has been during the passage of time on an electric yellow school bus (insert cackle).
The average ANZ customer worries more about scheduling, missed connections, high fares, and lack of redemption opportunities. I'm currently sitting with more than a dozen regular ANZ-flying work colleagues in Auckland airport right now on our seprate ways to Asia and Australia. Not one has mentioned environmental and climate goal concerns. Not. One.
Lack of redemption opportunities? Air NZ airpoints are designed to be redeemed on literally any Air NZ flight, and it's shockingly easy to do so.
Carbon neutral is a scam.
Do you believe it's okay for a doctor to kill a person for every life saved?
Hitman MD, getting away with murder?
You must be crazy.
wat
Ever notice the so called experts are unable to tell us the actual impact of being carbon neutral? Will temperatures go down, if so how much? Will weather patterns change? How? They can't because it's bullshit. Hey I'm all for being good stewards of our planet but how vain must one be to think they can control our climate.
David this is absurd. Just because you have not made an effort to bring this to your knowledge doesn't mean it isn't out there to learn. How vein must one be to think pumping an ungodly amount of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere would have no impact?
Sorry to be pedantic Ben but I think you mean to state "vain" (the process or trait of vanity) rather than "vein" which refers to an anatomical part of the body.
Experts can tell you, if you're willing to listen. This is all very easily Googleable too.
Becoming carbon neutral stops the global temperature rise. It does not reverse it. To do that, we would need to become carbon-negative.
Weather patterns will become more stable, and we'll have fewer extreme weather events.
Sadly the left wing press continues to promote the fallacy of increased and more severe weather events and forest fires. The data shows the exact opposite over the last 50 or more years.
Actual climatologists still debate whether CO2 is causing temperature rise or temperature rise is causing CO2 rise. Or if there actually is any relation other than the earth orbit wobble.
Many reliable sources claim that the efforts of the eco-scammers...
Sadly the left wing press continues to promote the fallacy of increased and more severe weather events and forest fires. The data shows the exact opposite over the last 50 or more years.
Actual climatologists still debate whether CO2 is causing temperature rise or temperature rise is causing CO2 rise. Or if there actually is any relation other than the earth orbit wobble.
Many reliable sources claim that the efforts of the eco-scammers are causing more damage to the climate and economy than doing nothing would have caused. Look at Nuclear plants in Germany as a classic example.
Aviation - while it often gets the most attention in discussions on action against climate change - accounts for only 11.6% of transport emissions. It emits just under one billion tonnes of CO, each year - around 2.5% of total global emissions.
Thanks for covering this.
LOL.
Travelers don't care about sustainability. If they did, they wouldn't travel.
The half of voters who care or let me say at least pretend to care about sustainability really only care about it when they tell other people how they need to live their lives totally disregarding that their made up rules should apply to them, like you said they dont actually care because they travel.
Our obsession with buying cheap goods/clothing/furniture from Amazon/Wayfair (Shipping from China) does FAR more damage to the environment than passenger aviation ever will, but no one seems to mind. Easier to blame others for taking passenger flights than adjust our own behaviors.
Maybe Ben can do a poll of readers asking how many voluntarily pay the optional “sustainability charge” (or whatever it is some airlines call it) when booking tickets. I will go first: I don’t opt to pay it.
Those green " carbon" credits are obvious scams. Come on, how ignorant can one be to buy into the grift.
“ While the concept of sustainable aviation fuel is great,…” It SOUNDS great but here in Europe the use of SAF is a misleading term (by court ruling in Amsterdam). It’s found to be greenwashing, as the fuel is not sustainable.
IMHO it is unlikely for airlines to become cabon neutral as of 2050, except if you allow ofset-certificates to be used. Sure, in 25 years a lot of technological advancements are possible, but even after we have such advancement the whole fleet would need to be replaced. This seems highly unlikely to impossible.
Also I'm of the opinion that initiatives like sustainable aviation fuel is super stupid. This uses a lot of energy to...
IMHO it is unlikely for airlines to become cabon neutral as of 2050, except if you allow ofset-certificates to be used. Sure, in 25 years a lot of technological advancements are possible, but even after we have such advancement the whole fleet would need to be replaced. This seems highly unlikely to impossible.
Also I'm of the opinion that initiatives like sustainable aviation fuel is super stupid. This uses a lot of energy to produce, and instead of using that energy to phase out coal, oil and gas power plants it is very inefficiently used for airtravel because airlines want to look green. This mis-use of green energy is not helpful at all until we get 100% of our energy from "clean" sources.
Completely agree, quantum leap in technology needed to make long-haul planes carbon neutral. Most likely we will see very small planes such as props start to become carbon neutral in that timeframe. For a carrier like NZ with massive long-haul ops there is no solution in sight yet.
I think airlines use sustainable aviation fuel because it is the best alternative we have right now. Batteries are far to have and hydrogen is also energy-intensive. SAF also conveniently works with existing planes and infrastructure.