After studying more than 9 billion airline passenger departures, carbon accounting and offset firm Brighter Planet determined that "energy efficiency per passenger mile varies tenfold across the entire industry," said CEO Patti Prairie. The firm is proposing an advanced means for corporations to calculate the carbon footprint of air travel.
Factoring aircraft fuel economy, passenger load factors, seat density, freight share and flight distances for more than 130 million flights between 2000 and 2010, Brighter Planet found that Continental Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Frontier Airlines topped the U.S. domestic airline energy efficiency list while regional carriers American Eagle, Chautauqua Airlines and Mesa Airlines ranked in the bottom three spots. For international operations, Ryanair, Singapore Airlines and Delta Air Lines ranked at the top of the list while SAS Scandinavian, Lufthansa and Swiss ranked at the bottom. In the overall rankings, Ryanair placed first, followed by Cathay Pacific, while American Eagle was last.
"Ryanair uses barely more than a third the fuel to transport its average passenger one mile, compared to the least efficient, American Eagle," according to a Brighter Planet report, issued today. "Ryanair succeeds by ranking first or second for efficiency in load factor and seating density, while runner-up Cathay Pacific ranks first on aircraft fuel economy, distance and freight share. While enormous efficiency variation exists among airlines, the same is true within each airline. While the airline averages presented here are insightful in understanding air travel dynamics, using them in calculations for any specific flight commits the same error as failing to account for efficiency variation in the first place."
Analyzing the carbon footprint for three sample city pairs, Brighter Planet found that the "least efficient flight emits at least twice as much as the most efficient." For the 2,640-mile flight from New York to Los Angeles, a JetBlue flight had an equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) output of 1,220 pounds, nearly three times more efficient than a Qantas flight with 2,976 pounds of CO2e. "That's because the Qantas plane is larger and less efficient, burning 40 percent more fuel per capacity pound mile, and it is half empty, only carrying 44 more passengers than the JetBlue flight," according to Brighter Planet.
For the 243-mile flight from Charlotte to Atlanta, Brighter Planet calculated a 198-lb. CO2e footprint for a Delta Boeing 737-800, versus a 320-lb. CO2e footprint for a US Airways Embraer ERJ190 and a 765-lb. CO2e footprint for a Northwest Airbus A319.
Corporate Air Travel Carbon Measurement
Using its CM1 calculation platform, Brighter Planet studied more than 300,000 flights on the routes most traveled by employees of two of the largest U.S. companies. "We found significant savings opportunities--the companies could reduce carbon emissions across the routes we analyzed by up to 40 percent if they switched from the least efficient to most efficient flights," according to the report.
To determine whether choosing more efficient flights would impact the cost of the airfare, Brighter Planet analyzed future ticket prices. "Obviously price depends on when you book," Prairie said. "We actually looked at comparisons of this flight versus that one and ran hundreds, if not thousands, of checks. We found that it's not like you have to pay more for more energy-efficient flights. In fact, for some you paid less."
In the models used for the two unidentified companies, Brighter Planet found that one "had the potential to reduce overall emissions by 40 percent--equivalent to eliminating 74,000 flights--simply by switching flights to low-carbon alternatives on popular routes," according to its report. That company "wanted to explore savings opportunities on alternate flights offered by their preferred airlines. We found that 83 percent of their travel was on routes served by a low-carbon alternative on the same airline. Switching from the most to least efficient flights would reduce emissions across those routes by 35 percent, amounting to a 26 percent reduction in total emissions without changing airlines."
The other company had the potential to reduce overall emissions by 14 percent--the equivalent of 20,000 flights--simply by switching from the highest- to lowest-carbon fights.
The companies recently received the analysis from Brighter Planet, Prairie said, and are "assessing the data, next steps and how they're reporting" their carbon footprints.
"The issue of air travel and carbon efficiency is becoming a corporate and political football with greater policy and financial implications," Prairie said. "We wanted to cut through the politics and the hype and find the best science for evaluating carbon efficiency for air travelers. Our key finding was to show that businesses and individuals don't necessarily have to cut out air travel or spend more time and money to be more environmentally sensitive. They just need better carbon intelligence."
Prairie said Brighter Planet decided to conduct the study because "there really wasn't what we consider an authoritative white paper" on how best to calculate carbon footprints in air travel. Prairie acknowledged that "we were even surprised at some of the things we found," notably "how relatively easy it would be for employees" to switch from one flight to another "without any hardship or additional cost."
But to make that switch, employees need better information at the point of sale. Brighter Planet's Careplane software plugin, now in beta, calculates carbon output from flight search results generated on travel sites accessed using Google Chrome and consumer travel apps. Prairie said the company "is talking with several possible partners" about deploying its technology within corporate travel applications at the point of sale, possibly within a year.
"A simplistic, traditional approach to air travel carbon accounting has obscured major sustainability opportunities by overlooking carbon efficiency," according to the Brighter Planet study, authored by the firm's Matthew Kling and Ian Hough. "By using a more sophisticated accounting, companies can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of their traveling employees without necessarily cutting flights or increasing costs."
Prairie said companies increasingly are reporting their business travel footprints as part of sustainability reports. Last year, nearly four in 10 of the world's largest companies publicly reported carbon emissions for employee travel, she said, citing the Carbon Disclosure Report. "The talk to reduce a company's carbon footprint is intensifying," Prairie continued. "It has to do with a combination of factors, one of which is shareholder demands or resolutions, another is supplier mandates that companies like Walmart are putting in place as they begin to apply upstream pressure. Some of it is from a competitive differentiation. If a company is looking at how to improve their sustainability, that can distinguish them from competitors. Some of it is just cost management."
The Brighter Planet report suggested five best practices for business air travel carbon management: pursue carbon reduction goals through both increases in air travel efficiency and reduction in air travel volume; implement a proactive footprint calculation that allows carbon to be considered alongside price and convenience during booking; engage employees in meeting travel sustainability goals via education and incentives; account for each flight's unique aircraft, load factor and other characteristics rather than treating all flights as generic; and set goals for, measure and report emissions per passenger per mile in addition to total emissions.
The article originally was published in The Beat.