Title Any coronavirus bailout for airlines ‘should come with strict climate

conditions’
Author Fiona Harvey
Source https://grist.org/climate/any-coronavirus-bailout-for-airlines-should-come-with-strict-
climate-conditions/

April 4, 2020
Financial help from taxpayers to airlines hit by the coronavirus crisis must come with
strict conditions on their future climate impact, the former E.U. climate commissioner and a
group of green campaigners have said. [issue]

“It must be conditional, otherwise when we recover we will see the same or higher
levels of carbon dioxide [from flying],”[authors tone /opinion] said Miguel Arias Cañete, the
E.U. climate commissioner who led the bloc to the Paris Agreement, in an interview with the
Guardian. “We know the level of emissions we have to commit to [under Paris]. They
[airlines] are worried about survival and will need lots of support, lots of liquidity — that
gives them a big responsibility.”

Argument 1
A group of 26 civil society groups in the U.K. have written to the chancellor, Rishi
Sunak, demanding “stringent conditions” on any rescue, including strict targets on
greenhouse gases in line with the Paris Agreement and measures to help workers“. Public
money must be used to address social and environmental priorities, as well as economic
needs,” they wrote. Aviation has all but ceased in some countries and flights are vastly down
Supporting in most others, owing to the lockdowns and other suppression measures. Airlines have been
details 1
appealing to governments for bailouts as fleets have been grounded. But campaigners and
experts fear that after the COVID-19 outbreak has waned, the sector could bounce back
with the aid of public money and send emissions soaring.
Argument 2

In their letter to the chancellor, the campaigners — including Greenpeace, Flight

Free, the IPPR and New Economics Foundation think tanks, and Tax Justice — call for the
government to take equity stakes in airlines rather than handing out cash or loans. They
want to see social benefits with workers’ rights enforced, including a living wage and no
mass redundancies a condition of any rescue. In the longer term, they want to see support
for a “just transition” for workers to move to jobs in lower carbon industries.
Supporting details 2

They also want a new fiscal regime that includes a frequent flyer levy or air miles
levy, replacing air passenger duty, which would reduce demand without removing access to
Argument 3flights from those with limited alternatives or limited resources, by shifting the tax burden
to frequent leisure flyers. About half of people in the U.K. do not fly in any given year, but 1
percent of people take a fifth of all flights.

Rebecca Newsom, head of political affairs at Greenpeace U.K., said: “Emergency

funding must be used to tackle emergencies, not to support business as usual. Conditions
are needed to protect workers’ rights, prevent public money from being diverted into the
pockets of shareholders, and reduce demand gradually over time through a frequent flier
levy, so that the sector operates within safe limits for the climate.” Supporting
details 2
Attaching conditions to any bailout could take several forms. Cañete wants to see a
carbon tax or emissions trading system such as the one operating under the E.U. “Market
mechanisms are needed,” he said.
Airlines U.K., a trade body, said the industry was already taking steps to reduce their
environmental impact before the coronavirus crisis hit. “The U.K. aviation sector has already
committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — the only national aviation
industry to do so,” said a spokesperson. “This will be achieved via a range of measures,
including airspace modernization, the development and commercialization of sustainable
aviation fuels, new cleaner planes, and the U.N. carbon offsetting scheme Corsia.”
Airlines face difficult choices ahead. More efficient aircraft will help to reduce
emissions, but the impact will be limited. Biofuels offer a possible answer, but they are still
expensive and there are difficulties in ensuring that the sources are environmentally
sustainable. Electric planes are still some way in the future, and solar-powered flight a
distant dream.
“We need to stimulate research and development into things like hydrogen fuel,”
said Barbara Buchner, managing director of the Climate Policy Initiative. “We need more
proactive thinking from airlines — they can’t imagine we will go back to the way they were
before.”
The coronavirus disruption may also bring about permanent changes in people’s
habits, some experts hope. Business flying has stopped meetings from happening, but
people have found ways to work with video conferencing and other cheap technology,
forcing businesses to question whether their staff need to fly as much in future. “We are not
flying as much — why not keep not flying?” asked Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and
climate change at Manchester University. “Why not reinforce the good things that are
coming out of COVID-19?”
One effect of the coronavirus crisis has yet to be felt. Under the CORSIA (Carbon
Offsetting And Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) system adopted by the
International Civil Aviation Organization, airlines would have to curb their future emissions
using efficiencies, alternative fuels and offsetting, such as investing in forests, renewable
energy or other carbon-cutting projects.
 Before the coronavirus crisis emerged, airlines pushed for the average emissions in
the years 2019 and 2020 to be used as the baseline by which future emissions would be
judged. In any years from 2021 onwards, when emissions from the sector exceed the
average of 2019 and 2020, the difference between actual emissions and the baseline will
have to be offset, meaning airlines will have to buy carbon credits from carbon-cutting
projects.

Choosing 2019 and 2020 should have made those targets easy to meet for airlines if
air travel had continued to rise this year as it has in recent years. With the COVID-19
pandemic, however, the disruption to travel means emissions are likely to be drastically
lower than envisaged for 2020 — meaning CORSIA’s future carbon targets will be much
tougher for them to reach, if the scheme goes ahead without changes.
(1559 words)

OUTLINE OF ARTICLE

OVERVIEW OF THE ARTICLE
The article by Fiona Harvey talks about the
financial help from the taxpayer money to the
airlines company must come with strict conditions
on their future climate impacts. The author
presents three argument which is demanding
“stringent conditions” on any rescue, call for the
government to take equity stakes in airlines rather
than handing out cash or loans and emergency
funding must be used to tackle emergencies, not
to support business as usual.

AUTHOR’S TONE OR OPINIONS
ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
The author is very concerned, worried and strict
about this topic. He believes that the airlines
company do going to need the bailed out from the
government by using the taxpayer money.
However, shouldn’t the taxpayer money be used
more for public used and not for some company
which are one the factor of the climate problem
occurs like greenhouse and others? Will the
airlines company be more concerned about the
climate condition if they are bailed out?
Firstly, he states that a group of 26 civil society
groups in the U.K. demanding “stringent
conditions” on any rescue, including strict targets
on greenhouse gases in line with the Paris
 Agreement and measures to help workers. A
recent survey data shows that campaigners and
experts fear that after the COVID-19 outbreak has
waned, the sector could bounce back with the aid
of public money and send emissions soaring.

Secondly, he states that the campaigners, including

Greenpeace, Flight Free, the IPPR and New
Economics Foundation think tanks, and Tax Justice
call for the government to take equity stakes in
airlines rather than handing out cash or loans. They
want to see social benefits with workers’ rights
enforced, including a living wage and no mass
redundancies a condition of any rescue.

Thirdly, the author said that the emergency

funding must be used to tackle emergencies, not
to support business as usual. Conditions are
needed to protect workers’ rights, prevent public
money from being diverted into the pockets of
shareholders, and reduce demand gradually over
time through a frequent flier levy, so that the
sector operates within safe limits for the climate.
YOUR VIEW/OPINION We agree with the author’s opinion which states
that the airline companies should not be bailed out
first by using public money from the taxpayers as
the government should help and focus more on
the citizen and public which clearly they need their
government to help them in these critical time.
Public money must be first used to address social
and environmental priorities, as well as economic
needs.
EVIDENCE/JUSTIFICATION We have read another reference about if the
airlines company should be bailed out or not.
From the report by Roger Harrabin, BBC
Environment Analyst, he states that now the
airlines, airports and manufacturers are
demanding huge and unconditional
taxpayer-backed bailouts. We cannot let the
aviation industry get away with privatizing profits
in the good times, and expect the public to pay for
its losses in the bad times.”
FINAL REMARKS In summary, we believe that the airlines
companies should not be the priority more than
the public needs as the public and citizen are the
one that should be help first by the government.
The public is also the customers which has been
using the airlines services and act as a backbone of
the airlines company. So, during these pandemic of
COVID-19, we should focus more on the people,
then we all can get back up and fight another day.