Some have said it was a pragmatic move but Danny Rood thinks otherwise.

“It’s important for Air New Zealand to be ambitious. There is a lot at stake”. So said the 2023 Air New Zealand sustainability report. But on Tuesday, Air NZ scrapped its 2030 climate target and withdrew from the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). Chief executive officer Greg Foran, armed with carefully worded talking points and a too-hard basket, has ensured the bin is where its 2030 climate targets will crash-land. And more turbulence could follow. 

What are these climate targets?

Under the Paris Agreement, we must limit global heating to well below 2°C with efforts towards 1.5°C. Significant gross emissions reductions are needed, in combination with serious systems change, to achieve this goal. Separate from the agreement is the SBTi. This climate action partnership includes WWF, the World Resources Institute and the United Nations Global Compact to support global entities to take meaningful climate action. 

SBTi outlines how much and how quickly one must reduce their emissions, and help set a particular climate target called a Science Based Target (SBT). This is an emissions reduction target aligned with the climate science that limits heating to well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. This requires both a near-term (eg 2030, 2035) and long-term (2045, 2050) target. You can read more about SBT here. SBTi states signatories have: 

• Boosted profitability
• Driven innovation
• Improved investor confidence
• Reduced regulatory uncertainty; and
• Strengthened brand reputation.

What was Air NZ’s reasoning for dumping the 2030 target?

Foran pointed to the availability and affordability of new aircraft, and sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs). “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…the decision has been made to retract the 2030 target and withdraw from the SBTi network immediately.”

OK. But they still have a 2050 target?

Yes. However, a 2050 target and no 2030 target is classic greenwashing. It’s like wanting to fly to the other side of the world and scrapping the midway refueling stop. Don’t worry, they’re deeply committed to reaching their final destination, because they said so. Even though it’s impossible without that crucial checkpoint along the way. Earth’s temperature doesn’t respond to strategies, it responds to meaningful climate action. Those setting 2050 targets without a 2030 target won’t be around professionally or politically to dance the accountability waltz. Following through on your commitment matters, especially on a planet that had its hottest day on record last week.  

Does their reasoning pass muster?

The CEO of climate services group Ekos, Dr Sean Weaver, is curious about the decision. “It would be really helpful to understand from Air NZ why they chose to backtrack from their SBT. It is a big announcement, and it affects their brand. Are they abandoning meaningful climate action entirely or are they recalibrating their climate action strategy? A lot of people would be curious about this and I am one of them” said Weaver. 

He added: “some corporations can afford to take ambitious climate action, yet don’t. And some carbon intensive businesses with the best intentions still can’t meet SBT. Air NZ are also members of the Climate Leaders Coalition. Is a SBT realistic for carbon intensive industries or not? I’m keen to understand their leadership ambitions to address the real threat of climate change.”

A study by Climate Change Commissioner Dr Andy Reisinger et al. published last week in scientific journal Nature criticised SBTs, stating their “narrow conceptualisation of science to guide and justify targets for individual companies or countries is misleading”. The study advocates for changes, including more equitable reductions from polluters, as well as social sciences and humanities becoming a core part of the science for setting targets. 

The Air NZ decision raises many questions. Can Air NZ afford or not afford to take climate action? And, what meaningful climate action will it be taking this decade without a SBT? The national carrier posted a profit of $412 million in the year to end of June 2023, and a half year profit of $129 million to end of December 2023. An organisation making such profits saying climate action is too costly could set a dangerous precedent concerning climate leadership. Sure, airlines are recovering from pandemic induced losses.  And while profit isn’t as high as 2023, $129 million is a nice lump of cash.  The 2023 sustainability report also states: “The need to address activities that are continuing to worsen the climate emergency and simultaneously prepare for a warmer future becomes more urgent every day.”

The longer organisations wait to make meaningful change, the more citizens and long-term profits will suffer. Nobody is advocating for a zero flight strategy. Real aviation climate action could include;

• Advocating for modern public transport between airports and their cities, opposed to building more carparks
• Reducing the total number of flights over time
• A loyalty system rewarding climate action, not pollution
• Removing advertising for carbon-intensive industries from in-flight magazines, such as some agri-companies or those selling petrol powered cars.

Where has this decision come from?

While some short-term and incomplete economic thinking (as environmental impacts are not fully factored in) may play a part in this decision, other factors could also be at play. Interestingly, SBTi is expected to publish revisions for corporate net zero emissions standards, including a Scope 3 emissions discussion document, later today. Scope 3 emissions are all indirect value chain emissions and are usually the largest emissions source. Board changes have occurred in recent times too, with leading British environmentalist Sir Jonathan Porritt finishing his role as the chair of Air NZ’s sustainability advisory panel in July last year, and Paul Goulter due to finish in September. 

So, bad news then?

The Climate Commission delivered its first emissions reduction monitoring report just hours after Air NZ engaged reverse on its 2030 climate commitments. The key points being:

• The report shows emissions have decreased in recent years, however more work is needed to meet Aotearoa’s climate goals and international commitments
• Overall, the country appears to be on track to meet the first emissions budget (2022-25). However, this is highly uncertain, because several risk factors could tip the balance.

More work is needed to reduce our emissions, and providing certainty is crucial for reducing emissions. Air NZ have just shunned both without a clear replacement plan.