Emma Fenton is senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO working to unlock the opportunities from tackling climate change using law, economics, and policy.
Last week, the world’s governments came together in Montreal for the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), just as aviation’s climate impact is coming under sharper scrutiny.
Despite aviation contributing 4% of global heating to date, there are no effective measures to drive emissions reductions – and the industry is expected to keep growing. Passenger traffic is forecast to double over the next two decades, and as a result, the sector is projected to be responsible for as much as 22% of annual global CO2 emissions by 2050.
For too long the aviation industry has held a privileged position in how it accounts for its impacts. Just 1% of the world’s population is responsible for more than 50% of aviation emissions, highlighting the profound injustice at the heart of the sector’s operations.
But without a serious attempt to fairly price – and therefore curb – this sector’s insatiable appetite for fossil fuels, any progress made in decarbonising other sectors will be undone by the aviation industry’s refusal to join the club.
As China and EU disappoint, prospects of meeting 1.5C climate target fade
Enter ICAO’s flagship ‘emissions reduction’ scheme CORSIA, which stands for Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. CORSIA may give the industry a prop when it is quizzed on decarbonisation.
But in reality it is ineffectual, with a baseline threshold for ‘acceptable’ emissions set at 85% of the highest-ever level of emissions recorded for international aviation to date. Clearly a scheme that doesn’t bring all aviation emissions into scope creates unnecessary loopholes for the industry.
And all too often we hear the same excuse from the industry – if we were to price aviation emissions, it would create unmanageable economic consequences, particularly for tourism-dependent climate-vulnerable countries. It also cites a lack of fuel availability as a rationale for not taking any decisive action.
But neither of these arguments fly.
Distribution of costs and revenues is key
Latest research by Opportunity Green shows that – while the effect on tourism must unquestionably be a consideration when pricing emissions from aviation – the impacts can be mitigated in how you distribute both the costs and the revenues from your pricing system.
Firstly, those causing the most emissions should pay the greatest share. First-class passengers can be responsible for up to four times the emissions of those in economy seats, so the price of emissions should be borne by those who are causing the most.
Secondly, the pricing mechanism itself can act as a market signal and play a vital role in bringing investment certainty for the development of truly sustainable fuels for aviation. This market signal would help to create the fiscal enabling environment that will unlock private-sector investment to accelerate the uptake of e-fuels (those that are derived from green hydrogen).
-
Air travel’s ‘holy grail’: Jet fuel made from CO2 and water prepares for take-off
Synthetic jet fuel companies think they have the answer to tackling aviation emissions despite concerns about the cost of producing energy-hungry e-SAF -
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
Suspicions of fraud, ‘ridiculous’ data and a dearth of supplies – our investigation exposes the flaws in the airline industry’s big green hope: sustainable aviation fuel -
What is Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)?
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is seen as the main way to decarbonise air travel – but is it as green as its backers claim?
And finally, where an emissions price has caused an economic impact in a tourism-dependent country, this can be compensated for through the equitable distribution of the revenues raised by the emissions pricing mechanism. This means that any losses incurred by climate-vulnerable and developing countries can be addressed as a priority.
Climate legal obligations apply to aviation
To make a meaningful step-change in ambition and pace on decarbonisation, we must also see states recognise the growing body of international legal obligations on climate change. Recent opinions from the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and Inter-American Court of Human Rights all confirm that states have binding obligations to reduce emissions, including from international aviation.
ICAO must align its governance with these legal standards to remain credible.
While hostile moves from the likes of the US and Saudi Arabia have attempted to shake the founding principles of multilateralism, we have also seen states come together in solidarity to push for ambition in tackling climate change.
So far this year, we have seen an historic agreement made at the International Maritime Organisation in April, and a pioneering group of countries agree to implement solidarity levies on luxury aviation, demonstrating how climate action is both morally essential and economically effective.
Coalition set sights on taxing luxury air travel to fund climate action
It was 2022 when ICAO adopted its long-term global aspirational goal for international aviation to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in support of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C goal. Since then, we have seen no credible action to start moving the sector in the right direction.
Now is the time to confront aviation’s free pass and show how a well-designed emissions price could not only cut emissions but also support the very countries most at risk from climate change.
Unless its member states act in courage, solidarity and with the urgency that is demanded by the climate crisis, ICAO’s long-term goal won’t even make it off the runway.
The post Will pricing emissions from flying affect tourism? Not if it’s done right appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will pricing emissions from flying affect tourism? Not if it’s done right
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits