- The University , Employee
- 05/04/2024
TU/e divided over aviation coalition
The participation by universities of technology in the aviation coalition is fueling debate. Is it desirable for universities to collaborate with a highly polluting sector? At TU/e, opinions vary. Director of Smart Mobility Carlo van de Weijer is in favor of participating in the aviation coalition, while Professor of Climate Change Heleen de Coninck has fundamental objections.
In December 2023, Carlo van de Weijer was approached by an aviation sector initiative to make aviation more sustainable at a faster pace. TU Delft and the University of Twente were also participating in the initiative. Van de Weijer wanted TU/e to join as well. Although most of his time is currently devoted to the management of AI institute EAISI, Van de Weijer is also still Director of Smart Mobility at TU/e.
The aviation coalition? What’s that?
It’s a collective of a large number of parties from the aviation sector that have drafted a manifesto on futureproof aviation in the Netherlands. Participants include the likes of KLM, but Schiphol is absent. The plan contains ten points relating to making aviation more sustainable, including quieter flights, good labor conditions, and investments in sustainable fuels.
But the manifesto also makes a case for a European aviation tax rather than a national one and against nighttime closure. The manifesto is a lobbying document, intended as input for the political parties involved in the formation of a new cabinet.
Part of the solution
After reading up on the matter, Van de Weijer was of the opinion that TU/e ought to support the coalition’s appeal to The Hague. “If we don’t work hard on making aviation more sustainable we’ll be sure not to achieve the climate goals and that’s a very essential and significant part of the solution,” he says.
Van de Weijer contacts the Communications Expertise Center (CEC) to find out what the procedure is for making TU/e a cosignatory to the call. The CEC, however, gives a negative advice, because the coalition is said not to be sufficiently aligned with TU/e’s sustainable ambitions. Looking back, Professor of Climate Change Heleen de Coninck agrees with this advice.
At the request of Cursor, she reads the manifesto. Based on this she has a number of fundamental objections. “Not a word is said about reducing demand,” De Coninck observes. “The train connections the document mentions would mostly replace connecting flights. ‘Flying less’ isn’t an option, it would seem.”
Other greenhouse gases
What’s more, she emphasizes that aviation doesn’t only cause climate change due to carbon emissions resulting from burning kerosine. Airplanes also emit other greenhouse gases, ‘such as water’. The location of the emissions also matters, as they take place in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere. “These non-carbon climate effects cause at least twice as much global warming as carbon alone.”
Van de Weijer acknowledges aviation’s contribution to climate change and largely agrees with De Coninck. “I agree we should be flying less,” he says. “But what I definitely don’t agree with, is making demand reduction a prerequisite to collaborating to make aviation more sustainable or to supporting a call in this area. Especially because at lot of flights will still take place at a global level, so demand reduction by its very definition cannot be about more than slowing down growth.”
Board agrees
For this reason, Van de Weijer isn’t defeatist about CEC’s negative advice. “Normally I wouldn’t bother the Executive Board (EB) with this, but I woke up one Saturday and thought: it can’t be that we allow an innovation geared towards making something less bad to be blocked by it not being perfect yet.” He emails the members of the EB, suggesting to join the call after all. The EB agrees, which means TU/e’s logo is added to the aviation coalition’s pamphlet.
What motivated the EB to support the aviation coalition isn’t yet clear. The TU/e spokesperson has thus far been unable to meet our request for an explanation.
According to Van de Weijer, the coalition presents an opportunity for TU/e to get more involved in sustainable aviation, normally TU Delft’s domain. “TU/e hasn’t done much in the field of aviation so far, but with electric flying and the development of new aircraft fuels we can really make a significant contribution to this domain, both in terms of research and through the student teams already working in the area.”
Trains aren’t the solution
This doesn’t mean Van de Weijer is on board with everything. “There are also things in the pamphlet I disagree with, such as the suggestion that trains could be a solution. Long story short: they aren’t, but that’s how it is when you have over thirty signatories. The call to invest more money and attention into electric flying and sustainable aircraft fuels can’t be loud enough as far as I’m concerned.”
Having said that, the role of new aircraft fuels – also known as SAF: Sustainable Aviation Fuel – is controversial, De Coninck indicates. “For SAF you need a massive amount of sustainable energy, or lots of biomass, and neither of those things is easy to obtain. That means avoiding flying is part of futureproof aviation.” Van de Weijer acknowledges that the amounts needed to make enough SAFs in the long term are overwhelming, but he doesn’t think they’re impossible. “And merely cutting back on flying won’t allow us to reach the goals.”
De Coninck also objects to the inadequate target the coalition set itself, i.e., to be at zero net carbon emission by 2050. She says this is ‘weaker’ than the EU targets. “Those talk about zero net greenhouse gases in 2050, which means you’d already need to be carbon neutral between 2040 and 2045.”
Not internally consistent
Looking at the measures as a whole, De Coninck doubts whether they’ll suffice to make aviation more sustainable at the necessary pace. “On the face of it, the measures – such as SAF, some train connections and innovations – don’t seem enough to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, let alone achieve the required climate neutrality.” She therefore believes the document is ‘not internally consistent’.
Van de Weijer agrees the coalition in itself is insufficient to achieve sustainable aviation. “Heleen is entirely right that it won’t get us anywhere near where we want to be, but that shouldn’t paralyze us in our ongoing quest for systems that are less bad. In my opinion, that’s how innovation works.”
Petition
TU Delft alum Boris Schellekens recently launched a petition for the universities of technology to leave the aviation coalition. We checked with Schellekens and he told us 450 people signed the petition so far, 64 of whom represent TU/e.
Let us know: what do you think?
Is it a good or bad idea for TU/e to support the aviation coalition’s manifesto? What do you think?
Tells us your opinion and explain it in no more than 150 words. The deadline is Wednesday, April 10 at 12 noon. Please send your response to the Cursor editorial staff: cursor@tue.nl. Cursor will publish a selection of the submitted responses on Thursday, April 11. No correspondence about placement will be entered into.
Discussion