Carbon Removal at Airports (2024)
Chapter: Appendix B: Airport Frequently Asked Questions
APPENDIX B
Airport Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the difference between carbon neutrality and net zero?
The primary difference between carbon neutrality and net zero is how they deal with residual emissions. To reach carbon neutrality, there is a focus on removing Scopes 1 and 2 emissions via carbon offsets, reductions, or operational changes. Any offsets may be used for carbon neutrality. To be net zero, an organization must include Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions and must remove and sequester its residual carbon emissions, requiring the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) or carbon-removal offsets, or both.
2. What types of nature-based solutions are really viable on airport properties where wildlife management is a concern?
Any nature-based approach could potentially be viable at an airport; however, afforestation/reforestation and wetland restoration are the mostly likely pathways that would attract wildlife and would need to be located so as not to impact the safety of aircraft operating at the airport.
Afforestation/reforestation and wetland restoration may be viable in areas outside of an airfield or approach and departure surfaces. Since nature-based solutions are most effective when deployed at scale, given wildlife and Part 77 constraints combined with a lack of large areas of land, this would likely be a challenging solution to deploy at many airports if the goal is to achieve large-scale carbon removal. Wetland restoration is highly dependent on climate and geography. To deploy a wetland-restoration solution, an airport would need to have existing wetland that has been impacted in an area where the restoration would not affect the safety of aircraft operations.
Soil-based approaches have been used typically on agricultural land. The viability of soil CDR is heavily dependent on soil composition. Soil CDR could be a reasonable option to explore for airports located in the southeast United States that have leased out land for agricultural purposes and would be reverting that land to a perennial grass.
Biochar CDR requires access to feedstock, which may be a constraint for most airports, depending on local availability.
Coastal blue-carbon ecosystems may be viable for coastal airports where coastal vegetation (e.g., marshlands, seagrasses, and mangroves) exists that is within the jurisdiction of the airport or within the jurisdiction of an entity that arranges an agreement with the airport.
3. How does carbon removal fit into the Airport Carbon Accreditation program?
Two levels of certification under the Airports Council International Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) program are currently being developed. ACA Level 5 was recently released as a
higher level for airports to claim net-zero carbon emissions. Any residual emissions would need to be addressed using negative-emissions technologies (NETs), a term used in the ACA Level 5 guidance that is like CDR.
Furthermore, for Level 5, NETs would need to meet additionality requirements (amount of carbon sequestered due to a CDR project, against a business-as-usual baseline), meet permanence requirements (over 100 years), and be on the list of approved offsets by the ACA program. This is important because some of the carbon-removal technologies in this guide may not meet the requirements for NETs, as defined by ACA Level 5. Therefore, airports that are looking for net-zero certification through the ACA program will need to evaluate whether the methods they are considering align with the requirements of the program.
A future Level 6 is also being developed for the ACA program, which will certify an airport to be climate positive (meaning the airport removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it produces). While Level 5 will address residual emissions, Level 6 will begin to address legacy emissions. Therefore, carbon removal (directly from the atmosphere) will also be a required component of ACA Level 6.
4. Does an airport need to certify an on-site carbon-removal project through a third party to apply this to its emissions accounting and/or ACA participation?
Yes; however, this process is still under development, and the response will be updated once the Level 5 guidance is rolled out fully.
5. How would an airport certify an on-site carbon-removal project?
An airport will have to certify a carbon-removal project through a third-party verifier. Following the standards of the chosen provider throughout all phases of the project is critical in a successful certification. The American Carbon Registry has a list of well-regarded and trusted verifiers and recommended standards. If an airport would like to collaborate with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the ICAO is able to approve carbon-credit programs for the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) goal.
6. What are the best carbon-removal certification and verification parties?
The carbon verification industry is growing quickly, making it difficult to determine which organizations are the most credible. The following list includes some of the more credible verification parties and CDR project standards and resources.
Verification parties:
- American Carbon Registry
- The Gold Standard
- Climate Action Reserve
- Carbon Trust (in accordance with PAS 2060) (2020)
- Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard Program
- SCS Global Services
- Plan Vivo
CDR project standards and resources:
- International Insetting Platform
- Gold Standard
7. What are the benefits of on-site versus off-site carbon-removal projects?
On-site and off-site projects have their own benefits and challenges, but the former is projected to be preferable in time. Both on- and off-site projects could be eligible for the ACA accreditation program. ACA provides a list of carbon-removal offsets (off-site) that would be approved for the net-zero accreditation.
With an on-site project, the owner will have more control over the operations and have a more robust understanding of the organization’s value chain, Scope 3 emissions, impacts, and reductions. An on-site project is typically more impactful as it can be designed to match specific needs. Designing an on-site project will include strong carbon accounting and insights into the value chain, ultimately increasing overall transparency. On-site projects provide better opportunities for local stakeholder involvement and education. As the voluntary carbon market (VCM) continues to grow, buyers will feel the cost fluctuations as supply and demand of offsets and credits change. With an on-site project, an owner will not be vulnerable to the costs and the overall health of the VCM. Overall, on-site projects are more trustworthy if the verification and audits are done properly. They are generally more respected as they avoid the “license to pollute” reputation that off-site projects and purchasing credits and offsets on the VCM have. Challenges include up-front cost financing, design, and verified monitoring and analysis.
The benefits of off-site are mostly associated with the amount of work and funding needing. With an off-site project, there is a lower up-front cost and fewer administrative and verification costs. In addition, off-site projects allow the flexibility to purchase the exact amount of CO2 carbon-removal offsets needed to neutralize or remove emissions. As previously mentioned, off-site projects will also be more vulnerable to the fluctuations in the carbon market.
8. If you have an on-site CDR project, can you reduce your emissions footprint and sell removal offsets? Would an airport ever sell carbon-removal offsets?
If an airport has an on-site CDR project, the ownership of the credits will be determined by the ownership structure of the CDR. If it is owned and operated by the airport, and if the offsets are certified, then the airport could use part of the certified carbon-removal offsets toward their emissions footprint and sell other carbon-removal offsets on the VCM. This ownership structure would not be typical for a few reasons. First, currently, the most likely airport-owned pathways are soil-based, with low removal potential and difficulty in getting the offsets certified. For larger production CDR pathways, a developer would most likely be involved. In this case, the ability for the airport to sell credits would be tied to the lease and development agreement with the developer. This is a rapidly evolving area. For instance, as described in the RKS Case Study, the airport built in the ability to sell locally generated, third-party-certified offset credits to its general aviation and commercial aviation customers to support the growth of the CDR economy in southwest Wyoming. To do this, the airport entered into a marketing agreement with the private developer to have access to their produced credits. In exchange for selling these credits to airport users, the airport not only will be able to support the local growth of the CDR industry but also will be able to assist customers with their decarbonization goals while creating a new source of revenue for the airport through a marketing fee on every credit sold. The deal also allows the airport itself to purchase carbon-removal credits to further its decarbonization goals.
