From KlimaNachrichten

By KlimaNachrichten Redakteur

Monthly newsletter from Fritz Vahrenholt

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, The unusually strong warming of global temperatures since 2023 will decrease slightly in October 2024. I dealt with the possible causes in my last newsletter. This month’s measurement results can no longer be compared with those of previous months, as the team led by Dr. Spencer from the University of Alabama has eliminated one of the measurement satellites from the calculation, which no longer provided reliable results. Since this error had already lasted for several months, the measurement results have been corrected accordingly. This leads to values that are about 0.1 degrees Celsius lower.

Today I am dealing with the increase in the price of air travel due to the climate policy of the German government as well as with a new population forecast that calls into question the climate scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 2100.

The federal government is making air travel more expensive for citizens and damaging Germany as a business location

Carsten Spohr, the CEO of Lufthansa, burst his collar. In the Bild newspaper on 12.10.24 he spoke plainly: “I am very concerned about the connection of our business location. The extreme increase in government costs in air transport continues to lead to a shrinking supply. More and more airlines are avoiding German airports or cancelling important connections.”

One of his points of criticism: the increase in the aviation tax – also known as ticket tax – decided by the traffic light government – from 1.5.2024 from about €1.5 billion to €2 billion. The aviation tax was passed under Angela Merkel in 2011, when there was no CO2 tax for aviation. It should be melted down and ultimately eliminated altogether if aviation participates in the European CO2 emissions trading system.

And indeed, after the introduction of the European emissions trading system for aviation, it was practice for years to offset the costs from the CO2 certificates against the aviation tax. Therefore, there was no double burden on air traffic, because the aviation tax was reduced by the corresponding amount of CO2 certificates. Now, since 2024, the cost of CO2 certificates for air travel has been rising due to EU regulations.

For the 7.6 million tonnes of CO2 emitted by aircraft departing from Germany (except for long-haul travel), €125 million in 2024, €250 million in 2025 and €500 million in 2026 (at today’s price of €67/tCO2) will have to be raised. Because the reduction amount for the aviation tax therefore became larger and larger, Red-Green-Yellow abolished the offsetting on 1.5.2024. At the same time, it has even raised the aviation tax by 25%. So if you want to have a lasting impact on air traffic in Germany, then you are burdening air travel twice:

1. The offsetting of aviation tax and CO2 levy will be abolished

2. And in addition, the aviation tax will be raised from 1.5 billion to around 2 billion.

This money, which air travelers have to fork out, ends up in Mr. Habeck’s Climate and Transformation Fund, from which solar and wind power operators are subsidized if the price of electricity on the stock exchange does not yield enough revenue. And of course, those companies that embark on the dream journey into the hydrogen economy with Robert Habeck will also receive money from this pot. Keep this in mind if you have to pay €70.83 in aviation tax – i.e. ticket tax – on your next long-distance trip. One could have reacted like the conservative government in Sweden. It has taken the rising CO2 prices for aviation as an opportunity to completely abolish the aviation tax as of July 1, 2024.

And the next solo effort to save the world at the expense of air traffic is just around the corner. The EU has decided that 2% of “climate-neutral fuels”, so-called SAFs (Sustainable Air-Fuels), must be used from 2025, 6% from 2030 and 70% in 2050. There are two production methods for this. On the one hand, SAF fuel can be produced from biomass CO2-free. On the other hand, it can be produced at great expense on the basis of green hydrogen. For this purpose, hydrogen would have to be produced by electrolysis using solar and wind power and, in a second step, the hydrogen would have to be converted into kerosene with CO2 (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis). As there are still no plants to produce enough fuel from green hydrogen, the EU has only mandated the use of hydrogen-based fuel from 2030 onwards, with a share of 1.2%.

But the German government has already prescribed a quota of 0.5% for hydrogen-based SAF fuel for 2026. In the event of non-compliance, penalties are due.
Carsten Spohr rightly complains on behalf of Lufthansa that these fuels are not yet available in sufficient quantities: “We would need about half of Germany’s electricity to produce enough fuels”. And further: “I don’t think Mr. Habeck will give me that”

To bring green policy out of dreamland and into reality, I’ll do the math: The total kerosene consumption of German airlines (mainly Lufthansa and its subsidiaries) was 9,707,797 m³ of kerosene in 2023. This corresponds to an energy content of 86 billion kilowatt hours (86 TWh). According to the Federal Environment Agency, the energy efficiency of the production of kerosene by hydrogen electrolysis based on solar and wind power and subsequent synthesis of hydrogen with CO2 has an efficiency of 41%. (Source: Power to Liquid, Federal Environment Agency 2022, p. 16). According to this, 210 TWh of electricity are needed to generate Lufthansa kerosene. This is more than the total generation from photovoltaics and wind energy in Germany in 2023, which is 47% in relation to the total generation of 450 TWh in 2023.

So Carsten Spohr has calculated correctly. By the way, the cost would be 3 times as high as conventional kerosene. (60 €ct/l today). But the nightmare doesn’t end there. You could simply make SAF fuel from biofuel, for example from rapeseed oil or sunflower oil. However, the EU has prohibited this: it may only come from biogenic waste (!). Therefore, Lufthansa is currently buying up all the fry fat that the airline can get in order to be able to meet the quota.

In Germany, there are 200,000 tons of frying fat. If German airlines were to use all frying fat, they would account for about 2% of their total kerosene consumption. Achieving a quota of 6% in 2030 seems hardly achievable. You can literally hear the resounding laughter of the managers of China Airlines, Turkish Airlines or Emirates. Incidentally, this political folly took place with the votes of the CDU, SPD, Greens and FDP in the European Parliament. And then it was approved by the traffic light government.

But if you let the Greens do what they want, there are even greater follies. The red-green Hamburg Senate increased the airport fee for passengers by 15% next year (election year). Hardly anyone will notice an increase of 2.30 €, one will have thought, the citizens have no alternative. In addition, the Senate decided not to let the increase come into force until after the election in March. But the airlines reacted because the Senate had no idea about the low margins of the airlines.

If airlines only charge €20-30 per passenger, €2.30 is the last straw. Ryanair, Eurowings and Condor immediately announced that they would massively cut the offer from Hamburg and let their planes fly where they find more favorable conditions. As a result, passengers will have to pay higher prices next summer because of the lower offer, and the airport will have less revenue due to a lack of about 500,000 passengers.
The TAZ reacted to the withdrawal of the airlines: “It’s possible!” and “That’s a win for climate protection”

The decline in the world’s population calls into question the forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

At this point, I have often criticized the exaggerated alarmist scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Only with unrealistic CO2 emissions (tripling!) can temperature forecasts of a frightening 3-5 degrees Celsius for the year 2100 be calculated with the help of the controversial climate models (8.5 scenario, see graph below). The realistic development of CO2 emissions is shown in the following figure with the 4.5 scenario. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only assumes a temperature increase to a total of 2.7 degrees Celsius. We know about the inadequacy of climate models, which cannot reflect effects such as the increased direct solar radiation due to thinning clouds in recent years. But let’s assume for a moment that the IPCC model calculations are realistic. Even then, there is reason to revise the results significantly downwards.

Model 4.5 assumes a population development of the world with a peak of 10.13 billion people in 2080. Even in 2100, the world’s population is still expected to be 9.88 billion – 1.7 billion more people than today. (see next graph red curve). The latest estimates paint a completely different picture. The world-renowned population research institution of the University of Washington IHME assumes a peak of 9.7 in an upper estimate
billion people in 2064 (see graph blue curve). In a lower estimate (yellow curve), they assume a peak of around 9 billion people in 2054. This lower estimate is supported by demographic expert Jesus Fernandes-Villaverde of the University of Pennsylvania. In 2100, about 3.5 billion fewer people would live on earth than the IPCC assumes.

The cause of the population decline is the worldwide and, with a delay, also in Africa, declining number of children even below the conservation number of 2.1. This development will begin as early as 2030.

This has serious consequences for CO2 emissions: fewer people – fewer CO2 emissions. Roger Pielke, former professor at the University of Boulder, Colorado, has calculated the consequences in his blog and comes to a 0.6 degree Celsius lower warming in 2100 in the IPCC models, namely 2.07 degrees. This would then be a warming that is at the upper end of the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement ( Article 2 : “the increase in the average global temperature is kept well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and efforts are made to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”)

Wouldn’t that be good news for the delegates of the 29th World Climate Change Conference, which will take place in Baku from 11 to 24 November? Compliance with the Paris climate target is therefore very likely if we continue on the very likely path of emissions development, namely a slight increase in emissions by 2050 and a gradual increase thereafter.
Reduction to about half of emissions by 2100. This would be achievable without a loss of prosperity. Which climate researcher dares to bring these realities to the attention of the federal government and thus correct its course of destroying the economic foundations of this country?

If science does not do it, citizens must do it and elect politicians who stop scaring citizens, who stop bullying citizens and companies into a CO2-free policy, who start giving back to citizens what they deserve: freedom, prosperity and a good future.

Sincerely
Your

Fritz Vahrenholt