The Goodwings Sustainability suite gives you the option of choosing which methodology/CO2 factor framework you want to use for the automatic calculations of and reporting on your travel emissions. You can choose specific CO2 factor frameworks for specific types of transport, and it is essential to understand the differences, from framework to framework. These differ based on the parameters they consider in the calculation, ranging from simple CO2 emissions to comprehensive calculations that account for non-CO2 effects, such as RFI (Radiative Forcing Index).
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs - UK):
DEFRA uses detailed operational data, including aircraft-specific fuel burn rates and passenger load factors. This approach aims to provide a more granular emissions profile, especially for different types of flights. DEFRA's methodology also incorporates RFI, which accounts for the non-CO₂ effects of aviation, such as water vapor, contrails, and nitrogen oxides.
Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency):
Umweltbundesamt follows a more streamlined approach, often relying on global averages and simplified inputs. However, it also includes RFI considerations to reflect the broader environmental impact. The resulting emissions curve shows a higher trajectory, especially for long-haul flights, compared to methods that exclude non-CO₂ effects.
Manatū mō te Taiao (Ministry for the Environment - New Zealand):
Similar to DEFRA and Umweltbundesamt, this methodology incorporates RFI. It reflects the policy focus of New Zealand on comprehensive climate impact assessments, aiming to align with stringent environmental standards.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency - USA):
The EPA provides a more moderate estimate, focusing primarily on CO₂ emissions without including RFI. This methodology is often used in regulatory contexts where non-CO₂ effects are not mandated for reporting.
CO₂ Emissiefactoren (Emission Factors - Netherlands):
This Dutch methodology integrates RFI, offering a more comprehensive view of aviation's impact on climate. It is designed to align with national climate policies that emphasize a broader spectrum of greenhouse gases beyond CO₂.
EEA/ACC/18/001 (European Environment Agency - Air Climate Change):
This methodology reflects the European approach, which heavily incorporates regional regulations and standards for environmental accountability. Its estimates are shaped by EU climate policies and directives.
TU Chalmers (Chalmers University of Technology - Sweden):
The TU Chalmers approach is characterized by its reliance on global averages and simplified inputs, resulting in a more generalized emissions estimate. It provides a moderate emissions curve suitable for broader, non-region-specific analyses.
ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization):
The ICAO method is based on a detailed database of flight and fuel consumption data. It does not include RFI but provides a relatively accurate representation of CO₂ emissions based on real-world flight operations.
French Ministry of Ecology:
This methodology aligns with European standards and incorporates some elements of RFI, focusing on France's regulatory and environmental context.
In simple terms, Radiative Forcing Index refers to the additional climate impact of burning fuel at the high altitude of airplanes.
Methodologies that consider Radiative Forcing Index, take into account the full climate impact of aviation emissions. RFI ranges from 1 to 3, meaning the overall climate impact is 1 to 3 times bigger than CO2 emissions alone.
RFI is considered to be especially important for long-haul flights, where non-CO2 effects play a significant role. DEFRA, Umweltbundesamt, Manatū mō te Taiao, and CO₂ emissiefactoren are examples of methodologies that include RFI, leading to higher emissions estimates. DEFRA, TU Chalmers, Manatū mō te Taiao, and CO2 emissiefactoren methodologies incorporate a Radiative Forcing Index (RFI) of 1.7, whereas the Umweltbundesamt methodology applies a higher RFI of 3. These approaches align with more stringent environmental policies and provide a more comprehensive representation of air travel's climate impact.
Consider the following things, when choosing a framework for your emissions reporting.
By understanding the variations above, you’ll be able to choose the framework/methodology that makes most sense for your business - align this with both regulatory requirements and your sustainability goals, to ensure a more accurate representation oft he environmental impact of air travel.
If you are struggling, the Goodwings team will be able to provide you with sparring and guidance on how to choose the right framework for your emissions calculations - while our sustainability suite will make your travel emissions calculations for you, once configured.
Important note: While this graph provides a snapshot of some key methodologies, it is important to note that it doesn't capture every methodology out there. Other significant players, such as IATA, TIM, RDC, Cirium, PACE, GATE4, and others, also contribute to this evolving field.