由于12月在哥本哈根的气候峰会越来越近，航空界正在努力决定尽可能少的优惠如何逃脱，但足以保留在家庭内的航空和环境问题。实际上，这意味着确保国际民航组织（国际民航组织）保持对航空的控制。根据1997年的京都议定书负责审理全球关于解决内部航空排放的全球协议，但在随后的11年中没有任何作用，甚至排除了最多的选择。国际民航组织是明显的专家身体，以规范民航。但是有风险将失去这种责任。事实上，在环境运动中存在强烈的信念，除非国际民航组织在12月之前提出有意义的东西，否则国际社会不能允许更多的不活动，因为鉴于飞机的温室气体排放的持续和不可避免的崛起。这是一种需要加强的信息，因为国际民航组织看到了许多截止日期，并且一个人获得了印象，即哥本哈根的截止日期不会是最终的印象。尽管如此，国际民航组织声称要认真解决这个问题。它的15个“聪明人”加15顾问（作为国际航空气候变化的小组，或GIACC）上个月在蒙特利尔举行了第三次会议。GIACC需要制定一个关于航空气候变化的行动计划，该计划将在今年夏天提交ICAO委员会，然后提交给哥本哈根作为国际民航组织的追求气候变化计划 - 迟到约11年。 But Icao has two massive difficulties. Firstly, Icao itself and the industry groups which tend to dominate it are implacably opposed to mandatory climate change measures or any measures that might curb demand for air travel. The airline industry sought to assure GIACC in Montreal that all was fine mate, that carbon-neutral growth for aviation from, say, 2025 would do just fine, and that biofuels were just around the corner and were set to save the day. Secondly, the UNFCCC’s principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, which exempts developing countries from the need to take action, presents a huge political difficulty to both Icao and the International Maritime Organisation. The two bodies are founded on the principle that any actions or measures taken should affect all states equally – in order to avoid competitive distortions. And this issue continues to bedevil the GIACC work. Environmental NGOs have concentrated on the problems that aviation causes, and the fact that it is fundamentally inequitable and damaging to global mitigation efforts for other sectors to be subject to strict emission reduction targets and economic measures to reach them, while international aviation emissions continue unabated. The Commission has tried to play its part by threatening unilateral EU action on shipping if no global agreement is reached by 2010. Additionally, the Commission threatened to have aviation emissions included in national emission targets (an obvious alternative but one which has eluded international agreement since well before Kyoto), but this was undermined by EU environment ministers earlier this month, when they removed this threat in its entirety from the EU Copenhagen negotiating position being developed! Logic dictates that the global community cannot allow another decade of Icao doing nothing – that it must either come up with something meaningful or the UNFCCC must place responsibility for aviation elsewhere. But with Icao’s wise men settling in to devise some ‘aspirational goals’ which Icao members might like to consider adhering to, Icao either hasn’t got the message or believes it faces no serious threat. Someone on the cliff ledge will have to move, hopefully in a way that doesn’t send everyone over the edge.