Â鶹ÒùÔº

A new study led by a University of California, Irvine scientist reveals that airlines can make smarter tradeoff decisions to cut aviation's warming impact. The research, in the journal Nature, offers hopeful news for the future of air travel and climate action.

Civil aviation contributes to global warming through several factors: carbon dioxide from fuel, nitrogen oxides that affect ozone and methane levels, and the formation of lingering condensation trails. Each of these plays a role in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Historically, efforts to reduce one of these climate offenders have often increased another, leading to tough decisions for the aviation industry.

But now, researchers led by Michael Prather, a professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine, have created a new decision-making tool that gauges the full climate impact of each aviation activity, including the uncertainties.

Called Global Warming per Activity, the metric measures how long and how strongly each component affects the atmosphere—whether it lasts hours or a century. The key is having quantified uncertainties in all these elements, allowing users to formulate a decision risk curve calculating the probability that a given tradeoff will be successful in mitigating climate change.

"We have always tried to build uncertainty quantification into our climate assessments," Prather said. "But this new decision tool uses the information to provide accurate risk quantification for climate tradeoff decisions."

For instance, rerouting flights to avoid conditions that produce contrails might result in slightly increased fuel consumption. However, if those contrails are significantly reduced, there could be a net positive effect on the climate.

The study found that if aviation choices lead to even a 3–5% reduction in contrails or NO_x emissions, they can outweigh a 1% increase in CO₂ emissions over a 100-year period.

In other words, carefully chosen strategies that increase fuel use slightly can actually reduce the long-term climate impact of flying. This approach has only been applied to climate change damage and has not addressed tradeoffs in terms of economic costs (such as more fuel per flight).

The method can empower airlines and regulators to make smarter decisions that benefit everyone. And while previous models often struggled to compare the effects of short-lived and long-lived pollutants, GWA allows for more accurate, activity-based comparisons—helping the aviation industry find the least harmful options for reducing climate change.

"This is a win for both science and society," Prather said. "Our findings show that we don't have to choose between reducing carbon emissions and tackling other warming pollutants. We can find a balance that leads to meaningful progress."

By quantifying the likelihood of a positive climate outcome, the study presents a new approach to evaluating tradeoffs with confidence, even in the face of uncertainties. The risk curves provide policymakers and airline planners with a clearer understanding of the priorities and potential consequences of their actions.

The implications reach beyond aviation. The GWA tool could also help assess the climate impacts of other industries—like shipping, agriculture or manufacturing—where different types of emissions compete and interact, Prather said.