CAPPED BEFORE COAL: Upcoming European Union regulations will affect international flights of U.S. carriers.
Image: FLICKR/MARINAAVILA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The first U.S. industry to face a cap on its greenhouse gas emissions is not, as may be expected, the coal-burning power utilities. It's not the oil refineries, churning through crude. It's not the automakers, manufacturing again.
It's the airline industry.
Sometime this month, the European Union will release a list of airlines it will regulate under its existing cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide. Beginning in 2012, all international flights landing in the region must abide by the regulations. And several airlines on that list will have a decidedly New World feel: Delta, United and American.
They are not alone. A preliminary version of the list released earlier this year included more than 700 airlines registered in the United States, out of some 2,800 airlines total. While this number is expected to dwindle -- weaning out small-scale operations -- all large U.S. carriers flying into Europe expect to be on the finalized list.
The move to regulate what is an international business typically governed by treaty has raised hackles from airlines and governments around the world. Many see its position as a violation of national sovereignty -- or simply bad for business.
The European Union is seeking to "substitute its judgment for other parts of the world," said Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs at the Air Transport Association, the lobbying group for U.S. airlines.
"I'd say virtually every airline in the world opposes the unilateral European approach -- including the European airlines," Young said. At a certain point, she added, "the Europeans are going to have to decide whether they're playing in the sandbox or not."
E.U. legislators have enthusiastically supported taxing airline emissions, approving the law last year. While planes account for up to 3 percent of the bloc's total CO2 output, without caps these emissions could almost double within a decade, counteracting the European Union's ambitious low-carbon goals, said Philip Good, an environmental policy expert at the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union.
"Aviation is a part of the economy that traditionally has been outside the scope of climate policies," since it was not included in the Kyoto Protocol, Good said. "Bringing aviation into the [scheme] normalizes the situation."
The airline industry is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the E.U. scheme is shortsighted in taking a regional solution to international transport, said Quentin Browell, assistant director of aviation environment at the International Air Transport Association, which represents 230 airlines worldwide.
"What concerns us is there's no coordinated approach," Browell said. "We take responsibility for our emissions. It's perfectly valid for us to pay the cost of those emissions. But we should pay just once."
Of particular concern to U.S. carriers are fears of double taxation, given the provisions in the House's recently passed climate bill that would be tantamount to an indirect tax on aviation. While the bill is focused on stationary emissions, transportation fuel -- including jet fuel -- will be regulated at the point of sale, potentially raising the collective bill of U.S. airlines by $5 billion, according to Young.
The provisions that increase fuel prices for aviation could be revised in the Senate climate debate. Already, the Air Transport Association managed to insert a provision into the House bill that called for working "with foreign governments towards a global agreement that reconciles foreign carbon emissions reduction programs to minimize duplicative requirements."
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentLooking at alternative aviation fuels will become necessary for these airlines. Biofuel planes could be on the horizon, check out this article for more info http://blog.valcent.net/?p=467
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this means less of Al Gore strutting around Europe hawking his ideas, I'm all for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad: Thanks for your well thought out input.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EU will figure out that they are not the boss of everybody. Interesting that they are acting similarly and unilaterally in other markets in a truly socialistic way, unlike the made up socialism the right-wing-nuts claim the current administration of America is spearheading in its policy's.
This is great policy. When it cost $4000 dollars to go between Europe and the USA, we will see the destruction of the tourism industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo to Europe while you can afford it....
I agree with Proadventurer that Soccerdads comments are not helpful.
However I am annoyed at being caller a "right-wing-nut" since I believe the Federal government (as opposed to state) should not be in control of everything from education to medical care. So far Federal agencies have done a piss-poor job of dealing with anything they are in charge of.
The European air carriers are government supported so an other cost is no big thing to them. The cost of another billion or two to the Americans private funded airlines will help to make them less competitive, a good thing if you are an European airline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCap and Tax scams are designed to squeeze money, and nothing else.
Of course, when it comes to international regulations and the US, everything comes down to childish sovereignty issues. If it is America imposing the regulations, such as the requirement that EU hand over all personal data of anybody flying to the US, it is fine. But if someone dares pick up the gauntlet, no no no, they are violating American sovereignty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly, the USA has fallen quite behind on environmental issues, in part due to George the Imbecile. It has stalled and held back decisions for too long, with far-reaching consequences. If you are not coming to the table to help set the rules, the rules will be made without you at some point. Legally, the EU has every right to regulate trade on its part, exactly like America is doing on many European products and services. Those who don't like the regulations can either appeal legally (a VERY lengthy process) or simply take their business elsewhere.
Dimitrus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see if Obama the Brilliant accomplishes anything significant on environmental issues. Remember that Clinton/Gore favored signing on to Kyoto, and the idea was squashed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. The same thing will happen this time around.
Actually I kind of agree with most of your other points. Countries are free to pursue any misguided policies they wish. And others are free to avoid those policies by staying away.
Well, Obama has 3.5-7.5 years ahead of him, and he will be judged at the end. George the Imbecile has been judged, and has been found lacking in many aspects, iq is the least of which.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the policies, EU has decided to reduce its carbon footprint and its dependence on non-renewable energy by a significant amount. As it has the right, it imposes certain regulations for trade within its borders. For the same reason that electronics that are made in China or the US or anywhere else must be certified in the EU to be sold here (look for the symbol CE, it is everywhere), so do the airlines have to cope with new regulations. Any company is free to ignore these regulations and withdraw itself from the European market, it is as simple as that. These rules also affect European airlines (which, contrary to Pgtruspace's opinion, are not government supported or government owned), and they don't seem to mind. On the contary, most of them support the new scheme enthusiastically. And as a frequent trans-European flier, also affect me personally and the cost of my ticket, but I can accept that and adapt to the new situation.
On a more theoretical level, the US has been unilaterally setting trade regulations and limitations for years, even though it pretends to be all in favour of free market. Ten years ago it was much easier for a European to conduct business in America than it is now (I speak from experience, you won't believe the amount of red tape it takes). Even Obama had to correct what he said about the economy support package that should only go to American industries, in direct violation of WTO directives. It seems that America only supports free market when it is protected from regulations but can regulate against everybody else at their whim.
Here's the reality of the myth of AGW and the real economic damage it is already doing. As the economist/author Jeff Rubin stated "Your world is about to get a lot smaller". Vacations to escape the winter blah's? Thing of the past.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept for Al Gore; he'll happily spend as many of your carbon-tax dollars as it takes to fly the friendly skies.
Another reality of carbon taxes: Higher food costs. Please explain to me how to lobby people by telling them that they need to starve to make sure Al Gore can jet around the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB125012590566427831.html
Eco-romantics are the real criminals here.
SoccerDad, who appears to be paid by right wing neocons to post red herrings, missed the point once again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US is not the one implementing the carbon cap, it's Europe. He wants us to think that Al Gore passed EU's legislation. No, it was the EU. THEY and they alone were the ones who decided on this. Not the US. In fact, legislation in the US is lagging far behind the rest of the world.
The addition of a carbon cap will finally force the airlines to do something about their gigantic carbon footprint. There are alternatives to fossil fuels and now the US has a reason to pursue their development on a grand scale - or else some companies go out of business. GOPers and neocons are all for survival of the fittest. They prove it each and every day when they oppose the health care for everyone.
I will direct SoccerDad's attention once again to reality. Reality vs. SoccerDad's strawmen. You pick.
Dimitris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't agree more on free trade. I'm embarrased by the prtotectionist measures taken by the US, a country that should be a world leader in promoting free trade.
Dear Leader,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou state "The addition of a carbon cap will finally force the airlines to do something about their gigantic carbon footprint." Hello - the airlines are just satisfying demand. Rather than being anti-airline you need to be anti-airline passenger.
Please fill me in on the alternatives to fossil fuels available for the airlines.
And talk about red herrings - you accuse me now of opposing health care for everyone. True, but a red herring nonetheless.
Getting back to red herrings, it is people like Al Gore who preach carbon reduction, but personally create huge demand for carbon emissions through their individual actions I have a problem with. If he wants to set an example, I suggest he attend the next GW / CC conference via phone conference rather than private jet.
The US has zero credibility when it comes to criticizing "unilateral action". America sopped playing in the sandbox a long time ago (remember that pretty much the entire world opposed the second gulf war) - so stop whining when others do the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this