Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg NewsU.S. Airways and American Airlines planes at Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C.A meeting of 17 non-European nations hosted by the U.S. State and Transportation departments in Washington last week ended with assurances that the participants were working toward curbing their emissions from aviation.
Given that no European Union countries were invited to the gathering, it was unsurprising that all the participating nations reaffirmed their strong opposition to the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (E.U. ETS).
Non-European countries do not like having to participate in the European cap-and-trade carbon emission plan that since the beginning of 2012 also covers airliners — European or not — that takeoff or land at European airports.
The meeting was well timed. Last Wednesday a Senate committee approved a bill that would forbid U.S. airlines from participating in the trading scheme. The bill, which has already passed the House, has broad bipartisan support.
American environmental groups, however, are protesting the bill, pointing out that left unchecked, aviation emissions are set to nearly double by 2025.
Reuters reported that 16 environmental groups wrote the White House on Friday asking President Obama not to file an Article-84 action in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to challenge the E.U. climate change.
“Filing a formal proceeding to block the directive would be highly inconsistent with your Administration’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution from other sources,” the groups wrote.
Rendezvous reported in April that there were signs Europe may be wavering in its resolve to push the plan.
From the American point of view, one of the risks of allowing the EU to regulate aviation emissions is that any group of nations could do the same: band together to impose a fee on arriving all and departing airliners, according to a State Department official who briefed journalists on background, meaning on the condition that the official’s name not be used.
Just in case there was any doubt about how the American airline and travel industry felt about the European cap-and-trade scheme, 19 industry groups wrote an open letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sectary of Transportation Ray LaHood praising them for their opposition.
Both critics and proponents of the E.U. trading scheme recognize that aviation emissions, representing some 3 percent of total global carbon emissions, are environmentally significant. Those who are against the Europe-imposed fees are waiting for ICAO, a United Nations body, to set up global rules on emission reduction.
This, say critics, will not be enough. A resolution made in 2010 by the ICAO relies on aircraft-specific emission rules, national programs and voluntary targets of a “2 percent annual improvement in fuel efficiency” until 2050.
The E.U. ETS, which to date covers 30 countries, aims to reduce emissions so that in 2020 they will be 21 percent lower than they were in 2005.
According to an MIT study, the European cap-and-trade scheme would cost individual American travelers heading to Europe very little — not more than six dollars, on average, on a round trip — and would not significantly impact American airlines.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China, which oversees the large and growing Chinese airline industry, moved to forbid Chinese airlines from participating in the European cap-and-trade scheme in February.
Officials in Brussels, aware that laws against abiding by the E.U. rules could ultimately weaken their efforts, were watching the U.S. Senate decision and the State Department meeting closely.
Connie Hedegaard, the E.U. Commissioner for Climate Action, took to twitter to express her hopes that the Washington meeting would do more than just condemn the European scheme.
The EU is eagerly waiting for countries meeting in DC to come up w/ CONCRETE proposals for SUBSTANTIAL aviation emissions reductions
#ICAO— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) July 30, 2012
However, as Beth Gardiner reported in our Aviation Special Report, exorbitant fuel costs, not tariffs, are likely to drive fuel-saving innovations in airplane engines. With fuel costs accounting for 30 to 40 percent of airline operating budgets, she wrote, the “high and volatile price of fuel” will bring fuel economy — and lower emissions — to aviation industry.
What do you think? Are government regulations needed to curb aviation emissions? Do they necessarily have to be globally accepted to work?
A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that a bill that would forbid U.S. airlines from participating in the emissions-trading plan had passed Congress. It has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate.
A previous version of this post featured a picture of an American Airlines airplane at Zurich airport, but Switzerland has its own emissions trading system distinct from the E.U. ETS.