The European Union (EU) continues to face opposition from American and Chinese aviation sectors as they push forward towards heightened EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) restrictions. Following the current involvement of other major emitters including steelmakers and power companies, Phase III of the EU’s ETS will see the required participation, by law, of the aviation industry.
The ETS functions with both allocated and auctioned permits whereby the polluter must pay for permits above a specific pre-determined capacity. The new aviation directive specifies that the initial 82% of the aviation permits will be freely allocated, 15% will be auctioned and the remaining 3% will be held as a ‘special reserve’ for new entrants and rapidly growing airline companies.
The EU demands adherence to their climate change directives by all airlines landing in or departing from the European Union as of January 1, 2012. The major American airline companies, specifically United Continental Holdings Inc. (UCH) and American Airlines (AA), have resisted the emissions reductions as designed by the ETS and have taken legal action against the EU legislation. On July 5, 2011, American aviation representatives were heard by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. At least 6 months will pass before an official finding is issued by the court but a statement of opinion will be issued by the advocate general for the European Court of Justice in early October.
The story is slightly different for China. The Chinese aviation industry, although boisterously resistant to conforming to the EU ETS mandates, has developed an emissions plan of their own which could act as an alternative to prescribed compliance. If it is deemed to be a legitimate ‘equivalent measure’ by the EU, it is possible that Chinese aviation could be exempted from the ETS due to the fact that they have an alternative and genuine emissions reductions plan in operation. In the meantime, the Chinese government-run Xinhua News Agency released a statement urging the EU to reconsider the impact that the ETS would have on developing countries and adjust their rules accordingly.
Although UCH have launched an Eco-Skies campaign and AA have an environmental footprint plan in place that aims to reduce emissions, they both continue to fight against the EU’s environmental climate change policy. Citing financial burdens as a major argument against their commitment to the ETS, these companies are now pursuing actions in direct opposition to their own, very public, environmental goals. However, according to research conducted by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) it is the short-haul flights not the long-haul flights that are believed to be somewhat more adversely affected by the EU ETS. In other words, the American and Chinese aviation companies would be less severely impacted by the ETS than the EU-based aviation companies and yet, they are the ones digging in and resisting compliance.
Emissions from the aviation industry increased by 98% between 1990 and 2006 and are expected to rise over the coming years. Even though this industry accounts for a small percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is an important move by the EU to include global aviation in the ETS in order to strengthen their ability to combat climate change by engaging proactive, not reactive, directives.
By Caitlyn Collyer, caitlyncollyer@hotmail.com
