Paradise Lost,
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the UK "only" runs a debt of arround 45% of GPD. Schermoney runs close to the 70%-mark, but they will still weigh into the ETS at exactly the same level as the UK.
Therefore, the "clawback" argument seems feeble. They claim it because they want us to produce less emissions. As people have said, companies will go out of business, thereby producing less CO2, NO2 etc. etc., fewer seats available and only larger operators will survive = higher seat price, fewer flights = mission accomplished.
It's not because they want your money (ok, they'll take it as a windfall, thank you very much), they want fewer flown seat kilometres. Being under any illusions in this respect is not going to help us.
Look at it this way - it's a CI regulator. Most corporate outfits have such small fleets and so few seats that maintenance is the biggest cost. Therefore, we fly around at speed rediculous or CI=200. With the ETS, ECON speed will be brought well below Mmo. It's no different than taxing your petrol - if each litre of petrol cost 100GBP, you wouldn't drive your car as much or in the same way as you do now, would you?
The unfair bit is that many other businesses with huge emissions were given carbon credits for free as grandfarthering rights, emissions they can now trade at a profit. I haven't heard anybody mention what emission allowances will be grandfarthered to the aviation industry (but then again, I've been too lazy to look it up myself
).
As a way of regulating human behaviour, nothing has ever come close to taxes... or risk of punishment - maybe that should be considered? If you exceed your emissions allowance (or fail to reduce it along a schedule), first the CEO goes to jail. If that doesn't work, we'll have the CFO as well. The rest of the board can follow in whatever order the company can best spare them!
