US House rejects European Emissions Trading Scheme
 

NBAA: U.S. House Soundly Rejects European Emissions Trading Scheme

Contact: Dan Hubbard, (202) 783-9360, [email protected]

Washington, DC, October 25, 2011 – The National Business Aviation Association today welcomed passage of bipartisan legislation prohibiting the implementation of a new carbon-trading regime for aircraft flying from the U.S. to the European Union.

The legislation, entitled "The European Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011" (H.R. 2594), was passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. House of Representatives on Monday. The bill prohibits all U.S. airlines and general aviation flight operators from participating in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) if it is unilaterally imposed on them. It also orders FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt to do all within his ability to ensure flight operators are not penalized by the program.

"We applaud the House of Representatives for passing this important measure, which sends a strong, unified signal to EU regulators that their planned Emissions Trading Scheme is unacceptable," NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen said. "Global aviation standards are overseen by the International Civil Aviation Organization, and any new standards should be decided by ICAO."

Bolen's concerns were echoed in a letter NBAA and a number of other aviation organizations recently sent to House lawmakers strongly opposing the EU-ETS. The letter notes: "In September 2010, the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Triennial Assembly agreed to an action plan to address aviation emissions, including efficiency targets and principles to govern future activities. In doing so, ICAO recognized that unilateral emissions schemes like the EU ETS undermine the need for a global solution for a global industry."

The EU-ETS program is slated to go into effect January 1, 2012. It charges a carbon tax on all aircraft operations overflying or landing in a European Union Country. Under the plan, the amount of tax to be paid by flight operators would depend on the type of aircraft and the total distance flown.

The legislation passed by the House yesterday was introduced earlier this year by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-7-FL), Full Committee Ranking Democrat Nick J. Rahall (D-3-WV), Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri (R-6-WI), Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Jerry Costello (D-IL), Aviation Subcommittee Vice-Chair Chip Cravaack (R-8-MN), and other Members of the House. The bill passed the House by voice vote.

View a copy of H.R. 2594.

This is the most welcome news I have read in a long while, and I am a European!

Can't see the EC backing down at this stage but just wish I understood the implications;
The FAA stops us from taking part in EUETS
We are fined and banned from flying in Europe if we don't.
Between a rock and a hard place comes to mind.

Quite how the US will implement this also baffles me.
Nobody really cares what the Operator thinks in any case.
Like most I'll have to wait and see

M.E.

What will be the most interesting is how this will affect the US airlines that fly into Europe.

They WON'T have to pay, yet the EU based airlines flying to the US WILL.

This puts the US airlines at a significant competitive advantage and will hopefully lead to the whole scheme imploding.

The whole EU ETS scheme is absurdly complicated. A far simpler solution would be to put a few pence of hypothecated duty on each litre of jet fuel and use the money to plant trees or something.

The EU should just pass an act that EU based airlines don't have to pay for fuel in the US, about as binding as what the US just did.

Can't wait to see the first US airliner clamped at LHR on the 2nd of Jan for non-payment.

Which is about as likely as me getting a date, tonight, with Kate Winslet :}

In my simple mind it proves how silly politicians can be. It reminds me of the school playground when I was 10.

Between a rock and a hard place...
 

Although hilariously funny to read, it actually is a testimony to the sorry state of current EU-US relations.

EASA Part FCL is another recent example, and before that we had the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act (H.R. 915).

What is new is that US legislation is now being named directly after the EU legislation it is aimed at. Why not the

followed by the inevitable
Clearly leadership is lacking on both sides of the atlantic. We simply cannot afford 1930's style protectionism augmented by a combined civil servant and legislator stupidity on a scale never witnessed before.

China is not going to pay either. They said that months ago.

Canadian airlines object to EU emissions regulations
Europeans acting like 'sheriffs: ' council :E

Canada's four main airlines accused Europeans Thursday of acting like far-west sheriffs, laying down the law with stringent regulations to curb aircraft greenhouse-gas emissions.

George Petsikas, president of the National Airlines Council of Canada that represents Air Canada, West-Jet Airlines, Jazz Aviation and Air Transat, said that Europe's tough emissions standards set to take effect Jan. 1 for aviation are brash, unilateral and unnecessary.

"Europeans are acting like kind of (Gunsmoke's) Marshal Dillons here, cracking the whip and telling us all we have to have more discipline. Well, we're not all the same," said Petsikas, an executive at Montreal's Air Transat.

In a report released Thursday and intended largely to head off the European initiative, the council insists that its four member airlines have made great strides in cutting fuel consumption - mostly by buying $12 billion worth of new planes that burn less fuel. Gas is the largest single expense for airlines "and no one has to twist our arms to try to reduce that," Petsikas said.

The European Union's ETS (Emissions Trading System) is a sensitive issue in aviation circles, particularly at Montreal's International Civil Aviation Organization. The United Nations organization insists it - not Europe - has the jurisdiction and responsibility to set aviation standards. The U.S. Air Transport Association airline lobby sued in the European Court of Justice to rescind the requirement to buy emissions tax credits for flights to and from Europe, but was rebuffed in a ruling by the court's advocate general this month.

The EU argues that the U.S. has blocked aircraft emissions progress at ICAO on several occasions on behalf of its airline lobby, and points to severe and unilateral U.S. security rules that are binding on non-U.S. citizens.

U.S. airlines estimate the emissions-trading scheme would cost them $3 billion U.S. over the next decade.

Petsikas said the industry is 31-per-cent cleaner than it was in 1990, and is unfairly labelled as "a terrible polluter, you know, irresponsible."

In a bid to save money on fuel, even simple things like keeping aircraft squeaky clean can add up, he said - "you'd be surprised at how much dirt acts as a drag at 600 miles per hour at 35,000 feet."

Research into incorporating biofuels as more than an oddity continues, he said.

Now, he added, third parties - government - must do their part. He cited the familiar landing pattern to Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport: "You loop around, and fly over the Big O and straighten out before you land in Dorval.

"Sure, you get great views of the city, but that takes about five or six minutes and burns a lot of gas. There are ways to do it a lot more directly now, perfectly safely."

The industry is having "a dialogue" about streamlining air-traffic control procedures with Transport Canada, which has yet to approve them, Petsikas said.

Transport Canada did not return mid-afternoon calls.

Earlier this year, Beatrice Olivastri, executive director of environmental group Friends of the Earth Canada in Ottawa, agreed that ICAO should set international standards - as long as they are aggressive, not like "soft" previous norms it set.

This town aint big enough for the two of us, or is three, four, five...........

Me thinks we are just along for the ride :mad:

indeed con, and russia and india:

India, Russia Threaten To Retaliate Against EU ETS | AVIATION WEEK

IATA Encourages Russia to Resist European Union Carbon Curbs on Aviation - Bloomberg

and others:

More than 20 countries to declare joint opposition to EU ETS | ATWOnline

This is great news, its just another TAX that will affect air fares. Pity none of the EU states had the balls to oppose it to protect their own airlines.

Oxymoron alert !

It's not just a tax; it's another opportunity for fat-cats to make money and a restraint on growing new business.
Some carbon credits will be given out, free, based on a percentage of current activity - so forget setting up a new airline becasue you won't have any credits to play with. Expanding a current business will also be pretty expensive.
Other credits may be auctioned - to fill the pockets of EU governments.
Credits can also be bought/traded on the open market......but you won't need to be a credit user to join in the trading. Cue carbon credit speculation - which will drive up the costs to the airlines, who must have the credits to cover their activity. Which will put up airline fares...but by how much? How can an airline do business if it doesn't know its costs until after the end of the year?
Also an opportunity for heavy industry to make some money........they have been in the scheme for a while now and already have credits. If they can use alternative energy, or shut down an EU plant and set up somewhere that doesn't require credits, they have a handful of saleable credits.
Since aircraft owners cannot go around using old chip fat to run their pride and joy, they have few options but to pay whatever it costs. Or quit flying.
And don't forget that non-airline transport in the EU is already taxed heavily on jet fuel.
These countries are right to protest; the plan is badly thought out and implemented in the most awkward fashion. If tax is required then stick a cent on every litre of jet fuel or get on with it and ban flying altogether. Quit messing everyone around and let us get on with digging ourselves out of the GFC.