EU-Staaten einigen sich auf Emissionshandelsplan für Fluggesellschaften[en] 

In an effort to tackle aviation's small but fast-growing contribution to climate change, the Commission issued a legislative proposal in December 2006 to include the sector in the EU's emission trading scheme (EU-ETS) – similarly to other energy-intensive industries, including chemical and steel production. 

The proposal involves imposing a cap on CO2 emissions for all planes arriving or departing from EU airports, while allowing airlines to buy and sell 'pollution credits' on the EU 'carbon market'. 

Meeting on 20 December, at the last Environment Council of 2007, ministers succeeded in reaching a compromise on the details of including aviation activities in the ETS, but their failure to beef up the levels of ambition compared to the original proposal from the Commission could lead them to clash with Parliament next year, when the text goes to second reading (for more information on the first reading vote in Parliament, see EurActiv 14/11/07). 

The main divergences surrounded starting dates for the scheme, the amount of CO2 allowances that airlines should receive for free and the question of what should be done with the money raised from auctioning pollution permits. 

Under the final compromise in Council: 

• All airlines flying to and from EU territory would join the scheme in 2012. Ministers, like MEPs, thus rejected the Commission's proposal that international flights should be given an extra year and ignored threats from third countries, including the US, that they would instigate legal action if the EU attempts to unilaterally force them to comply with the scheme; 
• airlines would be required to maintain emission levels at average 2004-2006 levels, which is bound to disappoint MEPs, who had agreed on a 10% reduction and environmentalists that were demanding much bigger cuts; 
• in accordance with the Commission’s proposal, 90% of pollution permits would be distributed to airlines for free. MEPs had demanded at least 25% auctioning, saying that otherwise airlines would make windfall profits by passing on non-existent costs to their passengers. Many also feel that auctioning is the only way all airlines would be treated in the same way. 
• the question of how to use revenues from emission allowance sales was resolved by stating that the money “should” be invested in climate change mitigation measures but that ultimately the decision is left to member states. The UK and Germany had been insistent on this point, rejecting a request from Parliament that the money raised be used to compensate for a lowering of "taxes and charges on climate-friendly transport such as rail and bus"; 
• no measures are proposed for dealing with the additional climate impacts caused by Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) other pollutant emissions from airplanes. MEPs had called for the cost of all CO2 permits bought by airlines to be multiplied by two unless legislation was enacted to address this; 
• airlines with very low traffic levels on routes to, from or within the EU would be exempt, so that, for example, operators from developing countries, with only limited air traffic links with the EU, will be exempt. Air services of public utilities would also be excluded, and; 
• 3% of total allowances will be set aside in a special reserve and handed out for free to new entrants or very fast-growing airlines. 

Representing the EU Presidency, Portuguese Minister for the environment Francisco Nunes Correia welcomed the sending of a “very strong political signal to third countries” by reaching this compromise in the wake of the UN climate change conference in Bali (EurActiv 17/12/07). 

The Association of European Airlines  welcomed “the fact that the Council did not endorse some of the radical proposals of the European Parliament which would have crippled the European airline sector”, but underlined a number of remaining uncertainties. 

“It remains unclear how the EU can ensure that all carriers globally will be covered by emissions trading without discriminating against European airlines,” said AEA Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus. 

He rejected the idea that low levels of auctioning would lead to windfall profits for airlines. “Nothing could be further from reality,” he explained. “Other industries operate in markets different to ours, and can substitute oil with other sources of energy. Ours is a highly competitive business; it is a growth industry because economies are growing and need mobility, and aircraft require kerosene. In that respect, you simply cannot compare the energy sector with the transportation sector.” 

Green groups were however disappointed with the compromise, underlining that it would allow the aviation industry to pollute around 90% more than in 1990 when it joins the EU emissions trading scheme – in complete contradiction with the Kyoto target of -8% based on 1990 levels. 

João Vieira, of Transport and Environment (T&E) said, "If environment ministers get their way, the scheme simply won't cut emissions, and will end up being yet another subsidy to the aviation industry. It's a shameful end to a year filled with promise for action on climate change." 

Environmentalists also lamented that the Council had failed to take up the Parliament’s proposal on applying a multiplier on the price of allowances bought by airlines from other sectors to make up for the effect of other aviation emissions on the climate. 

The WWF criticised the failure to introduce full auctioning, saying: "Full auctioning of allowances would eradicate the potential for the accrual of windfall profits, provide the most incentives for airlines to seek to reduce emissions, and would generate substantial revenues of around €3.3 to €9.8 billion per year which could be used for positive action against climate change.”