Fluglinien nach Abstimmung vor strengeren CO2-Zielen

The European Parliament report points out that an 87% cumulative growth in CO2 emissions from the airline sector since 1990 is "in stark contrast to the EU's overall 8% greenhouse gas reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol, but decided against demanding stronger cuts, recognising it was "difficult for aircraft operators to switch to alternative (renewable) energy sources". 

Parliament rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP-ED) said the increased auctioning was "important in order to give new entrants a chance and minimise so-called windfall profits". 

Socialist spokesperson Matthias Groote lamented the fact that the scheme would not be implemented by 2010 and that business jets would be excluded from it, saying: "We have lost the chance to have a level playing field for all airlines." 

UK Green and EP draftswoman on aviation and climate change Caroline Lucas welcomed the strengthening of what she said was "a weak and timid proposal from the Commission", but said the vote "falls short of what is needed to achieve the necessary reductions in climate-damaging emissions from airlines and to demonstrate real global leadership on climate change". 

She said that the 90% cap and 25% auctioning was "simply too generous", but added: "Thankfully, MEPs supported the proposed 'multiplier' [...] Given the non-CO2 climate impact of airlines can be 2-4 times greater, it is crucial that this is also addressed." 

The Association of European Airlines (AEA),  however, described the outcome of the vote as "a massive blow to industry and passengers" but a "barely measurable step for the environment". It lamented the fact that "political compromises…not based on any kind of impact assessment" had taken the upper hand over "the reality of the environmental challenge and aviation's real contribution to the issue". 

AEA Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus pointed out that, while European airlines account for just 0.5% of global man-made CO2 emissions, "Parliament has designed a scheme which will have a devastating effect, not only on European carriers' financial stability, but also on economic growth and tourism, especially in the new EU accession countries – and will result in a barely measurable reduction in CO2 emissions globally." 

Sylviane Lust, Director General of the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) agreed that "Parliament's punitive design of the ETS scheme would damage the aviation sector beyond repair". 

While she said the IACA supports the ETS "in principle", she said: "The elements of the scheme as voted today, and topped by a multiplier, would amount to approximately €11bn per year in additional costs for airlines which they are unlikely to be able to absorb." 

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) criticised the EU's "hypocrisy", pointing to the 12 million tonnes of CO2 that could be saved with annually with an effective Single European Sky. Director General Giovanni Bisignani commented: "Instead of making that a reality, Europe is single-mindedly pursuing a political agenda of emissions trading that does nothing to improve environmental performance." 

He insisted: "With fuel making up 28% of operating costs, airlines have a US$132 billion economic incentive to reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions. We are 2% of global CO2 emissions and we have a clear strategy to address this [...] These aren't just words: with practical measures like route shortening we saved up to 15 million tonnes of CO2 in 2006 alone. What have Europe's politicians contributed to this achievement? The answer is absolutely nothing. And today's vote continues the tradition of hot air and no action," he added. 

He further criticised "Europe's go-it-alone approach", labelling it "counterproductive", "a clear breach of the Chicago Convention" which would have "at best, limited impact on the environment". "The resulting trade and legal battles will distract governments from making real progress," he said. 

Delia Villagrasa, Senior Advisor at WWF, said the European Parliament had "missed the opportunity to really curb the emissions of the fastest growing sector in Europe in terms of greenhouse gases", adding that it was "crucial" that the EU's environment ministers "do not water down the text further". 

Friends of the Earth Europe agreed that the plans to include aviation in the ETS remained "inadequate" and would fail to "significantly cut aviation's impact on climate change". Aviation campaigner Richard Dyer said: "Instead of getting tough on aviation, MEPs have only voted for modest improvements to Commission plans to make aviation part of the ETS…It's time our politicians showed real leadership on global warming." 

He insisted that other measures should be taken by national governments, such as freezing airport expansion plans, improving high-speed rail services and doing more to make the cost of flying reflect the damage that it causes to our environment. 

According to green NGO Transport & Environment, Parliament's plan would still keep aviation emissions around 70% higher than their 1990 levels, "in contrast to an earlier EU commitment to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30% by 2020 that was supported by all political groups in the Parliament". 

T&E's João Vieira warned that "MEPs are in danger of losing credibility on climate change" after having "bowed to industry pressure". Nevertheless, the federation welcomed the recognition that further measures are needed to deal with the non-CO2 impact of aviation. "The parliament has wisely left the door open on future measures," stated the group, stressing that "the lack of a kerosene tax alone equates to a €35 billion subsidy to the industry every year and has unfairly boosted the growth of the sector".