Kallas: Global aviation emissions talks 'a nightmare'

  

As the EU institutions found a fragile compromise on the emissions trading scheme for aviation, the EU commissioner in charge of transport said the EU executive was still “committed to the ETS” and put the blame on member states for its failure.

After the European Union’s institutions reached a preliminary agreement on the highly-sensitive aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS) on Wednesday (5 March), the EU commissioner in charge of transport, Siim Kallas, admitted that the EU had bowed to international pressure.

Speaking at an event organised by the European Policy Centre and US plane-maker Boeing on aviation in Europe, Kallas called the talks “a nightmare”.

“Two years ago in Singapore I was attacked by the world’s aviation when I defended it [the ETS]. The European ETS is a great concept but the problem is [the risk of] a trade war,” the commissioner told the audience.

Kallas talked about “counter-measures” introduced by third countries, such as the United State’s bill prohibiting US airlines from participating in the European programme, and mentioned threats from third countries that could have led to a “trade war.” He did not mention that the European Court of Justice ruled in 2011 that the EU scheme was valid and did not infringe international law.

The Commission, he said, “is still committed to the ETS ideology” but put the blame on EU member states for the failure to enforce it. “We could do it only if we have a strong front of member states,” he said.

The transport commissioner’s remarks were labelled “rather condescending to his colleagues in the College” by the green NGO Transport and Environment (T&E). “The ETS is the first step to reduce aviation's runaway emissions," T&E director Jos Dings told EurActiv in emailed comments. "As Connie Hedegaard [the EU climate commissioner] would not get away with dubbing the Trans-European Transport Networks an ideology, Kallas shouldn't get away with calling the ETS an ideology."

Trilogue agreement

The EU has been struggling with its carbon emissions plan for years. Under international pressure, the Union “stopped the clock” on the ETS in 2012 to give the UN’s civil aviation body (ICAO) the time to come up with an efficient global market-based mechanism that would be accepted as an international compromise.

Under “stop-the-clock”, only intra-European flights are covered by the scheme, but not long-haul ones.

Following the ICAO fiasco, the EU executive put forward a new legislative proposal on which the EU's three main law-making institutions (the Commission, Council and Parliament) reached a deal on 5 March in the framework of so-called “trilogue” talks.

>> Read also: MEPs defy EU states on aviation emissions law

The compromise text strengthens both the Commission’s initial proposal and the EU member states’ position by limiting “stop the clock” until the next ICAO assembly in 2016 only, thereby forcing it to come up with an environmentally acceptable deal at global level, since EU legislation will return to its full scope after the deadline, covering all flights departing from or landing on the EU’s territory.

One of the EU Parliament’s rapporteurs on the issue, German MEP Pieter Liese, told the press that the Parliament’s negotiators also “improved the wording on what kind of global deal we expect”, referring to comments in ICAO that the global deal would go for a “carbon-neutral growth” solution. Instead, the EU agreement clearly states emissions reduction is expected from the UN in 2016.

Other improvements obtained by Parliament in the deal include stronger pressure from the executive over member states to enforce the legislation.

Liese explained that “we cannot accept to reduce the scope and then not have even this reduced scope enforced”.

Last but not least, the rapporteur insisted from the beginning of the process on obtaining legal provisions pertaining to the spending of revenues from ETS allowance auctions.

“In the new legislation […] member states will have to report on how [the money] is spent,” he said, adding that the “money should be spent on climate change purposes such as research and development for clean aircrafts and clean transport.”

Tight calendar

MEPs will vote on the compromise first in the environment committee and then in plenary session in April. But it’s far from a done deal, the rapporteur warned, urging his colleagues to approve it.

“Some say it’s too weak, others say it’s too strong,” he told the press.

Matthias Groote, chairman of the Parliament's environment committee, said there was a “50-50” chance for adoption and that it was “not certain that the trilogue deal will get through”. Liese was slightly more optimistic “but not sure”, saying he thought it would be able to convince the members of his political group, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP).

The MEPs stressed that if there was no agreement by April, the previous legislation would automatically go back into force.

Positions: 

Bill Hemmings, aviation manager at green NGO Transport & Environment, said: “With this deal European governments have conceded again to international pressure without getting anything meaningful in return, let alone guarantees that soaring international aviation emissions will one day be tackled. Shrinking the aviation ETS to cover intra-EU flights effectively amounts to the dismantling of a European climate law. We urge MEPs to stand firm for Europe’s principles and sovereign rights, especially in today’s circumstances, and reject this deal.”

The International Air Carrier Association (IACA), representing 28 airlines, regrets the outcome of the trilogue discussions between the European Parliament, Council and Commission in the co-decision process to amend the geographical scope of the EU ETS. The European institutions are about to adopt a scheme which discriminates between airlines, in the sense that only emissions from intra-EU flights will be captured in the EU ETS scope for the years 2013 until 2016 (included): “The effects of CO2 are worldwide. Whilst the rest of world is working towards an ICAO solution, Europe has chosen to hurt its own interests in order not to lose face.”

The Association of European Airlines said: “The decision to reduce the scope temporarily takes into account the achievements already made at ICAO level.  For AEA it is therefore essential that ICAO delivers a global market-based mechanism (MBM) in 2016. However, AEA is disappointed that the process took so long and that the legislator has not provided planning stability for airlines until 2020 when the global MBM is due to come into force”

Timeline: 
  • 19 March: EU Parliament Environment Committee to vote
  • 3 April: Vote in Plenary Session in Brussels
External links: 
Advertising

Comments

Jeff Gazzard's picture

Green Finnish MEP Satu Hassi has this appalling cave-in to vested interests right - why would the European Parliament vote to cede control over Europe's climate protection policies to either Beijing or Toulouse and hope to retain any credibility as Europe's lead democratic institution? The 3 key Member States,France, Germany and the UK, have swallowed the Airbus/Chinese joint lobbying strategy that Airbus aircraft and European engine orders are under threat - is there anyone out there that truly believes the Chinese are going to switch these orders for just one model in the Airbus range to Boeing with all the cost penalties and strategic geo-politics involved? Of course not! It's a construct, pure and simple.

And again, as Ms Hassi points out, and European Voice reporter Dave Keating, has previously and insightfully covered, relying on the totally ineffective, producer-captured ICAO to develop a global policy to control and reduce aviation's climate-changing CO2 emissions is risible nonsense.

Let's hope that MEPs repeat the significant majority vote that passed the original EU ETS Aviation legislation when this craven France, Germany and UK-inspired sell-out comes before them soon.

And reading Commissioner Kallas' comments above, perhaps he should start exhorting MEPs to vote down the proposed changes? Fingers crossed!

Jeff Gazzard
Board Member
Aviation Environment Federation
LONDON