Parliament set to back tough rules on aircraft emissions

EPP-ED MEP Peter Liese, rapporteur for the EP’s Environment Committee, said that his report would be based on Parliament's July 2006 Resolution, which was adopted with "overwhelming cross-party support". 

This report makes it very clear that the inclusion of aviation alone in the ETS will "not be enough", he said, adding that Parliament would insist on having a fuel tax and addressing tax breaks that distort competition between aviation and other transport sectors. 

As to the inclusion of aviation into the general ETS, he said that Parliament – which originally called for a separate pollution-cutting scheme for aviation – "could not completely contradict the Commission’s proposal" but would likely push for its "fall-back option". This would entail incorporating aviation into the wider ETS but under special conditions, such as a cap on the number of emission rights airlines are permitted to buy from the market, and a requirement to make a proportion of the necessary emissions reductions without trading, before being allowed to buy permits. 

On auctioning, he said that although some MEPs supported full auctioning "probably that will not be my proposal as rapporteur". Instead, he favours a mix of auctioning and benchmarking, where each operator is allocated allowances based on its share of overall passenger and cargo traffic. 

Lastly, he stressed that having different implementation dates for intra and extra-EU flights was not an option: "I don't know anyone in the European Parliament who would agree to this," he said. Although he acknowledged that it could create problems with the US, he said that the Bush administration would be out of office soon and "no longer represents the view of the majority of public opinion on climate change in the US". Therefore, he concluded: "We will not easily fold just because the Bush administration doesn't like it." 

Pierre Schellekens, Deputy Head of cabinet for Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas explained that the Commission had had proposed a two-stage approach in order to send "an important political signal to our partners". He added: "As to the legality of extending our proposal to flights from third countries; if we had not been certain that we stand on solid legal ground, we would not have made the proposal. We have a solid legal and environmental case." 

On taxation, he said: "We can’t exclude anything in the long term. But at this stage, economically and environmentally, we have found that emissions-trading is the most efficient instrument." 

Daniel Calleja Crespo, director of air transport in the Commission, added that his team would come up with a proposal on reducing aircrafts' emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which also contribute to global warming, in 2008. 

Kurt Edwards of the US Federal Aviation Agency justified the US position saying that in the US, the major concerns related to the aviation industry were noise pollution and air quality. "Climate change does not figure prominently in the debate at his point," he said, adding however: "We’re not completely evil…we do have an approach, even if it is not in Kyoto." 

He added that US carriers also already pay a fuel tax, commenting: "Just because we have a fuel tax doesn't mean that we would urge you to have one." 

Fleet renewal, improved flight management and heightened security at US airports have already contributed to lowering CO2 emissions, but the "real incentive to make operators more efficient" is that fuel costs have now surpassed labour costs, he said. 

Aircraft manufacturers and operators stressed aviation's small contribution to overall CO2 emissions in Europe (less than 3%) and progress made over recent years in cutting CO2 emissions (70% over the past 40 years). 

They underlined aviation's "irreplaceable" role for Europe's economy and citizens. Intercontinental flights cannot be substituted by other modes and account for 81% of total emissions, which also explains the need for a "global solution", they said. 

They called for a stable legal framework in an industry that is heavily capital-intensive and where planes being worked on now will still be flying in 2040. 

While underlining the need to improve air traffic management, enabling up to 12% cuts in emissions from aviation, Jean-Baptiste Rigaudias, adviser to Air France on environmental affairs, stressed his company’s commitment to including aviation into national carbon-trading schemes that are open to other sectors. "By buying reductions made in other sectors, aviation would increase its own share but would be financing the global reduction," he said. 

He however rejected the idea of auctioning, saying that this is not an efficient instrument within the ETS. 

Philippe de Saint-Aulaire, environment director for European planemaker Airbus, said that making planes that use the least fuel is plane-makers' "core business" as they must sell these planes to operators wanting to carry as much cargo as possible in the most cost-efficient way. He stressed that new planes were already consuming as little as three litres of fuel per passenger over 100 kilometres. "This is less than most cars," he said, adding: "There is no need to add taxes and charges to encourage this. It won't make things go any faster than they already are," he stressed. 

Jos Dings, director of T&E, an environmental group, pointed to the hypocrisy of operators and manufacturers requesting "fair treatment" for aviation. "The EU is proposing that around 3% of allowances be auctioned…This would generate €3-4 billion in windfall profits to a sector, which has already received massive subsidies in the past. Would 100% really be so hard?" he asked. 

Furthermore, he said, by basing the cap for aviation on 2004-2006 average emissions, "the cap proposed for aviation is about 100% over 1990 levels. Is that fair?"