Parliament set to vote for tighter aircraft emission limits

MEP Peter Liese, who drafted Parliament's report on the proposal, pointed out that other industries had successfully implemented the ETS in 2005, with less than two years notice and despite the fact that no similar scheme had been in place earlier. With legislation on including aviation due to be completed in 2008 at the latest, he noted that 18 months notice was "justified and acceptable" and that the scheme should begin in 2010. He added that there would be "no point in starting in 2012", seeing as the scheme is due to be replaced by the revised ETS for all industries as of 2013 already. 

Regarding the cap and baseline, he commented: "To take a base period in the future runs counter to the aim of the proposal [...] The whole airline sector would be discouraged from investing in clean fuels until 2010." He believes that the cap could be set somewhere around 90% of 2004-2006 levels. 

On auctioning, he predicted that the final figure would likely be "somewhere in between 20% and 50%". 

He stressed: "Of course it's going to involve costs, but a €22 billion burden for carriers also represents a €22 billion investment in climate protection and modern technologies. So it works both ways. But I think that figure is rather over the top." 

He also rejected the idea of weakening the proposal in order to get approval from the United States and other countries on a global scheme. "There's no point in trying to go halfway to meet them because they simply don't want to be involved at all." 

Nevertheless, in an interview with EurActiv, the Association of European Airlines' General Manager of Communications Françoise Humbert said: "The Environment committee proposal is so extreme that it's got the potential to completely kill the competitiveness of the industry." 

While she conceded that the ETS is "for us, the best of all the market-based instruments" because it provides "an incentive to invest into new technologies", she warned that "if it's badly designed [...] then it will not allow us to invest in anything". 

She said having a cap based on a reference period that is closer to the trading period, for example 2007-2009, "would give us a more realistic basis and also make it easier for new member states, whose traffic has boomed since their accession to the EU." 

She denied that having a later start date with increased CO2 allowances goes against efforts to tackle climate change, saying: "Emissions don't grow at the same speed as air traffic does – a lot of measures have been taken to ensure that, including operational measures, infrastructural measures, new technologies, new engines [...] We are reducing our emissions as we go along." 

What's more, she stressed that if the proposal is too tough then there would be no chance of getting other regions in the world to follow suit. "That's our fear because a global system would make sense [...] from a competitiveness point of view but, more importantly, also from an environmental point of view," she said. 

However, environmental groups Transport and Environment (T&E), WWF, Friends of the Earth and Climate Action Network insisted that the environment committee report was not tough enough. 

They said that, although the committee had improved on the original legal proposal from the Commission, its proposal to cap emissions at 75% of 2004-2006 levels would result in an increase in emissions of around two thirds, compared to 1990 levels. This, they said, represented "a step back from an earlier resolution [...] that said the sector should cut emissions in line with Kyoto Protocol targets" and contradicted a commitment from EU heads of state and government to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30% by 2020. 

They also rejected the idea of giving away pollution permits for free. Delia Villagrasa of WWF stressed: "Paying for all pollution permits means that the aviation sector adheres to the 'polluter pays' principle and airlines actually have the most incentives to improve their performance." She added that other measures "such as a fuel tax and the end of VAT exemptions are also needed" in order to tackle the rising impact of aviation on the climate. 

The NGOs nevertheless welcomed the committee's proposal to deal with the impact of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions thanks to a two-times emissions multiplier, although commented that "the full climate impact of aviation is between two and five times that of CO2 alone." 

To read the full interview with Françoise Humbert, please click here.