The European high court has rejected a legal challenge from Canadian, U.S., and other international carriers opposing the European Union’s plans to include the aviation industry in its emissions trading scheme at the start of next year.
The International Air Transport Association, which represents 230 of the world’s largest airlines, said it was disappointed by the decision.
“Unilateral, extra-territorial and market distorting initiatives such as the EU ETS are not the way forward. What is needed is a global approach,” said Tony Tyler, IATA director general, in a statement.
Under the terms of the EU emissions plan, as of Jan. 1, airlines flying into or out of Europe would be allowed 85% of their greenhouse gas emissions based on 2010 levels, but would be forced to purchase credits for emissions above those levels. They would also be required to reduce emissions by 3% after 2012 and 5% from 2013 onward.
Mr. Tyler noted that the airline industry has already agreed to reduce emissions by 1.5% a year to 2020, and to reduce emissions in the industry by 2050 by half based on 2005 levels, and is working under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Association to develop a global strategy to meet those goals.
“A global framework for economic measures is a critical component of our strategy to achieve these challenging targets,” Mr. Tyler said.
“But we won’t get agreement on a global approach if states are throwing rocks at each other because Europe wants to act extra-territorially. Europe should take credit for raising the issue of aviation and climate change on the global agenda. But what is needed now is for Europe to work with the rest of the world,” he added.
Airlines have argued that the plan will cost the industry roughly €1-billion (US$1.31-billion) collectively in 2012 before skyrocketing to €4-billion (US$5.2-billion) by 2020, leading to higher fares for the traveling public.
A legal challenge of the plan was launched in the U.K. in 2009 by the Air Transport Association of America (now known as Airlines for America) and several U.S. carriers before being referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The challenge is supported by the International Air Transport Association and National Airlines Council of Canada, which represent frequent Europe-bound carriers Air Canada and Air Transat.
The industry argues the emissions plan flies in the face of several international air agreements, including the EU’s bilateral air agreements with the U.S. and Canada, the Chicago Convention, and the Kyoto Protocol by imposing unfair penalties on carriers flying to the EU. They argue the plan violates those agreements because it would impose a form of tax on fuel consumption, and that it would do so outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the EU itself.
But the European court’s advocate general, Juliane Kokott, rejected those arguments Wednesday in her decision, and said the inclusion of the aviation industry in the emission plan was valid.
“The emissions trading scheme to aircraft operators infringes neither the principle of territoriality nor the sovereignty of third States, since the scheme is applicable to the operators only when their aircraft are physically in the territory of one of the Member States of the EU and are thus subject to the unlimited jurisdiction of the EU,” the court concluded
George Petsikas, NACC president, said he was likewise disappointed by the decision.
“Although this is probably one of the last judicial recourses available under EU law, this ruling by no means settles this matter,” he said in a statement.
The federal government, along with 26 other countries, including the U.S., China, India, Japan, have promised to keep up the fight in the political arena.
In a letter sent to his European counterpart earlier this month, Denis Lebel, the Canadian federal Transport Minister, urged the EU to abandon its “unilateral” approach to tackling emissions in the industry, and to join the international community under ICAO to develop a global scheme. Action plans from the ICAO members are expected in June.
“At this time of economic uncertainty, actions should not come at the price of international aviation, which plays such an important role in all of our economies,” Mr. Lebel wrote in the letter dated Dec. 8. “I’ve listened closely to the concerns expressed by Canada’s industry and have concluded that taking scarce funds from the sector in the current economic climate would not be the best route to achieving emissions reductions.”
Other countries, like India, have threatened retaliatory fees against European carriers if it goes ahead with the plane.
Even European countries, like the Netherlands and Italy, have expressed concerns about the impact the plan will have on the fragile European economy. Others, like India, have threatened retaliatory measures for European carriers should it be implemented.
In October, The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill with bipartisan support that would prohibit U.S. carriers from participating in the scheme. The U.S. government has also taken steps to request emissions data from European and U.S. carriers, which some in the industry have speculated might be laying the ground for some sort of retaliatory measures.
“The EU is increasingly isolated on this issue,” U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wrote in a letter last week urging her European counterparts to reconsider their course. “Absent such willingness on the part of the EU, we will be compelled to take appropriate action”
The emissions trading scheme forms the cornerstone of the EU efforts to meets its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. In addition to its plans to include the aviation industry in the trading scheme in 2012, the EU also aims to include the petrochemical, aluminum, and ammonia industries in the scheme in 2013.
The EU has said it expects the plan would only cost the travelling public an additional €2 to €12 on a typical transatlantic or long-haul flight.
The high courts’ decision Wednesday was, however, lauded by environmental groups.
“Today’s decision, from the highest court in the European Union, makes clear Europe’s innovative law to reduce emissions from international flights is fully consistent with international law, does not infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, and is distinct from the charges and taxes subject to treaty limitations,” said a transatlantic coalition of environmental groups, including WWF-UK, Earthjustice, and the Aviation Environment Federation, said in a statement Wednesday.
Airline emissions challenge rejected by European high court | Transportation | News | Financial Post
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
