In
tennis parlance, it is “Game, the Airlines.” The European Union (EU)
has succumbed to international pressure to suspend the emissions trading
scheme (ETS) that it implemented on January 1 this year. The ETS rules
that airlines that land at EU airports will have to pay a carbon
emissions tax.
Among the chief protesters are the United States, China and India – the last two countries actually banning their airlines from participating in the scheme.
Some observers may view the development as a positive move in breaking an impasse that has threatened to evolve into a political issue. Given the ramifications beyond the airline business, the EU recognised after some 11 months that it was a game that it could not win, not at this stage. Imperfect as the ETS may be, its suspension is a setback in the EU’s efforts to combat greenhouse pollution and promote greener skies. Strictly speaking, there was neither agreement nor resolution. The airlines triumphed only because collectively they have succeeded in buying time.
At the time of pushing ahead with the ETS, the EU commission on climate change had suggested that it had exhausted all patience in waiting for international agencies such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to come up with an alternative proposal. Someone has to do the dirty job, and it behooves upon the EU in its watchdog role to assume that responsibility. While airlines brag about their commitment to the green effort, there has not been enough evidence of their working together towards to a target. At best, their efforts are sporadic but image enhancing.
Obviously the airlines are wary about any framework that would add to their operating costs, and ICAO fully understands that. The EU has argued that the ETS would add but only between four and €24 (US$1.27) to the price of a long-haul flight. To the airlines, it is €17.5 billion (US$22.3 billion) collectively over eight years.
Hence the latest “stop the clock” action by the European Union (EU) is welcomed by the airline industry as airlines grapple with historically high fuel price, an anaemic global economic recovery, or the lack thereof and intensifying long-haul competition from Middle Eastern carriers.
“Commissioner Connie Hedegaard’s announcement that she has ‘stopped
the clock’ on the imposition of the EU ETS on flights to and from non-EU
countries represents a significant step in the right direction and
creates an opportunity for the international community. The Commission’s
pragmatic decision clearly recognises the progress that has been made
towards a global solution for managing aviation’s carbon emissions by
the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO),” International Air
Transport Association (IATA) director general (DG) and chief executive
Tony Tyler said.
However, the EU may have been wiser conceding, shifting the pressure to ICAO that has been entrusted to have another go at working out an alternative framework by April 2014 – the way that the airlines (and their home countries) wanted. There should be no ground for any more excuses, since, as Athar Husain Khan, acting secretary general of the Association of European Airlines (AEA), said, “Countries such as the USA, Russia, China and India have repeatedly stated that the issue should be dealt with in ICAO. Now they have the chance to show that they mean it.”
EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard has made it clear that if ICAO failed, the ETS would be reintroduced. She said: “Let me be very clear: if this exercise does not deliver – and I hope it does, then needless to say we are back to where we are today with the EU ETS. Automatically.”
But having taken a step backward, it is not going to be easy for the EU to re-implement the veiled threat.
No doubt it is an unenviable task for the ICAO, and it is inconceivable that a global solution is near at hand in the short term. Yet the game could belong to ICAO so long as it can demonstrate progress, a little each time even if it is the mere act of meeting and agreeing to disagree, and the commitment to continually meet again to try and resolve previous disagreements – treading the familiar path of so many international climate talks.
“The flexibility shown by the European Commission demonstrates that the ICAO process is working, and we look forward to seeing all parties working together to present positive proposals to the ICAO Assembly in September 2013,” Tyler argued.
In the meantime, the environment continues to take the flak. According to the UN World Meteorological Organisation, the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a record high last year. Carbon dioxide – the single most important man-made contributor to climate change – rose 140% over the “pre-industrial level”. Air travel is the world’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gases.
Will Australia, which said it was also implementing a similar ETS, succeed where the EU has failed? It looks like the controversy has already taken its toll on its proposed implementation which should have come into effect in July this year. The EU setback may have even more far reaching effects on the industry when green efforts on the whole take a backseat, such as the drive to develop viable biofuels and technology for more efficient equipment.
If it is of any consolation, the issue is not the end but the means. We shall have faith in the persuasive powers of ICAO, as it works with the EU and airlines – for all their convictions, commitment and sincerity – towards the common goal.
Among the chief protesters are the United States, China and India – the last two countries actually banning their airlines from participating in the scheme.
Some observers may view the development as a positive move in breaking an impasse that has threatened to evolve into a political issue. Given the ramifications beyond the airline business, the EU recognised after some 11 months that it was a game that it could not win, not at this stage. Imperfect as the ETS may be, its suspension is a setback in the EU’s efforts to combat greenhouse pollution and promote greener skies. Strictly speaking, there was neither agreement nor resolution. The airlines triumphed only because collectively they have succeeded in buying time.
At the time of pushing ahead with the ETS, the EU commission on climate change had suggested that it had exhausted all patience in waiting for international agencies such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to come up with an alternative proposal. Someone has to do the dirty job, and it behooves upon the EU in its watchdog role to assume that responsibility. While airlines brag about their commitment to the green effort, there has not been enough evidence of their working together towards to a target. At best, their efforts are sporadic but image enhancing.
Obviously the airlines are wary about any framework that would add to their operating costs, and ICAO fully understands that. The EU has argued that the ETS would add but only between four and €24 (US$1.27) to the price of a long-haul flight. To the airlines, it is €17.5 billion (US$22.3 billion) collectively over eight years.
Hence the latest “stop the clock” action by the European Union (EU) is welcomed by the airline industry as airlines grapple with historically high fuel price, an anaemic global economic recovery, or the lack thereof and intensifying long-haul competition from Middle Eastern carriers.
Image Courtesy of ICAO
However, the EU may have been wiser conceding, shifting the pressure to ICAO that has been entrusted to have another go at working out an alternative framework by April 2014 – the way that the airlines (and their home countries) wanted. There should be no ground for any more excuses, since, as Athar Husain Khan, acting secretary general of the Association of European Airlines (AEA), said, “Countries such as the USA, Russia, China and India have repeatedly stated that the issue should be dealt with in ICAO. Now they have the chance to show that they mean it.”
EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard has made it clear that if ICAO failed, the ETS would be reintroduced. She said: “Let me be very clear: if this exercise does not deliver – and I hope it does, then needless to say we are back to where we are today with the EU ETS. Automatically.”
But having taken a step backward, it is not going to be easy for the EU to re-implement the veiled threat.
No doubt it is an unenviable task for the ICAO, and it is inconceivable that a global solution is near at hand in the short term. Yet the game could belong to ICAO so long as it can demonstrate progress, a little each time even if it is the mere act of meeting and agreeing to disagree, and the commitment to continually meet again to try and resolve previous disagreements – treading the familiar path of so many international climate talks.
“The flexibility shown by the European Commission demonstrates that the ICAO process is working, and we look forward to seeing all parties working together to present positive proposals to the ICAO Assembly in September 2013,” Tyler argued.
In the meantime, the environment continues to take the flak. According to the UN World Meteorological Organisation, the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a record high last year. Carbon dioxide – the single most important man-made contributor to climate change – rose 140% over the “pre-industrial level”. Air travel is the world’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gases.
Will Australia, which said it was also implementing a similar ETS, succeed where the EU has failed? It looks like the controversy has already taken its toll on its proposed implementation which should have come into effect in July this year. The EU setback may have even more far reaching effects on the industry when green efforts on the whole take a backseat, such as the drive to develop viable biofuels and technology for more efficient equipment.
If it is of any consolation, the issue is not the end but the means. We shall have faith in the persuasive powers of ICAO, as it works with the EU and airlines – for all their convictions, commitment and sincerity – towards the common goal.
aspireaviation.com
No comments:
Post a Comment