A bipartisan contingent of US House of Representatives' members proposed legislation Wednesday that would "prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme."
The move was yet another shot fired at the EU from a non-EU government, many of which strongly oppose their airlines' inclusion in the ETS starting next year (ATW Daily News, July 6). Both the Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, John Mica (R-Fla.), and the panel's top Democrat, Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), endorsed the proposed bill.
If enacted into law before airlines' inclusion in the ETS kicks in, the legislation would create a legal battle of wills: US airlines would be required by EU regulation to participate in the ETS in order to fly to/from EU airports, but would be barred by US law from participating in the scheme.
Mica said that the "unjust" ETS is "a clear violation of international law that puts US air carriers at a competitive disadvantage, kills US aviation jobs and may lead to a trade war. This bipartisan measure sends a clear message to the EU that the United States will not participate in this ill-advised and illegal EU program."
Rahall added, "This trading scheme looks more like a shell game to shuffle the money around because no one can say with certainty that the money will be used for its intended purpose. By introducing this bill, we are not flatly rejecting the notion of a system for controlling carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, just as the Obama administration has done, we are rejecting the go-it-alone approach taken by the EU that directly infringes on the sovereignty of the United States."
The bill directs the US transportation secretary "to prohibit US aircraft operators from participating" in the ETS and "instructs US officials to negotiate or take any action necessary to ensure US aviation operators are not penalized" by the scheme, according to the T&I Committee.
The US Air Transport Assn. said it "commended House leaders for proposing a bill that declares the application of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme to aviation inconsistent with international law." President and CEO Nicholas Calio stated, "Subjecting airlines to the EU unilateral system will be counterproductive to the environment and will result in the loss of US jobs as it siphons money away from carriers, impeding their ability to invest in new and more efficient technology."
IATA stated that it welcomed the House proposal, which it said "recognizes that the International Civil Aviation Organization is the proper forum to address international aviation carbon emissions. Aviation is a global business that requires global solutions, including on climate change. IATA supports economic measures, including market based measures, to reduce CO2 emissions as part of the aviation industry's strategy to address climate change."
Discuss this news 9
Well done USA. At last
By NICK JONESWell done USA. At last someone is standing up to these unelected, undemocratic Eu legislators.
That's a good twist to this
By RichardThat's a good twist to this saga. Now let's see if the EU will 'see the light'!
The Euro economy troubles may just blind them.
Eliminate U.S. carriers from
By NovusOrdoEliminate U.S. carriers from participating in the largest international aviation market in the world and leave it wide open for EU carriers. Brilliant solution.
Good on the USA, hope other
By GPGood on the USA, hope other governments do the same. Whilst I support attrempts to prtoect the environment this is just another EU scam to get money to feed budget deficits. The EU officials have no aim other than keeping themselves in the limelight.
I'll second that...Well
By Str8 & levelI'll second that...Well done!!!
While i was working for E...,
By EVA/BRWhile i was working for E..., i knew immediately that the ETS was just way for EU to raise money to cover their immense deficit. I also remember that collegues said that the ETS will be adopted by all airlines operting in EU with no problems. Because EU knew that they were doing something unilateral, they decided to impose ETS to all carriers flying in the 27 countries. When i left the old continent, i told my boss that foreigners carriers will fight to death against this horrible ETS legislation. I see that countries are now taking countermeasure against this awful ETS (i am very happy about that). EU should focus on better equipping main airports with better technology that allows aiports to better manage incoming and outcoming flights during adverse weather condition. Also, they should focus on implemeting the single european sky as soon as possible to alleviate enroute-delays, thus mitigating CO2 emissions. The money generated by ETS will certainly not affect CO2 emissions reductions, but rather will make some people working for EU institutions even richer. Also, they better allow simultaneos take off and landing operations (it creates less delay for flights on final approach/ and take off), but they cannot due to slots issues. A slot is defined as only one aircraft can land or take off at given time of the day. but im sure they can put 2 aircaft on the same slot (only for // runways). they do not do it because an economic factor is involved. A slot has specific cost, so why putting two planes in the same slots?. To conclude, ETS is least important subject. Single european sky and better technology for airports should be EU primary goal.
I don't think Eu legislators
By FFI don't think Eu legislators are undemocratic as Nick said. The main problem is that they keep on ignoring the hierarchy between international and national (regional) law, leaving aside all the issues illustrated by Eva/Br. Eu Reg 261/2004 and the Emission Trading Scam are only two examples.
Don't want to cause a debate,
By fabsDon't want to cause a debate, but I was wondering which aircraft in its class emits more CO2 during en-route flight.
For istance:
A380 VS 747-8 and B 747-400
B777-300ER VS A 340-600
B777-200LR VS A 340-500
B777-200ER VS A 340-200/30
B767-400ER VS A 330-200/300
B767-300ER VS A A300-600R/B4/B2
B737 FAMILY VS A 320 FAMILY.
If you have these data please share with us
Good question to ask. But
By jetmechGood question to ask. But what it really comes down to is not the airframe but what engine is on it's wing and what puts out the least CO2 at the exact same EPR power setting's and or the same N1, N2, speeds using the exact same fuel and operating conditions.
There are 3 main companys and some combination of these with ohter companys that make jet engines for large jet aircraft. They are R.R. P.W. and GE, each airline must pick a aircraft and engine combination that meets there needs. This mostly comes down to cost of operation and time to overhaul and can come down to polictcal needs of the country you oprate out of , this can come into play.
This happens in USA and in the EU but more so in my opinion from what I have seen if they operate out of the EU they tend to use only Airbus and R.R. engines. Example how many EU base, airlines have GE/CFM engines only on there whole fleet ? My geuss from what I have seen coming into my intrenational airport here in FL is not many.
To me this ETS porgram is just one of the biggest money grabs out there. The very people who are currently running this porgram can not tell us how the money will be spent, where it will go or how it will be used to lessen and or remove CO2 from EU airspace. All of the engines out there are so close in operating cost and power and output.
This due to the extream competion and there continous development to make there motor the best one to buy.
I have had the chance to have trainig from these engine makers and it was always first class. Sadly I do not know wich engine puts out the least CO.
Post new comment