Multiple nations sign protest, declare actions against EU ETS

I am unsure whether to laugh or cry at the list of big hitters (?!) above who have signed up to a wishlist of risible "maybes" if the EU dares to keep enforcing its aviation ETS law. Some of these nation's air transport activites into and out of the EU's 27 Member States are under the threshold of the scheme, so are exempt. There's nothing quite so pointless as threatening retaliatory action against a scheme you are not even in!

Time for a reality check to offset the notion that the entire aviation industry is a collection of anti-environment ETS-refuseniks. They aren’t: there are already a significant amount of global airlines in full compliance with the EU Aviation ETS regulations.

In fact, “significant” in this case means 100%, as every single airline that flies in and out of the EU has already registered under every aspect of the ETS with their respective regulator in each EU member state; they have met every deadline along the way; and many are active in carbon markets. They have effectively already surrendered.

And here is a snapshot of how ticket prices are already being impacted:

• Etihad Airways, Abu Dhabi's carrier, has increased the fuel surcharge on all its flights to Europe to counter the costs of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme by USD$3 per passenger for flights into and out of Europe and 0.03 cents per kilogram for cargo shipments.
• Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Continental and US Airways say they have already added a $3 surcharge each way on tickets for flights between the United States and Europe
• ryanair introduced a 0.25 Euro levy per passenger per flight from 17th January to cover its’ ETS costs
• Air France/KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa have each added ETS costs to ticket prices via an increase in their existing fuel surcharge although the actual amount is a little opaque
• many other airlines, such as Thai Airways, have already been buying carbon permits, taking advantage of the current record low prices of around 7.9Euros per tonne of carbon.
• and earlier this month, Qantas said it would raise fares by A$3.50 ($3.77) per passenger each way on flights to London and Frankfurt, to cover the cost of the EU ETS.

These are low, low pass through levels that will not bring about the collapse of air transport as we know it! Now call me naive but this is compliance, is it not? It is sad but true that all the countries meeting in Moscow later this week appear simply to want to bring about the complete collapse of the EU ETS, nothing more, nothing less.

We know today that growth in global aviation fuel use and emissions through to 2050 unfortunately outpaces the very best that airframe/engine technology, improved ATM systems and smart operational techniques have to offer. And this includes the rather witless promotion of unsustainable biofuels as part of the industry’s PR-led attempt to manufacture consent for unlimited growth. They have nothing to offer but a high carbon future. This is not a destination we should all be hurtling towards at 39,000 feet and 500 miles per hour.

The EU rightly continues to stand firm to protect the integrity of the aviation ETS which clearly should be developed as the global market-based element in a worldwide programme to control and reduce damaging climate change emissions from civil aviation.

Jeffrey Gazzard
Board Member
Aviation Environment Federation
LONDON

The Ryanair example that Jeffrey Gazzard mentions is very apt and sums this arbitrary tax up appropriately.
"Eco-Looney Tax"

Mr. Gazzard,
No matter the supposed loftiness of your position or title, no matter the length & breath of your carefully crafted posting, there is no hiding that this is still nothing more than a seemingly pathetic if not desperate money grab by the EU. No amount of pompous, self-righteous, sanctimonious bluster (feigned or otherwise) will win hearts & minds to your point of view. Your throwing down the gauntlet will not help to make skeptics "see the light" about being more environmentally responsible. You can go ahead laugh and/or cry as you wish. Rest assured the rest of us will be laughing in turn as this all ends in tears for the EU.

the question dear Jeffrey, is what will the EU do with this money? If they are going to be planting trees and helping save the Amazon jungle, few would have an issue. Can you confirm that this is what will be done with the money?

and what about Germany's additional 'environmental' tax? where is that money going?

the issue is one of principle and its good that even countries representing smaller aviation markets are getting involved in the discussion.

the whole issue of emission trading is a mega scam in my opinion - we should be reducing emissions - full stop - what's all this mumbo jumbo about buying and selling the right to pollute! its a joke.

I guess that any funds raised by this stupid scheme will be passed to the Greek government to help settle their debts!!

As for the comment above, climate change is a myth..................period!!

er, "benefits the environment more than the government...."

So, Messr. Gessard, where EXACTLY is this money going to??? That is the big question. I think more people would be able to swallow this pill if they knew what the money was going to. As it is, the EU has been vague, at best, as to how exactly the money will be used to benefit the environment. Will it be earmarked for subsidizing research for better fuel efficient systems at Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, P&W, Rolls Royce, GE, etc? Will it be used to make EU air navigation more efficient (Paris is a PERFECT example of incredibly fuel inefficient system)? Tell us, WHAT WILL THE FUNDS BE USED FOR?!?! At the moment, it just seems like another tax on an already heavily taxed system. And what is the answer to your doom-&-gloom 2050 scenario; should we all be back on boats, trains, or better yet, horseback? Be reasonable, this new tax will NOT bring about your Uforia any sooner.

And who shall suffer at the cost of this cosmetic idea that feeds the vanity and egos of the EC bureaucrats in Brussels? The airlines. It is bad enough that the EC cannot even get their views straightened of such issues as EC261but the continue against ETS scheme which at the bottom line is suspect to do nothing more than enrich pockets and boost already over-inflated egos of those bureauocrats at the expense of an industry which the EC already burdens with so much restrictions but does not shy itself from availing of its benefits is nothing but gross obscenity.

It is interesting that the sole voice in consistent favour of ETS in this Forum has been the member of a British Quango whose salary depends upon the notion of a self-appointed guardianship of the ‘aviation environment’. It is striking that aviation professionals here have not exhibited that same inclination.

The very principle of ETS depends upon a notional ‘right’ of the EU to exercise transnational authority and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Any nation or group of nations can of course claim to exercise Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.
However for this to be transmuted beyond the realm of claim or fantasy; other than by exercise of force; it must be agreed with the relevant legal authority of that external territory or territories, or with a legal authority responsible for both, perhaps the UN?

The world witnessed the fighting abilities of the Europeans in two world conflicts, and the need for the US to decisively end their little conflict and bail them out of their financial woes afterwards. So an exercise of force by the EU in pursuit of ETS is unconscionably, to them at least! Then of course there remains economic muscle, of which they are likewise deficient.

So then, what is left?

They must simply to pull down the shutters over this EU ETS affair, and slink off into the night.

I AM NOT AGAINST OF EU ETS, BECAUSE AIR LINES MAKE TOO MUCH CLOUD LINE ON EU. DILIP KUMAR JHA. THANKS.

Mr. Gazzard's passion is actually to read his comments in the media, not the environment. He can't write original material, so he copies & pastes his diatribe into each media byte.

He was in a movie in 2007 called, "Should I really give up flying?"
Kind of makes you wonder what Jeffrey's real objective is or is he just Al Gore in disguise?

Passenger transportation by air is more carbon efficient than cars and busses. But EU does not collect carbon tax from road vehicles, does it? Besides, we know that for air cargo, fuel efficiensy is less than other ways. But should the carbon efficient passenger air transportation be punished?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passen...