In a landslide vote, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to prohibit U.S. carriers from participating in the European Union emissions trading scheme. The passage of H.R. 2594 on October 24 has raised the ire of numerous EU officials — especially Jo Leinen, chair of the European Parliament’s environmental committee. The ETS is currently set to go into effect on January 1.
Blasting Congress’s ruling as “arrogant and ignorant,” Leinen stated that U.S. officials should respect EU legislation similarly to how EU officials respect U.S. law. He also encouraged the EU to remain steadfast in the face of adversity. “The EU should stand firm and include international aviation in EU emissions trading,” Leinen stated.
If the bill becomes law, he promotes retaliation. “The EU should refuse to be blackmailed and resort to countermeasures, if necessary,” Leinen concluded.
His views deviate greatly from those of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri. Both Congressmen dismissed the ETS, which forces carriers utilizing European airspace to monitor their emissions and purchase carbon allowances if the flight exceeds a predetermined limit, as “unlawful and unjust.”
“This appropriately named EU scheme is an arbitrary violation of international law that disadvantages U.S. air carriers and kills U.S. aviation jobs,” Mica said in a statement. “The message from Congress and the U.S. government is loud and clear: The United States will not participate in this ill-advised and illegal EU program.”
Petri concurred. To him, imposing such a tariff on international airlines is completely out of the EU’s realm of authority and excludes the rest of the world. Instead of participating in the EU’s “unilateral and questionable ETS program,” Petri encouraged the U.S. to fight climate change by partnering with the International Civil Aviation Organization.
His view seems to be more on par with the rest of the global aviation community than Leinen’s. Officials from The International Air Cargo Association and the International Air Transport Association have also criticized the EU ETS as a moneymaking scheme and endorsed a global approach led by the ICAO.
“We firmly believe that aviation emissions must be addressed through a global framework and that the appropriate body for developing such an approach is the ICAO,” TIACA Vice Chairman Oliver Evans said in a statement.
“The Kyoto Protocol designated ICAO as the body with authority to set international aviation’s greenhouse gas policy,” he continued, “and we urge all ICAO members to expedite negotiations to expand on, complete and implement such a global framework to address aviation carbon emissions.”
Emissions Trading Scheme is nothing more than a creative new way of generating tax revenue. The carbon footprint phenomena has become a new religion. We are to believe that global warming is man made. We should not consider the planet’s 4.5 billion years’ history of geophysical cataclysms, or that just one volcanic eruption, Mt. Saint Helens in 1980, had blown more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than had all the world’s automobiles from day one. Nature will continue to run its course, whether we fly or drive. And the planet will continue to live long after we’re gone.
Ultimately if the EU persists in this the issue it will end up before the WTO. The EU will not win there.
Did the US not impose unilateral security measures for all companies flying over?? Did the whole world not have to comply and bare the additional costs? Did the whole world not respect the US policy and fear of terrorism? Why should the US not respect EU legislation and fear of catastrophic climate change?
Goncalo, the USA should not “respect” what the EU is doing because what the EU is doing is essentially illegal. It is also dishonest in that the monies will go into national coffers rather than to “green” projects (ask the Germans!). It’s also NOT a security issue, unlike that to which you referred atop. Finally, it’s based upon the artificially-generated FEAR, yes FEAR, of “catastrophic” climate change. Your last 5 words alone, steeped in paranoia, make it correct & legal for the USA (AND others, by the way) to fight this to its ultimate demise.