Nineteen U.S. aviation organizations–including NBAA, NATA, AOPA and GAMA–sent a joint letter to President Obama yesterday urging him to “challenge the inclusion of international aviation under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) by initiating an Article 84 proceeding in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).” Invoking Article 84 allows the ICAO council to decide disputes that cannot be settled between member states.
The political momentum pushing for the European Union (EU) to abandon the unilateral imposition of its controversial emissions trading scheme (ETS) on non-European states increased last week, when four senior government ministers from France, Spain, Germany and the UK publicly called for the policy to be suspended or at least implemented more flexibly. The so-called “Airbus ministers,” representing the four partner nations in the Airbus consortium, made the announcement during a press conference at the ILA airshow in Berlin.
The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has introduced a process that will allow small emitters to opt out of compliance with the emissions trading scheme, but this applies only to static installations (ground-based industries). The option, which applies to facilities generating less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), is not being made available to the aviation sector.
“All of aviation, including general and business aviation, as well as the airlines, is working together really well to continually improve the environment,” NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen declared last month during opening comments on a panel discussion about the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme. But he quickly added, “We are also working together to fight wrong-headed environmental regulations that don’t work.”
The airline industry, major manufacturers and some two dozen nations have argued that aviation emissions should be addressed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), not by the European Union and its
Gulfstream Aerospace senior flight operations technical specialist Leo McStravick testified at a House aviation subcommittee meeting yesterday to express the business aviation community’s opposition to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS). In addition to imposing a costly administrative burden on businesses flying from the U.S. to European destinations, McStravick noted that EU-ETS is discriminatory because businesses that use general aviation are not eligible for carbon offsets, as they are not defined as “commercial.”
Critics vented frustration with Europe’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) during the FAA Forecast Conference March 8 in Washington, D.C. Leading the chorus of criticism, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood hinted that the U.S. government is considering “enforcement measures” to counter the European Union regulati
Operators flying in Europe can expect overall charges such as airspace and airport fees (including noise tariffs) to double when European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) costs are added in for transatlantic flights. According to a preliminary report obtained last month by AIN from UK-based EU-ETS consultants SustainAvia, a U.S. Part 91 corporate flight department flying 15 round trips per year from New York JFK to Munich Airport in a Gulfstream G450 could pay nearly $35,000 annually in EU-ETS fees. That comes to more than $2,300 in extra costs per round trip to Europe.
Sometimes the simplest solution is the best, but good luck getting politicians on board when the subject involves the emissions trading scheme (ETS), which was implemented by the European Union on January 1.
A U.S. Part 91 corporate flight department flying a Gulfstream G450 could pay nearly $35,000 annually to comply with the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), according to a preliminary report released exclusively to AIN by UK-based EU-ETS consultants SustainAvia.