Politicians from both the left- and right-wing of the European Parliament’s transport committee have strongly criticised an amended European Commission proposal to force airlines to pay a carbon charge on flights within the European Economic Area.
“We look ridiculous”, Conservative MEP Jacqueline Foster said of the new Emission Trading System (ETS) proposals, which are due to come into effect on January 1.
“
The scheme was never going to save carbon dioxide emissions,” she said.
“The majority in ICAO voted against, and you didn’t like what the majority said. You don’t like mutual consent”.
As EU news website EurActiv reports last month, the EU executive reduced the scope of its proposed ETS rules to exclude emissions over international air space, following talks at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in Montreal.
The EC also granted developing countries exemptions from the scheme, if they emit less than one per cent of global aviation emissions.
EurActiv reports this, however, could apply to as many as 166 of ICAO’s 192 nations.
The final ICAO text was thrashed out in tough debates, amid strong opposition from the United States, Russia and China to the EU’s ETS rules.
Almost immediately European politicians lined up to criticise it for weakness and inefficiency.
For Conservatives, the EC was guilty of disrespecting concepts of mutual consent and multilateralism.
This position is supported by the aviation industry.
At a debate in the European Parliament on November 13, Karl Heinz Haag, Lufthansa’s head of environmental affairs said the proposals did not take into account for “the potential international conflicts” it could create.
He called for a ‘global approach’ from the EU, including an agreement with third countries.
EurActiv reports that for the EC it is a question of sovereignty.
Elina Bardram, head of the EU’s international carbon market unit, said that EU laws were not made on the basis of third countries opposition.
These, she said, “have to abide by the local rules”, a position shared by the civil sector.
Bill Hemmings, aviation program manager at the green NGO Transport and Environment, said: “If you want to enter Europe’s house then please take off your shoes and abide by Europe’s rules. Foreign airlines operating in Europe must be bound by this principle just like anyone else.
“Or is aviation asking to be exempt from European law? The Commission has proposed the absolute minimum that Europe can do and still retain control over their sovereignty.”
Even with much reduced geographical coverage, Europe could still achieve the same CO2 cuts by reducing the amount of carbon permits available, he added.
The head of the Parliament’s transport committee, Brian Simpson, said that he regretted not having asked for the ETS to be considered a joint competence with the environment committee, which is considered less conservative.
However, Mr Simpson said that if an EC proposal was on the table now, it was because “this is what the European Parliament voted for by a majority at that time”.
The current situation was “a mess”, he said, with a majority of member states not having taken up a position, and the EC having “no plan B”.
The plan B issue was also raised by Green MEP Michael Cramer as was the absence of a ‘threat’ that could have been used as leverage in the ETS negotiations.
Mr Cramer conceded that the EC had no plan B and said that aviation tax revenue collection was “not in the competence of the Commission”.
