Strasbourg, 13/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament has given its backing to the inclusion of civil aviation in the Community greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (ETS) by the same date for all flights and under stricter conditions than those proposed by the European Commission.
In Strasbourg on 13 November, MEPs voted by a large majority to adopt the report by German Christian Democrat Peter Liese. They, thus, gave their support to the draft directive of December 2006 (see EUROPE 9332), but demanded more of the aviation sector in combating climate change. The challenge is great because civil aviation, whose emissions are rising exponentially, has hitherto been marginal to efforts under the Kyoto Protocol.
In 2004, the EU's share of greenhouse gas emissions in international aviation rose by 7.5% compared with those of 2003. Since 1990, the sector's CO2 emissions have risen by 87% - a figure that stands in stark contrast with the target of an 8% reduction in emissions for the EU under the Kyoto Protocol.
The European Parliament, more ambitious than the European Commission, went halfway between the demands of its environment committee, concerned principally with the climate, and those of its transport committee, more concerned with the competitiveness of the sector compared with competitors from third countries. While the Commission wanted carbon emissions from aviation stabilised at the 2004-2006 average, MEPs called for a rigorous capping of total CO2 emissions which could be negotiated in the sector: the total number of quotas to be allocated annually to airlines will be equivalent to 90% of the average pollution for the 2004-2006 period, and, then, reduced in the same way as those of other sectors (the environment committee suggests setting the ceiling at 75% of the annual average).
At least 25% of these allowances will be put up for auction and not distributed free of charge to already established airlines. This percentage could be increased in 2013 to bring consistency with the other industrial sectors taking part in the ETS. MEPs believe the revenue generated by the auctioning of allowances should be used to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impact of climate change in the EU and third countries, to fund research and development and to lower taxes and charges on climate-friendly forms of transport, such as bus and train. The EPP-ED group welcomed the vote as a “reasonable compromise”. For German Christian Democrats Werner Langen and Markus Ferber, “this outcome ensures that the legitimate concerns of the environment committee will be taken as much into account as airlines' competitiveness “.
They welcomed in particular the considerable reduction in costs for the sector's small and medium-sized enterprises.
The European Parliament called for the ETS to apply to all flights to and from EU airports by 2011 (a year later than the environment committee proposal and a year earlier than what was proposed by the transport committee). The European Commission provided for two stages: 2011 for all internal and international flights between EU airports, and 2012 for all international flights to or from EU airports. “It is difficult to justify why a flight from the United Kingdom to Morocco is not covered by the system when a flight from the United Kingdom to the Canary Islands would be,” Liese said. The application of the system to all flights on the same date would avoid any competition distortions.
Parliament set a strict limit on airlines' rights to buy the emissions allowances of other sectors or those of developing countries through the clean development mechanism.
MEPs also refused to exempt official flights from the ETS, thereby going against the Commission proposal.
However, small planes of less than 20 tonnes (such as many business jets) will not be included in the system.
Alain Lipietz (Greens/EFA, France) said that “by strengthening the directive proposed by the Commission to integrate aviation into the European greenhouse gas allowance trading scheme, the European Parliament has just taken an important step in mankind's fight to save itself from its own excesses”.
He was pleased that the Parliament had decided to cap allowances “when the Commission was prepared to make a gift to aviation for its drift since 1990”. He also welcomed the principle of auctioning because “the sale of allowances will mean reductions in other taxes, and young companies will have space in which to develop”. He similarly welcomed Parliament's refusal to exempt governmental flights. “Heads of state and ministers should show an example to society and stop jumping on the plane so that they can be filmed in the four corners of the globe,” he said.
Environmental NGOs acknowledged that Parliament had improved the Commission proposal, but not as much as they would have wanted. WWF said that the Parliamentary vote was only “weak support” for the EU's undertaking to reduce its emissions by 30% by 2020 (if other industrialised countries follow suit: Ed.). WWF felt that, out of a sense of fairness with other sectors taking part in combating global warming, civil aviation should have been asked for a 50% reduction compared with 2004-2006. It is also persuaded that, in the light of the study it has carried out, the auctioning of 100% of the allowances would have little impact on the profit margins of airlines and would be the best way to encourage emissions reductions. “On the eve of the United Nations negotiations on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, Parliament has only slightly improved the draft legislation, missing the opportunity to really reduce the sector's emissions in Europe which has the fastest rate of growth in greenhouse gas el-missions,” said delai Villagrasa.
Pointing out that aviation emissions have been rising by 4-5% annually and have doubled since 1990, Friends of the Earth Europe said that, with the text as it stands, the EU “will not be able to significantly reduce the impact of aviation on climate change, and would seriously jeopardise EU plans to cut European emissions by 30% by 2020”. It will be up to the EU Council, as co-decision maker on the text, to decide whether or not it finds all or some of the amendments adopted by Parliament to be acceptable. (A.N.)