HOME          CATEGORIES          OUR TAKE

House Seeks to Forbid US Airlines from Participating in EU’s Cap & Trade System

The US House of Representatives recently passed a bill making it illegal for US airlines to participate in Europe’s emission trading scheme, which by January 1st all air carriers flying into or out of the EU will be legally required to do under EU law, as reported in a recent NY Times Green Blog.  The EU’s cap and trade system charges all companies operating within the EU for carbon dioxide emissions beyond an allotted amount.  US airlines, with the support of the Obama Administration, have sought exemption from the scheme, arguing that since most of carbon dioxide emissions are released over international airspace the EU does not have authority to impose carbon fines.  The European Commission, however, has stuck to its guns in requiring all airlines to participate, and the European Court of Justice recently ruled against airlines which had filed suit, noting that it’s already common practice for countries to impose landing fees that airlines must comply with.

The EU emissions scheme is estimated to increase the price of a transatlantic flight by up to $60, but the exact amount is unclear as it will depend on how much a particular air carrier exceeds the cap.  The hope is that US airlines will respond by finding mechanisms to reduce their fuel use (and thus emitting fewer GHGs), such as purchasing fuel efficient aircraft to replace aging fleets, resulting in a net savings to consumers over time.

Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s commissioner for climate action, tweeted, “We are confident that the U.S. will respect European law, as E.U. always respects U.S. law.”  But the recent House bill, titled the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, flies in the face of that sentiment.  Were it to be signed into law, it would require the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit any US airline from participating “in any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the European Union.”  How this would practically play out is profoundly unclear: US airlines would be placed in the untenable position of being forced to violate one law or the other. However, although the bill passed by a voice vote in the House, its chances in the Senate and the possibility of a Presidential signature are slim, relegating such musings to realm of bizarre speculation.

Brendon Steele

Comment on this article

ClimateYou moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (New York time) and can only accept comments written in English.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE


More Posts Like This

CONSEQUENCES

SCOTUS Poised to Handcuff the EPA

In the wake of reactionary rulings by the Supreme Court that seized a woman’s right to abortion after the Justices had unleashed potentially lethal freedoms to gun owners, one can only shudder at the prospect of the court’s upcoming decision on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

CITY TECH BLOG

China and the Paris Agreement by City Tech Blogger Xiao JiaLun

The “Paris Agreement” is a climate change agreement adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference on December 12, 2015, and signed in New York on April 22, 2016. The agreement decides the global response to climate change after 2020. A major feature of the Paris Agreement is that

ENERGY

Biden is Right to push for Climate Agenda on Economic grounds

In Biden’s 1st SOTU, he doubled down on his climate agenda, asserting that it would save Americans $500/year in energy costs. He promised to build 500,000 charging stations, upgrade miles of highways, and modernize the nation’s ports and airports, all to lower transportation costs for Americans. He said

Take action in the fight against climate change