iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EU Carbon Tax Regulations Likely To Be Accepted By Non-European Countries

First Posted: 02/21/2012 9:39 am Updated: 04/22/2012 5:12 am


By Gerard Wynn

LONDON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - Once rhetoric surrounding a brewing "carbon trade war" has cooled, non-EU countries are likely accept charges against carbon emissions on their flights arriving in and departing from the European Union.

Opposed countries including the United States, China and India are meeting in Moscow this week, disgruntled over the perceived injustices of the EU scheme which applies a charge on the entire carbon emissions of flights including those parts outside EU airspace.

At most they will likely warn the EU, and demand that the U.N. body, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), resolves the problem.

The plea to ICAO will be in vain: it would be difficult to make a binding sanction stick against the EU, which would only accept an ICAO compromise launching a global scheme to curb emissions from aviation - something it has failed to do in 15 years.

Aviation was uniquely (alongside shipping) excluded from CO2 targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on condition that countries instead agreed to "pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases ... working through ICAO".

The European Commission justifies its unilateral action from ICAO's failure to deliver significant action in the meantime. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) last year upheld that view.

ICAO member states will have a hard time proving that the EU is breaking any rules under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, given that ECJ support.

More substantively, and in time, countries including China will probably agree bilateral deals, taking their own action to curb emissions.

The economic impact of the EU scheme is not trivial, with a total cost to airlines of about 10.4 billion euros ($13.80 billion) through 2020, according to industry news and consultancy firm ThomsonReuters Point Carbon.

But carriers will pass some or all of the extra cost to passengers, adding about 1.5 euros to the cost of a London-New York flight, according to the European Commission. Australian and U.S. airlines have already announced plans to hike fares.


WEAKENED

The airlines case is the first where a country or region has imposed a carbon change on imports: until now that was a theoretical tool for governments to protect their domestic industry, and so stop companies relocating to more lax regimes to avoid emissions targets at home.

France has long supported EU carbon duties on imports of energy-intensive products such as steel and cement.

The EU has preferred to protect such heavy industry by giving them free permits, under its emissions trading scheme, rather than impose import duties.

It's easy to see how steel duties could escalate into a trade war given the metal's strategic importance and a long history of conflicts.

In the case of steel duties, countries can apply tit-for-tat tariffs, but on EU flights that would likely inflict more self-harm than good, impacting tourism and business.

That problem is reflected in rather weak opposition so far.

While China has banned its airlines from taking part in the EU scheme, that was unless they received government approval.

China's opposition is somewhat weakened by the gains it has reaped under the EU emissions trading scheme, which allows European polluters to meet carbon caps by buying offsets from developing countries, making emissions cuts there instead.

China is the biggest winner under that scheme, selling 60 percent of all offsets so far, worth more than 5 billion euros assuming an average price of 10 euros, according to Point Carbon.

China will this year sell carbon offsets worth 1.5 billion euros compared with costs from complying with the EU aviation charges of 70 million euros, according to UBS analyst Per Lekander.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate earlier this month passed a bill which included a statement opposing the EU law, but stepped back from a House version which would have blocked carriers from complying.


COMPROMISE

EU rules give carriers until April 2013 to buy permits against this year's emissions, leaving plenty of time for negotiation.

The most likely compromise will be in bilateral deals, as the EU scheme exempts countries which take "equivalent measures" to curb CO2.

For example, China has set a target for airlines to cut their carbon intensity (the amount of a company's CO2 emissions per dollar of revenue) by 22 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.

That compares with the EU's plans to nearly halve emissions by 2020, compared to the expected level without action.

Those are two very different metrics, but nevertheless could be the basis for a Beijing exemption.

EU international aviation emissions have doubled since 1990. ($1 = 0.7538 euros) (Reporting by Gerard Wynn)

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:15 PM on 02/23/2012
This is just a tax the EU is putting on airlines. It does nothing to reduce CO2.
06:29 PM on 02/22/2012
Every single airline that flies in and out of the EU has already registered under every aspect of the ETS with their respective regulator in each EU member state. They have effectively already surrendered in this phoney "carbon war"!

And this is how ticket prices are already being impacted:

• Etihad Airways, Abu Dhabi's carrier, has increased the fuel surcharge on all its flights to Europe to counter the costs of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme by USD$3 per passenger for flights into and out of Europe and 0.03 cents per kilogram for cargo shipments.
• Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Continental and US Airways say they have already added a $3 surcharge each way on tickets for flights between the United States and Europe
• ryanair introduced a 0.25 Euro levy per passenger per flight from 17th January to cover its’ ETS costs
• Air France/KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa have each added ETS costs to ticket prices via an increase in their existing fuel surcharge although the actual amount is a little opaque
• and earlier this month, Qantas said it would raise fares by A$3.50 ($3.77) per passenger each way on flights to London and Frankfurt, to cover the cost of the EU ETS.

The countries meeting in Moscow this week simply want to bring about the complete collapse of the EU ETS, nothing more, nothing less.

Jeffrey Gazzard
Board Member
Aviation Environment Federation
LONDON
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Mccormick
10:23 PM on 02/22/2012
thank you for your post. as a person who always wants to know the bottom line i have been trying to figure out what the cost would per ticket. now , i get it. i had this idea that the surcharge was going to make it impossible for anyone who doesn't earn 6 figures to fly to Europe from the United States. which would have meant no London Olympics for me.
03:59 PM on 02/22/2012
This, together with their move to stop buying Iranian oil shows exactly how far departed from reality our elites are. We need to protect the environment but not like this.
The upcomming Rio + 20 summit, would be a perfect place to propose a global mechanism to encourage sustainability.
http://zoltansustainableecon.blogspot.com/2012/02/rio-20-uns-56-recommendations.html
08:15 AM on 02/22/2012
"EU Carbon Tax Regulations Likely To Be Accepted By Non-European Countries"

The above title (as stated by the EU) typifies the EUs total arrogance and destructiveness (in addition to being out of touch with the electorate of the EU) - I hope the US, China, Russia and other opponents of this tax REJECT this pathetic untimely tax at a time the whole world is in recession. Why is it always Europe that pays these taxes while the rest of the world ignores such?

I trust and hope that fools who passionatly pursue this matter - such as: Ms. Hedgegaard, Mr Ladron and all of their cronies are turned against by thier communities and end up unemployed and start to have a realistic view about what life is about when you have nothing!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wanderland
Generic white guy
10:16 AM on 02/22/2012
I guess all the poor people will have to put off their European vacations until they can spring for the extra 1.5 euros that will be added to the ticket price.

Cry me a river.
10:16 AM on 02/22/2012
Bottom line: it's fair to penalize trade partners if you also penalize your own firms in the exact same way (even though the money stays in the state/bloc via the govt). Any nation can raise a fossil carbon tax and legally tariff incoming carbon-heavy goods and subsidize outgoing carbon-heavy goods. Not doing so would unfairly hurt the carbon-taxing nation, after all. The only thing other nations can do to get rid of the penalty is:

A.) Prove the scheme is unwarranted (fat chance--the risk of fossil carbon is super firm science, and the bar for these cases is low anyway) or executed dishonestly/incorrectly (i.e. it doesn't actually pursue the warranted end), or
B.) Levy a similar scheme themselves.