This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
www.buyingbusinesstravel.com


Emissions trading


IT HAS BEEN described as generating so much gas – both literally and figuratively. And now, to add to its multiple New Year woes, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS, sometimes known as the emissions trading scheme) appears to be backfiring under a darkening cloud of global criticism and politically charged hot air. As the first carbon trading scheme of its kind, the ETS consistently has been challenged since its inception in 2005 and has struggled to earn credibility and compliance among its nominated participating industries. Entering 2013, and arguably its most decisive phase, the scheme is, at best, regarded as a worthy but as yet inconsistently applied climate control mechanism; at worst, it is derided as a damaging and costly bureaucratic omnishambles – an eco-crazy directive imposed with scant regard to its feasibility in practice or as little more than a conscience-driven device to feed Brussels’ tax-hungry coffers. Whatever your view, ETS has gained a powerful army of fresh detractors on the eve of its fuller and wider-spread implementation. Its unilateral insistence on including not just member-state airlines but all the world’s carriers into the scheme has sparked an explosive war of words and a travel industry backlash, boiling with indignation and bristling at the EU’s extra-territorial impudence. Airlines, including regional


carriers now locked into the scheme, have always opposed the validity of their inclusion in the cap-and- trade system alongside other energy intensive industries. In line with the United Nations’


Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gases globally, they claim their own emission control formulation and governance through the UN- associated International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The EU counters that ICAO has been dragging its heels on producing a globally acceptable system. It claims this is needed urgently because international aviation emissions, even if fuel efficiency improves by 2 per cent annually, are projected to be


70 per cent higher by 2020 than they were in 2005. It also claims that international flights into and out of the EU account for the large majority of direct aviation emissions currently responsible for 3 per cent of the region’s total greenhouse gas output. Airlines claim to be ahead of regulators with their own commitment to carbon-neutral growth from 2020, leading to a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050; and, having legally challenged (and lost) their enforced inclusion in ETS, an influential alliance of non-EU carriers has since been playing political brinkmanship over mandatory emissions reporting scheduled for April this year.


Airlines brand ETS as ambiguous and tax discriminatory, a dictatorial edict riddled with hidden costs


In general, airlines brand ETS as


ambiguous and tax discriminatory, a dictatorial edict riddled with hidden costs, administrative complications and devoid of joined-up thinking for sustainable application, both regionally and beyond EU borders. Moreover, they claim an emissions levy imposed on entire flights, rather than just over European airspace, is an infringement of non-EU state sovereignty. A European Court of Justice ruling has dismissed these claims. Despite this, and through the threat of trade sanctions endorsed by major governments, including China and the US, they have earned a temporary standoff. In November, the EU reluctantly offered ICAO more time to produce a global solution for the sector. The net result is an official stalemate on the issue. Coupled with the now extended game of push and shove between the EU and airlines, it remains unclear as to what will ultimately transpire. In the meantime, the EU ETS appears no longer to be cooking on gas – but the hot air continues.


HOW IT’S MEANT TO WORK Aviation’s inclusion in the EU ETS from January 2012 was proposed by the European Commission (EC) in 2006 and endorsed by the European Parliament two years later. The overall target of the scheme is to cut pre-1990 emission levels by 8 per cent or more by 2020. Under the cap-and- trade system, regional airlines join main energy-intensive industries in receiving tradeable European Union Allowances (EUAs) covering a pre-set level of CO2 emissions per year. The reputed aim of the scheme is to enable EU-identified heavier polluting industries to manage their emissions cost-effectively. These include power stations, refineries, iron and steel, cement and lime, paper, food and drinks, glass, ceramics, engineering and vehicle manufacturing. The UK is a key player in a system that requires each member state to submit a National Allocation Plan (NAP), approved by the EC, which sets an overall cap on total emissions permitted and shared between participants regionally, with one allowance equalling one tonne of CO2. After each year, operators must surrender a number of allowances equal to their actual emissions for the year or face a penalty. If actual emissions are lower than their allowances, they can either sell the surplus to other ETS participants or bank them to cover future use. If operators anticipate exceeding their allowances, they can either take measures to reduce their emissions or buy additional EUAs on the market. They can also buy certified emission reductions (CERs), a type of carbon credit, from clean energy projects


AVIATION’S FOOTPRINT INTRA-EUROPEAN FLIGHTS account for less than 1 per cent of worldwide CO2 emissions and up to 3 per cent of the EU’s total emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It estimates aviation produces about 2 per cent of overall global CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide represents about 70 per cent and water vapour about 30 per cent of aviation emissions. Nitrogen oxide and suphur oxide each represent less than 1 per cent.


79


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124