The battle against the European Union’s plans to charge the world’s biggest airlines for their carbon pollution is poised to escalate this week as the US, China and two dozen other countries take their case to the international body that sets global air standards
The 26 countries, including Russia, India and Japan, will tell the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) that the EU measu8e “violates the cardinal principle of state sovereignty” enshrined by international air agreements since the second world war.
Their action paves the way for a rare formal dispute to be launched in the ICAO, a UN agency with headquarters in Montreal.
The EU’s inclusion of aviation in its six-year-old emissions trading scheme from January will “curb the sustainable growth of international aviation”, the 26 countries claim, in a paper prepared for a meeting of the ICAO’s governing council that starts on Monday.
That could also prompt other countries to introduce “competing schemes”, the countries say, “bringing about a chaotic situation adversely affecting the sustainability of air transport”.
One of the last big disputes before the ICAO was also over an EU environmental measure: a 1999 decision to clamp down on aircraft noise that the US said unfairly favoured European-built Airbus aircraft over older US Boeing jets.
While the ICAO cannot force the EU to ditch its plans, it can be used in order to apply further pressure to Brussels in regard to its boldest move to date to force countries outside Europe to abide by its carbon pollution rules.
The US has been one of the foremost opponents of the measure, which will force any airline flying into or out of the EU to buy permits - each equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide - to cover their emissions.
The US House of Representatives last week voted to stop US airlines taking part. John Mica, the Republican congressman who sponsored that decision, headed a delegation to the ICAO this month to urge member states to oppose the EU’s plans.
US airlines have also launched a legal challenge against the move - but suffered a setback this month when an interim opinion by the European Court of Justice’s advocate-general dismissed most of their arguments.
Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner, has insisted the bloc will not back down about a measure environmental campaigners have long pushed for.
“This is a better deal than a fuel tax; it’s a better deal for passengers; and it’s a better deal in the fight against climate change,” said Jeff Gazzard of the London-based Aviation Environment Federation.
Separately, fresh research calculates that the financial impact of the scheme - which has been estimated at anything from a 17bn-euro ($24bn) cost to a 20bn-euro profit for the airline industry - will be relatively small compared with other industry charges.
Out-of-pocket costs “represent less than a quarter of a per cent of revenue from the routes covered by the EU ETS [emissions trading system] in 2012 and [about] half a per cent in 2020”, said the Bloomberg New Energy Finance consultancy.
“At current carbon prices this translates to an out-of-pocket cost of 762m euros in 2012 and 2,170m euros in 2020.” These amounts were “dwarfed” by other recent aviation charges in Europe, such as the UK air passenger duty and German air passenger tax, BNEF said.
