EDF Talks Global Climate

U.S. House passes superfluous bill, EDF calls on airlines to help find global approach to reduce aviation emissions

By | Published: November 13, 2012

The U.S. House of Representatives tonight passed a bill that authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit airlines from participating in the European Union's anti-pollution law. EDF called the bill superfluous — the EU yesterday paused its carbon pollution law that was the target of the U.S. bill — and warned it sets a bad precedent for U.S. foreign relations.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011 at best is superfluous, and at worst undermines respect nations need to have for each other's laws, EDF's Annie Petsonk said after the House passed the bill. Photo credit

The EU paused its law following the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) setting in motion a high-level political process aimed at agreeing on a global program for cutting aviation carbon pollution by October 2013.

EDF’s International Counsel Annie Petsonk said in EDF's statement in the House:

Now that ICAO has moved into high gear its effort to get a global system for limiting aviation’s carbon pollution, and the EU has stopped its clock pending the ICAO outcome, at best this bill is simply superfluous. At worst, it undermines the respect that nations need to have for each other’s laws in a globalizing world.

President Obama signaled in his reelection acceptance speech that there is an opportunity for revitalized executive branch leadership on the challenge of climate change.

The aviation question, one of the first climate issues after the elections, puts the spotlight on the White House, which will need to put significant political muscle into helping ICAO reach agreement on a worldwide approach to address aircraft emissions.

The airlines who lobbied so hard for enactment of this bill should join with environmentalists in agreeing on that global approach.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011 gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to prohibit U.S. airlines from complying with a European law requiring airplanes that land or take off from European airports to account for and limit their flights’ global warming pollution through an emissions trading system.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Transportation to hold the airlines "harmless" of any costs, including both the costs of complying with the European law, estimated to be trivial, and the costs of not complying. The “hold harmless” provisions could launch a wholly unnecessary trade war and stick U.S. taxpayers with up to $22 billion in non-compliance costs.

Before the bill came to the House floor tonight, Petsonk talked to POLITICO, which reported:

Petsonk has long been predicting ICAO would be confronted with the decision, likening the process to past global environmental law cases that began with bilateral bickering but eventually spawned a global dialogue. That means the U.S. should not yet be patting itself on the back about forcing the EU’s hand.

“The EU didn’t say, ‘We’re ending the system.’ They said, ‘We’re giving the ICAO process time’” to work on the issue, Petsonk said.

That means congressional action on a bill that has been in a recess-induced lull for weeks is likely to pass Congress just days after the real progress was made internationally. “It’s like a Fifth of July firecracker,” Petsonk said of the bill.

Aviation is already the world's seventh largest polluter, and if emissions from the industry are left unregulated, they're expected to quadruple by 2050.

Posted in Aviation, Europe, News |: | 2 Responses

The EU Considers Additional Steps to Improve the EU Emissions Trading System

By | Published: October 29, 2012

EDF recently published a report examining the results and lessons learned from the world’s first and largest multinational cap-and-trade program to limit carbon pollution: the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The report was designed to assist those jurisdictions like California, China, Australia, the Republic of Korea, and others implementing – or considering adopting – carbon cap-and-trade systems, and to highlight what can be learned from the pathbreaking experience of the EU ETS.

The EU ETS continues to evolve, with current debates in the EU focused on how to improve the system as it transitions to a new trading period next year. The EU is considering several reform proposals, including a short-term reform that would delay the auction of new emissions trading allowances until later in the trading period (“backloading”).

The EU’s backloading proposal is a justifiable short-term step that would give the EU time to consider additional structural reforms needed to build on the EU ETS’s success in reducing Europe’s carbon emissions. For instance, the EU’s success thus far in laying the foundation for achieving its 20% emissions reduction target by 2020 has prompted persistent calls among stakeholders in Europe to tighten the EU’s economy-wide target even further: to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020*, or to set an ambitious target beyond 2020 that would provide additional confidence to market actors to make long term investments in low-carbon innovation. The EU plans to publish by November 14 a carbon market report that examines options to increase the long-term ambition of the EU ETS.

A tighter EU ETS target for 2020 and beyond would not only help the EU achieve its aspirational emission reduction target of 80-95% below 2005 levels by 2050, but – according to one study – could create millions of jobs while bolstering investment and GDP growth.

Doing so would also send an important message about EU climate leadership, providing another lesson to the world on how to chart a path forward to tackle the climate challenge.

*Note: The EU has both economy-wide reduction targets and targets under the EU ETS, which includes the power and industrial sectors, among others. At present, emissions under the EU ETS account for approximately 40% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

Posted in Europe |: | Leave a comment

EDF selected as representative to UN-REDD Program Policy Board

By | Bio | Published: October 26, 2012

A child from the Sao Felix community in the Brazilian Amazon. (Photo credit: CIFOR)

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is very pleased to be the newly selected representative to the UN Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) Program Policy Board for northern (i.e., developed-country) Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). The Policy Board is a critical component of the UN REDD Program, providing strategic direction and approving financial allocations. The Board is comprised of representatives from partner countries, donors to the Multi-Partner Trust Fund, civil society, and indigenous peoples, as well as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program, and the UN Environment Program.

As one of the Board’s Civil Society Observers, EDF will participate in UN REDD Program Policy Board meetings, and solicit concerns to be raised at meetings on behalf of northern civil society organizations; EDF will also share information among its networks about REDD meetings and processes. EDF’s first meeting as a CSO will be the Ninth UN REDD Policy Board meeting in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo on October 26th and 27th (see agenda).

EDF recognizes that there is a lot of confusion surrounding the UN REDD Program and its “cousin” REDD initiatives, and that information on how participating organizations interact with one another, governments and indigenous populations is not always clear or easily accessible. In an effort to answer some of the questions about the REDD process and key players, EDF has prepared a brief explanatory document. In it, you can find a breakdown of the three major REDD initiatives – the Forest Investment Partnership (FIP), the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), and the UN REDD Program – describing which REDD activities they are involved in, which countries they partner with, and their main REDD objectives.

In addition, EDF has set up a specific web page for those interested in the UN REDD program. EDF will update this website with information and news on the UN REDD program meetings, and will promote the discussion of REDD initiatives on various forums and threads as well. Shortly after the Brazzaville meeting, we will provide an update on developments there.

Posted in Deforestation, Indigenous peoples, REDD, UN negotiations |: | 2 Responses

The EU Emissions Trading System is reducing emissions, sparking low-carbon innovation, and growing up. Really.

By | Published: October 18, 2012

With 2012 shaping up to be the hottest La Niña year on record and global greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, initiatives to reduce global warming pollution are ever more critical. A new EDF report presents important lessons from the experience of the world’s first multinational carbon emissions trading system: the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

Jurisdictions as diverse as California, China, the Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, and Australia are implementing, or are in the process of adopting, cap-and-trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and all stand to learn important lessons from Europe.

Why the EU Emissions Trading System matters

The EU’s program is the first and largest cap-and-trade system with enforceable limits on carbon pollution, which gives it a unique position on the world stage. The EU ETS:

Results from the first two trading periods of Europe's Emissions Trading System offer lessons for other jurisdictions on the road to a low-carbon economy. (Photo source: iStockphoto)

  • Began its pilot phase (Phase I) in 2005; the pilot phase transitioned in 2008 into the fully operational Phase II, which will end this year; Phase III will begin in 2013, and last through 2020 (though EU law already provides that emissions will continue to decline beyond 2020).
  • Places strict caps on carbon dioxide emissions from power stations and industrial plants.
  • Applies to about 40% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions, rising to 43% as the ETS expands its coverage to include other industrial sectors and global warming pollutants.
  • Aims to lower the total carbon emissions of covered sectors in the EU to 21% below 2005 emissions by 2020.
  • Includes 30 participating countries, which account for 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and 17% of world energy-related CO2 emissions.

As the EU ETS’s first full trading period (Phase II) comes to a close at the end of 2012, our report examines the results thus far of the world’s first carbon cap-and-trade experiment, and looks ahead to its future.

The report, The EU Emissions Trading System: Results and Lessons Learned, reviews the performance of the EU ETS from 2005 until present, and addresses three central points: the EU ETS’s efficacy, efficiency, and market security. (Note: This report focuses on the overall structure and performance of the EU ETS since its inception in 2005, and thus does not discuss the 2012 expansion of the system to include aviation emissions.)

Results and recommendations

Based on our analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System, EDF has identified six major results from the EU ETS's experience, and developed corresponding policy recommendations. The report’s Executive Summary includes additional details on each of the following lessons learned.

1) The EU ETS has achieved significant emission reductions at minimal cost.

As shown below and on page 8 of the full report, the data suggest that the ETS has succeeded in reducing emissions beyond what would be expected from the recession alone, even assuming an emissions growth rate 1% less than the growth in GDP (represented by the dotted business-as-usual line).  ETS sector emissions declined a further 1.8% in 2011, according to recent estimates, while GDP increased approximately 1.4%. However, verified 2011 emissions data will not be available until mid-2013, and thus the graph does not depict the likely drop in 2011 emissions. The EU has achieved this emissions-cutting success at much lower-than-expected cost: according to some estimates, just 0.01% of Europe’s GDP, and that’s without considering the economic benefits of emissions reductions.

EU ETS sector emissions (million metric tons CO2), emissions caps, and EU gross domestic product (GDP), 1990–2015.

 

Recommendation: Emulate the successful design of – and improvements to – the EU ETS, including its focus on the environmental integrity and enforceability of the emissions cap, to unleash the proven effectiveness of cap-and-trade in stimulating low-carbon innovation.

Recommendation: Stimulate long-term emission reduction investments by maintaining a predictably declining, enforceable, science-based cap on carbon.

2) Although over-allocation of allowances and a sharp drop in their prices occurred during the program’s pilot phase in 2005-2007, the policy stability created by longer-term targets subsequently led to durable investments in reducing emissions and deploying low carbon strategies.

Recommendation: Base emissions caps and resulting allowance allocations on measured and verified historical emissions, rather than on estimated or projected emissions.

Recommendation: Provide a predictable long-term policy environment that allows banking of allowances between trading periods.

3) Windfall profits occurred in some member states but can be avoided using a variety of policy tools.

Recommendation: Establish appropriate regulatory oversight of public utilities, and auction some or all allowances.

4) Reforms have improved the elements of the EU ETS that allow emitters to tender credits earned from projects reducing emissions in developing countries (“offsets”), but further reforms would be useful.

Recommendation: Ensure offset programs have rigorous monitoring and accounting methodologies to clarify that emission reductions are “additional” (i.e., below a credible baseline)

Recommendation: Adopt reforms that allow international offset credits only from jurisdictions that have capped some portion of their emissions, or only from least-developed countries.

Recommendation: If linking to other nations’ emissions trading programs, do so preferentially with nations that adopt caps or limits on major emitting sectors.

5) The EU ETS has made significant progress in preventing any recurrence of the tax fraud and theft of allowances that occurred during the program's earlier years.

Recommendation: Establish effective governance and regulatory bodies, as well as preventive electronic security systems, to adapt to evolving cyber attacks and other market security threats.

6) Companies and entrepreneurs have responded to the ETS and its complementary policies with a diverse range of profitable investments in low-carbon solutions.

Recommendation: Institute an ambitious cap-and-trade system to encourage business to think creatively about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What’s next for the EU ETS, and why the world should care

The EU will further expand the coverage of the EU ETS in 2013 to include additional greenhouse gases and additional industrial sectors, including the aluminum and chemical industries.

Regions, nations, states and local jurisdictions that are considering capping carbon pollution can learn from the experience and build on the success of the EU ETS, the world’s first large-scale CO2 cap-and-trade system. (Photo courtesy of German Wind Energy Association/© BWE / Thorsten Paulsen)

Additionally, even though the EU ETS’s Phase III ends in 2020, the cap on emissions will continue to decline after that – by 1.74% per year – which provides the critical longer-term certainty needed to spur investment in emissions reductions now.

Nonetheless, a suitable set of complementary policies and measures is essential if the EU is to achieve its aspirational emission reduction target of 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. A more ambitious EU ETS target for 2020 or 2030 would help achieve the EU’s long-term reduction goal. Current discussions in Europe include proposals to tighten the EU ETS cap further, not only to strengthen emission reductions, but also to stimulate economic growth.

Perhaps the most important lesson the EU ETS experience provides is that regions, countries and states can benefit from a learning-by-doing approach to cap-and-trade. Any design flaws and weaknesses of various policy tools are often difficult to anticipate, but can be corrected over time as experience warrants.

With its success and durability now attracting the attention of other nations and jurisdictions that seek to link their carbon trading systems to the EU’s, the EU ETS offers a unique opportunity for other regions, nations, states, and even local jurisdictions that are considering such systems to learn from its experience and continue to build on its success.

Posted in Europe, News |: | 1 Response

State-level REDD+ offers huge climate benefits

By | Bio | Published: October 15, 2012

Carbon markets are taking giant steps toward becoming a reality, with forests and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) central to the process. Many environmentalists support REDD+, but a few want to obstruct it.

Many states around the world are already curbing their greenhouse gas emissions, including by reducing deforestation. Photo credit

A few weeks ago in Chiapas, Mexico, the 17 states and provinces from  the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Nigeria that make up the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) met to discuss ways to collaborate on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from cutting down and burning tropical forests. Several states are already reducing emissions, on a larger scale than is often recognized.

With California poised to start the first state-wide mandatory emissions reductions program in North America next month, you’d think that environmentalists would welcome more states’ leadership.

But instead, Greenpeace put out a document slamming the GCF for proposing state-level plans to reduce deforestation instead of waiting for national programs. Never mind that a number of the GCF states are larger and have more emissions than many countries. This sounds oddly reminiscent of oil company lobbyists’ arguments that California is wasting its time and its consumers’ money by starting to address the global problem of climate change by itself – or that the U.S. shouldn't act until China and the rest of the world do.

The world needs to start reducing emissions wherever possible, and there are real, practical, effective ways for states to do this now.

In a commentary piece for Carbon Market North America, I describe what I think is the forest that Greenpeace missed (actually, the trees too).

You can read the commentary here: Huge climate benefits from state, local REDD+.

Posted in Brazil, Deforestation, Indigenous peoples, Mexico, REDD |: | 1 Response

Senate-passed bill puts pressure on U.S. Administration, ICAO to limit aviation emissions

By | Bio | Published: September 24, 2012

I want to tell you what happened over the weekend while no one was looking.

The U.S. Senate passed a bill early Saturday that gives the Administration unheard-of authority to ban U.S. companies from complying with another country’s law. (Photo credit: Flickr user WallyG)

At a few minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, just after the U.S. Senate wrapped up its wrangling over the latest funding resolution, a rather extraordinary bill was passed by the Senate.

If the bill is enacted, it would appear to be the first time in our nation's history that Congress has given sweeping authority to a cabinet member to prohibit U.S. companies from complying with the duly enacted law of another nation – and on top of that, to bail out firms that do comply or that get hit with penalties if they don't.

There are only a very few instances in America's recent history in which Congress has prohibited U.S. companies from complying with the laws of other nations. The purpose of those laws is to prevent U.S. firms from being used to implement policies of other nations that run counter to U.S. policy; they include the prohibitions on doing business in South Africa during the period of apartheid, and the anti-boycott laws, which prohibit U.S. firms from furthering boycotts of one country by another, and nowadays cover the Arab League boycott of Israel.

So, what action by a foreign nation was so odious that the Senate found it necessary to give a Cabinet secretary authority to prohibit U.S. firms from complying with it – and to bail U.S. firms out of any costs they might incur from it?

The bill that got through the Senate Saturday morning gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to prohibit U.S. airlines from complying with a European law requiring airplanes that land or take off from European airports to account for and limit their flights’ global warming pollution through an emissions trading system.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Transportation to hold the airlines "harmless" – meaning bail them out – of any costs, including both the costs of complying with the European law, estimated to be trivial, and the costs of not complying (the latter could be steep).

Aviation is already the world's seventh largest polluter, and if emissions from the industry are left unregulated, they're expected to quadruple by 2050.

With the passage of the Senate bill, the spotlight now zooms onto the Administration, in particular the Secretary of Transportation, and the talks at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to reach a global agreement to limit aviation emissions — and to reach it quickly. 

Below are some questions we have received on this bill, and my responses.

What is it in the European law that runs so counter to U.S. policy that it justifies this drastic action?

The airlines argue that the law violates U.S. sovereignty because the law holds airlines accountable for the entire pollution of the flights – even pollution occurring in the airspace over the sovereign territory of the United States.

But the fact that the European law applies to the entirety of the flight cannot be the reason it is counter to U.S. policy.

In fact, it's expressly the policy of the United States to apply our laws to a whole host of issues through the entirety of flights coming in and out of the U.S. – including portions of flights wholly over foreign sovereign territory.  U.S. laws governing everything from security screening, to banning liquids and gels, to barring gambling apply to flights landing and taking off from U.S. airports, including the portions of the flights occurring in and over foreign lands.

Could the reason the European law is so counter to U.S. policy be that, as the U.S. airlines allege, it's a tax?

The law does require flights landing or taking off from European airports to hold sufficient pollution allowances to cover the amount of pollution coming out of the backs of their engines, and if they don't have enough allowances, they can buy them from European governments.

But it can't be that flight taxes per se are objectionable to the U.S. government. After all, Congress makes every traveler coming in and out of the United States pay a $16.70 international departure and arrival tax.

The aviation industry is world's seventh largest polluter. With the passage of the Senate bill, the spotlight now zooms onto the Administration, in particular the Secretary of Transportation, and the talks at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to reach a global agreement to limit aviation emissions– and to reach it quickly.

And as courts have already found, the EU law isn't actually a tax:  if the airlines don't want to, they don't have to send a cent to European government coffers. They can simply fly more efficiently.  And if they don't want to do that, they can buy and sell pollution credits in the global marketplace without ever paying European governments a dime – and maybe even make money in the process.

In the run-up to the passage of the airline pollution bailout bill, a few changes were made that tell the Secretary of Transportation, if he does ban the airlines from complying with the European law, to reconsider his ban if the Europeans amend their law, or if an international agreement is reached to address this pollution, or if the U.S. adopts a regulation (which could take years).

The international agreement provision is the interesting part – it puts pressure on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to amp up its action on climate change and agree on a global program at its next triennial Assembly in 2013.

But other parts of the bill – including those that bail the airlines out of any costs of complying – or not complying – with the law, remain.

Minor changes to the bill ensure that those costs won't be paid out of the airlines' taxpayer-funded trust fund, but taxpayers could still be on the hook if the airlines win a court judgment that the Secretary is required to hold them harmless, as the bill requires, so that the monies come from the taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund, a part of the U.S. Treasury used to satisfy court judgments against the United States.

What if the Secretary invokes his authority under a little-known airline competitiveness law that allows him to impose retaliatory penalties against airlines from countries that the Secretary finds are treating U.S. airlines “unreasonably”?

And what if the Secretary uses that authority to hold U.S. airlines harmless from the European law by dunning Lufthansa, British Airways, and other European airlines for the U.S. airlines’ compliance or non-compliance costs?

Those companies would likely protest in court. But if the Secretary's cost-dunning order were upheld, Europe could retaliate under its own airline competitiveness law and impose retaliatory fees on U.S. airlines.

Then you have a full-scale trade war. And since U.S. airlines have both code-share and revenue-share agreements with European carriers, a trade war on this issue amounts to shooting themselves in the wing.

What happens next?

A similar bill has already passed the House of Representatives, but because the bills have some differences, the House will have to take it up again when Congress reconvenes after the November elections.

Could it be that the part of the bill that's antithetical to U.S. policy is really the fact that the  European law addresses climate change?

Maybe that's the case for the U.S. Congress at this sad juncture in our nation's history.

But is it also the case that the Obama Administration is so opposed to climate action that after 15 years of fruitless international efforts to curb aviation's global warming pollution, the Administration would stand in the way of other nations' efforts to address that pollution?

We don’t believe so. And if the bill passes, we and others will certainly be encouraging the Administration to find that it is in our public interest lies in striking a real deal in ICAO, rather than turning U.S. airlines into scofflaws at taxpayer – or the flying public’s – expense.

Posted in Aviation, News |: | 6 Responses

In Bangkok talks, countries grapple with transition to new climate regime

By | Published: September 5, 2012

The latest round of UN climate negotiations in Bangkok ended today with Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres touting the talks' "positive momentum" and "concrete progress," and the NGO coalition Climate Action Network sounding notably less enthusiastic.

Above: Delegates met in Bangkok for a week of climate negotiations to prepare for the major conference later this year in Doha. (Photo credit: flickr user UNclimatechange)

Environmental Defense Fund Attorney Alex Hanafi said in EDF's closing statement:

In Bangkok, it became clearer still that the prospect of a new climate deal that calls for all countries to do their part to lower emissions is still in its very early stages, and countries are grappling with how to transition from the old regime to a still as-yet-undefined new one.

Outside the slogging UN negotiations, however, momentum for action on climate change continues growing at national, regional and state levels. For instance, Alex said:

Australia and Europe’s agreeing to link their carbon markets last month is the latest example of the kind of international cooperation needed to stitch together climate action into a whole that will be greater than the sum of its parts.

The next — and the year's biggest — round of international negotiations begins in November in Doha, Qatar.

In Doha, Alex said, countries' success will be measured by their ability to do two things:

  1. expeditiously resolve their differences on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, and
  2. then focus on making substantive progress toward achieving a strong, enforceable and flexible climate agreement by 2015.

Posted in Bangkok, UN negotiations |: | Leave a comment

Lawsuit against EU airline pollution law would undercut U.S. goal of limiting aviation emissions

By | Bio | Published: August 3, 2012

In the continuing war by U.S. airlines against Europe’s climate pollution law, last week the klieg lights were focused on the companies’ unsuccessful attempt to ram through the U.S. Senate a bill barring the airlines from complying with the EU law. (A 17-country meeting called by U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern to try to bridge differences between China and the United States on addressing aviation pollution also got some attention.)

Airlines are pushing the U.S. to bring an "Article 84" lawsuit that would be counterproductive to the administration's goal of international action on reducing aviation emissions. Above: ICAO world headquarters. (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

But behind the scenes, the airlines launched a different line of attack, badgering the U.S. administration to file an international legal case arguing that Europe’s program is illegal under international law.

The EU law that’s got the aviation industry so riled up is the only program in the world that sets enforceable limits on carbon pollution from aviation. That pollution is set to quadruple from 2005 levels by 2050 if left unregulated.

The industry is demanding that the U.S. government bring the case under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation, and adjudicate it in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), in Montreal, Canada.

But the airlines have already tried the lawsuit tactic before, and they lost. After two years of court argument, a panel of thirteen judges on Europe’s equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court held that the program was fully consistent with international law.

Other courts are highly likely to defer to the opinion of these highly respected international jurists. It looks like what the airlines want to do is press the administration to use taxpayer money to litigate a case that the airlines’ own attorneys already lost.

That kind of lawsuit would be decidedly counterproductive if the administration’s real goal is – as it has repeatedly stated – to get action in ICAO on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.

Article 84 is a protracted process – it can grind on for years. While that might be good for lawyers, it would divert the time and energies of the ICAO secretariat and the national delegates to ICAO. The delegates and staff would have to deal with the litigation instead of solving the tough technical problems and bridging the deep political differences needed in order to get a strong agreement in ICAO on cutting aviation pollution.

There’s also a possible legal conundrum in the Article 84 process that could prevent the case from being heard even if it were filed. ICAO’s Rules for the Settlement of Differences, Chap. III, Art. 6. says that cases shall be heard by

five individuals who shall be Representatives on the Council of Member States  not concerned in the disagreement.

What that legalese means in English is that, under the rules of Article 84, five members of the 36-member ICAO Council sit as judge and jury when one country brings a complaint against another – but under those same rules, any country that is a party to the dispute cannot have its representative participate in deciding the case.

Since all the EU countries are parties to the dispute and since all but three of the ICAO Council Member States signed the New Delhi and Moscow declarations opposing the EU law and thus are also “concerned in the disagreement” by virtue of having taken a position on the issues in the case, only three countries – Burkina Faso, Morocco, and Swaziland – would be left to adjudicate the case. That’s short of the five impartial states needed under the rules.

Trying to use Article 84 to deal with the differences between countries in ICAO over how to limit aviation pollution is really beyond the scope of the Article, since it was designed to address disputes between two countries, not broad policy disagreements among large groups of countries.

We think rather than plotting how to slow down an already leaden process, the better path would be for the U.S. to accelerate and broaden the discussions that the State Department and Department of Transportation convened last week, and get down to creative solutions for cutting the pollution that’s heating up the planet.

Related: see a letter EDF and other environmental groups sent today to President Obama urging him and his administration not to file an Article 84.

Posted in Aviation |: | Leave a comment

Obama urged to resist aviation industry calls for blocking airline pollution law

By | Published: August 3, 2012

Leading U.S. environmental groups today sent a letter to President Obama urging him to resist the aviation industry’s calls to block a European law that limits pollution from aviation.

Environmental groups called on President Obama today to lead a global effort to "craft a meaningful global approach on aviation carbon pollution."  (White House photo credit: Flickr user LollyKnit)

The European law is the only program in the world that sets enforceable limits on carbon emissions from aviation; that pollution is growing so quickly, it's projected to quadruple from 2005 levels by 2050 if left unregulated.

But the aviation industry has been calling for the U.S. government to block the law by bringing a so-called “Article 84” international legal case in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The letter, signed by 15 environmental groups and the U.S. Climate Action Network, which represents more than 80 U.S. environmental groups and millions of members, said filing such a formal proceeding to block the law

would be highly inconsistent with your Administration’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution from other sources, and would undermine your Administration’s stated goal of achieving an agreed framework in ICAO to limit global warming pollution from international aviation …

[C]alls for such a proceeding must be viewed for what they truly are: not an effort to improve ICAO’s odds of achieving a global solution, but rather a means of reducing the likelihood that ICAO takes meaningful action on carbon pollution from international aviation – while simultaneously obviating the world’s only program that is now actually doing so. In short, an Article 84 proceeding is at base a transparent effort to allow airlines to evade responsibility for their carbon pollution in perpetuity …

[Y]our Administration should lead the effort in ICAO to craft a meaningful global approach on aviation carbon pollution, working together with airlines and civil society.

CEOs from the following groups signed the letter: 350.org; Center for Biological Diversity; Climate Protection Campaign; Climate Solutions; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense Fund; Environment America; Environment Northeast; Greenpeace USA; Interfaith Power & Light; League of Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; Oxfam America; Sierra Club; US Climate Action Network; and World Wildlife Fund US.

View the letter from environmental groups to the president.

Posted in Aviation, News |: | Leave a comment

Senate committee approves short-sighted bill that could jeopardize action on airplane pollution

By | Published: July 31, 2012

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee today passed a bill that would allow the secretary of transportation  to ban airlines from complying with the only program in the world that sets enforceable limits on carbon pollution from aviation.

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted in favor of a bill that would allow the transportation secretary to block airlines from complying with Europe's anti-pollution law for aviation.

The Senate bill (S.1956) would give the transportation secretary the authority to prohibit airlines from participating in the EU Emissions Trading System, if, after taking into account many different considerations, he determines that it is in the public interest to do so. Unlike the bill passed last year in the House of Representatives, this bill does not automatically prohibit U.S. airlines from participating in the EU system.

Countries, including the United States, along with airlines and environmental groups all agree aviation emissions should be addressed at the international level, through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

However, countries have spent a decade and a half at the UN agency discussing — and failing to agree on — a program to cut carbon pollution.

EDF's International Counsel Annie Petsonk said in a statement after the vote today this Senate bill doesn't get the United States any closer to such a solution, and urged the Obama administration to step up its pressure on ICAO.

Passage of this disappointing and short-sighted bill today seems only to decrease the odds of action at the international level by calling into question the status of the one lever that actually moved ICAO to have serious discussions after 15 years of inaction – the EU Emissions Trading System.

This bill now ups the pressure on the Obama administration to produce a solution at ICAO. We are happy to see the text at least encouraged international negotiations at ICAO, which we believe hold the key to a global agreement to reduce aviation emissions.

Petsonk also said that only a couple times in history has U.S. legislation blocked companies from obeying another country's law.

Legislation that blocks American companies from obeying the laws of the countries in which they do business is almost unprecedented in U.S. history, showing up most recently when Congress barred American firms from suborning apartheid in South Africa.

How disconcerting that airlines, which are spending significant funds touting their environmental friendliness, are acting as though an anti-pollution law is as grievous as a massive human rights violation.

Amendment

An amendment to the bill says the secretary of transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administrator and other government officials:

should, as appropriate, use their authority to conduct international negotiations, including using their authority to conduct international negotiations to pursue a worldwide approach to address aircraft emissions;

Expressing skepticism of that "authority to conduct international negotiations to pursue a worldwide approach to address aircraft emissions," Petsonk told Reuters:

We've been in hot pursuit of this (an ICAO framework) for 15 years, so what makes the Senate think this is any different?

Up next, the bill's proponents will seek its quick passage on the Senate floor, either as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment to other legislation. Whether they succeed remains to be seen.

See also: Annie Petsonk's blog, Will Washington meeting on aviation pollution be undermined by U.S. airlines?

Posted in Aviation, News |: | 1 Response