Using The Clean Air Act To Cut Aviation Emissions And Create An Alternative To The European Union Emissions Trading System
By Nathan Richardson, Samuel Grausz
International aviation generates more than 3 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions per year. This amount is relatively small but growing quickly, with worldwide aviation emissions projected to increase 300 percent to 700 percent by 2050. Until recently the sector faced no limits on these emissions. But starting this year, 2012, the European Union began regulating emissions from all flights to and from EU airports. Crucially, the European Union law covers both foreign and EU airlines and their emissions produced over their entire flight path, not just over EU airspace.
The new law, which is opposed by much of the aviation industry, has led to an ongoing legal and diplomatic conflict with the United States and other countries and threatens to trigger a trade war. Opponents contend that the law violates Europe’s international obligations and will substantially increase aviation costs. Supporters argue that the law is legal and will do little to harm airlines and could even benefit them in the short run. (We discuss the economic impacts in greater detail in our first Blue Skies Project report, “Is the Sky Falling for Airline Projects in the European Union?”)
Many U.S. airlines and the U.S. government have been leading opponents of the EU law. Three U.S. airlines and their trade association pursued legal claims against the EU that the European Court of Justice ultimately rejected in late 2011. The U.S. aviation industry is also calling on the federal government to challenge the EU law in international court. The U.S. government helped to convene two meetings (in Delhi, India and in Moscow) of opponents of the EU law and spearheaded a resolution in the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, declaring the EU law illegal.
Despite this opposition, the U.S. airlines and government have so far complied with the EU law, unlike China and India, who refuse to allow their airlines to comply. In retaliation, China also recently cancelled an order of airplanes from European plane manufacturer Airbus. The U.S. stance could soon change: In October 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would prevent U.S. airlines from complying with the EU law. The U.S. Senate held hearings on the measure in June. The conflict with the EU could quickly escalate into a trade war and do significant harm to the weak U.S. and European economies.
Countries on both sides of the dispute support replacing the EU law with an international policy under the direction of ICAO. ICAO is currently considering possible market-based measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. It has debated such a policy for 15 years, though it has recently accelerated the process and a draft proposal is expected in March 2013. Past failures, however, and the inherent difficulties of global climate negotiations make it unclear whether ICAO will succeed.
The U.S. Clean Air Act will play a vital role in future policy discussions whether the ICAO process succeeds or fails. If ICAO succeeds, then the United States will likely use the Clean Air Act to implement the ICAO policy much as it has done for past aviation policies. If ICAO fails, then the United States could develop its own aviation emissions policy under the Clean Air Act and thereby escape the EU program. A U.S. measure to limit greenhouse gas emissions that is deemed equivalent to the EU program would exempt flights to and from the United States under the EU law. Any other policy through new legislation under either of these scenarios is unlikely due to the current political climate in Washington. Thus, to inform either of these scenarios, this paper explores opportunities for regulating greenhouse gases from aviation under the Clean Air Act, focusing on opportunities for flexible, cost-effective regulation.
We contend that the EPA could craft aviation emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act that could achieve both environmental and industry goals while implementing the ICAO policy or satisfying the EU “equivalency” requirement. These regulations could be both broad and flexible, covering existing and new aircraft engines and allowing compliance through airframe and operational changes. The EPA might also be able to use market-based regulatory tools, further increasing flexibility and likely cost-effectiveness.
We recognize, however, that there are important limitations as well as challenges. Clean Air Act regulation could not generate revenue to fund international climate finance or other priorities. Further, the regulation would likely not cover emissions outside of U.S. airspace, though it would indirectly reduce them. Also, international law may complicate regulation of foreign-flag airlines. And as with any contentious regulation under the Clean Air Act, political, administrative, and legal challenges are likely.
These and other findings are summarized in Figure 1.
Nathan Richardson is a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future and Samuel Grausz is and associate at Climate Advisers. This is a CAP repost.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
“more than 3 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions per year. This amount is relatively small…”
What is with the “relatively small” comment? Why not say, “if aviation were a nation it would be the sixth biggest ghg polluter ahead of Germany”? Or “Aviation emissions are greater than the emissions from more than 110 nations COMBINED”?
The ICAO says that two-thirds of aviation emissions come from just a dozen nations.
A single vacation round trip can emit 10 to 20 tonnes of CO2e per passenger. The average transportation footprint of a person in EU (minus aviation) is about 1.2 tCO2 per year. There is nothing “relatively small” about flight ghgs.
Yes. Well put Barry! Everyone like to be able to fly, including me – the cream of the peak of our civil achievements.
It’s also a moral issue….
Climate Flight Action
https://www.facebook.com/pages/ClimateFlightAction/165484890164497
Stopping profits from the pollution of the commons would be more than enough to fund universal health care and most likely the military budget as well. With those two things alone off the individual’s back you would have more than enough money to pay a few bucks for added air fair. Most likely added time on your hands to take a more leisurely, and efficient, mode of transportation as well. Getting there is half the fun or more if you travel slower.
Of course if we put a price on carbon on most sectors, except the airline industry, then guess what – people would see relative cheap air flight and spend more here.
Consequently the worst form of ghg transport emissions would go up radically. This would be even more pronounced if there were a dividen payback.
The carbon fee would have to be across board and if that were the case the airline industry would fail overnight.
It is incompatible with our future as it stands.
We should accept this.
So what happened to the horse and buggy economy of the last century? I see no reason not to build in “transition costs” into the matrix if time permits. (Fast running out.)You and I are even forced to subsidize the ecocide of the planet with our tax dollars without our consent, whereas the GOP do not fund abortion! Very strange.
Ironically, if it does become a trade war and “do significant harm to the weak U.S. and European economies,” that might actually be beneficial from an ecological POV… (as long as it doesn’t become a shooting war).
Yes. It’s win win from a European emissions reduction exercise.
Although you say that it’s a new law, the EU started the project of getting a global agreement on aviation emissions about 15 years ago. This law was actually passed back in 2008, if memory serves me right, for implementation in 2012. It has only become necessary due to foot dragging by other countries. IIUC airlines are exempt if their own country implements a similar scheme. So what’s stopping you?
Thanks for reading and for the comments.
Re: “relatively small” emissions from aviation, that’s in comparison to other sectors (chiefly electric power and ground transportation) whose emissions dwarf those from aviation. 3% of a big number is still a big number – hence -relatively- small.
Of course, you might argue that saying as much is redundant – if emissions are 3% of the total, they’re relatively small almost by definition.
@gus: you suggest that great harm to developed-world economies would be environmentally beneficial. The drop in US emissions during the recent recession is some evidence for your claim. There’s certainly some creative destruction occuring, such that even when the economy grows again, it will do so with less reliance on fossil fuels. Good policies can accelerate this.
But don’t forget that the same economic slump fatally undermined popular and political support for a carbon price. You can argue with some force that this was an overreaction, or even an opportunity seized by cynical opponents. But it did happen. Would you rather have 2008 emissions with a carbon price, or 2010 emissions with one? I know which I would take. Growth can be but need not be bad for the environment.
In other words, environmental Kuznets curves. The hypothesis may not always hold, but it usually has. Things may be different now. But the historical evidence demands consideration.
Thanks again for reading.
Airlines can cut their GHG emissions in a number of ways:
Air friction is proportional to the fourth power of velocity. Cutting airspeed by 10% cuts a plane’s fuel use by 34%. Of course, the airlines would have about 5% higher labor costs (including labor costs while the planes are on the ground) if they cut airspeed by 10%, so that idea is going to be fought by Troglodyte Airlines.
Just as a stop-and-go traffic jam burns lots of motor fuel unnecessarily, so a taxiway traffic jam burns lots of aviation fuel. The easiest solution is for air traffic control to refuse to allow a plane to start its engines until there are no more than 2 planes already on the taxiway for takeoff.
If short-hop planes weren’t subsidized to death by the FAA, maybe people would take the train. Couldn’t we have an equivalent agency to the Federal Aviation Agency, called the Federal Transit Agency, subsidizing trains?