Bill Prohibits U.S. Aircraft Operators From Participating In
The ETS
The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Monday
against U.S. participation in the European Union’s costly
emissions trading scheme (ETS) that would impose new emissions
taxes on U.S. and other nations’ air carriers flying into and
out of the EU.
The “European Union Emissions
Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011” (H.R. 2594) is
bipartisan legislation that was introduced in the House by
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica
(R-FL), Full Committee Ranking Democrat Nick J. Rahall (D-WV),
Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri (R-WI), Aviation
Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Jerry Costello (D-IL), Aviation
Subcommittee Vice-Chair Chip Cravaack (R-MN), and other Members of
the House. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly by voice
vote.
“This appropriately named EU
scheme is an arbitrary and unjust violation of international law
that disadvantages U.S. air carriers, threatens U.S. aviation jobs,
and could close down direct travel from many central and western
U.S. airports to Europe,” Mica said. “Congress and the
United States government will not support this ill-advised and
illegal EU tax scheme.”
“Reducing aviation emissions is a
goal that is worth pursuing, but the EU’s go-it-alone
approach will fly in the face of the international community and is
not the way to find an international solution to an international
problem,” said Rahall. “Only through international
dialogue will we reach consensus on how to deal with a global
challenge, but I am confident that, if our European friends will
act in good faith, we will more than rise to the occasion. For the
meanwhile, this bill will protect U.S. airlines and all Americans
who rely on them for travel and employment from the unjust effects
of the EU’s plan.”
“The European Union is
unilaterally attempting to impose an illegal scheme on American
airlines,” said Petri (pictured). “This is unacceptable
for all sorts of reasons. The money the EU is attempting to extract
from our airlines would come at the expense of our much-needed
investments in ‘NextGen’ technologies to upgrade our
air traffic control system, and the purchasing of new aircraft -
just two proven methods of improving environmental performance. If
the EU gets away with this unilateral scheme, what's to stop them
from imposing all sorts of new ‘eco-charges’ on other
activities outside the EU? And we don’t even have a guarantee
that the fees will be used to benefit the environment."
“The EU’s approach on
emission controls is misguided and illegal,” said Costello.
“With today’s vote the House of Representatives joins
the Obama administration, other EU member states and affected
countries, and our domestic aviation industry in opposing the
EU’s Emission Trading Scheme. Instead of this unilateral
approach, the EU should work with us through the International
Civil Aviation Organization to craft a plan that is fair and
effective.”
“The ETS scheme is equivalent to
the paying of ransom to the Barbary pirates for safe
passage,” said Cravaack.
Last week, Mica, Petri and other
Members of the Committee led a bipartisan Congressional delegation
to Montreal to meet with International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) leaders, representatives of the EU, and other officials
regarding U.S. opposition to the EU’s tax scheme. ICAO is the
primary organization that sets international aviation
standards.
If imposed on January 1, 2012, the EU
aviation tax scheme would apply to U.S. and other nations’
flights into or out of an EU airport, regardless of how long that
flight is in EU airspace. Airlines would be required to pay an
emissions tax to the EU Member State to which they most frequently
fly, without any requirements that EU countries even use these fees
in aviation emissions reduction efforts.
H.R. 2594 prohibits U.S. aircraft
operators from participating in the ETS. The bill also instructs
U.S. officials to negotiate or take any action necessary to ensure
U.S. aviation operators are not penalized by any unilaterally
imposed EU scheme.
The Obama Administration testified
before the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
in July that the EU ETS is inconsistent with international aviation
law. According to additional testimony from that hearing, the Air
Transport Association suggested that this scheme would cost U.S.
airlines more than $3.1 billion between 2012 and 2020, which could
be used to sustain more than 39,200 U.S. airline jobs. Moreover,
these costs could double if the cost of carbon allowances in Europe
returns to where it was within the past two years, in which case
more than 78,500 U.S. airline jobs could have been supported.
There is growing international
opposition to the ETS. Other nations that have voiced opposition
include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt,
India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria,
Paraguay, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and the member States of
the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC).
Even EU Member States, including Italy,
the Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Spain, are calling for
postponement of the EU ETS due to confusion over its implementation
and opposition and potential retaliation from other nations.