Ivan Camilleri, Brussels
Deal clinched on capping airline emissions
The European Parliament and EU member states, represented by the current Slovenian presidency, yesterday reached a landmark deal on the details of plans to include aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) as of 2012.
Though the deal is considered to be a breakthrough in the EU climate change policy, it will come at a cost, to be borne by passengers. Aviation emissions are considered to be a cornerstone in the EU target to cut a fifth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Malta, representing the national airline's view, was not very enthusiastic about this Comm-ission initiative as it deems that airline companies operating from the periphery of the EU, such as Air Malta, will be heavily penalised.
After lengthy talks, the new compromise between the Euro-pean Parliament and member states stipulates that all flights, both within the EU as well as international ones, arriving or leaving EU airports, will have to participate in the Union's carbon cap-and-trade scheme as of 2012.
Also, airlines operating in the EU will start being allocated pollution permits. However, these will be capped at 97 per cent of average greenhouse gases emitted in 2004-2006. This cap would then be lowered annually.
At the same time, 85 per cent of the permits would be handed out to operators for free but the remaining 15 per cent would have to be auctioned.
Airlines wanting to emit more CO2 than what they are allowed will have to buy extra permits from other companies, encouraging them to invest in greener technologies.
It was also agreed that revenues from auctioning would not be earmarked for research on improving efficiency in the aviation sector or for investment into green modes of transport, as demanded by MEPs, due to national governments' strong resistance to such plans. But the compromise would ask member states to report on how they spend the money.
The deal will now have to be sealed by MEPs, with a vote expected during next month's plenary. Individual member states also need to give their final consent.
In a first reaction, the deal has not gone down well with the aviation industry.
"Fifteen per cent auctioning in 2012 is unaffordable and unacc-eptable for our airlines given today's high fuel prices and weakening demand," the director general of the International Air Carriers Association (IACA), Sylviane Lust said.
Scientists consider plane emissions to be among the major contributors to climate change and global warming.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
Updated: Shot migrant in critical...
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
john fenech
Jul 2nd 2008, 18:23
Further to:
The factors that vary the amount of pollution are: payload efficiency, Air craft type, journeys length. Since aircraft emissions include CO₂, NOx emissions, water vapour & particle emissions, the warming effect is about 1.9 times(RF index) that of carbon dioxide alone, due to the other gases produced by planes .
Approximate: Kg/Km/person
CO₂ emissions for short flight (900): 0.180
CO₂ emissions for medium flight (2500): 0.126.
CO₂ emissions for long flight (6000): 0.110
Reference: Defra UK
Albert Bezzina
Jun 29th 2008, 15:32
Airline service efficiency is measured in litres per passenger per 100kms flown. Average for an intercontinental airline like Lufthansa is around 6 litres per passenger per 100kms equivalent to roughly 12 kg of CO2 per passenger per 100kms. Since the biggest expenditure of the fuel load is at take-off and climb to cruising speed, short flights use up more fuel but if one removes the fuel consumption at take off, it is basically proportional to the distance flown but weighted against the long flight because of the heavier fuel load (also affecting the take off weight)
john fenech
Jun 28th 2008, 20:37
Several studies were carried out about the GHG generated by the Aviation industry. One factor that most agree upon is that the emission is inversely proportional to the journey’s length, the longer the flight the less emissions.
Since Malta is at the periphery of Europe most flights landing in Malta from other European countries are of medium flight as opposed to the shorter flights effect by the European countries in internal or across the border journeys.
Therefore I do not see the reason why Malta should pay more (co2 per passenger per kilometre) than the other European countries.
Conny Dittrich
Jun 28th 2008, 17:22
According to a report from the IPCC (http://www.grida.no/Climate/ipcc/aviation/006.htm) Emissions of carbon dioxide by aircraft were 0.14 Gt C/year in 1992. This is about 2% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in 1992 or about 13% of carbon dioxide emissions from all transportation sources. I must assume these figures are valid for the whole world, so how much Malta created of these 2 %. Due to our location, we would be punished under this scheme.
ETS can be read also as Emission Taxation Scam as it is just another way to tax people for the air.
We can only hope the MEP will not seal this deal, but I doubt it, as they do not have to pay for most of their flights out of their own pockets.
Albert Bezzina
Jun 28th 2008, 16:00
Wrong Mr Mercieca! Private road transport emissions account for around 240000 tons of CO2 (total road transport emissions = 525000tons). Emissions from jet fuel used up at MIA is equivalent to 270000 tons of CO2 and this mostly accounts for fuel used on the outbound flight so total aviation related emissions to sustain our tourist numbers may be as much as 500000 tons of CO2 emissions. The Environment has suddenly come to the forefront of political speaches. Putting the horse before the cart is expertly being done by taxing cars more before an efficient and attractive public transport system is put into place. A percentage of Maltese needing to commute become fuel poor with every rise in fuel price and vehicle related costs. The next surge in costs could suddenly release an extra 10% of fuel poor commuters onto the public transport system only at peak times. The current system will not be able to handle such a surge leading to drop in work time or efficiency, commerce, GDP and employment opportunities.
Clayton Mercieca
Jun 28th 2008, 13:06
Are we focusing too much on cutting emissions produced by airlines and too little on private transportation which is a much larger percentage of emissions in the air?