Europe is to be applauded for its concern over emissions. But attempting to solve a global problem unilaterally is not going to work
US Federal Aviation Administration administrator Marion Blakey has added more fuel to a growing dispute over emissions. It is part of the aviation industry's belated backlash to the European Union's unilateral move to force nations that use its airspace to participate in an emissions trading scheme.
Blakey reminded an audience in suitably warm Phoenix, Arizona on 9 May that such proposals constitute an "illegal" act: the Chicago Convention frowns on attempts by members to impose charges or procedures without the consent of the others.
The irony of the current situation runs deep, and not least the sight of a US government official objecting to a widely popular EU policy proposal because of its lack of multilateralism.
In effect, the EU proposals seek to make aviation adhere to the same rules as other major planetary polluters, such as automobiles and power stations. The latter two categories combine to contribute more than half of all greenhouse gases found within the atmosphere, with aviation accounting for a comparatively minuscule 2-3% share.
But aviation is not innocent. As the likes of cars and coal-fired power stations grow more efficient, the share of pollutants contributed by aircraft is likely to rise over the next decade as thousands of additional jets join the global fleet, perhaps overwhelming an aggressive campaign by airframe and engine manufacturers to dramatically reduce fuel burn. Asking aviation to eventually participate in the same emission trading schemes as other industries seems fair. It is arguably in the industry's best interest to be encouraged to emit less carbon, thus lowering fuel bills that now account for one-quarter of all operational costs. At a moral level, no industry that produces greenhouse gases at such a scale as aviation should fail to heed the environmental consequences.
But Blakey is right to oppose the current proposals before the EU precisely because of its unilateral approach. She says: "Trying to force a European solution on the world given the different aviation sectors, economic circumstances, and environmental issues of countries is unworkable, not to mention illegal."
For the legal argument, it is a fact that ICAO exists to develop and recommend standards for global aviation. Adopting regional standards that impose costs on foreign parties is good neither for the efficiency nor the well-being of the system as a whole. Certainly, EU members would object any time a US government regulation unilaterally imposes cost on their industry without their consent.
From the standpoint of environmental policy, the logic of the EU's position falls apart. No regional solution is going to solve what is truly a global problem. The hazard of greenhouse gases cannot be reduced by actions at the local level. An emissions trading scheme in Europe may shift the worst offenders to another region, but the volume of greenhouse gas emissions remains constant globally.
Clearly, the public outcry in Europe to take action on the global warming issue is a good thing. But the EU's unilateral approach to the environmental issue for aviation is not only doomed to fail, it is counter-productive. When the ICAO Assembly meets later this year, the delegates will almost certainly take action to block the EU from implementing the policy.
Source: Flight International
