Republican-Majority House Votes Trade War against Europe

October 25th, 2011 by Breath on the Wind

While we may take a keen interest in politics, such events may not always enter the realm of clean tech. Studies have shown that you are more likely to die of airline pollution than a plane crash. Recently passed house bill HR2594 specifically tells airlines to break the law (of Europe) in order to do nothing about such pollution.

The Takeoff

NRDC’s Switchboard reports that International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – the U.N. coordinating body for international aviation — tried to develop regulations for 15 years to reduce carbon emissions. Frustrated with their failure, the EU unilaterally decided to incorporate aviation emissions into their existing cap-and-trade system and extend it to include reductions from all airlines using European Airports starting January 1, 2012. If an airline exceeds the cap, allowances must be purchased from EU member states or other airlines.

We have similar carbon concerns in the US that lack national redress for global climate issues. Cities and states have enacted their own policies. This sort of unilateral law-making is not without precedent elsewhere. The US also requires road vehicles here to meet certain safety and pollution standards and pass tests not seen in other parts of the world. This is one of the reasons why we don’t have European-style diesel vehicles in the US.

The European law has been reviewed and is considered legal. This is the version of events offered by the Environmental Defense Fund. It is clear that there is focus in the US on wealth and the economy, while in Europe there is more concern with quality of life, but new action by the House of Representatives, and promoted by the airlines, seems to go too far. They specifically focus their attention on a problem that is killing people… and consciously decide to do nothing.

The legislation:

NRDC’s Switchboard tells us this Republican House, by passing HR2594, directs:

“The Secretary of Transportation shall prohibit an operator of a civil aircraft of the United States from participating in any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the European Union…

The Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and other appropriate officials of the United States Government shall use their authority to conduct international negotiations and take other actions necessary to ensure that operators of civil aircraft of the United States are held harmless from any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the European Union.”

The Effect

The law would make it “illegal for U.S. airlines to comply with the EU ETS requirements.” We are told the effect of this would be to start a trade war with Europe.

Sometimes, what is left out is as important as what is included. In this case, what is not as mentioned is this provision of the bill:

(2) United States airlines and other United States aircraft operators will be required under the ETS to pay for European Union emissions allowances for aircraft operations within the United States…

… this does not sound particularly fair that US carriers should pay money to the EU if they operate non-compliant flights outside the EU… in America. But international law “requires that you apply a common standard to all flights that use your airports.” The US may not want US carriers to pay into the European trade if that puts the airlines at a disadvantage to theoretical companies who do not fly to Europe. But all airlines that do fly to Europe would be at a disadvantage if the US is exempt.

The bottom line for the Europeans is to reduce carbon. I am sure they would have been happy if the UN body accomplished this in the last 15 years. It is beyond the scope of this article to review the politics of that lack of decision. The unilateral action that has been taken is legal. There is a mandate to apply it evenly. Studies have shown that a majority of people in the US would favor more action on climate change. But what is right or just is not always similar to the existing lines of power and control.

The Solution

Airlines have lobbied for relief. The EU has said that they will stand firm on this issue, as it is part of a much larger scope of environmental regulations. So, at a time of economic distress, this Republican House is interested in starting yet another war. This one economic. There is a very easy solution. The US could enact similar legislation which would then exempt it from the European scheme. Like a child looking for its sugar fix, this Republican House seems unable to let go of its carbon addiction, as it continues to be the Republican House that only “knows” how to say “NO.”

More information on Airport Carbon Accreditation News

Photo Credit: wikimedia commons

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: airline pollution, Environmental Defense Fund, Federal Aviation Administration, HR2594, Republican House, Secretary of Transportation, trade war

About the Author

Breath on the Wind We share this World; its past, present resources and our combined future. With every aspiration, the very molecules we use for life are passed to others through time and space so that each of us may be considered a Breath on the Wind. This part of the world's consciousness lives in NYC; has worked in law, research, construction, engineering; has traveled, often drawn to Asia; writes on Energy and Electric Vehicle issues and looks forward to all your comments. "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." -- Benjamin Franklin

anderlan

Great pic. That is the most amazing rocket assisted take off I’ve ever seen.
- Breath on the Wind
  
  It is nice to know that someone is reading the liinks. Glad you liked it. Pollution like many other things is easier to talk about when you can see it.
  - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
    
    And it is perhaps a negative that we CAN’T see most greenhouse gases.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  It is an awesome pic.
Frank Hanlan

It is unfortunate that you chose to put in the following statement. “This is one of the reasons why we don’t have European-style diesel vehicles in the US.” European style diesel vehicles were imported and sold in North America (NA). From my point of view diesel vehicles were not purchased in greater numbers in North America mainly because refiners did not clean up diesel fuel in NA the way European refiners did 30 to 40 years ago and didn’t remove nearly as much sulphur so the exhaust was smelly. In addition, we in North America don’t seem to understand the value of investing a little more money upfront to obtain lower operating costs and longer utility.
- Breath on the Wind
  
  My understanding is similar but in reverse order. The vehicles would only be allowed to be imported if the emissions, particularly particulates and sulpher, was satisfactory. Refineries effectively blocked the imports by not producing the needed fuel.
  
  Regardless you have touched upon an essential “law” of human nature, not wanting to pay more upfront even though it may mean sometimes substantial savings in the long run. Partly this may be well founded on the understanding that life is full of surprises, but over a large group of people the risk is far less. Therefore this is a good area for some form of incentives to reduce individual risk… Some kind of “EV” insurance/loans/payments that pays if your car does not last long enough for you to realize the long term cost benefits.