US Airlines Must Pay the Price of Carbon Emissions or Lose EU Flights
by George Spyros, New York City, USA on 03.16.08
If you're not attempting to reduce your airline's carbon emissions by flying the first all-biofuel jumbo-jet flight, the efficacy of which is in and of itself up for debate, the EU requires your airline to subscribe to a carbon trading *cough* scheme. And that includes you, good old U.S. of Airline, so get scheming. Yesterday the EU transport commissioner Jacques Barrot warned US airlines that they must pay for carbon dioxide emissions or face a curb on flights to the European Union. The operative concept here being to curb flights rather than carbon levels themselves.
According to The Guardian, the green ultimatum was issued by Barrot as the transatlantic airline market undergoes its biggest shakeup in 30 years when limits on flights between the EU and US are lifted this month. All airlines flying in and out of the EU must subscribe to the EU emissions trading scheme or, as now suggested, an equivalent system in the US. The United States government and many airlines have insisted that there should be an international agreement first. European carriers want foreign rivals coopted into some program or other because airlines who refuse to buy carbon credits will offer lower fares. European ministers already scaled back their program in December deeming the measure a victory for the environment despite changes that include delaying its introduction and reducing the number of permits airlines would have to buy. However, environmentalists have criticized the EU decision as hypocritical in the wake of pledges made at a United Nations conference in Bali, Indonesia, where governments promised to make deep cuts in emissions. So while we're glad to see market forces to some degree jockeying the big players into dealing with atmospheric carbon, given the ticking clock of rising earth temperatures, we're a bit disappointed by EU optimism that the US too will begin carbon-scheming once Bush and Cheney are gone. Clearly what is needed is a moral commitment toward maintaining a healthy atmosphere as a necessity that is common to all life.
The approach to tackling the global-warming leviathan of jumbo jets; like the cynical political conclusion of self-interest derived from the now threadbare Hobbesian axiom that life in the state of nature necessarily be nasty, brutish and short; is in need of fresh conceptualization. Airlines and governments alike should endeavor to understand self-interest as multi-dimensional in the same way that travel itself is: one begins the journey as master of the manor but arrives a guest. Failing to see reciprocity and mutuality as a component of one's self-interest, not only reduces would be vitalizing economics to nothing more than greed, such a failing may also doom us to live and die in a clouded fishbowl of our own making.
I'm going to be the contrarian, but having American's visit Europe's modern train system and non car dependent cities is something that is likely worth the emissions of getting there. Making airlines buy these credits will only raise the price even higher (as if fuel costs are not enough) and prevent so many America's from seeing cultures that are modern yet focused on reducing carbon.
For the foreseeable future there is no replacement for petroleum jet fuel, and travel to Europe fundamentally necessitates jet travel (ocean liners are unlikely to return).
I see no reason to tax (or have to buy credits for) a form of travel for which there is no foreseeable substitute, when the benefits of the travel in terms of the visitor's impressions are far and above the emissions of getting there.
It's about time they cut back on this wasteful and polluting practice. I use to start these jet engine and can't for the life of me see how they could be made efficient. It just looks like water hose size fuel lines being sprayed into turbine blades.
Well, I guess the clipper ships will be making a comeback.
What (dare I say, utter) nonsense.
Cargo ships and railroad locomotives produce far more carbon emissions, yet, perhaps they just lack the deep American pockets of the airlines.
Gentle reader, do you remember the Bad Old Days of 707s and the like - low pax counts, high pollution outputs. In terms of per pax load, today's airliners are quieter, more fuel efficient and pollute less than their older brethren.
This may be one of the best of a classic "unintended consequences" situation of memory.
I'll just hold my popcorn and see what happens.
It's tempting to throw stones at aircraft about fuel economy, but shockingly even the current generation of aircraft are more efficient than most automobiles. The current development cycle for aircraft is focused, understandably, on fuel economy and we can expect these numbers to improve.
A fully loaded 747 gets about 69 passenger miles per gallon of jet fuel. Yes, a fully loaded car of reasonable mileage will beat that, but how many of the cars on the highway can beat that with the typical single occupant?
It will be interesting to see how this gambit plays out. The achilles heel of Kyoto is the undeniable real penalty on the logistics sector of the economy in signatory nations.