Abstract
In 2008, the European Union (EU) decided to include aviation in its Emissions Trading System (ETS) in order to realize emissions reductions in the aviation sector. However, the unilateral measure has triggered strong opposition from various actors, and now, the EU finds itself in the middle of a substantial power struggle about the creation of a global scheme for international aviation emissions reduction. China plays an important role as it has not only banned its airlines from complying with the EU ETS, but also implemented economic retaliatory measures, such as freezing orders of new European Airbus aircraft. Consequently, Beijing could successfully form coalitions with other countries to dilute international negotiations at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) assembly in 2013. The study reveals the hardships that the establishment of a global carbon emissions reduction scheme for aviation faces. It discusses the leading role of the EU on the issue, and provides a general assessment of possible responses to the aviation directive. It then analyzes China’s position on the inclusion of aviation under a global carbon reduction scheme. Finally, the study provides a prospect on how to overcome the diplomatic struggle in order to achieve concrete carbon emission reductions in aviation. As the study concludes, the EU and the rest of the world would be better off by refraining from unilateral mitigation measures and emphasizing more involvement, engagement, and capacity building in negotiating a possible carbon reduction scheme at the international level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Underpinned is a CO2 price range between €15 and €45.
The major legal arguments for challenging the scheme were as follows: First, the EU measure is in conflict with Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol which defines the ICAO as the main agency for dealing with GHG emission reduction measures for the international aviation sector. As a signatory to the Protocol, the EU has to acknowledge the mandate of the ICAO. Second, the measure is in conflict with international customary law (Chicago Convention) as the EU ETS imposes extraterritorial obligations on foreign airlines outside EU airspace. A critical point of debate represents the calculation of emissions beyond EU borders. The EU has opted for a route-based calculation formula where emission allowances have to be surrendered for the amount of CO2 emitted during the whole flight to/from the EU, and critics see this as an infringement of the states’ sovereignty. This contradicts the principle of state sovereignty and the scheme infringes the sovereignty of states regarding the control of their own national airspace. Third, the EU measure breaches the Chicago Convention since the scheme imposes an illegal charge or tax on airlines. According to Article 15, charges or taxes can only be imposed with the purpose of generating funds for airports or navigational equipment.
The ECJ stated that the extension of the EU ETS is no infringement of the principle of territoriality or the sovereignty of non-EU countries. Furthermore, the calculation formula of emissions beyond the EU border represents no breach of state sovereignty. The Court argued that the states’ sovereignty over its airspace is untouched. There is no evidence that international airspace may be under the control of a state. Regarding the question of whether the EU ETS is to be seen as a duty, tax, fee, or charge, the ECJ concluded that the ETS needs to be seen as a market-based measure and not as a tax, fee, or charge. Furthermore, the ECJ did not consider the Chicago Convention in its ruling since the EU is not a member and thus is not bound by it.
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, and the USA.
Armenia, Argentina, Azerbaijan, the Republic of Belarus, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Chile, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Malaysia, Nigeria, Paraguay, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Uganda, and the USA.
The Declaration can be retrieved under: http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2012/2/22/50/.
The letter can be retrieved under: http://www.sandbag.org.uk/site_media/uploads/airbus_letter.pdf.
Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Slovenia
References
Albers S, Bühne JA, Peters H (2009) Will the EU-ETS instigate airline network reconfigurations? J Air Transp Manag 15(1):1–6
Anger A, Köhler J (2010) Including aviation emissions in the EU ETS: Much ado about nothing? a review. Transp Policy 17(1):38–46
Austrian Wings (2012) China untersagt Lufthansa A380 Flüge nach Shanghai. 22 March 2012. http://www.austrianwings.info/2012/03/china-untersagt-lufthansa-a380-fluege-nach-shanghai/. Accessed 5 June 2013
Bartels L (2012) The WTO legality of the application of the EU’s emission trading system to aviation. Eur J Int Law 23(2):429–467
Bogojevíc S (2012) Legalising environmental leadership: a comment on the CJEU’S ruling in C-366/10 on the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. J Environ Law 24(2):345–356
Boon B, Davidson M, Faber J, van Velzen A (2007) Allowance allocation in the EU ETS. The impact on the profitability of the aviation sector under high levels of auctioning. CE Delft, Netherlands
Brouwer R, Brander L, van Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Chang 90:299–313
Euractiv (2014) EU lawmakers reject deal to exempt foreign flights from CO2 charges. 20 March 2014. http://www.euractiv.com/transport/eu-committee-rejects-deal-exempt-news-534254. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
European Commission (2014) Inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
European Parliament (2014) Aviation emissions: environment MEPs reject informal deal with EU ministers. ENVI Press Release. 19 March 2014. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140317IPR39117/html/Aviation-emissions-Environment-MEPs-reject-informal-deal-with-EU-ministers. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
Faber J, Brinke L (2011) The Inclusion of Aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System. An Economic and Environmental Assessment. Issue Paper No. 5. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
Greenair Online (2014) “NGOs urge EU governments to take action over EU ETS enforcement against non-compliant foreign airlines” 28 February 2014. http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1830. Accessed 13 Mar 2014
Havel B, Sanchez GS (2011) Toward a global aviation emissions agreement. Harvard Environ Law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1911508. Accessed 13 Oct 2013
IATA (2013a) Fact sheet: climate change. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/pages/environment.aspx. Accessed 2 Jan 2014
IATA (2013b) Press Release No.: 67. Airlines expect 31% rise in passenger demand by 2017. http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/pages/2013-12-10-01.aspx. Accessed 8 Jan 2014
Ibitz A (2009) Trade and the environment: the influence of the European Union’s Environmental Directives on China. Issues Stud 45(3):165–209
ICAO (2010) Resolution A37-19. http://legacy.icao.int/icao/en/assembl/A37/Docs/a37_res_prov_en.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2013
ICAO (2013a) Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection–climate change. http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/WP/wp424_en.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2013
ICAO (2013b) Chinese Reservation letter of 38th General Assembly. http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/Resolutions/China_en.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2013
ICAO (2013c) The full report of the 38th ICAO Assembly. http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/WP/wp430_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2013
Keating D (2012) EU and China team up on emissions trading. European Voice. 20 September 2012. http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/september/eu-and-china-team-up-on-emissions-trading/75199.aspx. Accessed 10 Jan 2014
Kelemen RD (2010) Globalizing European environmental policy. J Eur Public Policy 17(3):335–349
Lavenex S, Schimmelfennig F (2009) EU rules beyond EU borders: theorizing external governance in European politics. J Eur Public Policy 16(6):791–812
Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258
Meltzer J (2012) Climate change and Trade-The EU aviation directive and the WTO. J Int Econ Law 15:13–18
Meunier S (2000) What single voice? European institutions and EU-US trade negotiations. Int Organ 54(1):103–135
Oberthür S, Roche Kelly C (2008) EU leadership in international climate policy: achievements and challenges. Int Spectator 43(2):35–50
Preston H, Lee DS, Hooper PD (2012) The inclusion of the aviation sector within the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme: what are the prospects for a more sustainable aviation industry? Environ Dev 2:48–56
Sbragia AM, Damro C (1999) The changing role of the European Union in international environmental politics: institution building and the politics of climate change. Environ Plan C 17(1):53–68
Schaefer M, Scheelhaase J, Grimme W, Maertens S (2010) The economic impact of the upcoming EU emissions trading system on airlines and EU member states—an empirical estimation. Eur Trans Res Rev 2(4):189–200
Scheelhaase J, Grimme W (2007) Emissions trading for international aviation—an estimation of the economic impact on selected European airlines. J Air Transp Manag 13:253–263
Scott J, Rajamani L (2012) EU climate change unilateralism. Eur J Int Law 23(2):469–494
Staniland M (2012) Regulating aircraft emissions: leadership and market power. J Eur Public Policy 19(7):1006–1025
Underdal A (1994) International multilateral negotiating: approaches to the management of complexity. IIASA/Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Vespermann J, Wald A (2011) Much Ado about nothing?—an analysis of economic impacts and ecologic effects of the EU-emission trading scheme in the aviation industry. Transp Res A-Pol 45(10):1066–1076
Vogler J, Stephan HR (2007) The European Union in global environmental governance: leadership in the making? Int Environ Agreements 7(4):389–413
World Civil Aviation Resource Net (2013) CAAC Issues Civil Aviation Statistics for 2013. http://www.wcarn.com/news/31/31371.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2014
Xinhua (2014) China puts aviation biofuel into commercial use. 12 February 2014. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-02/12/c_133109981.htm. Accessed 3 Mar 2014
Young O (1991) Political leadership and regime formation; on the development of institutions in international society. Int Organ 45(3):349–375
Zheng L, O’Connell JF (2011) The evolving landscape of Chinese aviation policies and impact of a deregulating environment on Chinese carriers. J Transp Geogr 19:829–839
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ibitz, A. Towards a global scheme for carbon emissions reduction in aviation: China’s role in blocking the extension of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Asia Eur J 13, 113–130 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0398-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0398-2