The Thune bill: flying backwards

By Paul Andersson
Climate Solutions

Since its inception, aviation has been synonymous with innovation. This innovation has changed the world we live in, fueling international trade and cultivating cross-cultural understanding, effectively shrinking the world. Yet these advances have come with a cost: if airlines were a country today, they would be the world's seventh biggest polluter, and aviation carbon emissions are expected to more than quadruple in the coming years.

To combat these emissions requires a balanced approach, a task which has been initiated by the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) in its plans to begin selling carbon credits to commercial airlines for all flights coming in and out of Europe. Yet in response to this, U.S. Senator John Thune has submitted an imbalanced rebuttal—one that would have the American airlines flying backwards (Boeing jets have increased fuel efficiency by 70 percent since the 1950’s) and our taxpayers on the hook for an inexcusable bailout of the airline industry.

The EU Emission Trading System is a cornerstone of the European Union's policy to combat climate change and a key tool for reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. Weary of waiting for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to produce a global approach to curb aviation emissions (ICAO has been working unsuccessfully on a fix for over 10 years now), the European Union (EU) has released its plans to include emissions from all flights in and out of Europe in its portfolio of traded carbon credits.

The cost to U.S. consumers to foot the bill for the emissions of their flight?  Less than a bag of potato chips for a cross-Atlantic flight, according to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-supported study.  By their estimates, the EU ETS would increase airfare for a trans-Atlantic flight by less than $3.

The benefits to the global community?  Including commercial air travel in the EU ETS will cut aircraft pollution by more than 200 million tons of CO2 annually by 2020, equivalent to making 30 million cars pollution-free.

Senator Thune’s bill, currently being considered by the U.S. Senate, would force airlines to violate the EU ETS and require the U.S. government to “hold [the airlines] harmless” from any negative consequences of not complying.  So who would foot the bill for the estimated $22 billion in fines that airlines, supported by our government, would incur whilst breaking international law?  Taxpayers are the likely candidate.

Proponents of the bill claim the aviation law infringes on US national sovereignty. However the EU law does not infringe on US sovereignty any more than many existing U.S. laws do on other countries. The United States maintains a long list of aviation laws that impose requirements on flights, regardless of the nationality of their airline and their location on the planet, if they fly to or from the United States.[i] Our non-aviation laws go further, requiring companies that do business with the United States to follow our rules on freezing terrorist assets and following our sanctions.

Passing laws that forbid the US from complying with such laws set by other countries, as the Thune bill would set an unsavory precedent which could undermine similar US laws in place to protect U.S. citizens, as well as harm relations with U.S. foreign allies.

If the Thune bill passes it will hurt the environment, U.S. foreign relations, national security, and leave taxpayers holding the bag.  Without it, the aviation industry can continue its successful flight path toward emission reductions while U.S. taxpayers avoid a costly bailout of the airline industry.

[i] The United States has long maintained that any flight arriving in or departing from the United States must comply with U.S. regulations throughout the entire flight. The United States requires foreign airports with flights to the United States to have security checkpoints that meet U.S. standards and to allow U.S. inspections of these checkpoints. The United States further requires planes going to and from the United States to have reinforced cockpit doors and to limit liquids and gels in carry-on luggage regardless of the nationality of their airline. Most recently, the FAA implemented rules requiring all airlines flying to and from the United States to retrofit their fuel tanks, regardless of the nationality of the airline. The United States even imposes arrival and departure taxes on all planes entering and departing the United States, regardless of where they come from or who owns them. For more information, see http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/311_intl_acceptance.shtm and William Karas and Carol Gosian. Recent U.S. Regulation of Foreign Airline Practices: Impermissibly Unilateral or Not? Air and Space Lawyer, 2002.