There is little doubt amongst anyone that burning
fossil fuels is detrimental to the environment. There is, however, great debate
on what the correct way to address the issue. Since the 1970’s, the US has
begun to implement progressive programs aimed at protecting earth from
destructive pollution created by industry and everyday citizens. The Clean
Water and Clean Air acts have both been continually updated as technologies and
pollutions/polluters have changed. As a young man who claims be raised by the
woods of Michigan, who studied environmental science at Michigan State
University, and who has a genuine love for nature I can really sink my teeth
into the topic of responsible use of fuels. I can report that global warming,
as the result of greenhouse gasses, is nearly universally accepted as
scientifically proven fact. There is another scientifically proven fact, even
though we are aware of the issue and are improving our policies and
technologies related to fossil fuel emissions, we continue to increase the
amount of pollution created every year. Projections of global warming’s effects
have accounted for an increase in drought, flooding, storming, crop failures,
and starvation that many believe are beginning to become more obvious every day.
Though the reported and estimated numbers vary, it is believed that the aviation
industry, internationally, contributes between 2%-12% of all greenhouse gasses
produced annually. This number is expected to rise quickly in the coming years,
due to the growth of the international aviation community. If 10% is a
reasonably accurate educated estimate, there is definitely a need to structure
an emissions policy that will help ensure that aviation’s greenhouse gas contributions
will be limited. How this regulation will be accomplished is being determined
currently, and everyone on earth has a stake in the outcome.
As
is often the case, aviation once again finds itself in the position of the
guinea pig on new regulatory policy. This “lab test status” is the result of
being an industry that is constantly pushing boundaries on a global scale. The
European Union has come up with a cap and trade approach to limiting aviation
industry emissions called the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This type of
program works by giving individual companies/corporations an allotted number of
pollution credits annually in the form of a tradable bond, and any amount of
pollution above or below the allotted amount is rewarded accordingly. If a
company does not use all of its allotted pollution, credits/bonds it can sell
its remaining allowance to companies that have gone over and will require more. Conversely, a company who goes over its allotment will be required to
purchase more pollution rights/bonds or pay a steep penalty to the organizing
governing body. In theory, this allows for regulation by rewarding good
conservation practices. However, this type of program is only as successful as
the market in which it is based. If the surrounding market suffers, then the
program’s efficacy is undermined by the fact that the bond value is very low,
resulting in companies having little motivation to closely watch consumption (Reed, 2013) . A successful cap and
trade program needs to have provisions that allow for adjusting of bond rates
with a fluctuating market. The European Union, however, believes so strongly in
its cap and trade program that it had decided that any operator of airplanes in
the EU would mandatorily participate in its program, even operators who are not
based in Europe. The EU actually passed a law that required such participation beginning
in 2012. American aviation companies have accordingly refused to participate,
citing the requirement as being unlawful. As it turns out, these US companies
may have been correct.
An
interesting House of Representative meeting in the US concerning
the EU required participation law was forwarded to its members by the
international airports council. In the House meeting minutes representatives
and pundits respond to the imposition of the ETS as being illegal on both the
World Trade Organization level, as well as an attack against US sovereignty. The
point is true in that the EU collects all of the monies raised by the ETS and,
then, has sole say in where/if the monies are invested. A US pundit is also
quoted as saying that the word “scheme” fits the description of this program quite
well. Requiring other nations to participate in the ETS program looks to simply
be a money grab by the EU (US House of Representatives,
2011) .
This has led to the stopping of the mandatory participation for the near
future. However, the EU has/does openly invite the world aviation community to
come-together with them and design a program that the global community can
agree upon and benefit from, and the US has consistently failed to rise to the occasion (Neslen, 2012) .
The
reality is this, the EU is trying to force the issue of raised awareness of
pollution created by the aviation industry, the US and other countries are
reluctant to invest the time or money into a formal program outlining the
future of aviation emissions controls, and it is embarrassing. The US has very
recently proposed some ETS program suggestions in response to the EU’s program,
but these programs overlook a large portion of the actual fossil fuel usage and
undermine the point of the program by not including emissions released in
oversea transit (Reuters, 2013) . This response would
appear to indicate that the US Aviation Community is missing the point of the
program all-together, and is blinded by the need to save dollars.
Currently,
ICAO is tasked with negotiating a program that the international aviation
community can agree upon by fall of this year. If all goes smoothly there will
be an international emissions program that everyone is participating in by the
end of the year. If well constructed, this program will include strict emission
reduction goals, effective motivators for reduced emissions production, and an
international committee that will determine the best way to invest the program’s
monies. These are the preliminary and painful steps to an overall positive change
in the international aviation industry. For an industry that prides itself in
being on the cutting-edge of world growth, these initial spats related to
emissions controls are a bit out of character and disappointing.
Works Cited
Neslen, A. (2012, November 13). Hedgegaard stops
clock on aviation emissions law. Retrieved from euractiv.com:
http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/hedegaard-stops-clock-airlines-e-news-515994
Reed, S. (2013, February 20). In European Union, Emissions Trading Is
Sputtering. Retrieved from nytimes.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/energy-environment/21iht-green21.html?_r=0
Reuters. (2013, February 23). US considers limited scheme to curb
aviation emissions. Retrieved from theage.com:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/us-considers-limited-scheme-to-curb-aviation-emissions-20130223-2extv.html
US House of Representatives. (2011). House Hearing on EU Emissions
Trading. Retrieved from aci-na.org: http://aci-na.org/content/house-hearing-eu-emissions-trading
In my opinion, coming up with a consensus by the fall this year is a bit steep. You mentioned that every year we increase the amount of pollution from the previous year. This is probably because as the population increases, the need for everyday items increases which therefore means more production. I think it's going to take a while for the ICAO to agree upon something. Aviation is a growing industry, and without alternative fuels, we cannot reduce the amount of emissions we are currently making.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is a little embarrassing that the United States is not coping well with the idea, and seemingly not understanding a lot of the system as you said. I do understand some of the reasons why we are not accepting it though. Our economy has already made the airline industry a very tough arena to survive in, as you know, and adding these extra expenses may be the thing that puts the companies over the edge. It is really hard to say, but I know first hand that passengers are definitely getting tired of all of the additional fees that airlines are throwing at them when they fly. Hopefully the ICAO can come up with some sort of plan by this fall, but I would be surprised if they could do so in such short time since it is such a difficult situation.
ReplyDelete