What A Scheme !!

Aircraft emissions have over the last decade been a big challenge to the environmental researchers. They (aircraft emissions) are believed to be more dangerous to the environment than those from other means of transportation.  For instance, an aircraft can produce carbon dioxide emissions eight times more than that of a train. Also, consequential effect of aircraft carbon dioxide emissions on global warming is increased by two to four times more than other industries because aircraft leave condensation trails at high altitudes. Because of this and more, the world’s leaders have realized the importance of unifying all climate and environmental global efforts to minimize the danger and its unpredictable impacts on earth.

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “UNFCCC” was adopted as the first attempt to obtain international agreement to address climate change in the world. In 1994, 192 countries ratified the agreement and it came into force. The scheme started as information-sharing framework between all agreed countries which should be followed by setting up national programs to reduce environmental risks, study and be prepared for climate changes. As a result, a third UNFCCC conference was held in 1997 and adopted the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto is another enforcing agreement that assigns actual duties to developed countries and requires monitoring and reporting responsibilities to the developing ones. Finally in 2005, Kyoto came into full legal enforcement. Although aviation-related emissions only account for 2% of the global CO2 emissions, this percentage will continue to go up in the future because of the future air traffic expectations. That’s why Europe has responded to it by establishing the Emissions Trading Scheme that legally mandates all air carriers that use European airports to obey specific rules governing climate control and emissions reduction resulted from air transportation.

Explanation on how ETS works will takes hundreds of words. However, the best way to describe it is by trying to really understand what the EU says about it: “The EST is a flexible, market-based, cap-and-trade system founded on a cost-effective theory: as demand for the right to release emissions increases, the price attached to that right will continue to soar so that the purchasers of the right will find it much more financially attractive to invest in reducing emissions rather than to continue to purchase the right to release.” (www.edie.net). So, it is clear that ETS is a smart way to force carriers implement serious improvements to their aircraft operations in order to protect global climate rather than keep polluting the environment for decades to come. This sounds reasonable to me so far but listen to this; companies are required to purchase emissions’ “allowances” in order to operate. Add to it, by the end of each year, companies should “surrender” allowances equal to those amounts of emissions released. If not equal, they can buy remaining allowances from companies who released less emissions and have surplus of “permissions”. I think EU had no choice to do so but they really impressed me when they said they gonna contribute to 64% of the costs for 2012. At least they show care regarding airlines’ pockets for the first year of enforcement.

What is worth mentioning here is that although the US is a world’s example in environmental caring nation, however, it still disagrees to join the global arena especially the EU ETS. The US was never consent on all of this and was solely playing (and still does) with a complete isolation from the rest of the world. This leads me to point out that I couldn’t find a trusted source about the origins of the existing conflict between the US and the EU about it. But obviously, it has a lot to do with money and politics. What I sure know is that the US has many ways to deal with the new situation and we will see in 2012. Plus, the US can basically do the same thing with foreign carriers generally and Europeans particularly. The results of forcing US carriers to participate are also gonna be unexpected. If the US as a nation wants to catch up with other nations’ environmental achievements, sooner or later it’s gonna adjust itself within the global framework just like any “green” ideas before. Even if the government prohibits carriers to participate, which I don’t understand why if so, it’s not gonna last forever. There will be someday to think about our nature or at least our pockets!!

Allocating money required to participate in such a scheme or at least create a national one is not easy. As I mentioned earlier, treating foreign carriers the same way is a possibility to launch a program like that and national carriers have always been a success partner in such times. Another interesting way to prepare for a perfect integration in this issue is to encourage municipal climate authorities to participate in the scheme. The reason why they should get involved is that according to the AustralianDepartment of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 10 US States already have “operating” Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives (RGGI) and 7 States are currently working on developing a new initiative called the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) along with 4 Canadian States. Infrastructures for such a huge cooperation between government, air carriers and these authorities are already existed and should be soon utilized for everybody’s favor. This integration, if happens, will ease the cost impact and unify all efforts taking place here and there into a one national, smooth and beneficial piece of scheme for better American environment, economy and aviation industry.