China Southern and other big Chinese carriers refuse to pay the EU's carbon emissions tax.

The European Union’s plan to impose a carbon tax on flights in and out of the region has drawn criticism from around the world, but Chinese airlines have now become the first to flat-out refuse to pay the tax.

Part of the European Union’s emission trading scheme (ETS), the tariff went into effect at the start of the year and is tallied based on the entire route of a flight, not just the portion that uses European air space. Uncooperative airlines could face fines of 100 euros per ton of emissions, and eventually be banned from European airports.

“China will not cooperate with the European Union on the ETS, so Chinese airlines will not impose surcharges on customers relating to the emissions tax,” said Cai Haibo, deputy secretary-general of the China Air Transport Association (CATA), according to Reuters.

China is far from alone in its opposition to the new tax. The Air Transport Association, along with three U.S. carriers, filed suit in Europe last year to have the tax blocked, arguing that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a UN agency, is the appropriate body to impose such a tax. Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would formalize U.S. opposition. India’s civil aviation ministry has reportedly told airlines not to submit the data that the EU requires under the ETS. And Australia’s Qantas Airlines has threatened a lawsuit.

Although airlines would not actually pay until March of 2013, the ETS began affecting flights January 1, so passengers could begin to see fare increases soon.

Estimates differ on how much the tax will cost airlines, and how much airlines would pass on to passengers. The European Commission puts the cost at two to 12 euros (about $2.50 to $15) per passenger per flight, but aviation analysts have come up with other figures. One told Dubai’s Gulf News that he believed the cost would come to $20 to $30 per trip, just for short hauls within Europe. A spokesperson for Cathay Pacific told Reuters that the ETS would add about $6.44 to a ticket from Hong Kong to Europe. And Tony Tyler, director general of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), estimates the ETS’ cost to airlines in 2012 will reach 1.2 billion euros ($1.53 billion).

Photo: Heurik Manuel Pajer, Wikimedia Commons

Related posts:
EU Pushes Hard for Aviation ETS Rollout
EU Plays High Stakes Aviatoin Chicken With US and China
American Airlines Files for Chapter 11
Customer Satisfaction With Airlines Is Up — Except for Fees
Airline Fee Revenue Soars to $21.5 Billion

With the publication of benchmark values to be used for allocating CO2 emission allowances to more than 900 aircraft operators worldwide, the European Commission has made the aviation sector’s inclusion in the EU’s emissions trading system (EU ETS) official as of Jan. 1, 2012.

Carbon Emissions

From 2013 to 2020, an airline will receive (pdf) 0.6422 allowances per 1,000 tonne-kilometres, while in 2012 it will receive 0.6797 allowances.

About 1.6 billion metric tons of these “free” carbon allowances will be handed out to airlines, which works out to about $27 billion over nine years from 2012 to 2020.

“At current market prices these free allowances represent more than €20 billion over the decade,” said climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard. “With these potential revenues, airlines could invest in modernizing their fleets, improving fuel efficiency and using non-fossil aviation fuel.”

European Commission director-general for climate Jos Delbeke went one step further and directly suggested that airlines should fund the purchase of new planes by passing the full cost of the carbon tax on to customers, while the airlines can skip paying $27 billion of the tax.

There’s something deeply flawed with an argument where a cut in a new tax yet to be implemented is considered extra revenue. But let’s skip over that for now because the aviation sector isn’t buying it anyway.

“IATA is not opposed to emissions trading,” said IATA Director General and CEO Tony Tyler. “We support the concept as a possible mechanism for the fourth pillar of our environment strategy. But the EU’s unilateral and regional approach to ETS could not be more misguided.”

U.S. carriers have taken the European Commission to court over its inclusion in EU ETS and the U.S. government is considering legislation to prohibit its carriers from participating.

But the EU isn’t just handing out memos and rulings. It coordinated the announcement with the leak of a report prepared by the World Bank and IMF that proposes global carbon taxes on aviation and ship fuels in developed economies.

The World Bank/IMF report suggests a global $25 per ton of CO2 charge on aviation and maritime bunker fuels, which would work out to $250 billion in taxes by 2020.

Also timed to coincide with the aviation ETS announcement was a report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center, which says that global CO2 emissions jumped 45 percent from 1990 to 2010.

Photo – said&done

Related posts:
EU Plays High Stakes Aviation Chicken With US and China
Cap-and-Trade Would Hamper Airlines’ Green Progress
Pentagon, BA Searching for Fuel’s Gold in Garbage & Algae

In a struggling economy, what would encourage the European Union (EU) to throw away a certain $3.8 billion order and risk destroying a $388 billion industry?

Starting Jan. 1, 2012, any domestic or international flight landing in or departing from an EU airport will come under the hammer of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).

This means that carriers whose planes are flying in and out will have to buy the right to pollute the EU skies. To be specific, 85 percent is free, but the airline will have to bid in an auction to buy the rights for the remaining 15 percent of their own emissions.

The system is described in detail here, but the short version is that it will add $1.9 billion in costs to the global airline industry in 2012, which will allow planes to emit 213 million tons of carbon dioxide. The costs will rise to $9.89 billion by 2020.

The matter has been on a slow boil for the past year or so, but things came to a head at the recently concluded Paris Air Show, where Hong Kong Airlines was expected to formally announce a $3.8 billion order for 10 Airbus A380 planes. The order was put on hold by Beijing.

Airbus chief Tom Enders had, in fact, explicitly warned the EU about this in a letter sent on May 24, 2011. Here’s how it has played out since then:

Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive: “Particularly during these times of austerity, it is madness to risk retaliation against a €275 billion industry which supports a massive 4.5 million jobs.”

Wei Zhenzhong, head of the China Air Transport Association: “I believe we have to take legal action.”

FAA Reauthorization Bill text in the U.S. House of Representatives: “Officials [of] the United States Government, and particularly the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, should use all political, diplomatic and legal tools at the disposal of the United States to ensure that the European Union’s emissions trading scheme is not applied to aircraft registered by the United States.”

Giovanni Bisignani, IATA director general: “The last thing that we want to see is a trade war.”

Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner, in response to an article in Financial Times: “Glad that FT agrees that Europe needs to stand up to threats. Am sure that European companies get why this principle is worth fighting for.”

Isaac Valero Ladron, spokesman for EU climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard: “Whatever the Chinese or the Americans are saying, there is no Plan B–we don’t intend to back down.”

The Americans and Chinese don’t intend to back down either. China has already hit the EU with the $3.8 billion Airbus order. The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) is fighting it in the European Courts.

The next hearing is on July 5, 2011 in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Depending on what happens there, the United States and the ATA will decide what to do next. But the court proceedings could take months and the clock is ticking.

One possible solution being pursued by both the United States and China is that they could be given special exemptions, based on a loophole that allows countries to be exempt from ETS if they have their own domestic greenhouse gas reduction plan.

But if the discussions over the exemption don’t pan out, and the courts can’t decide by the end of the year, then air travel to and from Europe is suddenly going to get more expensive starting 2012, and there’s going to be an aviation trade war.

Photo – Karen Eliot

Related posts:
EU Aviation Emissions Trading System Debate Hits United Nations
IATA Sweating Over Copenhagen Blowback On Airline Emissions
TravelTechnology Weekly – Paris Airbus Show, HITEC…

An austerity drive sweeping through Europe is putting a spotlight on the lavish lifestyles of top officials and big organizations, and New York is feeling the impact as the go-to destination for these big spenders.

EU Parliament

The European Commission stands accused of spending more than €7.5 million (US$11 million) on private jet travel, luxury resorts, parties and handing out expensive Tiffany jewelry to guests.

But the one story that’s getting all the attention in the European news media is a $41,000 bill for a four-night stay at the Peninsula Hotel in New York by EU President José Manuel Barroso.

Barroso had come to New York for the General Assembly of the United Nations. The European Commission has a convenient explanation for the huge bill—it’s New York’s fault.

In response to a question raised in the European Parliament, they said that luxury hotels in New York jack up their rates when a big event like the U.N. General Assembly brings in hundreds of large international delegations.

Then there’s the hotel maid incident involving IMF chief and French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn and another one involving an Egyptian businessman that have made luxury New York hotels like the Sofitel and Pierre infamous.

One of the side stories of the DSK incident is a spotlight on the opulent lifestyles of IMF officials. DSK was staying in a $3,000 luxury suite at the Sofitel, and questions were raised in France about who’s paying for it. Considering the IMF’s role as a global banker for distressed nations, it’s a particularly bad situation.

Coupled with the Greek bailout crisis and a £10 billion (US$14.65 billion) government waste cutting plan underway in the United Kingdom, these incidents have the makings of a full-blown AIG Effect where officials and corporate executives get taken down by the media and public for spending too much.

The BBC, for example, is taking heat for booking 200 rooms in 14 luxury hotels for the Glastonbury Festival. In London, civil servants have apparently spent £25 million (US$36.63 million) on credit cards for late-night pizzas, iPads, snowmobiles and…luxury hotels.  The total travel bill came to £3 million, of which £1.5 million (US$2.47 million) was for luxury five-star hotels all over the world.

The fear of a media take-down will curtail heavy spending by high-profile European travelers when they come to Washington, D.C., and other U.S. cities, but the biggest impact will be felt in New York. Four of the top international tourism markets into New York are European, with the United Kingdom on top, with more than one million visitors each year.

Photo – CGP Grey

Related posts:
Recession Chic in Vogue
USTA Develops Toolkit to Fight AIG Effect