Trading aviation emissions – Part 3: Australia outlines its position

Parliament house flag post

Trading aviation emissions – Part 3: Australia outlines its position

Posted 17/08/2012 by Anita Talberg

The Government yesterday announced solidarity with a number of other countries opposing the EU’s move to include international aviation in its emission trading scheme. The motion was originally put forward by Nationals Leader Warren Truss who has been active in raising awareness on the issue. The Government supported Mr Truss’ motion. Two previous FlagPosts (this one and this one) outline why the EU's decision has been controversial and what reactions there have been. This FlagPost summarises Australia’s position and provides an update on international actions.

Australia stands…
The motion introduced by Mr Truss called on the Government to:
(a) use all political, diplomatic, and legal tools at its disposal to ensure that the European Union’s ETS is not applied to aircraft registered by Australia or the operators of those aircraft;

(b) should the European Union maintain the application of the European Union ETS to flight sectors outside Europe, immediately assess whether the European Union ETS is consistent with the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and join any WTO challenge; and

(c) join in other appropriate international action to prevent the application of the European Union ETS to non-European Union airspace.
Mr Truss is concerned that ‘under the EU ETS Qantas will pay an extra $2.3 million in 2012 alone and that comes directly back to Australian passengers and tourists’. He has also suggested that ‘if Jetstar or Virgin Australia enter the European market in their own right, they will cop the full 100% ETS costs from day one’. However, this last statement seems to disregard Article 3f of the EU’s Aviation Directive, which allows new operators to apply for free allowances from a special reserve.

…behind the US and ICAO
The Government’s endorsement of Mr Truss’ motion is not the first time Australia has shown its views on the issue. Australia was present at an international meeting convened in Washington to discuss general opposition to the EU’s Aviation Directive. The Washington meeting took place within days of the passage by a U.S. Senate committee of a Bill to ‘prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, and for other purposes.’

Organised by the U.S. State and Transportation departments, the meeting brought together 17 countries, including heavyweights Russia, India, and China. After banning its airlines from participating in the EU scheme, China (and India) missed the deadline for submitting aviation emissions data. The EU accorded the two nations a one-month extension, but the Chinese response was to threaten counter-measures, such as impounding European aircrafts, if the EU took punitive action against Chinese airlines. Russia’s recent action to refuse requests by some European airlines for additional use of Siberian air space has been seen as a form of retaliation, although the European Commission denied that suggestion. Interestingly, Canada was also at the meeting, despite having recently announced a plan to reduce its own aviation greenhouse gas emissions by two per cent annually. 

All participants at the meeting agreed that the best forum for debating, resolving, and establishing rules on the problem of aviation emissions was the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO has been working through the issue but does not expect to propose a solution before March 2013. However, the EU continues to press for a resolution before the end of 2012.


  • 21/01/2014 2:35 PM
    Anita Talberg said:

    Hi Martin, Thanks for your comment/question. At this stage, only Indian and Chinese airlines have been formally banned from participating. They missed the first deadline for reporting emissions data. The EU extended the deadline for them to comply, but this second deadline was missed as well. The US currently has a piece of legislation being debated that would prohibit its airlines from participating. The Senate Bill was introduced on 7 December 2011 and referred to Committee. The Committee reported on 31 July 2012 but the Bill has yet to pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the President. This is actually the second US Bill of its type to be introduced. A House Bill to same effect was introduced on 20 July 2011 and passed the House (after Committee consideration) on 31 October 2011. However it has not been passed by the Senate. Thus far the US has complied with the legal requirements imposed by the EU ETS. According to public announcements, it seems that all other countries are doing the same at this stage. The 17 countries that are thought to have attended the recent meeting in Washington to discuss their grievances with the EU’s rulings were: the US, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates. To date the EU does not seem to have applied any penalties to non-complying airlines. However the European Commission has threatened to impose fines or impound aircrafts that are found to be in violation of the EU ETS. Some legal commentators suggest that these airlines could lose their permits for operating in the EU. In response, China has threatened to impound European aircrafts landing in China. In an interesting recent development, there have been suggestions that aircraft leasing and financing companies are looking to protect themselves by including new provisions in their contracts. These provisions require lessors and sub-lessors of aircrafts to comply with the requirements of the EU ETS, and ensure that failure to do so does not impose any liability on the owner or financer of the aircraft. Experts of the EU legislative process suggest that changing the Aviation Directive would be difficult and possibly impossible in the short-term. This is due to a number of technical and political reasons. For the legislation to be changed and re-implemented would take almost three years. As such, it seems that the easiest way for non-EU countries to be excluded from the EU ETS and avoid any penalties, would be to make use of a clause in the Directive that exempts countries that adopt ‘measures, which have an environmental effect at least equivalent to that of this Directive’.

  • 21/01/2014 2:35 PM
    Martin Butterfield said:

    On reading back through the previous two papers it appears that after an initial burst of hot air and posturing most of the airlines have decided to go ahead. QANTAS is paying under protest, Continental and another US airline are participating but seeking diplomatic action and the Chinese are doing something else with a possibly similar effect. Is it possible at this point to do a summary of which airlines/countries are actually refusing to participate and what the EU has done in the way of penalising them? Martin

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.

Add your comment

[Click to expand]

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




asylum refugees immigration climate change Parliament elections Australian foreign policy social security health financing women Australian Defence Force taxation welfare policy welfare reform sport Medicare employment illicit drugs gambling Australian Bureau of Statistics higher education disability statistics private health insurance Middle East Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency health reform emissions trading industrial relations united states Carbon Pricing Mechanism United Nations school education steroids WADA federal budget 43rd Parliament politics labour force Australian Federal Police transport indigenous Australians aid detention criminal law child protection ASADA Afghanistan governance international relations poker machines law enforcement people trafficking Fair Work Act Australian Public Service pharmaceutical benefits scheme International Women's Day Australian Crime Commission parliamentary procedure National Disability Insurance Scheme children's health food OECD debt defence capability federal election 2013 Australian Electoral Commission aged care Asia Australia in the Asian Century environment Senate income management pensions planning skilled migration Papua New Guinea multiculturalism people smuggling social media doping HECS Higher Education Loan Program paid parental leave health High Court corruption federal state relations dental health New Zealand terrorist groups ALP election results constitution UK Parliament public service reform forced labour aviation coal seam gas crime customs ADRV Census Newstart Parenting Payment employee employer Federal Court foreign debt gross debt net debt European Union domestic violence firearms Constitutional reform food labelling Australian economy carbon tax banking political parties public policy terrorism welfare Australian Security Intelligence Organisation intelligence community Drugs research and development voting mental health health system human rights Northern Territory Emergency Response science Electoral reform regional unemployment violence against women accountability China military history Indigenous Indonesia Pacific Islands speaker health risks superannuation middle class welfare welfare systems question time animal health Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry trade unions integrity same sex relationships foreign bribery Australian Secret Intelligence Service export liquefied natural gas local government referendum children mining forestry Tasmania financial sector Canada United Nations Security Council climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership expertise Senators and Members family assistance by-election US economy housing affordability ASIO carbon markets new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC reserved seats regulation Parliamentary remuneration Population Hung Parliament federal budget 2011-12 paternalism public health slavery Trafficking in Persons Report homelessness school chaplains ministries water federal election 2010 Medicare Locals primary care regional students Youth Allowance entitlements salary sea farers productivity Special Rapporteur transparency money laundering early childhood education national security sexual abuse bulk billing disability employment World Trade Organization Australia renewable energy US politics terrorist financing language education royal commission Italy roads international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies standard of proof arts World Health Organisation disciplinary tribunals railways infant mortality honorary citizen suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports contracts workplace policies peace keeping disorderly conduct same-sex marriage Parliament House retirement Rent Assistance constitutional recognition of local government anti-dumping national heritage NHMRC nutrition GDP world heritage submarines Somalia United Kingdom defence budget First speech election timetable sitting days prime ministers standing orders public housing cancer gene patents genetic testing universities Ireland public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission vocational education and training limitation period Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping leave loading political engagement Korean peninsula counselling pests suicide social policy alcohol computer games plebiscites therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration federalism federation preselection Iran sanctions baby bonus early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin citizen engagement policymaking biosecurity hendra environmental law COAG Ministerial Councils nuclear Work Choices republic hospitals qantas ANZUS Norway President Barack Obama Presidential visits advertising electricity energy maritime floods ADHD stimulant medication ABS Trade Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings 44th Parliament 2015 e-voting internet voting nsw state elections Indigenous health procurement child care funding refugees immigration asylum ACT Assembly Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors social services EU fishing asylum refugees immigration political finance donations Antarctica Diplomacy Disability Support Pension by-elections state and territories China soft power education Fiji India fuel Scottish referendum Members of Parliament Middle East; national security; terrorism Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy innovation Bills NATO workers anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform standards copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry Governor-General Animal law; food health policy employment law bullying asylum seekers Economics efficiency foreign aid human rights; Racial Discrimination Act smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Work Health and Safety Asia; Japan; international relations youth Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine political financing Australia Greens Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling Stronger futures rural and regional political parties preselection presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act Australian Greens obesity competition policy US presidential election evidence law sacrament of confession international days codes of conduct consumer laws

Show all
Show less
Back to top