The hidden agenda of aviation emissions

The concerted opposition to the European Union's push toward forcing foreign airlines landing in Europe to become a part of its emissions trading scheme has led to an unexpected development, whose implications extend to setting the global climate agenda.

The United States, which had so far rejected the scheme, now wants to resolve the trade dispute, by suggesting a global cap and trade regime. It is included among the options being considered by the International Civil Aviation Organization Council, which last month also dropped consideration of an emissions trading system.

The US, and EU, policy shift comes immediately after the Rio+20 Conference where the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was re-affirmed, whereas the fundamental principle underpinning ICAO is that all aircraft operators are treated equally regardless of their country of origin.

The ICAO Council quietly adopted a resolution in 2010 agreeing to fuel efficiency improvements, working toward a global cap on emissions at 2020 levels and a long-term goal for the sector and differentiation based on capacity. These provisions reflect the negotiating position of developed countries laid out at Copenhagen in 2009.

The issue must also be seen in the context of trends in global emissions. Aviation emissions account for only 1 percent of global emissions, whereas emissions from automobiles constitute over 15 percent of global emissions, account for half the increase in developed countries' emissions since 1990 and are the fastest growing emissions worldwide. For global carbon management the focus should be on road transport.

So, what should be the developing countries' response?

Developing countries should stress the provisions in the ICAO resolution that recognize their special circumstances, and that the different circumstances, respective capabilities and contribution of states to the concentration of aviation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere will determine how each state may contribute to achieving the global goals. Defining the global goals should be at the center of the negotiations, along the lines of the Rio+20 agreement.

They should take the lead in putting forth an alternative vision which continues to be based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, but seeks to bring equity mainstream with a focus on concentration limits through elements that are different to historical responsibility, differentiation and compensation that have been stressed since 1992.

Rio+20 heralds a new framework where the international concern is no longer seeking global environmental protection through a "risk management" approach but rather taking a sustainable development perspective focusing on ensuring human well-being within global ecological limits. Therefore, the global goal of limiting increase in global temperature applies only to developed countries. For developing countries, that goal has to be considered along with the global consensus in the climate treaty, reiterated at Rio+20, that poverty eradication remains their overriding priority.

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page