Skip to comments.Obama quietly signs bill shielding airlines from carbon fees in Europe
Posted on 11/27/2012 4:58:10 PM PST by Libloather
Obama quietly signs bill shielding airlines from carbon fees in Europe
By Keith Laing - 11/27/12 02:02 PM ET
President Obama has signed into law a bill that requires U.S. airlines be excluded from European carbon emissions fees.
Environmentalists had framed the bill as the first test of the president's commitment to fighting climate change in his second term and urged him to veto it. Obama quietly signed it Tuesday over their objections.
"The Obama administration is firmly committed to reducing harmful carbon pollution from civil aviation both domestically and internationally, but, as we have said on many occasions, the application of the EU [Emissions Trading System] to non-EU air carriers is the wrong way to achieve that objective," a White House spokesman said in a statement to The Hill.
The spokesman said the Obama administration will work to address airline emissions at the "the appropriate multilateral forum the International Civil Aviation Organization."
The U.S. airline industry lobbied heavily for passage of the legislation, arguing that the European Union rules were unfair because they would have been applied to the entire length of flights to European destinations, not just the time spent in EU airspace.
Under the emissions trading system, airlines would have had to trade credits for pollution emitted by flights in a system that is similar to cap-and-trade proposals that environmentalists have pushed in the United States.
Earlier this month, the EU put the emission fees on hold for a year to buy time for a global agreement on aviation emissions. The rules were not frozen for airlines in the EU, however.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a Democratic sponsor of the bill exempting U.S. airlines from the fees, said Obama's decision to sign the bill was a win for airline customers.
It never made a bit of sense for European governments to tax our citizens for flying over our own airspace and with the passage of this law weve got the tools we need to prevent it from happening and protect American jobs, she said in a statement.
McCaskill's Republican co-sponsor on the bill, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), said it will shield American carriers from an "illegal tax."
American sovereignty will no longer be threatened by the E.U.s illegitimate and disingenuous environmental tax on our country, Thune said in a statement. My bill will ensure that we protect U.S. air carriers and passengers from this illegal tax, freeing up billions of dollars that can instead be invested in creating jobs, modernizing or purchasing new aircraft and stimulating our own economy."
Airlines had said they would have had to make their first payments in the EU emissions system in the spring of 2013. The rules, which were first applied to the aviation industry this year, called for airlines to reduce their emissions from 2006 levels by 3 percent by 2013 and 5 percent by 2020.
The White House had been under pressure from environmental groups to veto the bill. Those advocates want Obama to address climate change more forcefully in his second term, and said the emissions bill provided an opportunity to chart a new course.
The New York-based Environmental Defense Fund called the emissions ban "[a]t best ... simply superfluous" when it was approved by lawmakers earlier this fall.
But the World Wildlife Fund adopted a more measured tone on Tuesday.
WWF called for a veto of this bill and we are disappointed that it passed," WWF Director of International Climate Policy Keya Chatterjee said in a statement.
"However, there is a silver lining here the administration has appointed high level representatives to pursue a global solution for aviation and climate," Chatterjee said. "The White House now must endorse a global, market-based measure to rein in carbon pollution from aviation. If they do, we are optimistic that the U.S. can work with ICAO to develop a package of policies that will reduce our share of global emissions.
The industry group Airlines for America said the law will allow carriers to reduce emissions through international agreements.
"With the Presidents signature today, the United States has sent an unequivocal signal to the EU and the world that while the illegal and unilaterally-imposed EU ETS is the wrong way to proceed, there is a steadfast commitment to the right way a global sectoral approach at the international level, A4A President Nicholas Calio said.
Working within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organization, the United States will continue to lead the effort to secure a policy that will meet the twin goals of allowing for industry growth and continuing improvements in fuel efficiency and reduced emissions, Calio continued.
In return I’m guessing those same airlines will pimp the climate change garbage to the rest of us.
She would care? ;-)
I’m as free market as Rush, but when you have a system where the government exists to indemnify one powerful lobbying group from the mountain of suffocating laws that everyone else has to play under, the system’s broke, and little more than a protection racket.
Exactly what I was thinking. The airlines aren’t getting the exemption for nothing.
Okay, what’s wrong with this picture? He just took a pass on making our airline industry less competitive. He WHAT?
Let me guess, the Europeans or the U. N. have already assured him the airlines can’t get out of this, and the hit is already scheduled to be someone else’s fault.
eco-nuts will riot?
Obama must have misread the bill. It was meant to PUNISH U.S. carriers, not help them.
Since before Hamurabi. Government has always been a protection racket.
“Obama must have misread the bill. It was meant to PUNISH U.S. carriers, not help them.”
Whoops, got that backwards. The EUROPEAN scheme was meant to punish US carriers.
This will be in return for allowing foreign airlines to fly domestic routes in the US.
I remember back in the 70’s that the french SST didn’t meet U.S. noise requirements, so they somehow reached “an agreement” to allow it to land at JFK only. Not an exact parallel, but interestingly similar.
Kinda like Jenny Granholm giving tax breaks to the film industry. She could have come off as a hero if she had given those same breaks to all.
In a former life I flew for Pan Am, during a stormy summer day at JFK, traffic was backed up for hours. The BA Concorde took off at night. It was an amazing sight to see all 4 afterburners on takeoff and departure.
Makes sense. The dems want the money for this carbon crap not providing a free gift to the EU.
Welcome to libertarianism.
Correct. I agree with the decision, but not the 19th century mercantilist logic that got to the decision.
The Right hand doesn't see what the Left hand is doing. The Left plans strategically; the Right, tactically -- when it plans at all. Keep an eye on Doha.
I’ve been following this for years. It’s the first ballsy thing the COngress has done in years. They stood up to a Euroweenie tax scheme that would make ALgore proud.
The Chicoms stood fast also, threatening to impound Euro airliners if they imposed the tax on the Chinese airlines (as pitiful as they are).
I think the Euros will have to back off this one. Big victory...really.
The airlines told him they would lay off 50,000 employees if he passed it. So Obama knew it was in his best interest. Mid-term elections will be coming up soon.
I wouldn’t argue that...
I think he’s just gearing up for the airlines nationalization.
I wonder how these corporation’s donations went in the last election? Rent-seeking anyone?
Yesterday you accused me of being a libertarian or at least believing in libertarian ideas. Wasn’t sure how to take that because admittedly, I didn’t know much about them, and have heard disparaging things about them around here (on FR). So instead of hastily typing up a snarky reply, I went to their party website and perused a “quick list” of their party platform, and you know what? I’m ready to change my party affiliation to libertarian. I have a few minor issues with their platform, but in general they look good and reflect my values in the large. The R’s aren’t delivering in my opinion, and parties reflect their membership, not the other way around. Heck, the socialists took over the dems lock, stock, and barrel. So adios Republican party, you can keep all the self-important policy wonks who are just furthering the divide, and secretly laugh behind closed doors at the racket they’ve got going with the dems. They haven’t delivered positive results in twenty five years, and have only served to slow down the slide into socialism a little bit by playing the “good cop”, then do what they damned well please when elected, and never fail to dissapoint. Thanks for the epiphany.
My pleasure. Please notice I used the small “l” version. I don’t agree with the Libertarian Party on several issues. But they’re a heck if a lot closer to my core political beliefs than Boehner or Romney ever will be.