Focus
China joins legal battle against EU aviation tax
Today @ 09:23

Related› EU court backs airline emissions cap› China joins US in battle against EU carbon rules for airlines
By Valentina Pop

BRUSSELS - Four Chinese airlines are to legally challenge Europe's new carbon emission taxes, which are due to take effect from 1 January.


The EU has said it will stick with its carbon emissions plans (Photo: El Bingle)
.The four carriers - Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Hainan Airlines - have the backing of the country's air transport association, which claims the new carbon emission rules will cost Chinese airlines some €95 million.

The association asked all Chinese carriers not to take part in the EU carbon trading scheme, not to submit carbon emission monitoring plans or to negotiate with the EU on a bilateral basis.

From 1 January airlines will be required to buy permits for 15 percent of the emissions generated on flights to, from and within the EU. The figure will rise to 18 percent in 2013-2020.

US airlines have already challenged the scheme in court.

A ruling by the European Court of Justice is expected on Wednesday. A legal opinion by the court issued in October said the carbon emission rules were compatible with EU law. The opinion is non-binding, but it is usually followed by the judges in their final verdict.

Some airlines, such as America's cargo giant UPS, are already thinking about re-routing flights in order to side-step the scheme and cut costs, reports the Wall Street Journal. The move is likely to end up creating more carbon emissions.

Mitch Nichols, president of UPS Airlines, told the newspaper that the company may look at redirecting flights between its hubs in Hong Kong and Cologne, Germany, by going through Mumbai. That will cut the cost of the tax by about a quarter because UPS would only be charged for the distance flown between Cologne and Mumbai. But the distance flown will increase by 1,100 miles, upping the emissions.

US foreign policy chief Hillary Clinton last week sent a letter to several EU commissioners urging them to suspend the enforcement of the carbon scheme and re-negotiate with governments around the world.

"Halt or, at a minimum, delay or suspend application of this directive. Re-engage with the rest of the world. The United States stands ready to engage in such an effort. Absent such willingness on the part of the EU, we will be compelled to take appropriate action," she warned.

In a statement on Tuesday (20 December), the Association of European Airlines expressed fears of an imminent trade war should the plan go ahead. "Even if the ECJ (EU court) decides that the EU (emissions trading scheme) conforms with EU law, this will not resolve non-European countries' vehement hostility," it said.

EU climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard has refused to back down, however.

"It is not just an idea, it is EU law," she told Financial Times Deutschland, stressing that the commission will not give in to pressure from the US or elsewhere.
.////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Trade wars ahead?

 

A fine example of how government intervention has opposite the desired effect. Good for UPS.

 

Does this mean asking TPE direct out of Europe will be out of the question ?

 

I thought the major opposition was the fact that the flight was taxed on the entire length, not just the portion in European airspace.

 

You are correct.

 

Climate Change Commissioner... YGBSM.

No wonder the EU is going down the toilet so fast. Regulation run amok.

Would that rank above a Czar?

 

That's what I though, so UPS's idea of flying longer to spend less time in EU airspace would cost more money... interesting...

 

It will be interesting to see the cost comparison. No doubt the Eurotrash are trying to save themselves at our expense under the guise of junk science run amok, and the cost is huge. And if they get away with it, it will go up and up and up and there will be no environmental improvement.

It's the Ponzi-scheme/pet rock of the 21st century.

 

It will cost more money for fuel but it will decrease the TAX. If you fly from Hong Kong to Cologne the tax will be much higher than flying from Hong Kong to Mumbai then on to Cologne. The stopover significantly reduces the tax. It will cost more in fuel costs but it is a way of protesting and stopping the tax revenue being given to the EU.

 

Exactly.......