Obama's Climate Decision: Congress’ Overwrought Response to European Air Travel Regulations

This article was originally published at PolicyLab, a Harvard graduate student-led science policy op-ed publisher, at http://www.policylab.org/2013/07/06/obamas-climate-decision-congress-overwrought-response-to-european-air-travel-regulations/ on 2013-07-06, but is no longer available on the web.

“For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.” When I heard President Obama speak these words during his State of the Union address, I didn’t think of melting polar ice caps, or frustratingly slow progress at international conferences at Kyoto and Dohar, or even Hurricane Sandy. I thought of air travel, and a bill that President Obama recently signed that undermines his rhetoric.

S.1956, a bill signed into law by President Obama on November 27th, seeks to prohibit US air carriers from complying with a European law that incentivizes them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. bill was supported by a bevy of airline industry groups and sponsored by one of their top recipients of campaign donations, Senator John Thune (R­SD).

The bill is an overwrought response to the European Union’s trading program for aviation emissions, a sensible, market­based policy implemented last January to control aircraft emissions as the industry expands. It’s an important check on pollution from a global industry that now adds as much carbon to our atmosphere as the entire population of Germany.

Carriers operating in European airspace are essentially obligated to maintain current levels of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions through 2020. Airlines which reduce their emissions by upgrading their fleet, modifying routes, and improving flight occupancy will pay no fee. They can pass on fuel savings to consumers, and even sell their emissions allocation for a profit. Carriers that fail to reduce emissions to match the growth in their services will have to purchase excess allowances in an emissions market.

Proponents of the U.S. bill say that the European measure violates our nation’s sovereignty. By requiring US corporations to comply with the emissions regulation, they say, U.S. citizens are being forced to pay a foreign “tax.”

It’s true that the cost of compliance, about $15 for a ticket between New York and London,may be passed on to consumers. But this cost is trivial in comparison to the more than $200 in existing taxes and fees levied on this route. The US itself charges several fees to foreign passengers, including international departure and arrival taxes, an immigration user fee, and a passenger security fee.

As a frequent traveler, I find Congress’ action particularly curious. I regularly travel to Chile to use their world class telescopes. Like several other countries in the region, Chile charges Americans a “reciprocity fee” of $160 to counteract the onerous and costly visa processing procedure that the United States imposes on Chilean citizens. The U.S. Congress has never taken action against this and similar passenger taxes in the past, and yet they have responded so provocatively to the European emissions regulations that some experts fear escalation into an all­out trade war.

The true motivation of the groups and politicians who supported this bill is unmistakable: to quash even the most moderate steps toward controlling the growth of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and to head off discussion within our own country of any measure calling for industry to bear the costs its activities have on our climate.

However, the Administration is not shackled by this new law. It simply grants the Secretary of Transportation, whoever is appointed to replace outgoing Secretary Ray LaHood, the power to direct airlines to comply with the EU regulation or disobey it. To disobey would expose the airlines to more than $20 billion in fines from the EU between now and 2020. Congress has not sufficiently anticipated this messy legal eventuality, and only claims, in an amendment to S.1956, that taxpayer dollars will not be used to pay these European penalties.

President Obama has claimed a role of “international leadership” on combatting climate change and pledged action during his second inaugural and State of the Union addresses. To take this stance in the international community, he must direct American air carriers to comply with the environmentally­conscious laws of our allies. Furthermore, the Administration should work with the European Union to establish international agreements to supplement Europe’s Directive at the upcoming assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization in September. This action would open the door for future domestic and global measures to combat climate change which could form the basis of the legacy for his second term.