Russia could ban airlines from carbon trading in protest at EU scheme

Last updated on 20 February 2012, 5:43 pm

Julian Herzog 600 400 Air_Chine_B747-4J6_B-2447_EDDS_04

China, Russia and the US are all opposed to the EU aviation carbon trading scheme. (Source: Wiki/Julian Herzog)

Russia could become the next country to ban its airlines from taking part in carbon trading in retaliation against the EU trading scheme which it says is unfair.

As of January 1 this year all flights landing or taking off from EU airports are liable for their carbon emissions. The so-called “coalition of the unwilling”, which includes Russia, India, China and the US, is meeting in Moscow to discuss its position.

“The Russian government is now reviewing a bill prohibiting Russian airlines to participate in emission trading, it means considering a retaliatory approach,” Aeroflot told Reuters.

“We are facing a new initiative by the EU that may trigger real ‘trade wars’ and cause damage to the world airline industry at one of its most critical stages,” the airline said.

Opposition from within the industry has called for an international approach to carbon trading managed through the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Aeroflot estimated that the legislation would cost them $1.05bn by 2025. Its gross revenues last year were $2.4bn.

Airlines will initially only have to pay for 15% of the carbon they emit, with the figure rising over time.

Grace

Yes, I agree for the most part. Yet, how many hundreds of ilobilns in subsidies have fossil fuels received since the 1870s? Renewable energy has value above and beyond its primary uses, in that it provides not only lights, heating, cooling, etc. but also:prevention of planetary disruption from climate crisisprevention of lung and heart disease from air pollutiona better match with local economiesmore jobs per unit of energyless habitat destructiona less attractive target for terrorismIn my mind, the market is only as valuable as its flexibility and biologic. Consider this: if a fish species is over-fished to the point of near-extinction, its price goes up (supply and demand), making the fish even more lucrative per pound to catch, and wipe out. The same is true of fossil fuel. As the prices of coal, oil, and gas go up, we’ll pockmark the planet no matter what the environmental and social costs are. The market needs more comprehensive feedback than just availability. Availability for how long? At what cost in living wealth?Thanks for writing, and I agree that economics is an important piece of the equation, along with these other factors, so overlooked by the market because they are free.