Author
Originally published in the Financial Times
The EU’s aviation climate rules won’t cause the dramatic business losses that European legacy carriers are claiming (“Air France-KLM warns EU climate rules would halve Asia flights”, Report, February 14).
The problem of carbon leakage exists, but airlines are exaggerating the risk, which is concentrated on a few long-haul routes via hubs such as Istanbul, Doha or Dubai.
In reality, carbon leakage is being used as an excuse to weaken climate rules. While a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Border Adjustment Mechanism (SAF-BAM) is a good idea in theory — requiring non-EU carriers to purchase certificates equivalent to the value of the SAF used by EU airlines — it is unlikely non-EU countries will impose an SAF surcharge because the EU wants them to.
The EU should instead focus on targeted policy solutions to address carbon leakage and create a level playing field, not weaken climate rules as a whole. More importantly, it should urgently address the climate footprint of long-haul flights, which are currently tax-free. Aviation remains highly polluting and needs to decarbonise; extending the EU emissions trading system to cover flights leaving the EU should increase revenue streams to enable this to happen.
Currently the industry is wasting billions on the ineffective carbon trading scheme for airlines, known as Corsia. On the other hand, extending the EU ETS could generate €7bn that could be reinvested in the sector.
It’s time for airlines to stop pleading for cheap compliance through offsets while asking for delays to climate laws, and accept responsibility for their climate impact like every other sector. Paying to make their fuel slightly cleaner is the least they can do.
