U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–582 PDF 2012

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S EMISSIONS TRADING 

SCHEME: A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

(112–49) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 27, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Kurland, Hon. Susan, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 

Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, accompanied by Hon. Julie 

Oettinger, Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs, and 

Environment, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ....................................... 25 

Urs, Hon. Krishna R., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 25 

PANEL TWO

Moak, Captain Lee, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International ......... 34 

Young, Hon. Nancy N., Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Air Transport Association of America, Inc. ........................................................................ 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Kurland, Hon. Susan ............................................................................................... 39 

Moak, Captain Lee .................................................................................................. 43 

Urs, Hon. Krishna R. ............................................................................................... 51 

Young, Hon. Nancy N. ............................................................................................. 56 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, request to submit the following into the record: 

Rivasseau, Franc ̧ois, Charge ́ d’Affaires a.i., European Union, statement ... 2 

Testimony from all other interested parties: 

Bates, Captain David J., President, Allied Pilots Association, statement ........................................................................................................ 9 

Environmental Defense Fund: 

Cover letter from Jenny Cooper to Subcommittee on Aviation, 

July 29, 2011 ................................................................................... 10 

Memo: ‘‘Aviation and the European Union Emissions Trading 

System’’ ............................................................................................ 11 

Timeline: ‘‘The Long Road Toward Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Aviation’’ .............................................................. 17 

Letter to Representatives from 10 environmental and development organizations ......................................................................... 18 

Kuwitzky, Captain Carl, President, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, statement ................................................................................. 20 

Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC), ‘‘Declaration 

of Cartagena of the Indies’’ ................................................................... 23 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 67582.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67582.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67582.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67582.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67582.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67582.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67582.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67582.008
(1) 

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S EMISSIONS 

TRADING SCHEME: A VIOLATION 

OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The hearing will come to order. Today we will hear 

testimony on the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme. 

This hearing is both timely as well as incredibly important, and I 

would ask unanimous consent that a statement from the European 

Union be submitted for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

2 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67582.009
3 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67582.010
4 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67582.011
5 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67582.012
6 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67582.013
7 

Mr. PETRI. Starting in January 2012, the European Union will 

begin to unilaterally apply its Emissions Trading Scheme to civil 

aviation operations landing in or departing from one of the EU 

member states. Under the Emissions Trading Scheme, EU member 

states will require international air carriers and operators to pay 

emission allowances and in some cases penalties. The Emissions 

Trading Scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those parts of the flight outside of the EU. 

The EU is pressing ahead with its plans despite serious legal 

issues and objections by not just the United States, but by the 

international community. The United States presented its formal 

objections to the Emissions Trading Scheme in Oslo just last 

month. Airlines, manufacturers and general aviation operators 

around the world have also expressed strong objects to the Emissions Trading Scheme, and, in fact, several U.S. airlines and the 

Air Transport Association have filed a lawsuit. 

Unilateral enforcement of the Emissions Trading Scheme by EU 

member states on U.S. operators without the consent of the United 

States raises significant legal concerns under international law, including the Chicago Convention and the U.S.-EU Air Transport 

Agreement. There are also concerns that the Emissions Trading 

Scheme is nothing more than a revenue raiser for EU member 

states. 

Lack of transparency is a growing problem. The European Commission has provided no guidance on how the Emissions Trading 

Scheme funds should be used. Some EU member states intend to 

use the funds for whatever they want as opposed to investing in 

research and development efforts with the goal of reducing carbon 

dioxide production by the civil aviation sector. 

U.S. air carriers and their employees have also pointed out that 

the Emissions Trading Scheme actually harms efforts to reduce 

civil aviation CO2 production. If airlines are forced to pay these allowances, they will not have the capital to invest in efforts to develop alternative fuels, new fuel-efficient aircraft, or equipment 

needed to operate in a more efficient and environmentally friendly, 

satellite-based air traffic control system. 

Finally, there are considerable concerns about the proliferation of 

EU member states’ eco charges being put in place on top of the 

Emissions Trading Scheme. Questions have arisen as to whether 

the eco charges are consistent with EU member states’ obligations 

under international law, and whether some of these charges may, 

in effect, double charge for the same emissions the EU intends to 

regulate under its Emissions Trading Scheme. 

Given all these concerns, we believe that the EU needs to slow 

down, carefully weigh their plans to include international civil 

aviation in its scheme. We believe a better approach to the work 

within the international civil aviation community is to work with 

the international civil aviation community through the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization. 

Since EU shows no interest in working with the international 

community to address their concerns and objections and to seek a 

global approach to civil aviation emissions, we believe that the 

United States should not participate in their unilateral and questionable Emissions Trading Scheme program. Therefore, last week, 

8 

we introduced H.R. 2594, the European Union Emissions Trading 

Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, with bipartisan support. We intend to move this legislation in the near future to make clear to 

the EU and the international community that the United States 

does not intend to participate in the unilaterally imposed process. 

And to thank the witnesses for their participation today, we look 

forward to your testimony. I know my colleagues will be joining us. 

There are caucuses going on as we started this hearing. And I also 

invite all other interested parties to submit written testimony for 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67582.014
10 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67582.015
11 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67582.016
12 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67582.017
13 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67582.018
14 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67582.019
15 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67582.020
16 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67582.021
17 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67582.022
18 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67582.023
19 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67582.024
20 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67582.025
21 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67582.026
22 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67582.027
23 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67582.028
24 

Mr. PETRI. Finally, before I recognize Mr. Costello for his opening 

statement, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 

5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 

extraneous material in the record in this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

And I now recognize Mr. Costello for his opening statement. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And as you pointed 

out, we have a conference going on your side of the aisle and a caucus going on on our side of the aisle concerning a little issue called 

the debt ceiling, but I think other Members will join us as the 

hearing gets under way. 

As you noted, climate change is a global problem that requires 

a global solution. Working through the International Civil Aviation 

Organization, the United States is committed to finding a global solution to address aviation emissions based on consensus. However, 

the EU has decided to move forward with a ‘‘go it alone’’ approach 

that is contrary to international law and violates U.S. sovereignty 

by charging U.S. airlines for all emissions for flights between the 

United States and Europe, even the portions of flights over our own 

airspace, and returning the revenue to European countries. 

Last week I was pleased to join Chairman Mica and Chairman 

Petri, Ranking Member Mr. Rahall, and several of our colleagues 

to introduce a strong bipartisan bill, H.R. 2594, that would prevent 

U.S. airlines from taking part in the EU emissions trading program. As Chairman Petri indicated, we intend to move that bill 

very quickly in a bipartisan manner. The legislation will send a 

strong message from Congress that we do not support what the EU 

is doing for a variety of reasons. 

In the meantime, the U.S. airline industry and the Federal Government are making progress to reduce aviation’s carbon footprint 

with the implementation of NextGen, which will help aircraft operators save more than 1.4 billion gallons of fuel, cutting carbon 

emissions by more than 14 million tons by 2018. 

Again, I thank Chairman Petri for calling today’s hearing, and 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. PETRI. I now recognize for an opening statement the chairman of the full committee, John Mica from Florida. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Costello. And I don’t see Mr. Rahall here, but all the Members 

that are here, I think, are united in moving on an expedited basis 

legislation that basically prohibits U.S. carriers from participating 

in what is appropriately named a scheme, the trading emission 

scheme that is crafted by the European Union. And we will take 

the legislation up, and it will be marked up as soon as we get confirmation of our schedule. But it will be at the first markup, that 

is my intention, and we will consult with—continued consultations 

on a bipartisan manner, and we will not only pass it out of committee, but we will take it to the floor as soon as possible, other 

minor things standing in our way right now like keeping the creditworthiness of the United States intact and little issues with FAA, 

but we will get beyond those, hopefully. 

Let see me say that we have done everything possible to have a 

positive and productive exchange with our European counterparts, 

both parliamentary members and the Commission and even some 

25 

of the authors of this legislation. Unfortunately, even after meetings here in Washington, one that Mr. Holden was with us, we had 

a bipartisan delegation that met recently in Brussels, we did everything possible, I think, to try to work with them to find some solution. Quite frankly, we don’t know the details of what they will impose because they aren’t sure of it themselves. We have coordinated 

this effort with the Department of State, and I thank the administration, others, FAA and others for working with us in a cooperative effort to protect U.S. interests. 

But right now the clock is ticking. They plan to impose this arbitrary fee, or scheme, and you heard Mr. Costello speak to the revenues of this that they collect are just a cash grab by the European 

Union. It does not go into, we think, advancing getting even cleaner, more emissions-free technology, nor is the money directed towards protecting, preserving the environment after it is collected, 

not to mention the fact that this is probably contrary to international agreements and treaties that are in place. 

So we will move forward. We want to send this message loud and 

clear that the current road that the European Union is following 

is not one we are going to—we are not going to support, and we 

want a positive outcome in the best interests of not only the United 

States, but others who will be taxed or burdened by the European 

Emissions Trading Scheme. 

So with that, again, thank you. I look forward to the testimony, 

and we will work with all parties to resolve this matter. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. The first panel consists of Susan Kurland, 

who is the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Transportation, who is accompanied by Julie Oettinger, who is Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs and Environment at the Federal Aviation 

Administration. And also testifying is the Honorable Krishna R. 

Urs, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs 

at the United States Department of State. 

Welcome, both of you. Thank you for the efforts that went into 

your prepared statements, and we invite you to do your best to 

summarize them in 5 minutes or so, starting with Susan Kurland. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. SUSAN KURLAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY 

HON. JULIE OETTINGER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. KRISHNA 

R. URS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. KURLAND. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Chairman Petri, 

Ranking Member Costello and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me and my colleague Julie Oettinger from 

the FAA to testify this morning on the European Union’s Emissions 

Trading Scheme, or ETS. 

I want to begin by commending your leadership on this very important issue. Opposition to the unilateral imposition of ETS by the 

EU is shared across the United States political spectrum and 

around the globe. We strongly object on both legal and policy 

26 

grounds to the unilateral imposition of ETS on U.S. operators. This 

is the wrong way to pursue the right objective. 

I want to make it very clear that the administration strongly 

supports reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and it is also important to note that U.S. aviation greenhouse gas emissions have 

declined by 15 percent since 2000, even though passenger and 

cargo traffic have increased. 

Under the U.S. Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Plan, known as NextGen, we will continue to build on this record 

by using a combination of innovative air traffic management, more 

fuel-efficient aircraft, and alternative fuels in order to meet aviation’s energy and environmental challenges. And we are working to 

improve aviation emissions performance by 2 percent a year and to 

achieve carbon-neutral aviation growth by 2020. We are also working with our international partners at ICAO in order to develop a 

meaningful CO2 standard. 

Unfortunately, the unilateral imposition of the EU ETS on the 

world community is undermining efforts to build international consensus on reducing aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

In addition, our specific concerns with the EU ETS include, first, 

the application of the EU ETS to U.S. operators is inconsistent 

with international aviation law and practice. 

Second, since the EU has no transparent methodology or standard for exempting countries from ETS, discrimination and competitive distortions in the industry can result. 

Third, any money that U.S. airlines pay to European treasuries 

is not available to invest in new aircraft or equipage that is required under NextGen. 

Despite public statements pledging ETS revenues to climate 

mitigation funding, the EU ETS directive imposes no such requirement, nor are we aware of any commitments by any EU member 

state to dedicate ETS revenue for climate change purposes. 

We have discussed these and other concerns with our European 

counterparts at the Joint Committee of the U.S.-EU Air Transport 

Agreement last month in Oslo, Norway. Unfortunately, the EU’s 

ambiguous responses to our questions have only heightened our 

concerns. 

We applaud this committee’s bipartisan focus on the ETS issue, 

and we hope that it will encourage our European colleagues to 

work for a collaborative global solution. 

With that, we look forward to responding to your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Urs. 

Mr. URS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello and members 

of the subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify 

this morning. I will keep my remarks brief. I have submitted a 

more detailed statement for the record. 

I will focus on our diplomatic efforts to prevent the unilateral inclusion of U.S. air operators in the European Union Emissions 

Trading Scheme. The Department of State has worked closely with 

the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department 

of Commerce to advance this goal. 

27 

First, let me state upfront that we support the goal of addressing 

greenhouse gas emissions, including from the aviation sector. However, unilaterally including our carriers in an emissions trading 

scheme is the wrong way to achieve the right objective. We believe 

the right way is to work with our international partners to develop 

a multilateral solution through the international aviation organization—International Civil Aviation Organization, excuse me. 

We have made progress in developing a solution at the global 

level through ICAO, and we are eager to continue this progress. At 

the last ICAO Assembly in 2010, the United States worked with 

our international partners to achieve an agreement on a number 

of measures to limit or reduce aviation’s impact on the environment. They included for the first time ever an ambitious mediumterm global goal of carbon-neutral growth from 2020, agreement to 

develop a CO2 standard, mandatory reporting by all countries of 

fuel consumption, an agreement that States would submit to ICAO 

action plans listing the measures they plan to take to contribute 

to the global goal. 

Further, at the Assembly, a majority of ICAO member states acknowledged that the application of market-based measures to 

international aviation should be done following good-faith negotiations to reach an agreed way forward and not unilaterally. 

In the United States we have a strong record of success in reducing emissions from aviation. Over the past decade we have seen 

U.S. aviation emissions shrink by 15 percent through greater efficiencies and improved technology. Europe, as our largest aviation 

market, is one of our closest partners. In 2007, the United States 

signed an air transport agreement with the European Union and 

its member states. We signed a protocol to amend the agreement 

in 2010. That was the so-called second-stage agreement. This 

agreement led to great benefits on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Recognizing that the environment is taking on more significance 

in international aviation, Article 15 of the agreement, as amended, 

underscores the parties’ intent to work together to reduce the impact of aviation on the environment, and the commitment of both 

parties to address questions raised concerning new environmental 

measures that might affect the exercise of rights. 

On June 22, in Oslo, Norway, we met with EU officials and delivered this administration’s formal objection to the EU’s unilateral 

inclusion of U.S. air carriers in the ETS. I led the delegation to the 

meeting, which included representatives of FAA, DOT, EPA, Commerce, the U.S. aviation industry and U.S. environmental organizations. 

We objected to the unilateral imposition of the EU ETS on U.S. 

air carriers on both legal and policy grounds. We emphasized that 

unilateral imposition was the wrong way to pursue the right objective. We asked a number of questions about how the Emissions 

Trading Scheme is expected to work and, frankly, were disappointed with the answers. In fact, our concerns about the lack 

of transparency surrounding the EU’s plans to determine equivalency of other countries’ measures and the potential for discrimination in that process were only heightened. 

While this is the first time this administration has rendered a 

formal objection, the United States and other members of the interVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\7-27-1~1\67582.TXT JEAN
28 

national community have been expressing our concern about the 

prospect of the European Union unilaterally extending its ETS to 

international aviation for years. It is therefore disappointing to 

hear statements from European officials that our objections have 

been raised too late, and that because application of the EU ETS 

to all air carriers is a matter of law and not policy, the European 

Commission is not in a position to delay or modify its implementation or application. 

We will continue to strongly oppose the unilateral application of 

the EU’s ETS to our airlines and will work with the international 

community to find a constructive and collaborative way to tackle 

the important issue of aviation and climate change. 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to take any questions you may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and we appreciate your summarizing your 

full remarks as you have. 

Some of us have had reservations about the whole EU approach. 

As I indicated in my opening statement, to the extent that they extract funds through this scheme from the international aviation 

community and use it for nonaviation-related purposes, there are 

going to be less funds for the airlines to reequip themselves, buy 

the latest generation of engines and planes which are significantly 

more efficient, and it will, in fact, retard the goal of all of this, 

which leads me to ask you if you think there might be some merit 

in trying to use a more of a carrot approach than a stick approach, 

because airlines are very eager to save money on fuel and reduce 

carbon emissions. They don’t have to be ordered by governments to 

do it. It is in their economic interest to do it. So to the extent we 

can figure out ways to help them within their means more quickly 

reequip themselves and become more efficient, we can reduce carbon emissions, and achieve their goals, and help the traveling public. 

And the United States has been the leader in investing in all 

these efforts both in new engine technology—the Boeing 

Dreamliner is much more efficient than others, and this is spreading through the whole next generation of airlines. Further, our 

Government is very aggressively working now to reequip the air 

traffic control system, which shows the potential of reducing carbon 

emissions by 25 percent or more throughout the system. 

So I don’t think we need to apologize in any way for failing to 

address the goal of all of this, but I think we do need to very aggressively work with other countries in the world to try to come up 

with a more sensible approach than that that the Europeans are 

attempting to unilaterally apply. It doesn’t seem to have worked 

very well so far, it does not seem to be very well thought through, 

and it is really rather counterproductive and arbitrary. 

Would you care to comment on that at all, especially Mr. Urs, because you had to deal with this? 

Mr. URS. Sure. Perhaps I can say a few words, and if Assistant 

Secretary Kurland or Assistant Administrator Oettinger would like 

to add some additional comments. 

We had a very good record in terms of addressing emissions from 

our aviation sector, and we made that very clear to the European 

Union, the European Commission. When we met with them in 

29 

Oslo, we pointed out, as Assistant Secretary Kurland had pointed 

out, there has been a 15-percent reduction in aviation emissions in 

the United States in the last decade, and that is at a time when 

we have seen an increase in traffic, and we have had a decrease 

in emissions. The same is not true for the European Union. They 

have seen an increase in their emissions at a time during that 

same time period. 

And we did, in fact, also discuss our commitment in the sense of 

a number of activities that we have going forward, biofuels—perhaps Julie is better situated to comment on that—but regarding 

biofuels, and new technologies, and NextGen, and a whole series of 

things that we are doing that are oriented at reducing our emissions footprint. 

So, absolutely, we are committed to the goal. And I don’t think 

we have anything to apologize for in terms of being committed to 

the goal. And we did very much lay out very clearly to the European Union our objections on legal and policy grounds, and specifically we have, in other venues, accepted the concept of marketbased measures to deal with emissions. But very clearly we have 

stated that those market-based measures, before they are applied 

on any other country’s carriers, they need to be the result of constructive negotiation and mutual agreement. And we don’t have 

that stage here in terms of the European Union’s negotiations with 

us. 

So let me just leave it there and perhaps—— 

Ms. KURLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The U.S. Government, and particularly the FAA, has been very, 

very active in this arena, and I would like to ask Associate Administrator Oettinger to comment on that. 

Ms. OETTINGER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for your 

question and your comments. I appreciate the opportunity to talk 

about what the FAA is doing in this area. 

As has been noted, the FAA is very committed, as is the U.S. 

Government generally, to addressing the impacts of aviation on the 

environment generally, and in terms of emissions—of greenhouse 

gas emissions in particular. We have a very robust program domestically focused on air traffic management, operations and procedures improvement; focused on development and deployment of alternative fuels; focused on accelerating technology for aircraft and 

engine technology to improve efficiency of the industry. We have 

put these goals and these efforts at the heart of our NextGen program to modernize the aviation system. 

We are working in these areas, as you have alluded to, Mr. 

Chairman. We are working very closely with the industry in a 

number of these areas. They are also very committed to making 

improvements. And as you noted, it is very much in the airlines’ 

economic interest where fuel is now the single largest expense of 

the airlines, and so they have every economic interest to reduce 

their fuel burn and are very committed to working with us in terms 

of the initiatives that I have mentioned. 

Also, we are working very closely, we are very committed to 

working internationally to forge consensus on positive steps that 

we can take through ICAO. We have been working with other 

countries very closely. We have been supported by our industry in 

30 

this regard as well. So I think I agree with the statements that 

have be made already that this is a strong commitment of the U.S. 

Government to take positive steps with the industry support, and 

we don’t have anything to apologize for. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The date isn’t too far off here for the application of these fees, 

so I am wondering—I know litigation has been filed, but I am wondering what other steps the administration is considering. 

For instance, I am pretty much an expert on how their cap-andtrade scheme works. I voted against it here in the House because 

I know how the system is gamed. We could set up some fake credits over here just like are being used there. 

For instance, in China they produce refrigerants. When you 

produce a refrigerant, you produce a horrible off-gas. The horrible 

off-gas under U.S. law is destroyed. Under European law it is destroyed. In China they save it, they transport it to another Chinese 

company. The other Chinese company offers to bid to European 

companies to destroy this off-gas, and then they get paid to destroy 

the off-gas, and then they sell the credits. Then the Europeans sell 

those credits, and they sell them to polluters in Europe. So we 

could just say, OK, in the U.S. we will now take that off-gas, we 

will destroy it, we will put it in the European market, and we will 

have fake credits, and so we have taken care of the problem. That 

is one thing we could do because this whole thing is just nuts. 

Secondly, have we thought of going to the WTO, because they actually have rules. The U.S. lost cases to Mexico and others because 

when you have an environmental concern, you must take the least 

expensive, least intrusive approach. We lost a case to Mexico on 

their catch of dolphins when fishing for tuna, and we have to pay 

the Mexicans to not do that. So we can’t have our environmental 

laws under the WTO. 

I believe they are in violation of the WTO. Have we contemplated 

they have not taken the least intrusive, least expensive means 

here? Are we contemplating a WTO complaint? 

Ms. KURLAND. Thank you, Congressman. 

At this point, as you have heard, we are taking this matter very, 

very seriously, and we are considering a wide range of options, and 

we are working with our interagency colleagues within the Government. At this point we would prefer not to discuss in open discussion what we are thinking about in terms of not wanting to telegraph any strategies to the EU. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah, but WTO complaints take quite a while to 

process. I suggest if you are contemplating that strategy, you need 

to file soon, since 2012 isn’t very far away. There is nothing to contemplate. File it. They are clearly in violation of the WTO. If we 

are meeting the standards, they are going to obviously try and 

mess with us on equivalence. They will determine they are doing 

equivalence, but we are not. We did this with noise before where 

the Europeans were trying to advantage their airlines, you know, 

we could quite simply then get credit for our equivalent measures, 

because that would be the least intrusive, least expensive way of 

meeting this if we want a WTO complaint. 

31 

So that should be filed as quickly as possible because otherwise 

you are going to drag this out, wait for the court decision in a European court when the Europeans are going to make a pile of 

money with this, some of which they might use for greenhouse gas 

reduction, and some of which they will use to run their governments. That is not acceptable. 

And then the third thing would be some sort of reciprocal 

trumped-up charge on the European airlines coming here since this 

is just outrageous. We had a representative of the EU here a few 

years ago, and they told us then this is what they were going to 

do, and a number of us objected strenuously. Obviously they went 

ahead, and we are a little bit behind the eight ball here in terms 

of fighting back aggressively against a nonsensical rule that does 

nothing for climate change. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And I would like to associate myself with 

the bulk of your remarks, particularly so far as starting an action 

with the World Trade Organization, if, as you have said, that 

framework would exist, and that has the potential of bringing some 

real pressure down the road at least. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to 

echo and associate myself with the remarks of Mr. DeFazio. 

I think there is not a lot to contemplate here, and with the timing that the WTO takes, I don’t understand why we would not be 

initiating every action possible. And since the emissions trading 

proposal is a violation of U.S. law and our international agreements, you have talked about some of the remedies of, but can we 

impose tariffs or other measures? Is this part of what you are looking at here? You don’t want to talk about the specifics you are looking at, but I think we maybe need something to go on. 

Ms. KURLAND. Thank you, Congressman. As I mentioned, we are 

taking this very seriously. We are in constant contact with our 

interagency colleagues, and we are considering a wide range of options that are available to us. 

The Department of Transportation does have regulatory authority to impose—under statute and under law, to impose countervailing proportionate countermeasures at the appropriate time. 

And as we move forward, and as we consider the options that we 

want to move forward with, we will work very closely with the committee, and we will keep you informed. And we thank you very 

much for your suggestions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And it also seems that they have been very reluctant and resistant to even being at the table, to even negotiating 

on this. So I am hopeful that in this list that you are looking at, 

I don’t know what else to call it, that there are some ideas that can 

come to mind from either the Department of Transportation or 

even the State Department of how to get these people to the table. 

You have got to get them to the table to understand if they think 

that we are not taking it seriously, if they think that, well, we are 

raising some verbal opposition, and they can let this thing go, that 

they are going to take advantage of it. So I think now is the time, 

as Mr. DeFazio said, to make sure that they have no ambiguity 

about how strongly we feel. 

32 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would agree 

with my friend from New Jersey. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Kurland, I know that formal negotiations 

took place in June. Do you have additional formal meetings scheduled now or in the future? 

Ms. KURLAND. At this point, as I mentioned, we are considering 

the range of options. We do not have a formal meeting scheduled. 

But maybe I would ask Deputy Assistant Secretary Urs to comment a little bit further on that. 

Mr. URS. We do not have a specific meeting scheduled to continue discussion of EU ETS with the European Union at this time. 

We do have a regular set of meetings with the European Union 

that are provided for under our air services, our air transport 

agreement. And so should we wish to raise the issue with the European Union again at any point, we would be in a position to do so. 

But as I say, as Susan has mentioned on several occasions here, 

we are looking at a wide variety of options that we have available 

to us. Certainly continuing our conversations with the European 

Union could be a part of that set of possible options that are available to us, but we are considering them at this point. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, we know that the airlines have filed a lawsuit, and they are before the European Court of Justice. Do you 

have any idea what the timeline is there for a ruling, or at least 

for the airlines to make their case? 

Ms. KURLAND. What has happened thus far is that the—as you 

know, the airlines case before the ECJ, there was a hearing, I believe it was on July the 5th, and we have been informed that the 

Court’s Advocate General will likely be making or submitting a 

proposed findings to the Court’s Justices in the beginning part of 

October. We are continuing to monitor the matter very, very closely. I don’t know if my colleagues want to add anything to that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You mention a range or a whole host of options. 

We know that you can go to ICAO and file a complaint there. We 

know that you can file a complaint with the WTO. What other options exist? 

Ms. OETTINGER. One other option, Mr. Congressman, that exists 

is there is a dispute resolution process associated with the U.S.-EU 

Open Skies Agreement, and I think, as Assistant Secretary 

Kurland said, there are a wide variety of legal avenues that are 

open to us. We had hoped to resolve the issue through diplomatic 

efforts and through international efforts. We are, at this point, 

looking very closely at what legal options we have, as well as the 

legal evidence to pursue, as well as potential retaliatory options, 

and we are considering that closely right now. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I, as my friend from New Jersey just said, 

Mr. LoBiondo, I think our friends in Europe need to understand 

that we are serious about this, and I would encourage you to go 

back and start exercising the options that are available to us sooner rather than later so that they do not run the clock out on us. 

So I would just encourage you to do that, to look at complaint 

with ICAO, to look at the WTO, going the WTO route as Mr. 

33 

DeFazio suggested, but they need to understand that we are serious. The purpose of the legislation that we introduced is to put our 

friends in Europe on notice that the Congress of the United 

States—I have every confidence that the legislation will pass this 

committee in a bipartisan vote, and pass the House of Representatives, and hopefully the Senate as well, and that should send a 

strong signal where the Congress is. But the agency, the Department needs to exercise its options sooner rather than later. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I underline that we are not—we are affected potentially, but we 

are not the only country that is affecting many other—this approach by the EU is potentially going to affect many other countries, from China to the Middle East and Latin America, and we 

can hopefully coordinate our outrage with some of theirs as well. 

Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. 

Following up on really what the chairman just said, I wondered 

if you could just talk briefly about what has the reaction been to 

the EU trading scheme from other countries around the world? 

Ms. KURLAND. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. 

We have heard from many other countries of the world. There 

has been basically uniform opposition from other countries within 

the world. I don’t know if Chris would want to comment more from 

the State Department’s perspective. 

Mr. URS. Only to say that, Mr. Congressman—only to say that 

the response has been overwhelmingly negative from other countries around the world, and that—for example, that the 2010 ICAO 

Triannual Assembly, as also with the one before that—these are 3- 

year—every-3-year assemblies in Montreal—the European Union 

was virtually isolated in taking the view that it had the right to 

impose the Emissions Trading Scheme on other countries’ airlines. 

So a number of countries share our position that the EU is not correct in going ahead and doing this. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I wonder if you could talk briefly about what 

happens from the proceeds from the EU trading scheme? Do they 

go to aviation? Where do the revenues go according to the scheme? 

Ms. OETTINGER. The revenues from the scheme go into the treasury, the national treasuries of the individual member states that 

administer the scheme on behalf of the European Union. There is 

a provision in the directive that suggests that 50 percent of the 

proceeds should go toward climate mitigation or toward environmental efforts, but there is nothing that requires that, and we— 

as Susan mentioned in her opening statement, we have heard no 

commitments of any governments to use the proceeds in that way. 

Mr. HULTGREN. And nothing specifically goes to aviation? 

Ms. OETTINGER. No. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Switching gears a little bit, I wonder how it impacts us and the Government. Does the U.S. Government have any 

planes that would be subject to the EU’s ETS scheme? And I wonder specifically would the FAA Administrator’s plane be subject to 

the scheme? 

34 

Ms. OETTINGER. The answer is that we believe we have pretty 

much resolved that issue. It has, unfortunately and quite sort of 

surprisingly, taken us a while to work through that both at the 

FAA and the Department of Defense to ensure that the administering European States agree that FAA—the FAA fleet and the 

DOD fleet should not be subject to the ETS. And we have pretty 

much resolved that issue, although it has taken us quite a while 

to get there. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you very much. I appreciate the work that 

you are doing on this. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Fleischmann, do you have any questions? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. I am fine, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, we thank you very much for your testimony. We 

urge you to get on with the tasks so that this can be resolved in 

as efficient a manner and satisfactory a manner as possible. But 

clearly doing nothing is not an option at this point, given the prospect of European overreaching that we are confronted with. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. The second panel consists of Ms. Nancy Young, vice 

president for environmental affairs of the Air Transport Association; and also Captain Lee Moak, who is president of the Air Line 

Pilots Association, International. 

We thank both of you for joining us today to offer your testimony 

on this legislation and the general subject that it deals with. And 

we will begin with Ms. Young. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. NANCY N. YOUNG, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

OF AMERICA, INC. AND CAPTAIN LEE MOAK, PRESIDENT, 

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL 

Ms. YOUNG. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on the unilateral and extraterritorial European Emissions 

Trading Scheme, a scheme that poses a threat to our Nation’s airlines, economy and jobs, and also to advancing the right kind of 

measures to further address aviation greenhouse gas emissions. 

My name is Nancy Young, and I am the vice president of environmental affairs for the Air Transport Association of America, 

ATA, representing major passenger and cargo airlines of the 

United States. 

ATA opposition to the ETS is twofold. First, it violates international law, including the sovereignty of the United States. Second, it imposes an illegal, exorbitant and counterproductive tax on 

U.S. citizens, diverting U.S. dollars, and threatening thousands 

upon thousands of U.S. jobs. 

Even projecting from the unusually low carbon prices of today, 

the U.S. airlines will be required to pay into EU coffers over $3.1 

billion between 2012 and 2020, an outlay that could support over 

39,200 jobs. Now, consider that the costs would be several times 

higher if the cost of carbon in Europe returns to where it was just 

2 years ago, and if, as expected, the EU makes it emissions caps 

even higher. Yet none of the monies collected by the Europeans are 

required to be used for environmental purposes. 

35 

By contrast, the initiatives the U.S. airlines are taking are resulting in real environmental improvements. Our airlines have dramatically improved fuel and greenhouse gas emissions efficiency by 

investing billions of dollars in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative technologies like winglets and advanced avionics. Accordingly, the U.S. airline industry improved its fuel efficiency by 110 

percent between 1978 and 2009, resulting in emissions savings 

equivalent to taking 19 million cars off the road each of those 

years. That is why our industry represents just 2 percent of all 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, while driving over 5 percent of the 

Nation’s GDP. 

And we are not stopping there. ATA and its members are part 

of a worldwide aviation coalition with an aggressive proposal for 

further carbon emissions reductions under the appropriate international body, the International Civil Aviation Organization, or 

ICAO. Significantly, in 2010, ICAO adopted much of the industry’s 

framework. While more work is needed, EU’s insistence on the unilateral scheme has been a roadblock. 

Although the ETS violates international law in many respects, 

perhaps the most egregious is its regulatory overreach into other 

nations, including the United States. U.S. airlines already are required by the scheme to monitor and report emissions for the entirety of each individual flight to, from and within the EU at exorbitant expense. But starting on January 1, 2012, the costs of complying multiply. At that stage our airlines will be required to acquire allowances to cover the emissions over the whole of their 

flights. 

Consider the example of an actual ATA member flight from San 

Francisco to London. Even before the aircraft begins to taxi, the 

EU emission rules apply. As a percentage of total emissions, 29 

percent take place in U.S. airspace, 37 percent in Canadian airspace, 25 percent over the high seas. Less than 9 percent of the 

emissions will take place in EU airspace. This extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction violates the Chicago Convention and customary international law. 

The Europeans are also acting contrary to their commitments to 

work this issue through ICAO. Moreover, the levy aspect of the 

scheme violates provisions in the Chicago Convention and the U.S.- 

EU Bilateral Air Service Agreement that govern the conditions 

under which one country may impose taxes and charges on the airlines of another. 

The EU tries to argue that if the U.S. just would adopt equivalent measures, the EU will exempt U.S. airlines on one leg of a 

flight. That our Government should take orders from the EU on 

how to fashion U.S. law is an astonishing proposition. Moreover it 

is a recipe for chaos. With the EU unilaterally determining equivalence, the prospects for competitive distortions and discrimination 

are enormous. 

Although ATA has brought a legal action in European courts 

against the ETS, U.S. opposition to the scheme is essential. Our 

Government has the tools not only to call the EU on its actions, 

but to get them back to the table at ICAO. ATA commends the bipartisan leadership shown by Chairmen Mica and Petri and Ranking Members Rahall and Costello in introducing legislation opposVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\7-27-1~1\67582.TXT JEAN
36 

ing the EU ETS and urging the administration to take further 

steps in this regard. We appreciate the opportunity to work with 

the U.S. Government on this critical endeavor. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Captain Moak. 

Mr. MOAK. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member 

Costello and other members of the committee, for the opportunity 

today to testify on this important subject. The Air Line Pilots Association represents 53,000 pilots flying for 39 airlines in the U.S. 

and Canada. 

The Air Line Pilots Association wants to assure the long-term viability of the U.S. aviation industry. Our aviation industry has 

been the leader in taking the steps to reduce carbon emissions. 

They have been leaders in the development of lighter-weight composite structures, leaders in the development of biofuel, leaders in 

the development and implementation of satellite-based navigation 

which enables more direct routing, thus shortening time aloft and 

decreasing fuel burn. Our aviation industry in the U.S. needs to be 

recognized and given credit for the advancements that aviation has 

made towards reducing greenhouse gases. 

The European Union, with their Emissions Trading Scheme, to 

be blunt, is a job killer. Commercial aviation, $1.3 trillion in economic activity, 5 percent of the U.S. GDP, employs 11 million people. The ETS is an additional tax on our U.S. industry, nothing 

more. It is a tax. And it is a foreign tax at that, a foreign tax in 

an already overtaxed commercial aviation industry. Current taxes, 

$17 billion. Compare and contrast that to back in 1993 where it 

was $3.7 billion. A current $300 domestic airfare has $63, 20 percent of it, in tax, 300 percent more than 1972. This is a tax that 

will ultimately cost good U.S. jobs. 

The European Union has acted unilaterally. This is stand-alone 

taxation. They cap annual emissions per airline, then they allocate 

an emissions allowance. They have a penalty, a tax penalty, for exceeding allowances, which equates to billions of dollars over the 

next few years. Their scheme is at odds with the customary international law and agreements, and it will lead, if allowed to be enacted, to conflicting and redundant schemes by other countries. 

Our airline industry has made significant and meaningful emission improvements for decades. Fuel efficiency has improved 110 

percent between 1978 and 2008. That saved 2.7 billion metric tons 

of CO2. Between 2000 and 2008, greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 

burn total was reduced by 5.5 percent, while transporting 17 percent of the passengers and cargo. 

The airline industry is working to develop synthetic fuel sources, 

and a 6-month biofuel trial is ongoing. Our aircraft are more fuelefficient. As was brought up earlier, the 787 is designed to use 20 

percent less fuel than a comparably sized aircraft. 

Now, my members, your pilots here in the U.S., we have been 

doing our part, operational techniques that we use routinely. Single-engine taxi for ground operations. We participate, help develop 

and encourage technology-enhanced departure and arrival procedures. We fly optimum altitudes and speeds, and we participate in 

continuous descent arrival procedures to save fuel. 

37 

The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme is a bad idea 

and of questionable legality. And I would like to just be blunt in 

my summary of it. Basically this is an arbitrary voodoo tax scheme. 

That is what it is, and if allowed to be enacted, it will be another 

ticket expense that a passenger has to pay, making airline travel 

more expensive. Less people will fly, airlines will shrink, Americans will lose their jobs, communities large and small will lose 

their service. Basically this is a bad idea, period. 

Thanks. I am happy to take your questions, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Thank you both. I guess it is a bad idea whose time we hope will 

never come. 

I wonder if you could, either of you or both of you, speculate a 

little bit if this scheme were actually to go into effect. People in a 

free society don’t just sit like deer in the headlights. They change 

their behavior when the incentive is changed to maximize the situation that they find themselves in. And you would think that this 

could affect the flights going from, say, the west coast to Europe. 

It might affect the flights going directly to Europe. Maybe an airport in Morocco or something would develop, and people would fly 

there, and then as close as possible to European airspace. 

I don’t know how much of a—how this tax is related in relation 

to the other expenses that airlines have, but you are always looking at trying to save money on fuel, trying to save money on 101 

other ways, and even on peanuts for the passengers sometimes. So 

this probably won’t be peanuts, this will be something pretty significant, and it could well affect the pattern of flights to and from 

Europe. 

Would either of you care to speculate on that and how you think 

it might unfold, or what the incentives—what incentives, how they 

would change? 

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, you are correct. The 

EU ETS, by taking money away from our airlines, is going to affect 

our behavior. As has been noted by a number of Congressmen 

today and panelists, it will take money away from our ability to invest in fuel-saving measures. 

Two points. We actually already are covered by the EU ETS. Our 

airlines have spent thousands and thousands of dollars complying 

with emissions-monitoring requirements that are very Eurocentric 

to date. But the emissions trading obligation will multiply that exponentially. 

The observation you make that there is a potential to change 

routing around the world is one of the concerns that brings the 

U.S. airlines to the International Civil Aviation Organization, 

ICAO, to deal with this on an international level so there isn’t this 

kind of jury-rigging of flying around the world. And as you know, 

in many cases it will be very difficult. I mean, if you want to go 

from Dulles over to Europe, you don’t want to go somewhere in between and stop. 

So I am not sure how much of that will take place, but you could 

expect, particularly with countries like the Middle Eastern countries and others near Europe, you might see some stopovers from 

some of the far-reaching destinations. Again, we need to come back 

38 

to an international approach that allows for seamless international 

aviation. 

Mr. MOAK. I agree completely. This is a tax, and it will cause 

changes in behavior, changes in flight patterns. There will be, I believe, over the longer term hubs developed, places to go to avoid 

this tax. In the near term, which is important, though, this tax will 

cost jobs, and it will cause airlines to have less income to be able 

to purchase new, more fuel-efficient airplanes. 

So it is a near-term problem, but it is also a long-term problem. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think 

that both Captain Moak and Ms. Young, they both have touched 

on areas that I was going to ask them about. And Captain Moak’s 

testimony talked about the EU ETS as a job killer, and I think you 

were pretty clear about that, and a few other issues that I was 

going to touch on you have already addressed. 

So let me just say, as I said in my opening statement, that climate change is a global problem, and we need to find a global solution to that problem. And as a result, the EU needs to work with 

the U.S. and other countries for a global solution. 

I would hope that the administration—our first panel will take 

back to the administration that this subcommittee and members of 

this subcommittee want the administration to take action now—not 

later, but now—in order to make our case that this is a bad idea, 

and to make certain that it doesn’t happen, that it is not implemented. And last, of course, is that we intend to, as I said earlier, 

to pass our legislation to make it clear to our friends in Europe 

that we are not going to allow our airlines in the United States to 

participate in this scheme. 

So I look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman, Chairman 

Mica and Mr. Rahall, to pass the legislation through our committee 

and get it to the floor of the House as quickly as possible. And 

again, I thank you for calling this hearing, and I thank our witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. PETRI. And with that, this hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67582.029
40 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67582.030
41 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67582.031
42 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67582.032
43 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67582.033
44 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67582.034
45 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67582.035
46 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67582.036
47 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67582.037
48 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67582.038
49 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67582.039
50 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67582.040
51 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67582.041
52 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67582.042
53 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67582.043
54 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67582.044
55 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67582.045
56 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67582.046
57 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67582.047
58 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67582.048
59 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67582.049
60 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67582.050
61 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67582.051
62 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67582.052
63 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67582.053