UNITED NATIONS -- A new wrinkle appeared this week in the U.S. aviation sector's campaign to wiggle free of carbon caps in Europe when 19 industry groups pressed the White House to take action through international channels here.

In a letter sent to President Obama, the 19 groups urged the Democrat to step into a rift over the European Union's trading system for carbon. They urged the president to dispatch an Article 84 challenge under rules governing the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization.

The rules let ICAO members file complaints alleging violations of state sovereignty. U.S. airlines are set to be regulated by the E.U. Emissions Trading System (ETS) starting in April, so they are demanding that Obama get involved in the absence of federal legislation.

"Standing up against the application of this unilateral scheme on U.S. airlines and general aviation aircraft operators is necessary to protect U.S. sovereignty and jobs," the letter stated. "And it is the right position for the environment, since it will foster implementation of a truly international approach to aviation greenhouse gas emissions."

The challenge from the airlines, including the major U.S. carriers, comes as a bill from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that would ban participation continues to languish. The bill has been frozen in the Senate by an anonymous hold that Thune says originated from environmental groups that favor the E.U. system (E&E Daily, June 12).

The bill would block American air carriers from paying into the E.U. program. The program, which took effect this year, requires airlines to pay for or reduce greenhouse gas emissions on flights to and from Europe, including segments in foreign airspace.

Administration view unclear

Administration officials have been firm in saying they do not support applying the ETS to foreign carriers, though they have stopped short so far of committing to the Article 84 process. A senior official told ClimateWire last month that the challenge at the United Nations "is always an option" if other means fail to get U.S. airlines off the hook (ClimateWire, Aug. 3).

In testimony before Congress, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been critical of the E.U. system applying to U.S. businesses, but he has not commented on legislation. A DOT spokesman yesterday referred a question on the matter to the State Department, which did not return a call seeking comment.

In their letter, the aviation and business groups argued that drawing funds from airlines through a cap-and-trade program hurts their ability to limit fuel use and cut emissions on their own terms. They called the ETS program a jobs killer and "the imposition of an E.U. tax on U.S. airlines, aircraft operators and citizens," in language that is bound to resonate on the presidential campaign trail.

The groups also boasted of the aviation sector's record on fuel efficiency. The letter estimates fuel outlays at 40 percent of an airline's operating costs, insisting carriers are "already highly incentivized to reduce our fuel consumption and emissions."

"That's why our industry represents just 2 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States while driving 5 percent of the nation's GDP," the letter said.

Among the actions taken by U.S. airlines recently to save money on fuel was the purchase of a refinery by Delta Air Lines. The unprecedented play, from the world's busiest carrier by passenger volume, will see the airline running a 185,000-barrel-per-day facility in Trainer, Pa., that has been offline since late last year but is set to reopen any day (EnergyWire, April 13).

Article 84: an attempt to tie up the process?

At ICAO, whose governing council is scheduled to meet in late October, officials under pressure from China and the United States say they may have a draft plan on an alternative to the ETS for airlines ready sometime next year. But any new approach would have to be ratified by the organization's 191 members, so a final vote would not likely take place until fall of 2013 at the earliest if the Article 84 protest proceeds.

Reached yesterday, ICAO press representatives said they have revised the proposed market-based measures from six to three options on the table: global mandatory offsetting, offsetting complemented by a revenue-generation mechanism and emissions trading.

An ICAO spokesman said analysis of these options has continued throughout the summer and will be presented to its governing council in late October.

Environmental groups that favor the E.U. caps on aviation said the airlines should grin and bear the costs to start taking action on climate change immediately. Keya Chatterjee, director of international climate policy at the World Wildlife Fund, said the letter from the airline industry shows that the carriers "don't completely have a sense of what it takes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

"Putting a price on carbon does reduce emissions," she said, arguing that the ETS system is not a tax but an open trading system in which airlines can buy allowances from the free market should they decide to pursue that route.

As for Article 84, Chatterjee insisted the move was designed to slow everything down and delay implementation in Europe.

"No Article 84 process has ever come to a conclusion, that's how slow it is," she said. "The head of ICAO has made it clear this would tie up the entire process."

Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, compared the approach advocated in the letter to "breaking out a wrecking ball in ICAO that would then send in the cleanup crew while the building is still collapsing."

"That doesn't work for demolition, and it doesn't work for global negotiations," he said, adding that a formal legal challenge at ICAO would "only encourage the Europeans to dig in their heels even more."

Signatories on the letter include the Aerospace Industries Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Consumer Travel Alliance, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, National Air Carrier Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Click here to see the letter.