Natalie Cristo, BridgeTower Media Newswires
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopting the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Aviation CO2 Emission Standards. Critics of the Trump Administration’s proposed rulemaking sulk over the likely fact that the standards will do little to reduce CO2 emissions in the near term. The proposed standards would apply to larger business jets and commercial aircraft’s new type-design airplanes on or after January 2020 and in-production airplanes on or after January 2028.
With an operational lifetime of 25 to 30 years, critics believe that the new rule will have little to no bite. Thus, the standards do not require CO2 emissions to decrease but rather create a cap in emissions for newly manufactured aircraft. However, the move by the Trump Administration should not go unnoticed. This is the first-ever proposed rulemaking by the United States addressing CO2 emissions of any kind.
The scientific and legal communities have long understood the effect that CO2 emissions have on climate change, human health, and the environment. Yet, little progress has been made in addressing CO2 emissions at the federal level; arguably, the country backtracked when President Trump rescinded the United States’ signature as party to the Paris Climate Agreement.
Subsequent to a District Court opinion, the EPA was required to determine whether CO2 emissions are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. After finding in the affirmative, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to regulate CO2 emissions where it does anticipate endangerment to human health or welfare.
The proposed rule does not signal a monumental sea-change in the Trump administration’s attitude toward environmental protection, but rather signifies that complying with certain environmental regulations can have significant economic benefits for the United States. The Convention on International Civil Aviation, or the Chicago Convention, was formed in 1944 as dark trails from war loomed overhead. Parties to the Chicago Convention have the right to inspect and require certification from foreign operators in their territory and take appropriate action when necessary to preserve safety. Thus, countries could condition approval of carrier or aircraft certification with ICAO standards compliance.
With Boeing as the number-one exporter in the United States, it is unlikely that the Trump Administration is blind to the impact that it would have on the United State economy if manufacturers failed to comply with these standards. Moreover, by adopting the ICAO standards, aircraft manufacturers would only need to comply with one CO2 emission standard, preventing patchwork regulations from forming around the world that leads to inconsistent and unsafe air travel.
Proposing a rulemaking to adopt ICAO standards puts the United States one step further towards adopting the market-based mechanism known as CORSIA, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Standards for International Aviation. CORSIA is an international market-based measure, similar provisionally to the Montreal Protocol, that would allow the United States to further address rising CO2 levels. Unlike traditional command-and-control regulations, market-based standards do not prescribe or restrict technology use and development, but rather encourage the development and use of sustainable and economically viable technologies. Some environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund have been advocating for the adoption of a global market-based measure to address CO2 aircraft emissions since the 1990s. CORSIA would set the United States on a path toward zero net emissions. Adopting CORSIA or a similar emissions reduction target will be necessary to reduce aircraft emissions in the United States.
The ICAO standards do not provide protection against the dangers of carbon emissions, but the proposed rulemaking is an astonishing move in the right direction for U.S. climate policy and should be widely discussed. The EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must undergo a notice and comment period, where the public may provide input, and after which, the final rule may be issued.
—————
Natalie Cristo is a Rochester native and a third-year student at The George Washington University Law School. She previously served as a law clerk at the U.S. Department of Justice in the Environment and Natural Resources Division and a research scientist at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research Stable Isotope Laboratory (NOAA Affiliate). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not purport to represent the opinion or views of any agency.
