Why do I have to give my ID number to sign the initiative?

Some European Union member states require from their citizens that they insert their identity card number or passport number as a way to make their signatures official. Only your national government will have access to the data you insert in the official petition. You can rest assured that your personal information will not be used aside from this initiative.

I. The most climate damaging mode of transport whose emissions are skyrocketing in Europe

  1. The underrated aviation’s climate impact
    1. Aviation is the most carbon intensive mode of transport
    2. The non-CO2 aviation emissions multiplier
  2. Aviation’s carbon dioxide emissions are skyrocketing in Europe
    1. Transport is the failure of the EU climate policy
    2. Aviation emissions keep skyrocketing despite its threats to the EU’s climate emissions reduction targets
    3. Aviation is also a growing source of NOx emissions
  3. Fuel efficiency gains will not curb aviation CO2 emissions
    1. The rebound effect
    2. A demand out of control
    3. Fueling skyrocketing CO2 emissions over the next decades

II. Tax cuts and subsidies artificially boost air travel demand

  1. The direct subsidies to the most carbon intensive mode of transport
  2. What are the different types of aviation taxes?
  3. Why is VAT  not applied to international plane tickets?
  4. Do EU member states already tax aviation at the national level?
  5. Why our transport taxation is not climate-compatible
    1. Aviation is a tax haven
    2. A climate injustice at the expense of much more sustainable modes of transport
    3. How much do airlines owe European taxpayers?
    4. Example
    5. Compared to other less carbon intensive modes of transport, aviation pays very few taxes/charges

III. The EU ETS and why removing free ETS allowances allocated to airlines will not be enough to cover aviation’s negative externalities

  1. The EU ETS covers CO2 emissions from intra-EU aviation
    1. The EU ETS and the aviation sector
    2. Critics of the EU ETS as a means to reduce aviation emissions
    3. Aviation’s non-CO2 emissions and the ETS
  2. Removing free allowances allocated to airlines will not be enough to curb emissions not to make the polluter pays principle respected
    1. The number of international intra-EU air passengers kept increasing in 2012 despite airlines started buying ETS allowances
    2. Today, airlines already buy on average ETS allowances for 47% of their intra-EEA emissions
    3. The EU ETS only covers CO2 emissions
    4. The current price of the EU ETS is well too low
    5. What should be the price of a tonne of jet fuel CO2 to internationalise aviation’s negative externalities?

IV. Why a kerosene tax and why in Europe?

  1. Why a kerosene tax while aviation can be taxed in other ways?
    1. Why a tax on kerosene and not harmonised EU-wide air ticket taxes or VAT
    2. Even Saudi Arabia taxes kerosene for domestic flights
    3. The importance of a more harmonised European aviation taxation
  2. Why only in Europe?”
    1. The historical background of the aviation fuel tax exemption
    2. Why Europe can’t wait for global action to put a fair price on air travel
  3. CORSIA will address the increase of aviation CO2 emissions!
    1. Presentation of CORSIA
    2. Critics of CORSIA as a way to address aviation growth
    3. CORSIA is better than nothing at the global level but cannot prevent us from acting in Europe
  4. Hypocrisy of some of our policy-makers who choose to delay climate action
  5. A coordinated taxation of kerosene in Europe, unique solution to reduce aviation’s emissions
  6. Who else proposes to tax kerosene?

V. Preliminary counterarguments to a kerosene tax

  1. Why should airlines pay fuel taxes while most ships also don’t pay fuel tax?
  2. It’s a punitive proposal for an industry that already does its best to reduce its emissions
  3. Taxing kerosene will not reduce air travel demand!
    1. Air travel demand is in fact price sensitive
    2. Is flying always essential?
  4. It’s going to destroy jobs in the aviation industry!
    1. A part of the tax revenues should help finance the Just Transition Fund
    2. The rail industry is almost twice more job intensive than the aviation sector
  5. Taxation is a national competency, the EU shouldn’t decide for its members

VI. Legal aspects of an intra-EU kerosene tax

  1. The Chicago convention forbids states to tax aviation fuel for international flights!
  2. Are there any other legal obstacles to taxing kerosene for intra-EU flights?
  3. “What about non-EU airlines operating intra-EU flights?
    1. Some non-EU airlines operating flights within the EU will have to remain exempt from kerosene taxation.
    2. In order to prevent legal issues, a de minimis clause based on the amount of tax paid will need to be introduced.
    3. The EU needs to continue renegotiating its Air Services Agreements with third countries
    4. “Will the de minimis clause be enough to prevent any legal issue?”

VII. The Fairosene proposal

  1. What do you propose exactly?
  2. What increase in price ticket can be expected?
  3. Who receives the tax and why?
  4. How are the revenues spent?
  5. Nuclear, coal… are trains any greener anyway?
    1. Trains comply with ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ better than any other motorised transport mode
    2. Investing more in our railways, an opportunity to reduce rising transport emissions
    3. Trains are much less carbon-intensive than planes and their use should be encouraged

VIII. Competition

  1. Foreign airlines will be exempted from the kerosene tax, this will create a competitive distortion at the expense of EU carriers!
    1. Progressively, kerosene taxation exemptions are disappearing from ASAs
    2. Only a few flights are operated by non-EU airlines on intra-EU routes
    3. The kerosene tax exemption should be maintained for pure freight flights
    4. The EU should renegotiate its air service agreements to tax kerosene of non-EU carriers operating on intra-EU routes
  2. An intra-EU kerosene tax will benefit non-EU countries and be at the expense of EU tourism!”
    1. EU tourism has not suffered since intra-EEA emissions are covered by the EU ETS
    2. The EU should expand before 2024 the coverage of the EU ETS to all flights arriving to or departing from the EU airports
    3. Expanding the Fairosene area or introducing harmonised ticket taxes for extra-Fairosene area destinations
    4. Time for climate action

IX. Other counterarguments and impact assessment

  1. This would hurt working people hardest while the rich are unaffected!
    1. Climate change is going to impact severely everyone’s life while only a tiny minority of people fly
    2. Taxing aviation… regressive or progressive?
    3. EU car drivers respect the polluter pays principle
    4. The democratisation of air travel is a myth
    5. Planes remain disproportionately taken by high-income households
    6. Poor households pay much more carbon taxes as a proportion of their income
  2. It’s not going to reduce pollution as people are going to use their cars to travel
    1. Aviation fuel taxes do lead to emission reductions
    2. Trains are the real alternative to planes
    3. Carpooling remains much less polluting than flying
  3. Why should Europe care about its aviation emissions while that of Asia increase much more rapidly?!
  4. Road transport is responsible for over 70% of Europe’s transport emissions, this should be the priority!
  5. What impact can we expect from our proposal?

X. The illusion of green flying or how technological myths, biofuels and offsetting are used as distractions from climate action

  1.  Why climate policy has failed to address the aviation sector or how technological myths successfully postpone climate action
  2. The aviation industry adopted a set of concrete targets to reduce CO2 emissions since 2009
    1. A 1,5% improvement in fuel efficiency per year from 2010 until 2020
    2. “Carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards”
    3. A 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 relative to 2005
  3. Second distraction: biofuels
    1. Without biofuels, global aviation emissions are going to double over the next 20 years
    2. The promise of the industry
    3. Even ICAO acknowledges that the promise of the industry is extremely challenging
    4. Biokerosene doesn’t make flying carbon neutral
    5. An enormous lack of supply
    6. Algae
    7. Have promises been kept so far?
    8. How can we explain this broken promise?
  4. How does DG MOVE want to decarbonise aviation and why we will keep flying only with kerosene unless we make it more expensive
    1. Synthetic e-fuels (Power-to-liquid, PtL)
    2. Biofuels
    3. Hydrogen
    4. Norway now forces jet fuel suppliers in Norway to blend 0.5% of biofuel in all their aviation fuel
  5. Non-CO2 effects mean “there will never be a truly climate-neutral flight”
    1. Biofuels
    2. Synthetic e-fuels (Power-to-Liquid)
    3. Is the prospect of electronic flight realistic?
    4. Only one existing solution to reduce now aviation emissions: flying less
  6. Third distraction: Offsetting
    1. CORSIA
    2. Can flying be carbon neutral thanks to offsetting?
  7. How can European aviation be partly decarbonised?

XI. Guide to defend the airlines’ privilege