Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 7 • Number 22 • 18th December 2007
In Brief
US GROUPS WANT CURBS ON AIRPLANE EMISSIONS
A coalition of states and environmental groups has asked the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions stemming from aircraft.
The petition, which would cover both foreign and domestic aircraft entering US airports, followed an earlier petition focused on greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels in US territory (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 October 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-10-05/story2.htm).
Environmental groups Earthjustice, Oceana, Friends of the Earth and the Center for Biological Diversity said greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft could be reduced through measures such as using lightweight composite materials and winglets; adopting advanced contra-rotating propellers; minimising engine idling; and flying at optimal cruise altitudes
The Attorney Generals of five US states, two cities, and a California government agency filed a simultaneous petition. "Aviation is a large and rapidly growing source of greenhouse gases and the EPA should have taken action by now to curb these emissions. Not to do so, ignores the tremendous opportunity for technological innovations that can increase efficiency and reduce emissions," commented California Attorney General Brown.
The EU already has plans to include aviation in its emissions trading scheme, and the US and EU recently clashed over this policy at the tri-annual International Civil Aviation Organisation Assembly (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 October 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-10-05/story1.htm).
Reaction to the petitions, the US Air Transport Association, which represents major airline companies, opposed any new measures saying that "the commercial airlines already are driven to be as fuel efficient and environmentally conscious as possible."
While the bulk of internationally traded goods are transported by water, roads and rail, aviation also plays an important role. The aviation sector contributes around two percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. However, when indirect effects from other pollutants as well as cloud formation are added, aviation contributes up to nine percent of global warming effect. Aviation is also one of the fastest-growing sectors. Emissions have doubled since 1990 and are projected to further grow by 3.5 percent annually, tripling at the global level by 2050. Half of global aviation emissions stem from the US today.
Additional resources
To access the petition filed by several environmental groups, see http://oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Climate_Change/FINAL_Aircraft_GHG_Petition_PR_FINAL.pdf
To access the petition filed by US states and cities, see http://oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Climate_Change/FINAL_States_Aircraft_Petition_FINAL.pdf
ICTSD reporting; "5 states seek curbs on aircraft greenhouse gases- EPA accused of ‘very passive and unimaginative approach’," AP, 5 December 2007; "States, Groups Demand Aircraft Climate Emission Limits," ENS, 6 December 2007.
WTO APPELLATE BODY REINFORCES RULING AGAINST BRAZIL TYRE IMPORT BAN
The WTO’s highest court on 3 December confirmed an earlier ruling that Brazil’s import ban on used and retreaded tyres violated multilateral trade rules because it was applied in a discriminatory manner.
Notably, the Appellate Body set a substantially higher bar for Brazil to make its import ban WTO-compliant, by reversing some aspects of the original panel’s ruling.
In its dispute with the EU, Brazil had argued that retreaded tyres — used tyres reprocessed for a second and final use — had a shorter life span than new ones and therefore contributed to a faster accumulation of waste tyres. Growing piles of waste tyres in turn provide fertile breeding grounds for disease-carrying mosquitoes, Brazil said, and their sheer volume exceeds the country’s capacity for environmentally responsible disposal.
Brussels had charged that the import limitations were motivated by a desire to protect local tyre makers rather than to pursue genuine public health objectives, pointing in particular to repeated court injunctions that allowed Brazil’s retreaded tyre industry to import millions of otherwise-banned used tyres between 2000 and 2005. It also noted that Brazil had continued to import relatively small numbers of retreaded tyres from its Mercosur partners Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
The earlier panel had accepted that the import ban could be necessary on health grounds, but said that its application was discriminatory: the Brazilian retreaded tyre sector was benefiting at the expense of its EU counterpart. Furthermore, it noted that the imports of waste tyres under court injunction undermined Brasilia’s own rationale for the prohibition (see Bridges Weekly, 20 June 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-06-20/story3.htm).
The Appellate Body agreed that Brazil’s import ban could be justified for public health reasons. However, it was stricter in assessing the extent to which the ban was "being applied in a manner that constitutes unjustifiable discrimination." For instance, it deemed the Mercosur exemption to have caused the import ban to be applied "in a manner that constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination." It also reversed the panel’s finding that the Mercosur exemption as well as the injunction-sanctioned imports would only be discriminatory if they resulted in tyre import volumes high enough to threaten the objective of the import ban.
The relatively low bar the initial panel set for Brazil to bring the ban into WTO compliance put Brussels in the unusual position of appealing a ruling that it had nominally won.
Environmental groups such as the Centre for International Environmental Law and WWF had welcomed the initial panel ruling, and criticised the EU’s appeal (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 September 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-09-07/story1.htm).
The Brazilian government has been working to convince the Supreme Court to stop the injunctions.
ICTSD reporting.
A trade pact between the US and Peru has now been formally approved in the US, and implementation - including of new and strong provisions on illegal logging - can go ahead after final legislative adjustments are made.
The US House of Representatives voted through the deal on 8 November (see Bridges Weekly, 14 November 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-11-14/story3.htm). The US Senate approved it on 8 December, with US President Bush signing the deal into law on 14 December.
After Democrats took control of the US Congress, the US-Peru FTA was amended through the inclusion of new and significantly strengthened provisions on environment, as well as through the addition of a new annex on forest sector governance to combat illegal logging (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 6 July 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-07-06/story3.htm).
Senator Charles Grassley, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said the deal "represents a first step toward increased prosperity, transparency, and stability for the Latin American region as a whole." He said that changes had been made to accommodate human rights and environmental concerns, and that the deal now represented "exactly what many of us in Congress and in the labour and environmental movements have been seeking to include in trade agreements for decades."
"Congress passes US-Peru free trade pact in win for Bush," AFP, 4 December 2007; "Bush Signs US-Peru Trade Pact," AP, 14 December 2007; "Congress Passes US-Peru Free Trade Agreement," FORBES, 4 December 2007.