The average flight from New York to Paris lasts about seven and a half hours, but if some… The average flight from New York to Paris lasts about seven and a half hours, but if some European Union regulators get their way, many Americans might be forced to take a slow boat if they want to cross the pond.

The Emissions Trading Scheme, created by the EU shortly after the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas treaty was ratified in 2003, is currently proposing that by 2012 all states (EU and non- EU) should be able to contain carbon emissions from airplanes to 2004-2006 levels.

How will the Scheme do that? By placing a cap on the carbon dioxide emissions of all planes flying into any EU state.

Professor Martin Staniland broke the complex issue down yesterday in a lecture hosted by Pitt’s European Studies Center.

A country would not be allowed to fly its commercial planes anywhere in the EU if it emits more than a certain amount of carbon dioxide from its planes within the year, Staniland said. If the amount is not used up, it can be sold to other states. If the country goes over its allowance, it will be fined and denied access to EU countries.

The environmental benefits of the legislation could be immense.

International airline industries account for 2.5 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions output, Staniland, a professor in Pitt’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, said.

Staniland pointed out that, “This would hold carbon emissions down to 161 tons [per year] versus the projected 286 tons that would be emitted if we keep the ‘business as usual’ scenario.”

But implementing a plan like this is easier said than done.

Staniland said there are three paths countries could take to upgrade their planes to a higher EU compliance: operational measures such as improved air traffic control, fewer delays and indirect routing; technological changes like more efficient motors and new fuels; and strategic decisions such as fewer flights that carry more passengers.

“It will be a lot of technical work to figure out a formula for allocating carbon dioxide between now and 2012,” Staniland said of the immense research and investments states will have to undertake if they wish to continue to fly in the EU member states.

EU territory is an immense market for U.S. companies and consumers, and the cost of not complying with such regulations would pale in comparison to the losses the United States would sustain if it chose not to comply, Staniland said.

But, according to Staniland, the proposal could potentially threaten countries’ sovereignty over their own airspace. This might be acceptable for consenting members of the EU but is legally slippery for non-member countries and those who don’t consent to the proposal, he added.

Staniland proposed, for instance, a flight from Singapore to Paris. The airline would be ‘charged’ for its carbon emissions over the entire trip, not just the part of the trip running through EU territory. Not only will this use up an airline’s allotted carbon emissions a lot quicker, but it will impose upon the sovereignty of Singapore and any other non- EU states, he said.

“Take for instance, September 11, 2001,” Staniland said. “U.S. airspace was closed. Aircraft already headed to the U.S. ended up squashed together in Canadian airports.” But the U.S. had the right to do that, he added – a right that, as it stands now, the ETS proposition will infringe upon.

“It’s good that the EU is taking steps to deal with the global warming issue,” Pitt sophomore Jasmine Kurjakovic said. “I hope an agreement can be made.”

Many hope for consensus, too, and according to Staniland, solutions are being offered such as slicing routes so that flights begin or end just outside of EU territory, using larger aircraft to carry more passengers and taking fewer flights that use up less of the airline’s allotted carbon emissions.

But world travelers may be the ones feeling the impact of such regulations. “There is no doubt the cost will be passed onto the consumer,” Staniland said.