My very first full-time climate job was working on aviation at the high point of EU aviation regulation. In 2012, the EU had asked all flights to, from and within the EU to pay for their pollution – putting aviation on a crucial trajectory down to zero emissions.
This is the beauty of the EU Emissions Trading System. It asks participating companies to account for their current pollution – giving those companies confidence that they are included in a scheme that will transition them down to net zero.
Why did the EU introduce this measure in 2012? Because the science was absolutely clear: aviation is a large contributor to climate change. Climate change causes extreme heat and flooding. On our current trajectory, 99% of all coral reefs will be lost. This isn’t some far-flung prediction, it’s a robust scientific finding assigned high confidence by the IPCC. It seems pretty reasonable – and I think most people would agree that looking at the huge negative impacts of climate change – that companies causing that impact should pay for their emissions?
Sadly, the airlines did not agree. They fought hard. Especially the US airlines. They even brought a legal case saying that the EU regulation violated international law. As our research showed – it didn’t.
They lost that case but sadly won the political argument. As I explain in the video below, the EU was put under huge pressure by the US and the EU’s own airlines and so they caved. Only flights within Europe continued in the ETS. Even though the extra cost on international flights is very small (around €45 per passenger) and we know that 80% of people in the world have never flown. This really is about those who fly around the globe frequently being asked to chip-in.
Watch our video on why it’s time to price international aviation emissions
CORSIA: the global deal that’s failing aviation
The EU at least did put some conditions on that roll back. Recognising that the science is clear and that as unpopular as it may be with airlines, their pollution does need to be tackled, the EU agreed the suspension on the basis that a global deal was agreed.
Now 14 years later, there is a global deal, sort of: the Carbon Offsetting and Regulation Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Sadly though that “global deal” has a lot of holes…
- The first and most important is that not even one emission has been reduced under that scheme to date.
- The second is that it is very unclear that the scheme will actually be global. The biggest supporters of that scheme, ironically are the EU and the UK. We are still waiting to see if the US, the biggest opposition to the EU ETS, will actually step up and implement CORSIA. And if you’re interested in finding out more about why CORSIA is ineffective, read the SASHA Coalition’s recent policy briefing on CORSIA’s key shortcomings.
- And, on the second point above, can you see President Trump implementing a climate deal? Well, it seems this one is so inadequate that he just might – as reported in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year. Which, I think, tells you everything you need to know about how effective that deal actually is…
Tell your MEP to regulate international aviation
As a young policy officer running around the European Parliament to try to get policymakers to support regulating aviation, I came across a lot of angry people. So, while I do have sympathy for the EU, they absolutely cannot cave to industry pressure a second time.
Back to 2026, we now have a genuine opportunity to change things! The EU is deciding right now whether or not to include departing flights in the ETS again. The law, economics and science are all crystally clear in favour of it. It is just the politics that are hard.
So I’m asking you to do something that I don’t usually: take a moment and write to your MEP and say: “please regulate aviation in line with the climate science”. The airlines won’t thank you – but the children who grow up today and get the chance to live in a world where we still have coral reefs will. It is that serious.
This is a real test. In 2026, with everything we know about climate science are we willing to ask those who can afford to fly internationally to just pay for their pollution? Or not?
