UK dismisses Jet Airways' appeal over carbon fine
What's the story
Jet Airways had been penalised for failing to comply with Europe's Emission Trading System (ETS). Subsequently, Jet had appealed against the $16,570 fine which had been asked of them to cover 150 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2012. In a notice dated 12 October 2015, but published on 23 October, a British judge, Justice David Hart dismissed Jet Airways' appeal against the fine.
EU-ETS
The EU-ETS and aviation
In 2012, the European Union Emission Trading System (EU-ETS) included aviation emissions under its jurisdiction. As per EU-ETS norms, all aircrafts using European airports were required to pay for carbon dioxide emissions. The EU's decision caused an international outcry, particularly from India, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In 2013, the EU changed the rules so that only portions of flights within the EU were taxable.
Defence
Jet claims Indian government's involvement in the violation
UK's Environment Agency had issued a "notice of determination" to Jet Airways in June 2014 relating to 150 tonnes of CO2 emissions. This was the first step in a process which could end with the cancellation of the airline's operating licence or the impounding of aircraft. Jet had defended itself saying that the Indian government had asked it not to comply with the scheme.
Do you know?
List of violators released
In 2015, Germany became the first European country to publish a list of airlines that had violated the EU-ETS. The list encompassed 44 operators, including two major German airlines, Air Berlin and Condor. The total fine levied was $5.9 million.
Implications
Implications of UK's rejection of Jet Airways appeal
Earlier in 2015, Saudi Arabian Airlines was fined $1.4 million by a regional Belgian government for violating the European Union carbon emissions rules. Although the fine imposed on Jet Airways is relatively small, the verdict on the case could serve as a precedent in other such cases where an international carrier may seek to contest a penalty for violating the carbon emissions scheme.