Bunkered Down in Copenhagen

The challenging logistics of getting into the Bella Center for COP15 contribute to the bunker atmosphere once you’re inside. Perhaps that’s one reason that there is a serious discussion going on about how to deal with international bunker fuels.

Some background: International bunker fuels are jet fuel and marine fuel used for international air travel and shipping. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from burning these fuels are a significant and growing portion of the global emission inventory, accounting for more than 1.1 billion tonnes annually, which is expected to increase to more than 1.6 billion tonnes by 2020, according to a briefing paper prepared for Copenhagen by an NGO consortium.

These emissions are not considered part of countries’ inventories, however, they are used in international transport and there is no agreement on how to divide up the responsibility. For example, consider a Lufthansa flight from New York to London. Should the associated emissions be assigned to the U.S. as the country of origin, the U.K. as the destination, Germany as the headquarters of the carrier, or split among the nationalities of the passengers?

This issue was debated a bit in Kyoto, but it was not a high priority. When countries couldn’t agree on how to share responsibilities they punted the issue to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), who were supposed to figure out how to reduce emissions from these sources. Predictably, 12 years later ICAO and IMO have done nothing, the emissions are continuing to grow, and the issue is back.

This time there is a serious discussion of a different approach. Rather than try to assign these emissions to individual countries, the idea is to recognize their international character and establish an international cap or tax to control them. The revenue from auctioning emission allowances or from the tax could become the backbone of the long-term funding of developing country clean energy transition and adaptation needs that must be addressed to cement a deal at COP15.

Most developed countries have expressed support for the idea. The United States received the top fossil-of-the-day award because it objected.

To be fair, Singapore also objects and it hardly qualifies as a poor country. Also, U.S. negotiators assert that the proposal on the table might exempt developing countries from the international bunker fuels policy, which would put us back into the attribution pickle and is definitely a bad idea for both substantive and political reasons.

There are definitely political challenges to getting Congress to go along with the idea of an international bunker fuel emissions cap or tax, but the administration should give this approach serious consideration. It is consistent with President Obama’s call to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (taxing gasoline but leaving jet fuel untaxed distorts the market and drives up emissions); it has the potential to produce a breakthrough on finance, and it provides an effective way to curb these emissions. If the U.S. continues to object despite these benefits, at a minimum it needs to put forward equally effective alternatives to secure long-term finance and address the emissions from burning bunkers fuels.

This is no time for the U.S. to simply hunker down and defend its position.