Revealed: US airlines lobbied EU over its plan to monitor plane emissions | Air pollution

US airlines lobbied against plans to monitor the damage wrought by planet-heating pollutants pumped out of planes in a previously undisclosed meeting with the European Commission, the Guardian can reveal.

Lobbyists from Airlines for America and some of its member companies met representatives of the European Commission’s climate team in May in a meeting that is not logged on the participants’ pages in the EU transparency register. The commission said the meeting took place at a technical level and that it is under no obligation to publish details of meetings at lower levels of its hierarchy.

Minutes of the meeting obtained via freedom of information requests show that Airlines for America argued against including flights to and from destinations outside Europe in draft rules to report aircraft pollution beyond carbon dioxide. The group argued there was uncertainty in the science around contrails – the heat-trapping white lines that can stain the sky behind aircraft – and expressed concerns that the rules could influence pricing.

The group’s lobbying has been “flying under the radar,” said Lucca Ewbank from nonprofit InfluenceMap, which shared the documents with the Guardian. “Non-CO₂ emissions may account for up to two-thirds of the climate impacts of flying, and yet US airlines are trying to dodge accountability for the extra climate warming long-haul flights may cause.”

Aircraft engines spew a host of gases that warp the climate at high altitudes, including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and water vapour. Scientists know less about their effects on global temperatures than those of CO₂ but agree they will lead to a hotter planet.

The European Commission plans to address the knowledge gap by forcing airlines to monitor, report and verify these effects as part of new rules under its emissions trading system. But in July, a handful of climate scientists warned that the science was too “immature” to capture the climate effects of non-CO₂ gases from aviation, and called instead to focus on better reporting of such emissions.

The commission’s proposal – which would apply to flights within Europe from 2025 and flights outside from 2027 – has divided the aviation industry. Responses to a public consultation last month show that Airlines for America argued against including external flights even after 2027, and said it would “consider all available options” to stop the rules from applying to US airlines. But European budget airlines, who mainly offer short-haul flights, have countered that excluding long-haul flights would be unfair and even unlawful.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) appeared to back the American position. It said it “firmly believes” that expanding the scope to flights outside of Europe would raise “extraterritorial concerns” and questioned whether reporting non-CO₂ emissions will improve scientific understanding.

Ewbank said IATA and Airlines for America were “paradoxically” using the argument of scientific uncertainty to oppose a policy that was designed to reduce it.

“However, this opposition is not unanimous within the aviation industry,” she said. “There is a growing divide between laggard international aviation associations and more supportive EU low-cost carriers.”

Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise with existing technology and researchers have stressed the importance of curbing the growing demand for flights through measures that affect the price of a ticket. Researchers have proposed putting levies on frequent flyers – a tax that rises with each extra flight a person takes – and ending subsidies to the sector.

By 2028, the draft rules state, the commission should submit a legislative proposal to expand the scope of the EU emissions trading-scheme so non-CO₂ effects are priced in.

Stefan Gössling, a tourism and climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, said US airlines have a history of opposing environmental action in jurisdictions such as the EU.

“Airlines have a business model that is built on minuscule profit margins and volume growth,” he said. “As airlines refuse to look into different, more profitable approaches to air transport, they need to reject anything that is imposing an additional cost.”

Minutes of the meeting between US airlines and the commission show it was attended by the industry association Airlines for America; Penta, a consultancy acting on its behalf; and US airlines such as United Airlines, FedEx and Delta Airlines.

Delta and Penta did not respond to a request for comment. United and FedEx referred the Guardian to Airlines for America, which said it conducts frequent meetings with its EU counterparts on issues of interest to its members. “Penta and Airlines for America are listed on the EU transparency register and our meetings are in compliance with all regulatory requirements.”

The European Commission said it has held many technical meetings on the topic with stakeholders who represent “different and sometimes diametrically opposed” points of view. “As always, the commission’s final proposals are made in the European interest and based on all relevant information.”

The IATA, which said it was not present at the meeting, said: “The commission essentially regulated this subject matter with the assumption that we know enough to move forward. But on such an important issue, putting the proverbial cart before the horse is not the way to progress.”