 Mae'n gweld iawn i'w ddweud i gyd, ddweud i chi eu bod yn ddod yn ymgyrchol. Yn ymweld i chi'n cerdd y gallwn y瞝rfyniad ac mae'n gŵr i'r ddweud i ddweud i'r ddweud i'ch cyffredinol ar gyfer y brosl. Maen nhw'n gweithio i ymddangos i siaradau bydd John Biley, sydd wedi'i gwneud cynnyddio yr adeiladeth yn ddwy'r cyffredinol. Nid ydych chi ddweud i'n gweithio i'r ddweud, Arthur yardım sorted it from his side as well that we'll be able to today begin a discussion that will help promote solutions to an issue that's preoccupying this industry, terribly. One of the many positives of this afternoon's event is the crisp user-friendly focus on a core issue, I certainly look forward to discussion with you and yours, and we all know and respect but I do not share his views. CDEI i'r deall haёл ar y hwn dweud â'r lefnません. Ieith outputs yn spus-diol a LLL yn gofyn nhw gallwn mud нагogol yn ddigdiddodol a gwaith'r tygaf. Yn cefnod d bikef'r yeargu eu L 모 Cymru rôl trail freshmen am zech yn yr hunayol. The only good news is that politicians still have a limited window of opportunities to fix it. As of the first quarter of 2013, the mess will turn into a serious trade conflict over compliance. Ond yw'r plant o'r llyfr o'r cyfnod o'i gynhyrchu'r llygau ym mhwyfysgol, ond yn chweithio'r llyfr o'r llyfr o'r llyfr yn twfodd i fynd. Felly, mae'n dweud y fan hyn? Chwy'n rhoi os yw'r mewn cymuned o'r ffordd o'r ei dweud. Mae Llyfr o'r Llyfr o'r Llyfr yna llyfr o'r mhwyfysgol. Mae'n dda'r llyfr o'r mhwyfysgol sy'n gydig o'r dda o'r plwydiad economigau, That will increase from $458 million per annum this year for the people of AEA alone to $1.8 billion in 2020. That is not a limited impact by any standards. AEA reported an average profit of 2.4 euros per passenger for its air lines in 2011. Llywodraeth am y Gwysiglu Llywodraeth, yr enthyl depend Gall cyd-fynnol eich gwaith i ddweud ar 2 a 12 euro ac yn argedeg. Mae'n oedd am Rydym yn eu cyd-fynnol sydd am gyhoedd gwyddiadau am y dyfodol inni yn y gyfgredig. Rwy'n dwylo bwysig o fwynt mor yw yw cyd-fynnol. Rydyn ni'n gwneud os yw'r bydisi. A'r cyfrifedd yn treferdydd am gyfaf, yr mwyllwn yn gwylliant y gynhyrchu cyfwyr, rydych chi am fyw i'n gwneud ychydig oedd yn y dyfodol. Mae gweinwyr eich bod ychydig yn ei gael y cysyllt yma yr aelais. Felly, mae'r aelais yn ei gael ei gael fel o'r cyd-gylchedd cyfnodol ar gyfer 85% o'r aelais yng Nghymru sy'n meddwl y siogel a'r aelais mewn cyfrifiadau ar y 2004 ac 2006. Mae'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r gallu cyfrifiadau yn ganlygiad yma sy'n deall yn gallu mae'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r aelais yma ymlaen o'r cyfrifiadau sy'n ddod o'r aelais yn 2012, a'i cyhollion chi'n gweithio'n cael ei fân cael gweithio ar gyfer gweithio? Felly â ychydig yw yng Nghymru, mae lim wneud trim iddo y gall? A bydd yw'r gyda chi'n gwneud gyda'r gwasb y gwaith ar gyfer gweithio a'r gweithio ar gyfer ETS yw'ch weld rydych chi nhw'n wedi ddod o'i gyfgrifennedol yn cynnig o'r cyfannig o brin. Dechrau ar gyfer gweld maen nhw? Llanfyn American carriers, for example, that have grown consistently since 2004 to 2006 feel disadvantaged because with the certificates that they have to buy, they believe that they indirectly cross-subsidize the airlines that have grown less. So the estimated 705 million bill for the whole industry in year one are not shared equally across the board. European airlines see it differently again. 100% of European Airlines network is covered by the EU ETS. In other words, all emissions are catered for. But for a non-European airline, only to the degree they fly to or from Europe. For Cathay Pacific, this means that 15% not 100% are covered. If the airline sector is to pay for emissions and accept the extra cost, then surely this should be on a non-discriminatory basis. A regional scheme targets the airlines based in its region, who thus feel disadvantaged. But in this case, no one's happy. Third country carries question whether they're being charged in a manner which adequately reflects their share of the total emissions. The other stakeholders are the regulators. European governments have shown themselves very apt and highly innovative in developing schemes. The ETS for stationary emitters was developed to help the European governments reach the Kyoto targets. Because the emitters are stationary and the levers the ETS provides can actually incentivise investments into environmentally friendly energy sources, it can be argued that the scheme worked. But with mobile emitters such as aircraft, the situation is different and the issue is one of principle. Mobile emitters do not emit simply in the aerospace above the territory of one nation but of several and also above no man's land, the high seas. So who has the jurisdiction to determine the manner in which governments treat mobile emitters in the airspace of another country or over the high seas? The European Union's answer to that is that for all flights from the European Union, as George outlined, and for all flights to the European Union, the EU decides what has to be paid. So emissions from an aircraft of, say, United Airlines over the United States, between the USA and Canada and over the North Atlantic are governed by rules determined by the EU institutions. Major trading nations have taken issue with this unilateral approach and indeed the storied insult extra-territoriality has been thrown just for once in an easterly direction across the Atlantic. As one Asian friend coined it, the EU has replaced US imperialism by EU imperialism. Another issue related to this is why airlines of the world should be subjected to an auctioning process of European governments and effectively have to buy certificates from those European governments. If at least the revenues generated by the ETS would benefit the environment, no, the EU ETS directive says that revenues generated by auctioning should. But not must be used for the benefit of the environment. In fact, several European governments have budgeted the revenues from 2013 and beyond as general revenue. It is de facto an additional tax in addition to the national aviation taxes, the ADP in the UK and so on. The third aggravation the EU ETS has given rise to is the lack of cohesion. Airlines pay many-fold for so-called environmental levies. We estimate that in total the costs of national and EU cost factors amount to about five billion per annum, that's for a sector that expects to lose between one and two billion in 2012 alone. The struggling European airline sector needs to reduce internal costs, reduce kerosene costs which amount to 34% of total costs. It is the kerosene costs that are the drivers of fuel efficiency nowadays. But airlines also have to be able to invest into modern technology and rely on a modern, future-oriented infrastructure policy. A European single sky is the single biggest environmental protection programme which would reduce fuel consumption by 12% and enable 16 million tonnes less CO2 to be emitted in European airspace. But probably the single biggest source of aggravation is where does Europe get its confidence from to claim that what is good for Europe must be good for the rest of the world. This has given rise to distrust and misgivings. A picture of gloom and doom? No. I mentioned the good news. Politicians still have a window of opportunity. First of all, the EC, and I particularly look at yours Delbaker here, deserves credit for having sensitised a wider world audience to the need for market-based measures in aviation. Although we contribute just 3% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, that is 3% too much. We must not look not only at infrastructural, operational and technological, but also at market-based measures to address the environmental impact of our sector. That message is now understood everywhere. ETS does not have a visibility of name recognition problem, and the more farsighted amongst the aviation community recognise what ETS is trying to do. They also have a degree of understanding for the reasons that the EU has pushed ahead alone, in particular their frustrations at the IKO process. In fact, I can go to basically any event in the world. As soon as I mentioned, I represent European Airlines sector, the reaction I get is an empathetic nod, and then I hear, yes, yes, EU ETS, that is your problem. Secondly, the good news is that the industry has understood the message. IATA and the entire global aviation sector as a sector agreed on goals to reduce the impact of aviation on greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation is one of the only few international industries that have subscribed to short, mid and long-term goals, and the EU ETS has had the effect of a catalyst in that process. But of course we insist that European governments walk their talk. Investments into CISAR and biofuels, as well as the political will to implement a single European sky, are key for efficiency gains, and the ETS should not be a revenue source to reduce state deficits, but likewise an environmental greenhouse gas emissions programme. Ladies and gentlemen, the environmental challenge is a global challenge, not a European one, but the world has not really developed much in terms of solutions, and that is actually extraordinary because IKO, the UN body responsible for civil aviation, has an excellent track record for solutions. From a regulatory perspective, IKO has dealt with the environmental impacts of aviation since the 1960s. In 1971 it adopted the first binding noise standards. In 1981 the first standards for aircraft engine emissions, and since the stringency of these standards has been regularly increased. And then there's no reason to believe that IKO cannot come up with sensible standards for CO2 emissions. At the 1992 Rio conference, the international community stressed those environmental measures addressing global, stressed that environmental measures addressing global environmental problems should be based on an international consensus. Twenty years later, this core principle of environmental law is more valid than ever. But by seeking to impose a policy on other sovereign countries, the EU has turned a good concept into an international diplomatic problem. Where Hillary Clinton, it was mentioned, writes letters to her counterparts in Europe, where the Chinese government is alarmed, where the Indian minister says that the European airlines must be punished, and where the US, India and China discuss anti-EU ETS laws which forbid compliance for their airlines with the EU ETS scheme. The uniting effect of ETS has unfortunately been more about the US and Cuba, presumably temporarily, seeing eye to eye in their mutual loathing for ETS, that it has been about creating a consensus on how to act to curb aviation emissions. And the more these concerns are brushed aside by Europeans as posturing, the greater the likelihood that non-European countries will, and beat only in the interest to save face, turn their warnings into reality. European airlines face the severe and concrete perspective of reprisals, non-compliance of non-European airlines, and therefore discrimination, and further, non-aligned ETSs and taxes by third countries. The European aircraft manufacturing industry is already being targeted, according to Airbus, the approval for 14 billion worth of Airbus orders has been suspended by China in protests to the EU ETS, putting more than 2,000 Airbus jobs at risk. We cannot continue down this road. Instead of trying to find a legalistic agreement on the EU ETS, we must seek an environmentally driven agreement on a global solution to aviation's emissions. Politicians have a window of opportunity to sort out the mess and return to an environmental agenda. It is between now and the end of this year. By then at the latest, IK will have to be able to present a framework which is sufficiently robust to determine the further environmental agenda. Our attention must now be on Montreal and no longer on Brussels. Now many have the impression that the global deal is a remote perspective, but they're mistaken. Firstly, we have a general consensus that the global approach should include a market-based measure or measures, cap and trade and offsetting being the preferred candidates. Secondly, several key actors have laid down their conditions. For these to be overcome, we need to be realistic. IK may not be able to deliver a one-size-fits-all model out of the blue, but it could deliver in a first stage a framework to which all players can relate. Why? Because all players have expressed a desire to see certain principles enshrined in an international agreement, for example the need to distinguish between national airspace and high seas. Such principles could go beyond aspirational goals, even if they initially fall short of binding targets for all IKO members. As a first step, such a broad consensus on principles would be a roof under which delegations can lay out the details. For over 10 years, the European Union and most if not all IKO member states have been advocating an IKO-led model. The initial framework agreement I'm advocating would provide for clearer guidance on what such a model could consist of and would provide for a forum to constructively reach out for solutions instead of political discussions about sovereignty. Time has come from governments to address the need for and possible broad content of an IKO-led solution. Time has come for constructive discussions. I personally also think we cannot leave all the hard work of consensus building to beleaguered officialdom in Montreal. We should find a way to conven a meeting of a number of governments to discuss how to promote the IKO deal. Now, some are using 1989 analogies urging the EU to tear down this ETS, which has had the effect of yet another wall. I myself think that this is to underestimate both the strength of support for ETS in Europe and indeed underestimate the need to actually take action on aviation emissions. I frankly can understand why European governments are not yet ready to suspend ETS or to bring it to an end. But the EU institutions in turn must understand that a large part of the world is angry and waiting for the EU to give a clear lead in IKO. Without a concerted and ambitious approach in Montreal, I do fear we're on the way to a highly destructive and unprecedented trade war in which all will be damaged and only Europe. Not only Europe will lose, but Europe certainly will. In short, the year of comparison is probably not 1989, but time is getting short. To perhaps modify a quote from a US president, yes, IKO can.