NGO Coalition Pushes EU to End Aviation ETS Exemption

A coalition of environmental and industry non-governmental organizations is urging the European Commission to end the European Union Emissions Trading System exemption for international flights, a move proponents estimate could generate €130 billion in carbon market revenues between 2027 and 2035.

In a campaign coordinated by the SASHA Coalition, groups including Opportunity Green, Transport & Environment, and Carbon Market Watch are targeting the upcoming legislative revision of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) scheduled for July 2026. The coalition argues that integrating extra-EEA flights into the carbon pricing mechanism is necessary to fund clean aviation technologies, specifically electro-Sustainable Aviation Fuel (eSAF) and Direct Air Capture (DAC) infrastructure.

The financial and environmental cost of the exemption

The European Union initially included aviation in the ETS on January 1, 2012, but introduced a stop-the-clock mechanism exempting extra-EEA flights following international pressure. According to a policy briefing from the SASHA Coalition, this exemption left an estimated 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions unregulated between 2012 and 2023. The coalition calculates this resulted in €26 billion in uncollected carbon market revenues during that period.

If the exemption is maintained after its scheduled expiration in 2027, the coalition projects that 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions will go unregulated through 2035. A full-scope ETS could generate an estimated €14 billion in annual revenue for European Union member states by 2030.

Industry perspectives on carbon pricing and CORSIA

The debate centers on the effectiveness of the United Nations Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The European Commission is required to assess by mid-2026 whether CORSIA delivers sufficient environmental ambition. Environmental groups argue the UN scheme is structurally unfit because it relies on offsetting rather than absolute emissions reduction and targets only emissions above a high baseline. Conversely, Airlines and industry groups have historically opposed extending the EU ETS to international flights, citing concerns over market distortions, potential violations of international law, and competitive disadvantages for European hubs.

Clean technology providers argue that a strong regulatory framework is required to drive investment. During a June 9, 2026 roundtable event at the European Parliament convened by the SASHA Coalition, NEG8 Carbon Head of Business Development Dr. David Mulrooney emphasized the necessity of the ETS for commercial strategy.

“To answer your question directly: the EU ETS is foundational to our commercial strategy. NEG8 supplies atmospheric CO2 capture. The stronger and more consistent the carbon price signal, the stronger the investment case for the infrastructure we sell into. ETS is not a policy backdrop for us. It is the market mechanism our business is built on,” Mulrooney stated.

Mulrooney advocated for directing ETS revenue into DAC and eSAF to drive down costs, similar to historical cost curves for solar power and batteries. Member of the European Parliament Cynthia Ní Mhurchú also spoke at the event, noting that regulatory certainty is critical for future planning.

AirPro News analysis

The July 2026 review of the EU ETS represents a critical juncture for European aviation policy. We observe that the European Commission is caught between two competing pressures: the mandate to meet aggressive decarbonization targets and the risk of triggering international trade disputes if it unilaterally prices emissions on extra-EEA flights. The SASHA Coalition focus on revenue generation for eSAF and DAC is a strategic pivot, framing the ETS not just as a punitive tax but as a necessary funding mechanism for the aviation industry transition. Overcoming airline opposition to overlapping carbon pricing regimes will require the Commission to clearly articulate how the EU ETS and CORSIA can coexist without creating prohibitive administrative and financial burdens for operators.

Sources: SASHA Coalition