Plain-language explanations of the schemes that price or regulate aviation's emissions, what they actually cost, and how those costs work. Almost everything below prices or regulates CO₂ specifically; non-CO₂ effects (contrail cirrus, NOx) are a larger share of aviation's actual warming but are only newly and partially addressed, see the EU non-CO₂ MRV entry.
Prices last checked 24 July 2026. Carbon markets move daily, treat these as a current ballpark, not a quote.
Covers intra-EEA flights. Free allowances fully phased out from 2026. A separate Commission proposal (17 July 2026) would extend scope to non-EU flights within 5,000km of the EU's geographic centre from 2029, pulling in routes to North Africa and Middle East hubs, applied as a "top up" to CORSIA rather than double-charging operators. Separately, the Commission's 17 July ETS review confirms the scheme is being strengthened specifically for aviation and maritime, alongside a slower Linear Reduction Factor (3.7% for 2031-35, 1.7% for 2036-40), continued free allocation beyond 2030 tied more closely to decarbonisation investment, and a new €100bn Industrial Decarbonisation Bank funded by the ETS.
What it costsAirlines must surrender one EU allowance (EUA) per tonne of CO₂ emitted. With free allocation gone from 2026, this is a full cost exposure, not a partial one. At today's ~€80/tCO₂, a narrowbody burning roughly 2.5 tonnes of fuel per hour (about 7.9 tonnes CO₂) is on the order of €630 of carbon cost per flight hour, before any other fuel cost. ICAO has publicly objected to the proposed non-EU scope extension as inconsistent with CORSIA, so that piece specifically remains a proposal, not settled law. Full mechanics comparison with CORSIA →
Mirrors EU ETS structure. Same small-emitter thresholds. A formal EU-UK linkage was targeted for the 13 July 2026 reset summit, which would make allowances interchangeable between the two schemes.
What it costsSame per-tonne surrender mechanism as the EU scheme, but priced on a separate UK market that can diverge meaningfully from EUA prices, currently around £72/tCO₂, though this is genuinely in flux pending the linkage outcome. If linkage is confirmed, expect the EUA-UKA spread to narrow further; if talks stall, UKA could fall back toward the £55-60 range.
Linked to EU ETS since 2020, shared reporting regime.
What it costsBecause it's linked to the EU scheme, Swiss ETS allowances track EUA pricing directly, so the same ~€80/tCO₂ applies. No separate price exposure to model beyond the EU figure.
ICAO's global offsetting scheme. First phase (2024-2026) voluntary. Second phase mandatory for nearly all states from January 2027. Baseline redefined as 85% of 2019 emissions.
What it costsOperators buy eligible emissions units for growth above the baseline, rather than surrendering an allowance for every tonne like EU ETS. Offset unit prices have historically traded far below EUA prices, though eligible-unit supply and pricing remain less mature and more volatile. The financial exposure is smaller per tonne than EU ETS today, but it applies globally and becomes mandatory for most states from 2027, which is the real change to underwrite for. Full mechanics comparison and offsetting calculator →
Mandatory monitoring and reporting of non-CO₂ effects, contrails and NOx, from January 2025. Commission report due by end of 2027, may propose pricing non-CO₂ effects into EU ETS from 2028.
What it costsCurrently a monitoring and reporting cost only: data collection and third-party verification, not a priced obligation. The forward-looking exposure is the one that matters: if the Commission proposes pricing non-CO₂ effects into EU ETS from 2028, that would roughly double or more the effective carbon cost per flight, since non-CO₂ effects are estimated at a larger share of aviation's actual warming than CO₂ itself (see the radiative forcing breakdown on the homepage). Worth underwriting as a probable, not hypothetical, future cost line.
SAF blending mandate, starts at 2% in 2025, rising progressively toward 70% by 2050.
What it costsThis is a direct fuel cost, not a permit cost. EASA put 2024 average SAF prices around €2,085/tonne against roughly €734/tonne for conventional jet fuel, close to a 3x premium, with e-fuel pathways costing far more. At a 2% blend, the premium is diluted across the whole fuel bill, but it rises mechanically as the mandate percentage climbs over the coming decades, and the premium itself isn't expected to close through any currently available production pathway.
Separate blending mandate, 2% from 2025, own sub-caps and eligibility criteria, differs from the EU on crop-derived biofuel rules.
What it costsSame cost mechanics as ReFuelEU, a fuel price premium rather than a permit cost, but tracked and reported separately from the EU mandate. For any operator flying both UK and EU routes, this means maintaining two parallel compliance and cost-tracking regimes rather than one.
Commercial operators exempt below 10,000 t CO₂/yr or 243 flights per period. Non-commercial, most business jets, exempt below 1,000 t CO₂/yr, or simplified reporting below 25,000 t CO₂/yr.
What it costsStaying under these thresholds avoids EU/UK ETS obligations entirely, which is a material planning input for smaller operators and fleet structuring decisions. This is the single most consequential number in this list for a business jet operator specifically, since it can be the difference between full compliance cost exposure and none.
Drives corporate flight-department Scope 3 reporting, relevant to companies operating or chartering jets, separate from airline-facing ETS/CORSIA.
What it costsNot a fuel or carbon cost directly, it's a disclosure and assurance cost: data collection and third-party audit spend for the corporate flight department. The indirect financial exposure runs through ESG ratings and access to green financing, poor Scope 3 aviation data can affect a company's wider cost of capital, not just its compliance budget.