Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5349270/

Topic: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: ChazPilot
Posted 2012-01-05 01:25:30 and read 7243 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16421117

I know this isn't the first thread on this matter, but I think given today's official statement by Beijing it warrents a fresh one.

What say you, A-Netters?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: hsvflier
Posted 2012-01-05 01:45:36 and read 7199 times.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out......this is becoming much larger than aviation. But what does Europe have to leverage??? Looks like the order books in Seattle will remain full of chinese customers for a long time.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: MillwallSean
Posted 2012-01-05 01:56:39 and read 7160 times.

Quoting hsvflier (Reply 1):
. But what does Europe have to leverage???

Being Chinas largest exportmarket must mean they have some levarage...

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: kaitak
Posted 2012-01-05 01:59:44 and read 7159 times.

I think it's a very important point of principle; Brussels has attempted to impose this unilaterally and there is no provisions in any of its bilaterals to do this. If they were to let the EU away with this, it would set a very unsatisfactory precedent in international affairs. The EU needs to recognise that it simply cannot act in this manner and if it will not accept this, then it will have to be taught - the hard way.

if China, India, the US, possibly Russia and a few others stand firm on this, to the extent that flights are stopped, how long will the EU hold out, given its economic crisis. Also, given that the EU is looking to China for help with the Eurozone crisis, this is an additional bargaining chip for China.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 02:02:24 and read 7155 times.

Quoting hsvflier (Reply 1):
But what does Europe have to leverage???

Huh...not much these days.

It's because we're broke we're taxing everything to oblivion !

At least the UK chancellor had the decency to admit green taxes on aviation are just to swell government coffers.

Civil aviation is bloated, it's too cheap to fly, there's too much competition/capacity and the LCC's make flying viable for trips where flying shouldn't really be an option.

Stag nights and hen do's....please.

The industry is a sitting duck.

Fewer flights and bigger more fuel efficient aircraft....that's what is needed.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 02:05:02 and read 7144 times.

Again - this entire thing really all boils down to how far everyone else is willing to push this.

I don't care how altruistic and environment-loving the EU claims it is. If the rest of the world presented one unified front against this EU carbon tax - if the U.S./China/India rescinded all landing rights, Russia cut overflight rights, and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders - the EU would back down in about 2.5 seconds.

The only question is whether or not the rest of the world is really going to stand up to it.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 02:12:00 and read 7125 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders

Well they could play that card on any issue involving the EU.

German flight rights spring to mind.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 02:14:50 and read 7102 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders -

That would be dumb, considering that they have a lot to gain from the EU's tax, ridiculous as it is. They would have a serious decision to make whether to fight the tax or exploit it.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-05 02:30:14 and read 7043 times.

I don't understand why China or the U.S. are against ETS. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?

As I wrote in the locked thread:

The plan is that all flights originating or arriving in the EU will be part of the trading, right? In other words, an airline has to acquire enough carbon credits for its total EU operations.

Why then do non-EU countries oppose this? If anything, it puts their airlines at a strategical advantage over EU airlines. EU airlines will have to cover 100% of their operations with carbon credits, while non-EU airlines will only have to do so for a much smaller percentage of their flights. For instance, LH from FRA to HKG will acquire the full amount of credits, while EK will only cover the FRA-DXB part, not the DXB-HKG part, which will make their product cheaper than LH's, everything else being equal. In this example, CX will have to pay the same as LH, because they fly direct, but never more (and they still can connect passengers out of HKG without carbon credits).

So in total, if any party is to suffer from the scheme, it's the EU itself, not the non-EU countries. The only reason for non-EU countries to oppose this, that I can think of, is that they're afraid the additional costs for a ticket will significantly diminish the market as a whole. I simply don't see that. I don't know the demand flexibility for intercontinental flights, but I doubt that a couple of Euros will bring demand down noticeably. Within Europe, that may be a different story, but that is again an intra-European issue. In short, I don't find a good explanation for the strong opposition from China, the US etc.

Can anybody help me out here?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 02:42:06 and read 7010 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
Why then do non-EU countries oppose this?

The biggest thing is that the EU ETS tax is levied on the whole flights, not just the part in the EU. The extra-territorial nature of the scheme is what irks a lot of people.

And it means that there is incentive to not fly directly to the EU. In other words, a SIN-DXB-LHR routing pays less tax than SIN-LHR, so as long as this tax stands I don't want to hear any more whining from European airlines that the Middle Eastern airlines are strangling them. Regulation has a cost.

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
So in total, if any party is to suffer from the scheme, it's the EU itself,

Well, yes, which is part of why this whole thing is dumb.

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
I don't find a good explanation for the strong opposition from China, the US etc.

Because their airlines are getting taxed for the majority of the flight which is not over the EU. It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Cerecl
Posted 2012-01-05 04:10:38 and read 6893 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
Again - this entire thing really all boils down to how far everyone else is willing to push this.

  
And I predict a compromise to be reached well before any flight to Europe has to be stopped. Europe needs all the friends it can make. Apparently the ETS will not come into effect until March (although in theory it started on the first day of 2012), plenty of time.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: racko
Posted 2012-01-05 04:21:01 and read 6851 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.

It's like if you flew to the US and had to obey US safety regulations for the whole flight.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-05 04:38:22 and read 6803 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

The biggest thing is that the EU ETS tax is levied on the whole flights, not just the part in the EU. The extra-territorial nature of the scheme is what irks a lot of people.

Anything else would really be silly. Emissions are produced because EU citizens or visitors to the EU fly to one place to another. What relevance does the flight's exact routing have?

Let's imagine for a moment that only the part over EU airspace would be subject to ETS. What would be different?
- It would still incur costs for airlines, both EU and non-EU. Fewer carbon credits would be set off by more scarcity and higher prices.
- EU and non-EU airlines would still be affected in the same way.
- It would create a huge bureaucratic effort to track and report every single flightpath.
- It would create all sorts of confusion and unfair effects. A flight from LA to London would require more credits than a flight from New York to Vienna. Where is the sense in that?

Altogether, switching from the extra-territorial method to a territorial one would make zero difference in the important areas and do more bad than good overall. So if people are "irked" by it, as you say, what would the alternative be.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

And it means that there is incentive to not fly directly to the EU. In other words, a SIN-DXB-LHR routing pays less tax than SIN-LHR, so as long as this tax stands I don't want to hear any more whining from European airlines that the Middle Eastern airlines are strangling them. Regulation has a cost.

Yes, and we're willing to carry it. What concern is it to America and China?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

Well, yes, which is part of why this whole thing is dumb.

Alright, but again, why do America and China oppose it then? To save us from ourselves? Hard to imagine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

Because their airlines are getting taxed for the majority of the flight which is not over the EU. It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.

Well I do! I pay taxes for my flight to America. The taxes don't "end" at the EU border. They're paid all the way to my destination. The part of the flight over the Atlantic isn't magically tax-free.

Sorry, but I still don't get it.   I understand why someone would think that ETS is not a good idea in general. But seeing that non-EU airlines aren't disadvantaged in any way, I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: tayser
Posted 2012-01-05 04:41:09 and read 6797 times.

Europeans have a flair for research and big government - let them do it, pay the tax and shut up - because at the end of the day, the money which will flow into European research institutes will eventually lead to new industries and technologies financed and exploited on a grander scale by the anglo-asian world eventually.

Swings and roundabouts.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2012-01-05 04:49:27 and read 6768 times.

Fact is, the Chinese government instructed the Chinese carriers to ignore ETS. They will simply not pay.

That starts the procedure, the carriers will be fined, they will eventually be banned from laning et European airports because they niether pay ETS nor fines. The Chinese will retaliate and ban European carriers from Chinese Airports, eventually overflying as well, which will hurt the Europeans only on their way to Korea and Japan. Chinese carriers don't care too much about overflying Europe if the cannot operate here anyhow.

All that for the simple fact that the EU commission as well as the EU high court ignored the existing bi-laterals.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
The biggest thing is that the EU ETS tax is levied on the whole flights, not just the part in the EU. The extra-territorial nature of the scheme is what irks a lot of people.

That is exactly why Kerosine is not taxed at all as extra - territorial taxation does not work. Whatever happens outside the jurisdiction of a country is not taxed. That goes for ocean rates, even the haulage from shippers door to the port is not subject to VAT.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Cerecl
Posted 2012-01-05 04:52:48 and read 6750 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

Because airlines or their customers will need to pay and governments should stand up for their industries/citizens. People complain when they have to pay more, it is natural. Watch the EU doing exactly the same thing if China/US/Japan/any other country big enough to make a difference institutes a new tax/charge on all car manufacturers. Surely you don't think BMW/RR/Mercedes/SAAB/Audi etc. will take it lying down?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-05 05:19:38 and read 6682 times.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 15):

Because airlines or their customers will need to pay and governments should stand up for their industries/citizens. People complain when they have to pay more, it is natural. Watch the EU doing exactly the same thing if China/US/Japan/any other country big enough to make a difference institutes a new tax/charge on all car manufacturers. Surely you don't think BMW/RR/Mercedes/SAAB/Audi etc. will take it lying down?

Yes they will need to pay, but their competitors will pay relatively more! And the additional costs are not high enough to bring total demand down. So non-EU airlines, unless I don't understand something, will face no disadvantage, if anything they will be a slight advantage. If BMW were told, all cars will cost the customer 10 Euros more, but Asian cars will be 15 Euros more, I don't think they'll send the German government into a rage about it to be honest.


I keep on looking for a "hidden reason", a rational reason for people to oppose ETS, but from I read and what you guys tell me, there seems to be nothing behind it. Just very mediocre analytics in the Chinese and American adminstrations appearantly. But I will keep looking and if find out something, I'll post it here.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: wdleiser
Posted 2012-01-05 06:47:41 and read 6535 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):

Because all it is is an extra non necessary tax applied to an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 06:59:59 and read 6518 times.

Quoting racko (Reply 11):
It's like if you flew to the US and had to obey US safety regulations for the whole flight.

Not exactly. Any nation can require certain standards for safety and security for airlines to fly there. And they can demand certain safety standards of airlines registered in that country that must be followed on all flights. The ETS is as if the FAA were to fine a foreign airline for safety violations on a flight that did not originate in, overfly, or land in the US.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
What relevance does the flight's exact routing have?

The EU is levying a tax on a flight outside its jurisdiction. The EU is taxing emissions that may be taking place on another continent.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
- EU and non-EU airlines would still be affected in the same way.

They are not affected equally now. EU airlines are at a disadvantage.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
A flight from LA to London would require more credits than a flight from New York to Vienna. Where is the sense in that?

It makes perfect sense. The EU can tax flights over their territory, so if you overfly more of the EU you pay more to the EU. Paying the EU emissions tax for carbon spewed over Canada or where ever just makes no sense.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
Alright, but again, why do America and China oppose it then?

Because the EU is levying a tax on foreign airlines for the portion of the flight over foreign territory. It's a pretty plain violation of sovereignty.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
Well I do! I pay taxes for my flight to America.

The ETS is as if you had to keep paying European gas taxes when you fill up in America.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I understand why someone would think that ETS is not a good idea in general.

I don't. It sounds like something cooked up by Enron.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

It's an affront to their sovereignty.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-05 07:04:30 and read 6501 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
The EU needs to recognise that it simply cannot act in this manner and if it will not accept this, then it will have to be taught - the hard way.

That is really cute.

It seems like most people think this is an unprecedented event. Following the news regularly helps understanding the dynamic of international relations and especially China is very predictable.

This is a lot of hot air and the EU will and should give them a middle finger about this. Do you have any idea how many shenanigans China has pulled on Europe just last year, like granting LH daily A380 flights into PEK, only to revoke them days before the service started. Boycotting Norway for honoring a Chinese political prisoner with the nobel prize.

You people need to read the news more often. Europe and China have had a hate-love relationship for the longest time. We can't live with them, we can't live without 'em (or don't want to, more like).

Giving credence to China's threats reveals not more but a significant information gap on the author's part.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: blrsea
Posted 2012-01-05 07:17:03 and read 6474 times.

The green tax is just an additional tax to increase their revenue in the name of environment. Not a single penny goes out to any environment cause, just to bridge their deficits. Why then this sham of carbon credits etc? Just label it as "we are flat broke, need more money so this tax" and move on  

Why should passengers pay just for connecting through Europe? Many Indians fly to US through Europe, and we are taxed for flying on EU airlines! When middle-east airlines are poaching passengers from EU airlines, this dumb move will just accelerate the losses for EU airlines even more. And airlines from India which carry passengers through Europe too will suffer.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: PezySPU
Posted 2012-01-05 07:18:49 and read 6468 times.

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 17):
Because all it is is an extra non necessary tax applied to an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.

And very, very thin profit margins.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

It's an affront to their sovereignty.

  

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 07:22:52 and read 6454 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
The ETS is as if the FAA were to fine a foreign airline for safety violations on a flight that did not originate in, overfly, or land in the US.

Considering that the ETS applies only to those flights that do take off or land in the EU or overfly it, one has to wonder how you arrived at that comparison.

By the way, EU Allowances are currently so cheap that they'll hardly make a difference in any airline's financial results:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=PNXCSPT2:IND

[Edited 2012-01-05 07:29:14]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-05 07:54:12 and read 6395 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
if the U.S./China/India rescinded all landing rights, Russia cut overflight rights, and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders - the EU would back down in about 2.5 seconds.

Either that, or the EU would retaliated by rescinding all landing rights to US/China/India/UAE airlines.

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 17):
Because all it is is an extra non necessary tax applied to an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.

The credit system is applied to all industries, and it is proportional to the environmental impact. For some reason, the airline industry has been exempted for 7 years. Not any longer.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
The ETS is as if the FAA were to fine a foreign airline for safety violations on a flight that did not originate in, overfly, or land in the US.

Sorry but the comparison is flawed, because the ETS is not levied on flights that do not originate, overfly or land in the EU.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 08:04:34 and read 6360 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 23):
Either that, or the EU would retaliated by rescinding all landing rights to US/China/India/UAE airlines.

Right, and like it said, that would be over in about 2.5 seconds. The EU - particularly as weak and vulnerable as it is (economically and institutionally) these days - needs the global market way more than the global market needs Europe. The EU would retaliate, it would escalate into a trade war, and the EU would quickly lose that war.

There is no question - at least to me - that the EU would lose. The only question is whether or not the U.S., China, Russia, India, etc. will push it that far.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-05 08:16:13 and read 6656 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 24):
The EU would retaliate, it would escalate into a trade war, and the EU would quickly lose that war.

Really? How do you know that?

Quoting commavia (Reply 24):
The EU - particularly as weak and vulnerable as it is (economically and institutionally) these days

Yeah, the US, instead, is swimming in money and is politically united behind its president...

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-05 08:25:38 and read 6620 times.

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 17):
an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.

... then again, you could say that about any industry out there.  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
The EU can tax flights over their territory, so if you overfly more of the EU you pay more to the EU. Paying the EU emissions tax for carbon spewed over Canada or where ever just makes no sense.

This would be correct if carbon dioxide had a local effect only. It doesn't, it has a global effect, thus it's irrelevant where it's emitted. In a perfect world, the cap&trade system would operate globally. Since it doesn't, the EU has to go ahead and regulate only the flights in its jurisdiction, i.e. flights that originate and terminate in Europe.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):

It's an affront to their sovereignty.

Mate, we're talking about companies which move people from A to B.   "Sovereignty" is really not the word you're looking for here. A country is sovereign in the sense that it can allow or disallow air traffic over its territory. It can regulate it, tax it, require aircraft's noses to be painted pink, whatever. Since we all believe in the free market, we agreed that any measures would have to be non-discriminatory, e.g. apply to all countries' airlines equally. Since that's the case, that's really all there's to it. There is no god-given right for Delta to fly to Rome.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
Not a single penny goes out to any environment cause, just to bridge their deficits. Why then this sham of carbon credits etc? Just label it as "we are flat broke, need more money so this tax" and move on

Do some reading about the ETS, it's not designed to increase government revenue. We have other measures for that, incidentally they're called "taxes". In 2011, Germany introduced an air traffic tax. For a long-haul flight, it's 45 Euros per departure, payable by any airline, foreign or domestic. That tax is meant to generate government revenue, and it was never proclaimed to do anything else.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 08:35:57 and read 6663 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 25):
Yeah, the US, instead, is swimming in money and is politically united behind its president...

Let's face it..the transatlantic regions are all up to their eyeballs in debt.

Saying that though the EU is still the largest economy on the planet. We go down..they all go down. So I'm not sure about all this tit for tat discussion. Where would the Chinese be without us buying all the crap they make ??

Besides all that though when are we in Europe going to realise that nobody else gives a stuff about the environment and that if the truth be known these taxes are just a cash cow in cognito.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 08:49:56 and read 6632 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 25):
Really? How do you know that?

Because the EU is negotiating from a position of weakness.

Europe's economies are generally doing quite poorly, and Europe's airlines are already being squeezed considerably. European airlines need global markets far more than global airlines need Europe, and Airbus is heavily exposed to global airline industry, which in several notable cases (UAE, China) are either at the direct or indirect discretion of foreign governments, nearly all of which have expressed deep displeasure with this illegal carbon tax.

The U.S., Russia, China, India, etc. have to decide how far they want to push this. Then the EU has to decide whether or not it will become a trade war. But if/when it becomes a trade war, I see absolutely no way the EU is going to win.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 25):
Yeah, the US, instead, is swimming in money and is politically united behind its president...

The broader economic and political situation is far better, and more stable, in the U.S. than in Europe at the moment. Unlike with the EU, the U.S. is a single sovereign country with a unified political system that is under no threat of collapse, the U.S. dollar is in no danger of ceasing to exist, and the U.S. economy is still (at least as of now) projected to grow this year at a faster pace than Europe's economies (some of which are projected to actually contract considerably).

And, perhaps most importantly in this case, U.S. airlines are also far less threatened by this illegal carbon tax than EU carriers, which is of course precisely why European airlines have been among some of the most vocal opponents of the tax, and also precisely why Europe's airline industry is far more vulnerable to a trade war than America's.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 27):
Saying that though the EU is still the largest economy on the planet.

... except that the EU isn't an economy. It isn't even a country.

[Edited 2012-01-05 08:51:38]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 08:52:21 and read 6609 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 27):
So I'm not sure about all this tit for tat discussion.

What you read in here is nothing but a tempest in a teacup, tantrums thrown by people who take delight at a possible war - even if it's "only" a trade war.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 09:09:47 and read 6563 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
The broader economic and political situation is far better, and more stable, in the U.S.

Which network told you that ?

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
... except that the EU isn't an economy. It isn't even a country.

Would you like to fly over here and tell certain people that ? I''ll pay. (First Class, suite at the Paris Ritz)

We are all so intertwined here in the EU, the whole damn thing is a house of cards so as far you are concerned in America we might aswell be a single economy.

It's not often an American president attends an EU summit....think on !!

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 09:36:05 and read 6495 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 26):
This would be correct if carbon dioxide had a local effect only. It doesn't, it has a global effect, thus it's irrelevant where it's emitted.

None of that makes it okay to violate sovereignty. Why don't the Europeans try to pass some environmental regulations for Mexican or Chinese factories? See how well that works.

Quoting Rara (Reply 26):
Since it doesn't, the EU has to go ahead and regulate only the flights in its jurisdiction,

But they aren't. They are taxing the portion of the flight outside it.

Quoting Rara (Reply 26):
A country is sovereign in the sense that it can allow or disallow air traffic over its territory.

"Over its territory." That's the key words. This tax is taxing the portion of the flight that is not over the EU. That is the problem.

Quoting Rara (Reply 26):
Since that's the case, that's really all there's to it.

Not when an American aircraft has to pay the EU for carbon emitted over Canada. The fact that some people don't see how backwards that is worries me.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 09:54:15 and read 6455 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
Which network told you that ?

  

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
Would you like to fly over here and tell certain people that ? I''ll pay. (First Class, suite at the Paris Ritz)

I don't need to tell anybody. The reality has been on display for all to see in recent months. Europe is hardly united, and it is hardly one economy. It is still, for all the decades of endless summits, speeches, and Euroblather, a collection of 27 countries with divergent national interests, geopolitical realities, and economic conditions, and that isn't going to change no matter how many press conferences Merkel or Sarkozy hold.

As such, no matter how much the EU wants to show the world how to be good, allegedly responsible environmental stewards by punishing civil aviation and imposing illegal taxes, the reality is that Europe's weak and vulnerable economies and unstable political situation make that unrealistic.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 10:04:40 and read 6440 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Not when an American aircraft has to pay the EU for carbon emitted over Canada.

The purpose of a flight from the US to an EU country is to get people to that EU country. All of the CO2 emitted, over Canada or elsewhere, is emitted for that purpose. Additionally, CO2 emissions affect the climate all over the world, no exceptions for anyone flying over anywhere.

As for connecting traffic, people can always choose to fly around the EU if the ETS really is a sufficiently horrifying violation of their personal freedom to warrant a hugely more expensive airfare. I doubt that this will happen, to be brutally honest.

Quoting commavia (Reply 32):
Euroblather

You're too funny.  rotfl 

[Edited 2012-01-05 10:09:18]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 10:24:32 and read 6390 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 32):
The reality has been on display for all to see in recent months. Europe is hardly united, and it is hardly one economy


Spain, Italy, Portugal and even France are staring into a precipice. We are untited and one economy in the sense that if one goes under we will all follow very quickly. The shockwaves would ripple out around the globe like a tsunami and the banks...well....let's not even go there.

The global economy is one hit away (natural, terrorism, war) from disaster....there's alot of tension out there right now but let's just hope it doesn't happen.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 10:26:54 and read 6379 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 33):
Additionally, CO2 emissions affect the climate all over the world, no exceptions for anyone flying over anywhere.

Okay, but that still doesn't make it legal. Just as the EU - whether its affected by global carbon emissions or not - cannot tax or regulate the carbon emissions coming from a factory in Shenzen, it also can't tax carbon emitted by an airline soaring over the Atlantic or Siberia.

Quoting aloges (Reply 33):
As for connecting traffic, people can always choose to fly around the EU if the ETS really is a sufficiently horrifying violation of their personal freedom to warrant a hugely more expensive airfare. I doubt that this will happen, to be brutally honest.

I will be equally brutally honest. I think it will definitely happen - indeed, it already is. As Europe becomes a more expensive place to fly (and/or just do business in general), people will definitely avoid it and seek out more competitive alternatives. Witness the rise of Dubai, as an example. This will only speed that process along - especially if politicians and Eurocrats continue to ratchet this tax up as a way to continue to raise more revenue for cash-starved governments (which is of course the whole point of this anyway). For a passenger going, say, New York-Mumbai, a flight nonstop or connecting over Dubai will incur zero carbon tax, while one over Europe will. That's but one example.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 10:49:14 and read 6328 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
Witness the rise of Dubai, as an example. This will only speed that process along - especially if politicians and Eurocrats continue to ratchet this tax up as a way to continue to raise more revenue for cash-starved governments (which is of course the whole point of this anyway). For a passenger going, say, New York-Mumbai, a flight nonstop or connecting over Dubai will incur zero carbon tax, while one over Europe will.

Oh not Dubai again.

It would be nice to imagine that in the future the 'vast' majority if not all people flying between New York and Mumbai will do so on either an American or an Indian carrier non-stop.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 10:58:19 and read 6297 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
Oh not Dubai again.

It would be nice to imagine that in the future the 'vast' majority if not all people flying between New York and Mumbai will do so on either an American or an Indian carrier non-stop.

It was merely an example to describe why I believe this tax - and others like it - will harm European carriers. (And, alas, it appears that many European carriers seem to agree.)

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: ScottB
Posted 2012-01-05 11:00:14 and read 6292 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 22):
By the way, EU Allowances are currently so cheap that they'll hardly make a difference in any airline's financial results:

Sure, they're cheap today. What about some day in the future when they could add hundreds of euros to the cost of a ticket? Only the nose is under the tent, but behind that nose is a big, smelly camel.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
- It would create a huge bureaucratic effort to track and report every single flightpath.

How is that any different from the current system? It would be simple enough to come up with some sort of standardized inside-EU-aerospace number for any flight path. Moreover, ATC reporting systems are sophisticated enough to do that sort of computation on an automated basis if needed.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
- EU and non-EU airlines would still be affected in the same way.

Not quite true, as the "free" allowances are computed based on an airline's computed emissions as of a date in the past. A non-EU airline adding service to Europe would not be competing on a level playing field with an incumbent EU carrier.

Quoting Rara (Reply 26):
Since we all believe in the free market, we agreed that any measures would have to be non-discriminatory, e.g. apply to all countries' airlines equally. Since that's the case, that's really all there's to it. There is no god-given right for Delta to fly to Rome.

Except... while EU courts (unsurprisingly) have ruled that the tax is permitted under the bilaterals, other governments do not believe that to be true.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):
I keep on looking for a "hidden reason", a rational reason for people to oppose ETS, but from I read and what you guys tell me, there seems to be nothing behind it. Just very mediocre analytics in the Chinese and American adminstrations appearantly.

Even if one axiomatically accepts the contribution of man-made carbon dioxide emissions to global warming, schemes which seek to limit those emissions will be ineffective unless they are applied globally, or at the very least on every significant player. Using taxes to increase the cost of petroleum-based fuels in the E.U. or U.S. will simply shift consumption of those fuels to other nations where those taxes are not applied. Moving to higher-cost non-fossil-fuel sources of electricity for an industry may very well shift production capacity in that industry to countries where producers do not face those costs.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mham001
Posted 2012-01-05 11:00:53 and read 6293 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):
I keep on looking for a "hidden reason", a rational reason for people to oppose ETS, but from I read and what you guys tell me, there seems to be nothing behind it.

Most of the remarks here have missed the mark. It has more to do with whether treaties signed by sovereign nations can be ignored by a larger body. The precedence should not be established for various reasons but those who should oppose this the most are those same sovereign Euro nations.

Imagine if the rest of the world decided that all other treaties in effect with those European nations are now null and void, exactly as the EU has said?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-05 11:05:11 and read 6282 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 37):
It was merely an example to describe why I believe this tax - and others like it - will harm European carriers.

Lol - yeah I know what you mean. I'm just not sure what we can do about it. UK flyers get taxed up the ying yang as it is.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-05 11:22:04 and read 6230 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
Unlike with the EU, the U.S. is a single sovereign country with a unified political system that is under no threat of collapse

Have you already forgotten the latest showdowns between Congress and Obama, which have put the US on the brink of default, and which have not really been solved but just pushed into the near future? The debt-ceiling crisis, the deficit cutting crisis, etc.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 34):
Spain, Italy, Portugal and even France are staring into a precipice.

Big exaggeration. Spain's debt stands at about 65% of GDP. For instance, the US's is above 90%.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 11:27:32 and read 6227 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
Okay, but that still doesn't make it legal.

How so? The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it is legal. Do you possess higher legal qualifications than those judges?

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
it also can't tax carbon emitted by an airline soaring over the Atlantic or Siberia.

It can if said airliner has taken off from or is going to land in the EU - just like the US can demand large amounts of information on air travellers flying to the US.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
As Europe becomes a more expensive place to fly, people will definitely avoid it and seek out more competitive alternatives.

Surely they will simply choose whichever alternative works best for them. If ORD-TUN-RUH (with detours to avoid EU airspace) existed and became cheaper and more attractive than e.g. ORD-FRA-RUH, that option would attract more and more passengers. Instead, I'm pretty sure that a $3 surcharge as introduced by DL is very far indeed from making people change their travel habits.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
Witness the rise of Dubai, as an example.

Yes, and your point is? Over the years (i.e. on average), passenger numbers at FRA have grown. So have those at AMS, CDG, LHR and MAD. If DXB et al get a larger portion of the growth due to their ideal locations and "aviation for all, all for aviation" policies, so be it. It will at worst keep our infrastructures from overflowing for a while longer; I don't know if you've flown through FRA, but it's always under badly needed construction.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
especially if politicians and Eurocrats continue to ratchet this tax up as a way to continue to raise more revenue for cash-starved governments (which is of course the whole point of this anyway).

It's not a tax, it's a certificate trade. Germany's own government has introduced an additional air travel tax.

If you reduce your CO2 emissions beyond the politically intended point, you get to sell the remaining certificates and make a profit on top of your already improved operative efficiency. If you don't meet the target, you'll have to buy certificates - which are currently at record low prices anyway.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
As Europe becomes a more expensive place to [...] do business in general, people will definitely avoid it and seek out more competitive alternatives.

It's interesting that you should say that. The ETS has been in place for years, with an exemption for airlines, yet we have not seen a collapse of the European industrial base. Instead, a solid productive sector is exactly what is carrying Germany through the current financial crisis. Oil prices, exchange rates and many other factors pose far greater risks than the ETS ever could.

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
For a passenger going, say, New York-Mumbai, a flight nonstop or connecting over Dubai will incur zero carbon tax, while one over Europe will. That's but one example.

Again, the ETS surcharge will always cause a minuscule price difference unless an EU airline decides to operate a fleet of highly inefficient aircraft and trie to compete with, say, EK's more efficient fleet on NYC-BOM. And even then you would have to wait for the price of the certificates to rise sky-high for it to make a more meaningful difference than the increased fuel cost of an inefficient fleet.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 11:27:38 and read 6217 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 33):
The purpose of a flight from the US to an EU country is to get people to that EU country.

Yes it is, but until that flight crosses into EU airspace how it gets there is completely out of the EU's jurisdiction.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2012-01-05 11:30:25 and read 6212 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 34):
We are untited and one economy in the sense that if one goes under we will all follow very quickly.

It is quite ironic to read that comment, especially from someone based in the United Kingdom.

What you have just described can happen (and has repeatedly happened) in places outside the EU. If the EU is truly a single economy, then let us quit talking about a recession in one EU country while another experiences spectacular growth at the same time.

It is well known through endless academic papers and public surveys that the EU is only as united as its German and French bureaucrats imagine it to be. The reality on the ground is hardly close.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
Not when an American aircraft has to pay the EU for carbon emitted over Canada. The fact that some people don't see how backwards that is worries me.

  

And that indifference is apparent in this quote:

Quoting something (Reply 19):
This is a lot of hot air and the EU will and should give them a middle finger about this. Do you have any idea how many shenanigans China has pulled on Europe just last year, like granting LH daily A380 flights into PEK, only to revoke them days before the service started. Boycotting Norway for honoring a Chinese political prisoner with the nobel prize.

Landing rights offered to foreign airlines to touch down on its sovereign land is certainly within its sovereign rights. China is not denying Lufthansa landing rights in a third country. Boycotting Norway involves a decision on where the Chinese choose to spend their own money on, again their own sovereign right. China is not telling Norway not to invest in a third country.

Both activities does not in anyway question the sovereignty of any other country, in the same way the ETS does. Trying to justify the EU's unilateral action based on China's past actions is flawed at best.

If a real trade war ensues, we shall see who's middle finger remains standing.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 11:37:30 and read 6177 times.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 38):
What about some day in the future when they could add hundreds of euros to the cost of a ticket?

Please calculate how much a single EUA would have to cost for that to happen.

Do you really believe that EU politicians want to destroy the union's entire economy? That's what would happen if the price for EUAs ever rose that high.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Yes it is, but until that flight crosses into EU airspace how it gets there is completely out of the EU's jurisdiction.

I think the EASA would like to have a word with you... among others.

Anyway, if that was the case, it would of course be reciprocal, so that cute little APIS "where are you staying" bondoggle would have to go out the window.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 11:42:45 and read 6162 times.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 44):
Both activities does not in anyway question the sovereignty of any other country, in the same way the ETS does.

How exactly does a small and avoidable fee that only applies to flights into or out of EU territory limit the sovereignty of any nation?

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 44):
If a real trade war ensues, we shall see who's middle finger remains standing.

I should hope that there are at least a few grown-ups present in the committees that are working on this... the kind of person who doesn't shout "Hooray, trade war!" whilst waggling two middle fingers; which is apparently what some a.netters expect from international negotiations.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-05 11:46:24 and read 6160 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Yes it is, but until that flight crosses into EU airspace how it gets there is completely out of the EU's jurisdiction.

Actually, that's not quite true. Ask the airlines in the EU's black list, TAAG, for instance.

And, as I'm sure you're aware of, TATL flights inbound for the US have to go though all sort of loops and hoops before they even leave the gate in Europe. So I guess the US considers that it does have jurisdiction on those flights, even outside the US airspace.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 11:49:56 and read 6141 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 45):
Anyway, if that was the case, it would of course be reciprocal, so that cute little APIS "where are you staying" bondoggle would have to go out the window

The US and any other country can set a list of requirements for passengers to enter the country. There is nothing wrong with requiring certain information at a certain time otherwise they will not be allowed in, it's in essence a very brief visa application.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mham001
Posted 2012-01-05 11:52:07 and read 6132 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 41):

Big exaggeration. Spain's debt stands at about 65% of GDP. For instance, the US's is above 90%.

But fails to mention the horrific numbers from other EU countries. All that means little though, it is the confidence investors have in buying that debt. The EU states are having some real issues with that right now.

Quoting aloges (Reply 46):
I should hope that there are at least a few grown-ups present in the committees that are working on this... the kind of person who doesn't shout "Hooray, trade war!" whilst waggling two middle fingers; which is apparently what some a.netters expect from international negotiations.

Are you suggesting the original treaties are now null and void? Wouldn't any negotiations on ETS verify that?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 11:55:35 and read 6118 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 47):
Actually, that's not quite true. Ask the airlines in the EU's black list, TAAG, for instance.

That's not exercising control outside the EU airspace. All it does is say that they cannot enter EU airspace because they do not meet standards. The ETS is specifically levying a tax on a flight that is not in EU airspace.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 11:56:07 and read 6119 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 41):
Have you already forgotten the latest showdowns between Congress and Obama, which have put the US on the brink of default, and which have not really been solved but just pushed into the near future? The debt-ceiling crisis, the deficit cutting crisis, etc.

Again - you're comparing politics with institutional existence. The legislative and executive branches are fighting for power. That's nothing new - that is, in fact, exactly how the system is designed to work. Nonetheless, nobody is questioning the sovereignty or long-term existence of the U.S. federal government. The same cannot be said for many of Europe's institutions and bureaucracies.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 41):
Big exaggeration. Spain's debt stands at about 65% of GDP. For instance, the US's is above 90%.

Not all countries are created equal. The U.S. can sustain a far larger debt for far longer, since it holds the world's reserve currency, it has an actual, single unified economy (as opposed to Europe, which just has 27 economies of which 17 are using one currency), and since it has the sovereign power to unilaterally inflate its currency to lighten its debt burden if need be.

A (relative) small country/economy within the Eurozone like Spain has none of that.

Quoting aloges (Reply 42):
It can if said airliner has taken off from or is going to land in the EU

Would be interested to see what the WTO, as opposed to an organ of the European bureaucracy, had to say about that.

Nonetheless, it's really academic to argue over whether this body or that body deems it as legal or illegal. The bottom line is that just about every government of consequence on earth views this carbon tax as illegal. Again - the only question is how far they will push that view.

Quoting aloges (Reply 42):
It's not a tax, it's a certificate trade.

In practice, it's a tax designed to raise money to fund struggling European governments, and, secondarily, to punish travelers for the "sin" of flying.

Quoting aloges (Reply 42):
The ETS has been in place for years, with an exemption for airlines, yet we have not seen a collapse of the European industrial base.

I'd imagine a large part of that is driven by the fact that the Euro has given German industry an astronomical competitive advantage versus other European industries in selling out to the common market, and thus German industry has surged with the common currency whereas many non-German businesses have struggled. Indeed, this is one of the central issues that is now facing the Euro.

Nonetheless, regardless of the experience with other industries, in a market as open and dynamic as air travel, I suspect there will, indeed, be a competitive and financial impact from this tax on European airlines.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 11:57:08 and read 6020 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 47):
So I guess the US considers that it does have jurisdiction on those flights, even outside the US airspace.

But, you see, that is different.  

Nobody can explain why and how, but it is and It Shall Become Truth Through Repetition.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
The US and any other country can set a list of requirements for passengers to enter the country.

...but the EU cannot set a list of requirements for airlines to do business in the union?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
There is nothing wrong with requiring certain information at a certain time otherwise they will not be allowed in, it's in essence a very brief visa application.

There is nothing wrong either with adding incentives for airlines to operate more efficient fleets. Do bear in mind that a savvy airline can make money from the ETS, in the long term. It will of course be difficult for airlines that are too conservative to adapt to new rules, but one might argue that those have no place in the business anyway.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 12:05:06 and read 6002 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 49):
Are you suggesting the original treaties are now null and void? Wouldn't any negotiations on ETS verify that?

For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you got that out of my statement.    Would you please explain?

Quoting commavia (Reply 51):
Would be interested to see what the WTO, as opposed to an organ of the European bureaucracy, had to say about that.

So the neutrality of judges is in question just because they happen to be European... you couldn't make it up.   

Quoting commavia (Reply 51):
In practice, it's a tax designed to raise money to fund struggling European governments, and, secondarily, to punish travelers for the "sin" of flying.

It is not. That tax was (unwisely) introduced separately, at least in Germany:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/.../08/iata-tax-idUSLDE6571RC20100608
As I just said in my earlier reply, airlines can even make money from the ETS. I wonder how they might make money from a tax.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 12:12:48 and read 5984 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 52):
...but the EU cannot set a list of requirements for airlines to do business in the union?

They can - that's exactly what the blacklist is. But they are specifically taxing flight outside the EU. If they only taxed the part of the flight inside the EU it would be perfectly alright.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: NUAir
Posted 2012-01-05 12:18:44 and read 5970 times.

For Europe it does make sense to have a carbon trading for airlines. If trains, cars, buses and alternative forms of competing transport are faced with charges relating to carbon and airlines are not, it gives them an unfair competitive advantage. For the EU to exempt airlines from carbon trading would be a substantial issue (primarily for short-haul flights).

However, I think they should have gone the same route as Australia and only applied the carbon policy to "domestic" flights (EU flights) and avoided the conflict with other countries.

I definitely believe in global warning and I think the foot dragging by the IATA on bringing forward any kind of global aviation solution is not helping things along but the EU response probably goes a bit too far.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mandala499
Posted 2012-01-05 13:11:49 and read 5930 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
Why then do non-EU countries oppose this? If anything, it puts their airlines at a strategical advantage over EU airlines.

On the "global effect" excuse... I wonder how Europeans would react to if say, the US, decides to place a similar scheme for flights to/from/within the US... I wonder how Europeans would react if say, Japan now says the same thing.
So, Fly from Tokyo to Frankfurt, you'd have to pay for the carbon emissions... TWICE.

If using the "global effect" excuse, transportation does have a mechanism for a more fair ETS scheme/tax/scam whatever... The accounting for enroute navigation charges exist. The EU could use slap a percentage surcharge based on distance flown over EU airspace, and provide relief for airlines that take part in an ETS scheme for its total carbon emissions.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
And it means that there is incentive to not fly directly to the EU. In other words, a SIN-DXB-LHR routing pays less tax than SIN-LHR, so as long as this tax stands I don't want to hear any more whining from European airlines that the Middle Eastern airlines are strangling them. Regulation has a cost.

This is the funny side of it...

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
Let's imagine for a moment that only the part over EU airspace would be subject to ETS. What would be different?
- It would still incur costs for airlines, both EU and non-EU. Fewer carbon credits would be set off by more scarcity and higher prices.
- EU and non-EU airlines would still be affected in the same way.
- It would create a huge bureaucratic effort to track and report every single flightpath.
- It would create all sorts of confusion and unfair effects. A flight from LA to London would require more credits than a flight from New York to Vienna. Where is the sense in that?

Every single flight path? Countries charge enroute navigation charges, distance flown over a particular country can use the current methods, and apply the emissions charge based on that. The distance is based on the filed flight plan track distance over a (or few) territory (territories). There is no additional "huge bureaucratic effort to track and report every singe flightpath".

Quoting commavia (Reply 35):
Just as the EU - whether its affected by global carbon emissions or not - cannot tax or regulate the carbon emissions coming from a factory in Shenzen, it also can't tax carbon emitted by an airline soaring over the Atlantic or Siberia.

Well, for this air transport emissions whatever... the "factory in Shenzen" equivalent would be, "this item consists of XYZ and therefore emits ABC amounts of emissions, which must be paid for before it can be sold in the EU". But, for the goods not to be sold in the EU, the EU can't ask for the "factory in Shenzen" to pay for those emissions.

Quoting NUAir (Reply 55):
For Europe it does make sense to have a carbon trading for airlines. If trains, cars, buses and alternative forms of competing transport are faced with charges relating to carbon and airlines are not, it gives them an unfair competitive advantage.

Do the trucks get charged for emissions made outside the EU for journeys to/from the EU?

I think the best way for other countries to deal with this is to provide either a similar scheme, or set up a fairer scheme and then start sticking the finger up to the EU if it doesn't want to join the fairer scheme.   

But then... we all know how "unwilling" many/some countries are into truly tackling CO2 emissions...
What I'm interested in is, whether this violates climate change pacts/treaties/whatever... if it does... well, I'd join China and stick my middle finger up ! If not... well, so what...   

Mandala499

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-05 14:11:06 and read 5867 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 56):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
And it means that there is incentive to not fly directly to the EU. In other words, a SIN-DXB-LHR routing pays less tax than SIN-LHR, so as long as this tax stands I don't want to hear any more whining from European airlines that the Middle Eastern airlines are strangling them. Regulation has a cost.

This is the funny side of it...

All the more laughable because ETS rewards/encourages the higher emission SIN-DXB-LHR routing and punishes/discourages the more "green" non-stop SIN-LHR route. Indeed the whole ETS system is going to reward the more polluting, higher emission business models the likes of EK, QR, EY will no doubt exploit.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 14:16:12 and read 5837 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 57):
All the more laughable because ETS rewards/encourages the higher emission SIN-DXB-LHR routing and punishes/discourages the more "green" non-stop SIN-LHR route.

To be fair, that isn't necessarily higher emissions or higher cost than making a stop.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-05 14:33:42 and read 5778 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 57):
All the more laughable because ETS rewards/encourages the higher emission SIN-DXB-LHR routing and punishes/discourages the more "green" non-stop SIN-LHR route.

To be fair, that isn't necessarily higher emissions or higher cost than making a stop.

Sure it is, it's double the take off thrust and subsequent fuel usage, an indirect routing, double the paperwork, double the crew, double the food/inflight waste, double the transportation necessary to get the crew to the flight, double the usage of tugs and other necessary airport ground vehicles...etc

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 14:36:13 and read 5773 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 59):
Sure it is, it's double the take off thrust and subsequent fuel usage, an indirect routing, double the paperwork, double the crew, double the food/inflight waste, double the transportation necessary to get the crew to the flight, double the usage of tugs and other necessary airport ground vehicles...etc

Except that all of that difference and then some may be made up by burning fuel to carry fuel. And burning fuel to carry the fuel that you have to burn to carry fuel. Ultra-long haul flights are some of the most expensive.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-05 14:53:12 and read 5724 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 60):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 59):
Sure it is, it's double the take off thrust and subsequent fuel usage, an indirect routing, double the paperwork, double the crew, double the food/inflight waste, double the transportation necessary to get the crew to the flight, double the usage of tugs and other necessary airport ground vehicles...etc

Except that all of that difference and then some may be made up by burning fuel to carry fuel. And burning fuel to carry the fuel that you have to burn to carry fuel. Ultra-long haul flights are some of the most expensive.

I'm sure that definitely narrows the difference emissions-wise to an extent, but it's doubtful that two long-haul flights emit less CO2 than one ultra long-haul flight.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-05 15:14:05 and read 5673 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 39):

Most of the remarks here have missed the mark. It has more to do with whether treaties signed by sovereign nations can be ignored by a larger body. The precedence should not be established for various reasons but those who should oppose this the most are those same sovereign Euro nations.

Alright, that makes some sense. Not sure I'd go along with that reasoning, but thank you for supplying another perspective on the matter. If the opposition against ETS is a "matter of principle", it's somewhat easier to understand.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 38):
schemes which seek to limit those emissions will be ineffective unless they are applied globally, or at the very least on every significant player. Using taxes to increase the cost of petroleum-based fuels in the E.U. or U.S. will simply shift consumption of those fuels to other nations where those taxes are not applied.

I will agree to that. But let's not forget how the whole thing came about. Scientists: "Earth is warming, you've got to reduce emissions". Politicians: "how can we do that in the most effective and business-friendly way?" Scientists: "Cap and trade". EU: "Alright then.... shall we?" America: "Nah we couldn't care less". China and developing countries: "You first". EU: "OK we'll start, but you've gotta join in as well".

It was certainly not the EU's choice to do this unilaterally. But if you are serious about acting, you've gotta start somewhere.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 44):

What you have just described can happen (and has repeatedly happened) in places outside the EU. If the EU is truly a single economy, then let us quit talking about a recession in one EU country while another experiences spectacular growth at the same time.

What? The US is a single economy, and it's entirely possible to have a recession in Alabama and growth in Oregon at the same time.

A single economy is not defined by synchronous development (Germany wishes!), but by absence of tariffs, duties, internal market barriers and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, persons and services.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 56):

On the "global effect" excuse... I wonder how Europeans would react to if say, the US, decides to place a similar scheme for flights to/from/within the US... I wonder how Europeans would react if say, Japan now says the same thing.
So, Fly from Tokyo to Frankfurt, you'd have to pay for the carbon emissions... TWICE.

Absolutely true - so we should tag on a penalty for connecting passengers.   That would go down a treat with Middle East governments.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 56):

Every single flight path? Countries charge enroute navigation charges, distance flown over a particular country can use the current methods, and apply the emissions charge based on that. The distance is based on the filed flight plan track distance over a (or few) territory (territories). There is no additional "huge bureaucratic effort to track and report every singe flightpath".

We'll have to agree to disagree here. Flight routes are different every single day. North Atlantic crossings are redefined daily, planes file different routes due to wind etc., directs are given, holdings are flown. The flight from Geneva to Munich over Switzerland will have a different EU segment every single day. To track and convert that into ETS credits.... the complexity boggles my mind.

Origin-destination distances however are a piece of cake. With a great-circle mapper, you can program an interface in one afternoon, or use a database.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 57):

All the more laughable because ETS rewards/encourages the higher emission SIN-DXB-LHR routing and punishes/discourages the more "green" non-stop SIN-LHR route. Indeed the whole ETS system is going to reward the more polluting, higher emission business models the likes of EK, QR, EY will no doubt exploit.

No doubt. A unilateral cap and trade system is always the second-best solution. But experience shows that if one side doesn't get up and start, nobody ever will.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 15:25:18 and read 5648 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 54):
But they are specifically taxing flight outside the EU. If they only taxed the part of the flight inside the EU it would be perfectly alright.

I shall immediately write to my elected representatives and complain about the illegal, unfair and quite frankly inhumane taxation of those parts of aircrew salaries that are earned whilst flying outside Germany territory. Mon dieu. The nerve!   

I suppose we'd also better get cracking on a scheme that will return fuel tax money to ship operators, specifically that tax paid for the fuel burnt outside the territorial waters of the nation where each ship last filled up. The same would of course apply to aviation fuel... if it was taxed in the first place.  

You will of course insist that all of this is completely and utterly different form the outrageous EU ETS which will surely bring about the downfall of aviation in Europe and, if we're lucky, a couple of trade wars (although IIRC it was another user who was cheering for those) alongside that. Weirdly however, the ETS is only just getting expanded to include airlines and other industries have dealt with it for years - and they're still around.

So at the end of the day, this is nothing but a tempest in a teacup over a comparatively small extra fee which is of course going to be exploited by some airlines for extra profit and publicity... the same old story as always.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-05 15:35:10 and read 5606 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 56):
So, Fly from Tokyo to Frankfurt, you'd have to pay for the carbon emissions... TWICE.

No. There are already provisions for that. As soon as a region have a method for reducing emissions in accordance with the Kyoto agreement levels that part will be removed from EU ETS.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 56):
If using the "global effect" excuse, transportation does have a mechanism for a more fair ETS scheme/tax/scam whatever...

Problem is that the organization tasked to do that expect to have the first draft proposal 16 years after they got the task. And that mainly because what EU is doing.

Quoting Rara (Reply 62):
I will agree to that. But let's not forget how the whole thing came about. Scientists: "Earth is warming, you've got to reduce emissions". Politicians: "how can we do that in the most effective and business-friendly way?" Scientists: "Cap and trade". EU: "Alright then.... shall we?" America: "Nah we couldn't care less". China and developing countries: "You first". EU: "OK we'll start, but you've gotta join in as well".

You're missing the part where the industry said. Give us a method where we can spend money so that other companies can make larger reduction at lower cost than if we tried to do it in our process. You should give us something like ETS.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-05 15:43:57 and read 5574 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
The ETS is specifically levying a tax on a flight that is not in EU airspace.

It's not a tax. In any case it is forcing airlines wishing to fly to the EU to do something (avail themselves of emission credits), just like the US forces airlines wishing to fly to the US to do something (provide all that information about the passengers). I don't see the difference.

Quoting commavia (Reply 51):
and since it has the sovereign power to unilaterally inflate its currency to lighten its debt burden if need be.

Which is not without consequences. Keep doing that, and the US dollar will lose ground against all major currencies, making the US a poorer country. Now, the ECB can do the same, if it so wishes.

Quoting commavia (Reply 51):
That's nothing new - that is, in fact, exactly how the system is designed to work.

Really? If the system is designed to work as it has done in the debt-ceiling crisis, or the payroll tax cut extension, then maybe the system should be changed...

Quoting commavia (Reply 51):
In practice, it's a tax designed to raise money to fund struggling European governments, and, secondarily, to punish travelers for the "sin" of flying.

It is not a tax, and it is not designed to "fund struggling European governments." If after reading all this threat, you haven't yet understood that what you are saying is totally wrong, I'm afraid there's nothing much more I can do.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 16:06:11 and read 5484 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 63):
I shall immediately write to my elected representatives and complain about the illegal, unfair and quite frankly inhumane taxation of those parts of aircrew salaries that are earned whilst flying outside Germany territory. Mon dieu.

Except that they are getting paid while working for a German entity. And I bet that you don't have to pay US income tax if you come here on a business trip.

Actually, many states in America have a "jock tax" which is specifically targeted at athletes and musicians where a player playing a road game has to pay income tax on a pro-rated portion of his salary for games or concerts played in that state.

Quoting aloges (Reply 63):
I suppose we'd also better get cracking on a scheme that will return fuel tax money to ship operators, specifically that tax paid for the fuel burnt outside the territorial waters of the nation where each ship last filled up.

That's a sales tax based on where you buy something. If I go online and buy from a European website I pay their VAT. And you'd have to pay whatever sales tax there is if you buy things in the US.

Quoting aloges (Reply 63):
You will of course insist that all of this is completely and utterly different form the outrageous EU ETS

It is, and the difference is not at all hard to comprehend.

Quoting aloges (Reply 63):
So at the end of the day, this is nothing but a tempest in a teacup over a comparatively small extra fee which is of course going to be exploited by some airlines for extra profit and publicity

It would be, if it were not a clear case of the EU trying to levy a tax outside its territory and violate the sovereignty of other nations.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 65):
I don't see the difference.

The difference is quite simple: the EU is forcing airlines to get credits for the portion of the flight outside the EU. If they just made it a flat fee there would be no problem. That is different than entry requirements for passengers bound for the US or many other nations.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-01-05 16:08:53 and read 5483 times.

Quoting NUAir (Reply 55):
I definitely believe in global warning and I think the foot dragging by the IATA on bringing forward any kind of global aviation solution is not helping things along but the EU response probably goes a bit too far.

That's ICAO's responsibility, not IATA's which can only lobby for a solution. I'm sure the EU would have preferred a global solution from ICAO but they knew that was never going to happen.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 16:37:40 and read 5392 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Except that they are getting paid while working for a German entity.

Airlines flying to/from/within the EU get paid for the entirety of such trips because they fly here. So it follows that the entirety of their flights to and from here should be considered for an ETS.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
If I go online and buy from a European website I pay their VAT.

Not if you get a VAT return you don't. I used to process plenty of those for e.g. US military personnel. If you choose to pass on that legally intended benefit, the problem is yours alone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
It would be, if it were not a clear case of the EU trying to levy a tax outside its territory and violate the sovereignty of other nations.

For the umpteenth time, it is not a tax. Airlines, like other businesses have to reduce their emissions or acquire additional pollution rights from the market. If they overachieve, they can sell the rights that they haven't needed.

Show me a tax that you can trade like that and I'll gladly agree that the ETS is a tax.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 16:44:59 and read 5363 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 68):
Airlines, like other businesses have to reduce their emissions or acquire additional pollution rights from the market.

Then what right at all does the EU have to sell or regulate pollution rights outside of their EU?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-01-05 16:57:26 and read 5346 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
Because the EU is levying a tax on foreign airlines for the portion of the flight over foreign territory. It's a pretty plain violation of sovereignty.

           

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner The basic problem is this. Of course the chinese would be pissed off that Europe thinks it can tax a chinese aircraft flying over china. It's a plain and simple old fashioned violation of national sovereignty. The EU claiming to be champion of the Environment does NOT give it the right to make laws and apply them to other countries in their own or 3rd country Territories and it smacks of arrogance and Colonialism (you savages can't get your act together and pass decent laws so we must pass them for you and enforce our own? Wind back the clock 200 years anybody?)

The chinese in particular, maybe even more so than the Americans or the Russians won't stand for this. Europe desperately needs Chinese money ATM. When jobs start going and it looks like governments fall because the man on the street is being adversely affected by a relatively small section of the EU's institutions you watch some kind of alternative scheme be produced. As for Russia. Maybe some of you have forgot what happened a few years ago when Brussels tried to dictate some energy policies to Putin. He simply ordered the gas pipeline from Russia to be swtiched off in the middle of a bitter cold winter. He literally froze people into submission.

The essential thing here is these countries WILL NOT agree to any move that violets their sovereignty. They won't do it on principle because it sets a very very dangerous precedent and it's extremely offensive.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mffoda
Posted 2012-01-05 17:04:42 and read 5301 times.

For those of you who think that EU airlines are OK with ETS... (From ATW)

"Lufthansa (LH) will hire 200 flight attendants as temporary workers and has told passengers to brace for higher ticket prices as it searches for ways to cut costs and stem the effects of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which took effect Jan. 1 "(ATW Daily News, Dec. 22, 2011).

And...

"According to the German daily Rheinische Post, this kind of contract is necessary for LH to be more competitive and cut costs. This move could result in a new working model for other LH bases in Germany."


http://atwonline.com/operations-main...ire-temporary-staff-cut-costs-0104

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-01-05 17:04:50 and read 5299 times.

Basically all the EU really can do is impose some kind of landing/overfly/or movement fee. Given international conventions and laws that is basically going to be limited to EU airspace and airports. In short they can have a takeoff charge/landing charge but they're not going to be able to discriminate on the length of the flight, which is of course NOT what the EU wants as that can't be part of its emissions trading scheme.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 17:07:05 and read 5291 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Then what right at all does the EU have to sell or regulate pollution rights outside of their EU?

Which flights that operate fully outside the EU are included in the EU ETS?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 70):
The essential thing here is these countries WILL NOT agree to any move that violets their sovereignty.

Will they be more open to something that petunias their sovereignty?

A bit of reading wouln't have gone amiss. It has been stated repeatedly that the ETS does not include any flights that do not at least land at or take off from an EU airport. So there's no violation of sovereignty because both the departure and arrival country can rule who flies to and from their airports under which conditions.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 71):
For those of you who think that EU airlines are OK with ETS

OK, that's none of us.

[Edited 2012-01-05 17:15:09]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 17:13:59 and read 5261 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 73):
Which flights that operate fully outside the EU are included in the ETS?

They are making the airlines buy credits for the portion of the flight not over the EU too. Thus, it is extra-territorial and the EU overreaching in their jurisdiction.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 17:16:32 and read 5253 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 65):
Really? If the system is designed to work as it has done in the debt-ceiling crisis, or the payroll tax cut extension, then maybe the system should be changed.

Actually, that is precisely how the system was designed to work. The framers of the consitution intentionally divided powers among various branches - each with competing and conflicting political interests - so that any large, sweeping change in national public policy would require at least a general, if not broad, consensus and so that no overzealous majority could abuse the rights and/or interests of the minority.

It's actually a stunningly beautiful, elegant solution. One needs only look at some of the recent goings on in Europe and the Eurozone (as one of many examples relevant to this thread) to see what happens when a cadre of unelected bureaucrats disregard the popular will of the people. Given that alternative, I'll take our alleged "gridlock" all day long.

Quoting aloges (Reply 73):
Which flights that operate fully outside the EU are included in the ETS?

Which flights does this tax apply to? Answer: none. This is a tax on emissions, not flights.

Thus, your argument is flawed in that nobody would be objecting if this tax applied only to the emissions - again, the ostensible target - emitted within EU airspace. But when this tax is applied to carbon emissions into the atmosphere thousands of miles away, that's where the problem arises.

If the EU wanted to easily solve this problem, all it has to do is admit the obvious that everybody already knows - which is that of course this is a tax - and just add it directly to the four billion other taxes already placed on top of all airline tickets sold for travel to/from/through the EU. Legal challenges, trade war threats, etc. all melt away. If the EU just said that every ticket sold departing an EU airport had a €5 carbon tax added to it, there would be no issue. But, alas, again, politicians and bureaucrats in the EU (like in the U.S. and everywhere else) prefer these ridiculous carbon emissions indulgences precisely because they are indirect and non-transparent to the consumer, and because they can much more easily be manipulated politically than a tax that is direct, immediate and highly visible at the point of sale.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 17:19:29 and read 5245 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
They are making the airlines buy credits for the portion of the flight not over the EU too. Thus, it is extra-territorial and the EU overreaching in their jurisdiction.

You have posted that numerous times and numerous replies have pointed out that national (or similar) regulations regularly apply outside national (or similar) territories. Why do you keep ignoring these parallels?

Quoting commavia (Reply 75):
Thus, your argument is flawed in that nobody would be objecting if this tax applied only to the emissions - again, the ostensible target - emitted within EU airspace. But when this tax is applied to carbon emissions into the atmosphere thousands of miles away, that's where the problem arises.

The CO2 emitted between, say, BKK and the EU border is no different from that emitted between the border and CDG. All of it is emitted because the airline operates a service to an EU airport for passengers travelling to that EU airport. The cause of the emission is relevant, not its location.

Quoting commavia (Reply 75):
which is that of course this is a tax

again:

Quoting aloges (Reply 68):
For the umpteenth time, it is not a tax. Airlines, like other businesses have to reduce their emissions or acquire additional pollution rights from the market. If they overachieve, they can sell the rights that they haven't needed.

Show me a tax that you can trade like that and I'll gladly agree that the ETS is a tax.


[Edited 2012-01-05 17:27:41]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-01-05 17:46:31 and read 5174 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 76):
All of it is emitted because the airline operates a service to an EU airport for passengers travelling to that EU airport. The cause of the emission is relevant, not its location.

I realize the concept of national sovereignty is sort of fuzzy in Europe these days, but the above is frankly ridiculous - that defies the most basic logic that underpins pretty much the entire international understanding of national sovereignty - which is to say, it's all about location.

Your jurisdiction to tax, penalize, mandate emissions trading, whatever ends at your border (on the ground, on the sea, or in the air), unless otherwise stipulated by treaty. That's basically international law 101. And, needless to say, there is absolutely no treaty - bilateral let alone multilateral - that in any way permits the EU to tax the activities of non-EU companies outside the EU.

Quoting aloges (Reply 76):
again:

The semantics are meaningless. It's a tax - in practice, if comically not in name (and again, it's comical since the EU could avoid just about all of this by just coming out and calling it a tax and applying it somewhat differently).

When a government tells any entity - a corporation, an individual, whatever - that they have to take (or stop taking) some action, or else face a legally-binding obligation to pay money, that's a tax.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-05 17:47:00 and read 5167 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 76):
Why do you keep ignoring these parallels?

Because they are wrong. It's one thing for the EU to set minimum standards for carriers and cargo entering the EU. It's quite another for them to regulate emissions credits far outside their territory.

Quoting aloges (Reply 76):
The CO2 emitted between, say, BKK and the EU border is no different from that emitted between the border and CDG.

It is from the EU's perspective because it's outside the EU. What other rights can the EU decide they want to sell around the world? Mineral rights? Tax commerce in international waters?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-01-05 17:58:56 and read 5129 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 76):

The CO2 emitted between, say, BKK and the EU border is no different from that emitted between the border and CDG. All of it is emitted because the airline operates a service to an EU airport for passengers travelling to that EU airport. The cause of the emission is relevant, not its location.

No the location is relevant because there is the requirement to impose some kind of "penalty". it is the power to impose that on a non - EU registered aircraft over an area outside its jurisdiction that is essentially the problem. Regardless of were that money ends up (can be EU governments, traded by EU banks, Private EU institions etc) the fact is the EU is attempting to create a legal requirement that,for example, a chinese airline XYZ pays for something on a chinese owned aircraft over china. This has been a reason that aviation fuel has traditionally not been taxed. Legally it gets too complicated due to what part was consumed over your territory on foreign vessels, and basically it becomes a legal minefield. Then you have issues of equity and discrimination. One country might not be requried to pay due to its own laws, one gets double taxed, the home carriers could claim they were being discriminated and sue on equity grounds that they might have to pay (you can impose something on vessels registered in your own country) etc etc etc.

Think of it like this. it would be like the EU suggesting that say the VW factory in germany uses metal parts. That metal comes from Australia. It is being used by a european plant, and probably for european consumption. So they EU says "we must include the energy used to extrat the metal from the ground in Australia as part of the process, so as not to put a mine somewhere in say eastern europe at a disadvantage", and then make it a requirement of Australian resource companies, that not just they comply when arriving in Europe but also for operations happening back home in the extraction of the metals. This would be a clear cut violation of Australian sovereignty. Now if they EU wanted they could impose some kind of 'metal wide if used in the EU" penalty, such as a tax, or a purchase of some kind of credits etc. But they couldn't track the consumption of energy used and emissions produced in Australia and directly force it's compliance. This is the fundamental issue here. It is the nature of Long Haul flights that are not legally suited to this scheme because they're not entirely legally within one countries jurisdiction. The EU ETS people are obviously furious because for their scheme to work the way they want it must include as many industries as possible (those with the greatest ability to reduce emissions will help offset those without much ability). That is all good and well but they've forgotten they're talking about things outside their boarders and right to legislate on in THE MANNER THEY PROPOSE! They do have a right to make laws and apply them to carriers landing in their own territory. Just like they have the right to have safety standards etc if you wish to land inside the EU. But that doesn't fit nicely with the european ETS model. And the green lot look at flying as though its an unnecessary 'sin' so they will be VERY VERY keen to make sure its included. They have to find a new way to do it, and but it's probably not going to be able to be traded. That is the core of your problem. If the EU imposed a flat out 'takeoff tax' based aircraft type/max takeoff weight/ etc aimed at reducing consumption you'd have a perfectly legal scheme.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Cerecl
Posted 2012-01-05 19:14:43 and read 4964 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):
Yes they will need to pay, but their competitors will pay relatively more! And the additional costs are not high enough to bring total demand down. So non-EU airlines, unless I don't understand something, will face no disadvantage, if anything they will be a slight advantage. If BMW were told, all cars will cost the customer 10 Euros more, but Asian cars will be 15 Euros more, I don't think they'll send the German government into a rage about it to be honest.

All true, but you made the assumption that dealings between industries/countries are entirely rational and based on nothing but hard numbers. To me, this is nothing more than "why the heck do I have to do what you want?". I think you are a very reasonable person, and that BMW will not be as reasonable should the scenario outlined comes to pass. I disagree about the "rage" comment though. One notices the language used was still quite reconciliatory.

Quoting something (Reply 19):
like granting LH daily A380 flights into PEK, only to revoke them days before the service started

This occurred in the wake of a fairly major accident which exposed many deficiencies in the airline industry in China. This coupled with the fact of PEK is the capital airport which is associated with certain prestige and caution. The landing rights was never revoked, it was delayed. I think it will be hard to label this a shenanigan,

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aloges
Posted 2012-01-05 19:45:11 and read 4909 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
The semantics are meaningless.

You must be joking. This entire discussion is circling around semantics and now they're suddenly meaningless because the fact that the ETS isn't a tax by any definition does not suit your argument?

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
When a government tells any entity - a corporation, an individual, whatever - that they have to take (or stop taking) some action, or else face a legally-binding obligation to pay money, that's a tax.

Again, are you joking? You have just defined fines as taxes - I wonder if that, too, is

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
law 101.

Anyway, in a couple month's time the ETS will be proven to have not ended the world of aviation as we know it and we can re-focus on the really important issues... such as the retirement of DL's DC-9s.   

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2012-01-05 21:00:15 and read 4774 times.

In other news, something's going on in China that the communist party doesn't want its people to pay attention to, so... ETS bad!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.

It's like if you moved out of the US and had to keep paying income tax in the US. Oh wait...

Quoting commavia (Reply 24):
There is no question - at least to me - that the EU would lose. The only question is whether or not the U.S., China, Russia, India, etc. will push it that far.

If they could unite together, the EU would lose instantly, but such a coalition of the ETS-adverse is unlikely.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 79):
If the EU imposed a flat out 'takeoff tax' based aircraft type/max takeoff weight/ etc aimed at reducing consumption you'd have a perfectly legal scheme.

For whatever reason, the EU wanted the tax to be in direct relation to the amount of emission generated, for which including distance flown is a more reliable measurement than aircraft type or take-off weight alone

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Cerecl
Posted 2012-01-05 21:21:07 and read 4736 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 82):
something's going on in China that the communist party doesn't want its people to pay attention to, so... ETS bad!

   I will be very surprised if more than 5% of Chinese actually read this piece of news. A great diversion tactic, no doubt.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mandala499
Posted 2012-01-05 22:52:11 and read 4577 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 62):
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Flight routes are different every single day. North Atlantic crossings are redefined daily, planes file different routes due to wind etc., directs are given, holdings are flown. The flight from Geneva to Munich over Switzerland will have a different EU segment every single day. To track and convert that into ETS credits.... the complexity boggles my mind.

Flight routes are different every day, and the enroute nav charges follow the different routes everyday, and are charged based on weight classes of the aircraft... which reflect the emissions of the aircraft used. It's not more complex than the enroute nav charges which everyone does everyday.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64):
No. There are already provisions for that. As soon as a region have a method for reducing emissions in accordance with the Kyoto agreement levels that part will be removed from EU ETS.

This, I guess, is what the hardcore proponent and hardcore opponents tend to forget... the logic and common sense that has been put into to something that can simply be spun into ridicule.   

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-01-05 23:13:26 and read 4523 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 82):
For whatever reason, the EU wanted the tax to be in direct relation to the amount of emission generated, for which including distance flown is a more reliable measurement than aircraft type or take-off weight alone

Of course and that is only natural if that is your objective. I think it misses the point. This isn't about if you agree with an ETS or not an ETS. This is about Europe legislating and attempting to impose its laws outside its jurisdiction. Those who are in favor of an ETS are only viewing it from the point of "we have to do something to reduce emissions so this must be included no matter what". I see their point. If you accept their argument as the end goal, it's obvious what they're trying to achieve. The method they are using to achieve that, from a legal stand point of view is basically Colonialist. We walk in, take over and force our laws upon you like it or not on your own soil. Even if it was a relatively small amount of money, say $2 per flight or the like, it is the principle of unilaterally imposing a law on another country over its assets in its own space is unacceptable. The EU if it really wants to do this, needs to negotiate this during bilateral trade agreements as a condition of air services too and from Europe. If the other parties agree well then of course this would then be perfectly legal. I suspect the EU knows however it will not get such negotiations without giving big tradeoff's elsewhere, (such as say greater access for argiculture or other tariff barriers removed). In the eurozone's current mess, I can see that going down like a ton of bricks. One thing is for sure, i bet Turkish Airlines is loving this. They have a very big and growing hub just outside the EU's doorstep. In an environment were margins are often just a few percent this could spell a very big advantage for them.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-06 00:58:44 and read 4287 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
there is absolutely no treaty - bilateral let alone multilateral - that in any way permits the EU to tax the activities of non-EU companies outside the EU

I hear what you're saying but try to look at it from the EU view for a moment and you may reach a different conclusion. If not you should be able to give better arguments for your view.

EU is saying they are not "charging" for flying outside EU. They are saying they are "charging" you for landing on EU territory. The amount charged depends on where you're coming from, same as ADP but much more detailed, and the efficiency you used, not as ADP but similar to how you pay for different MTOW or engines noise level.

I think they have a very good case for this argument and if ADP is legal, then this should be legal too.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
Your jurisdiction to tax, penalize, mandate emissions trading, whatever ends at your border

There is a thread at non-av where a lot of people are arguing that US have reserved the right to violate international treaties, especially as it applies to apprehend and hold with or without involving any form of court. Then there are taxation too. It is hard to combine that with the arguments made by objectors here. And as explained above, EU does not consider ETS to happen outside EU territory since it is landing on EU soil that is the trigger.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
The semantics are meaningless. It's a tax - in practice

Most of all it is a CAP on CO2 emissions. A CAP that is reduced each year and thus enforces reduction of emissions.

Secondly there is a tax element. An element that has been incredibly small so far, less than 10% in most EU countries and 0% in most. It is expected to go to 50% in the third phase. Mostly due to complaints from companies complaining their competition got unfair advantages from too high allocations.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
it's comical since the EU could avoid just about all of this by just coming out and calling it a tax and applying it somewhat differently

That should be a big indicator it is about other things than tax. You may not agree with most of the things they are doing but it should be clear that they have some extremely smart minds working there.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 79):
the fact is the EU is attempting to create a legal requirement that,for example, a chinese airline XYZ pays for something on a chinese owned aircraft over china.

No, for landing on EU territory calculated on the equipment they use and how long it flew. Essentially a combination of ADP, MTOW for landing fees and different rates depending on engines noise levels.

I know that is not how you like to see it but that is how they see it. If you think they are wrong then provide arguments why but I think they have very cleverly found a way to stay inside commitments, while achieving much of what you describe.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 79):
So they EU says "we must include the energy used to extrat the metal from the ground in Australia as part of the process,

There has been legislation about how products imported have been produced in most developed and many developing countries for long times already. There are legislation about products can not be produced with child labor, minimum employee conditions, limitations on chemicals used in the processes and so on.

May I also suggest that you break down long sections in to paragraphs to make them easier to read. Just a friendly suggestion.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2012-01-06 07:04:39 and read 4077 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 46):
How exactly does a small and avoidable fee that only applies to flights into or out of EU territory limit the sovereignty of any nation?

Numerous posts have already directly answered this question, so do read them for your own enlightenment. If that is still beyond comprehension, lets imagine this hypothetical scenario:

A country decides to ban all forms of smoking and imposes fines on those who insist on smoking based on the number of cigarette sticks consumed. But instead of fining only the quantity of sticks smoked within the country, they also fine all tourists by the total number of sticks smoked from the point they embark on their journey to the said country, including cigarettes smoked and disposed off well outside the country.

For some reason, some people here consider this completely fair.

Quoting aloges (Reply 46):
I should hope that there are at least a few grown-ups present in the committees that are working on this... the kind of person who doesn't shout "Hooray, trade war!" whilst waggling two middle fingers; which is apparently what some a.netters expect from international negotiations.

Last I checked, grown-ups are largely responsible for most of the world's costliest mistakes both in terms of lives lost and in fiscal terms.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-06 08:42:44 and read 4000 times.

http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/...t/spot-eua-chart/2012-01-02/0/1/1y

Real time prices for ETS certificates. LH based their calculation on €30 per certificate (1 ton of CO2). They're currently sold for €6.82.

So much for that..

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-01-06 09:39:43 and read 3961 times.

Quoting something (Reply 88):
Real time prices for ETS certificates. LH based their calculation on €30 per certificate (1 ton of CO2). They're currently sold for €6.82.

So much for that..

It's falling to bits because the market for them globally is having the bottom fall out of it. Durban was basically a failure, what was looking appealing to bankers holding carbon credits in europe aren't looking quite so valuable anymore. Add to that political uncertainty as to even the very existance of the eurozone, countries being kicked out or deliberately defaulting in defiance of the EU (not saying it will happen, the point is there is 'the risk' that it might) and you have an asset that looks a risky investment. So those holding them hoping to make money will dump them. And industries suffering badly in a downturn will be be lobbying for exemptions. It's all about the perception of the risk. it could just as easily be reversed.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-06 09:52:02 and read 3943 times.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 89):
Quoting something (Reply 88):
Real time prices for ETS certificates. LH based their calculation on €30 per certificate (1 ton of CO2). They're currently sold for €6.82.

So much for that..

It's falling to bits because the market for them globally is having the bottom fall out of it. Durban was basically a failure, what was looking appealing to bankers holding carbon credits in europe aren't looking quite so valuable anymore. Add to that political uncertainty as to even the very existance of the eurozone, countries being kicked out or deliberately defaulting in defiance of the EU (not saying it will happen, the point is there is 'the risk' that it might) and you have an asset that looks a risky investment. So those holding them hoping to make money will dump them. And industries suffering badly in a downturn will be be lobbying for exemptions. It's all about the perception of the risk. it could just as easily be reversed.

???

The price falls because you can't use a 2011 certificate in 2012, therefore prices decrease in value. That's the only reason.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-01-06 12:27:31 and read 3856 times.

Let's make one thing clear...again. The EU chairman of transportation has said publically that the scheme does nothing to reduce carbon emissions and is intended to increase revenue for EU member countries. So why are people still claiming that this has anything to do with the environment?

It won't...we know this because one of the people in charge of it said it won't. They've admitted it...they let the cat out of the bag...the jig is up...the parrot is dead.

The scheme is being enacted as a pan europen environment policy because it allows the EU to apply a tax while bypassing the Chicago Convention accords. It was specifically enacted by the EU government because they are not a signatory to the accords. These accords, by the way, also cover other forms of commercial transportation between countries, not just air travel.

So enough fantasies about how this will reduce carbon emission, or even if it is intended to....it's not.

That's what has the rest of the world, (and every airline that flies to or from the EU), pissed...it is a tax, fee, fine whatever, based on the amount of fuel used, which would be illegal if enacted by any single EU country, but which, through what they see as a loophole, can enact on behalf of all EU countries, which will benefit the individual countries as if they each enacted the tax.

So enough about polar bears or grand children or the furry backed gnat...if the EU actually cares about the environment, by their own admission, this scheme is not an example of it.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-06 12:50:31 and read 3822 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 91):
Let's make one thing clear...again. The EU chairman of transportation has said publically that the scheme does nothing to reduce carbon emissions and is intended to increase revenue for EU member countries. So why are people still claiming that this has anything to do with the environment?

Because you are making these ridiculous statements up?

There are infinite links that explain to you - and everybody else - whereto the revenues are being redistributed.
And if you knew even the first thing about the ETS you would also know that it's a cap-and-trade mechanism that will not lower emissions, but cap them at a certain level to keep them in compliance with the Kyoto protocol. You know, the thing Canada signed and then abandoned.

Aren't you people ashamed? You keep making these ludicrous ideas and scenarios up, that are entirely devoid of factual proof, and hope that people are going to believe it. At the same time you reject every factual statement, every scientific proof as false and fake.

Your premises are flawed, therefore, your conclusions are as well. This is a discussion forum - but if one side is living in a fantasy world, then there is no discussion but just a great waste of time going on.

Hence, my resignation from these posts. It's not even funny anymore. It's just shocking and sad.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-01-06 15:05:49 and read 3736 times.

Quoting something (Reply 92):

I have shown you the quotes and the statement from the chairman twice. I could do it a third time but why bother?

Am I ashamed that Canada quit the completely unfair, unworkable and boneheaded kyoto accord? On the contrary, I completely backed the move.

The biggest carbon emitters on the planet were excluded as developing countries...who all happen to have space programs and military spending in the billions, as well as hi tech export industries.

Yet when China says they may decide to make a decision by 2015, yet will do nothing until at least 2020, they are lauded as saviors.

Aren't you ashamed that in their efforts to point their nasty little fingers at Canada, these guys met all the way in Durban....spewing thousands of tons of carbon into the air for nothing more than a photo op, when they could have made a much more credible impact doing exactly the same thing online...carbon free?

Of course you're not...some minds refuse to open.

I changed my mind...here's the quote from European Parliament Transport Committee chairman Brian Simpson

atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/eu-mp-europe-will-not-back-down-ets-1104


“We have a situation at the moment where the US, Russia, China and India are campaigning vigorously against the introduction of ETS. And yet, within the EU, governments are keen to press ahead because they desperately need the money. They won’t say that—oh no—they will claim it’s to help the environment, just as they do with Air Passenger Duty. But let’s be under no illusions here—both ETS and APD are being used as revenue streams for hard-up governments and not for environmental protections measures,” Simpson said.

Is that factual proof enough for you...again? Nah...that guy must have it all wrong...he's only the chairman of the committee responsible for enacting the legislation. What would he know?

It's not my premise...it's my research...it's Simpson's premise. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-06 15:22:10 and read 3722 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
That is different than entry requirements for passengers bound for the US or many other nations.

But I wasn't talking about entry requirements. The US requires LH, for instance, to send out detailed passenger information while the plane is still in FRA. That's not an entry requirement, which could be dealt with in the US. It's extra-territorial in nature, but it only applies to US-bound planes, hence why it's deemed acceptable. Same with ETS.

Quoting commavia (Reply 75):
One needs only look at some of the recent goings on in Europe and the Eurozone (as one of many examples relevant to this thread) to see what happens when a cadre of unelected bureaucrats disregard the popular will of the people.

What are you talking about? Who are those "unelected bureaucrats"? And what "will of the people" have they disregarded?

Quoting commavia (Reply 75):
Given that alternative, I'll take our alleged "gridlock" all day long.

There are other alternatives.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
It's a tax

It is not. Again, if by now you haven't understood that a cap&trade scheme is not a tax, there's not much I can do.

Quoting commavia (Reply 77):
When a government tells any entity - a corporation, an individual, whatever - that they have to take (or stop taking) some action, or else face a legally-binding obligation to pay money, that's a tax.

Uh? What you're defining is a law, I'd guess, or a regulation. But certainly not a tax!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 91):
The EU chairman of transportation has said publically that the scheme does nothing to reduce carbon emissions and is intended to increase revenue for EU member countries.

I guess you are talking about Brian Simpson, the British chair of the transportation committee of the European parliament. He has always been opposed to ETS, which came from the environment committee. His opinion is, well, just an opinion.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-06 15:24:53 and read 3709 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 93):
Nah...that guy must have it all wrong...he's only the chairman of the committee responsible for enacting the legislation. What would he know?

See below.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 94):
Brian Simpson, the British chair of the transportation committee of the European parliament. He has always been opposed to ETS, which came from the environment committee. His opinion is, well, just an opinion.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-06 16:31:54 and read 3683 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 93):
Yet when China says they may decide to make a decision by 2015, yet will do nothing until at least 2020, they are lauded as saviors.

They're lauded? By whom? Aren't they ''kind of''' attacked on all fronts by Europe by forcing them to comply with the ETS or to stay the F out?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 93):
Aren't you ashamed that in their efforts to point their nasty little fingers at Canada, these guys met all the way in Durban....spewing thousands of tons of carbon into the air for nothing more than a photo op, when they could have made a much more credible impact doing exactly the same thing online...carbon free?

I am not a fan of the Kyoto protocol, nor am I fan of these climate summits. They don't solve much and it's just a waste of money, time and ressources. My problem however is of a different nature, than the mode of transport the ministers chose to get there. That's not even a driplet in the ocean.

My problem is that ''dirty nations'' aren't forced to follow a certain protocol. They're asked to sign it, and if they don't, nothing is going to change for them. (well, they get financial aid if they do sign it and are eligible..)

Make these summits about something, like a court trial, or quit fooling yourselves. Period.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 93):
“We have a situation at the moment where the US, Russia, China and India are campaigning vigorously against the introduction of ETS. And yet, within the EU, governments are keen to press ahead because they desperately need the money. They won’t say that—oh no—they will claim it’s to help the environment, just as they do with Air Passenger Duty. But let’s be under no illusions here—both ETS and APD are being used as revenue streams for hard-up governments and not for environmental protections measures,” Simpson said.

Is that factual proof enough for you...again? Nah...that guy must have it all wrong...he's only the chairman of the committee responsible for enacting the legislation. What would he know?

But these 'hard up governments' are legally mandated to spend this money only on certain projects. You can't pay off your debt, build bridges or equip your army with the money, or hijack it in any other way.

I mean yes, it can be seen as a form of subsidy which will artifically stimulate the economy. But then again, it can also be seen as a tax that will artificially stymy the economy.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 94):
What are you talking about? Who are those "unelected bureaucrats"? And what "will of the people" have they disregarded?

On that note, it might be interesting to point out that Switzerland has also joined this emission certificate trade scheme. And they're not even part of the EU. What a bulletproof argument..

Quoting UALWN (Reply 94):
I guess you are talking about Brian Simpson, the British chair of the transportation committee of the European parliament. He has always been opposed to ETS, which came from the environment committee. His opinion is, well, just an opinion.

In the Committee on Transport and Tourism he has worked as the Socialist Group shadow draftperson on the European Commission proposals on the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, safety on the Community's railways, and is accepted as being one of the senior members of that Committee dealing with Civil Aviation matters.

I would be extremely surprised if that guys wasn't impartial. Especially since what he claims will happen, is in violation of the law.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-06 19:22:56 and read 3642 times.

By the way.. if you want to knock the ETS, this would be an actually valuable corroboration of your sentiment.

It's German, only, but it's a remarkable article about all the scams that are going on in the name of this ETS. It focuses on a project that allows companies that help 2nd and 3rd world countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (not carbon, but HFC-23) to acquire ets certificates. The joke is, that it costs much less to dispose of these toxic fumes, than what the certificates are worth, so these poor countries are actually producing more of these toxic fumes than they did before, so that German companies can dispose of them, get the certificates and sell them for more money. A waste disposal that costs about 40 cents will earn you a certificate worth €6.82 right now, but it's also been at €17 at one point.

That is the true joke.

Not that a plane over Siberia shouldn't have to pay the EU.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-07 05:25:55 and read 3527 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 94):
That's not an entry requirement,

Yes it is. And that is a completely stupid argument since the ability for a nation to require certain conditions to be met for entry is long established and accepted. Is it also a violation of sovereignty to require people entering the country to have passports and visas?

Quoting something (Reply 96):
My problem is that ''dirty nations'' aren't forced to follow a certain protocol.

That's part of what being a nation is. You want to start sanctions over emissions? How about a war? Show those Mexicans who's boss!

Quoting something (Reply 97):
Not that a plane over Siberia shouldn't have to pay the EU

How can anyone say something like that with a straight face and mean it is beyond me.   

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-07 05:55:48 and read 3502 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Quoting something (Reply 96):
My problem is that ''dirty nations'' aren't forced to follow a certain protocol.

That's part of what being a nation is. You want to start sanctions over emissions? How about a war? Show those Mexicans who's boss!

We leave that to the Texans.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Quoting something (Reply 97):
Not that a plane over Siberia shouldn't have to pay the EU

How can anyone say something like that with a straight face and mean it is beyond me.

Because my cousin is a lawyer and her dad what in the US would be a D.A. They elucidated to me why applying this scheme is not even in a grey area of any trade conventions.

Because I know how the ETS works.

Because my view of what constitutes ''reality'', isn't warped. I'm not delusional.

Because I am quite educated.

Because I have a conscience.

Because I give more credence to the European tourism boards..

Quote:
Bis sich zumindest in einer signifikanten Minderheit aus dieser Gruppe die Erkenntnis durchsetzt, dass die Wirkungen des Klimawandels die Wirtschaft weitaus stärker belasten als Klimaschutzmaßnahmen, besteht kaum Hoffnung auf echte Bewegung.
Quote:
Translation: Until at least a significant part of the group [China, Russia, USA, India] begins to realize that the ramifications of climate change will have a much more devastating effect on their respective economies than climate protection measures, there's no real hope for progress.

than I give to people who live in a bubble and think it doesn't make them look crazy to deny human-made global warming.


Obviously, these steps aren't going far enough, but somebody's got to make a start, at some point. If other nations prefer to drive the world against a world, then there's nothing Europe can do to stop them from it. Unfortunately. But this are not the rules Europe plays by anymore, and if you're not willing to comply, just don't go to Europe anymore - in exactly the same manner that since the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act and 911 paranoia I am refusing to visit the USA.

Again, this program isn't even anywhere close to being perfect but it's better than nothing. So I take an unsatisfactory compromice over resignation any day.


Oh and P.S. The problem isn't that you have concerns about the legality of the scheme, or are worried about your economies. Judging by the lines of argumentation you 'critics' display, it is quite obvious that your knowledge doesn't exceed ''repeating what I heard on some news channel''. That's all not the problem.

The true problem is that you don't accept that global warming exists, or at least not that it's man-made. And now your feelings are hurt that some evil communist Europeans are subjecting you to their commie plot, so their governments can grow, and the good, hard working people have to suffer.

But that's not an alternative opinion, or a different take. That's straight out of the DSM handbook..

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-07 06:28:58 and read 3459 times.

Quoting something (Reply 99):
Because my cousin is a lawyer and her dad what in the US would be a D.A. They elucidated to me why applying this scheme is not even in a grey area of any trade conventions.

Because I know how the ETS works.

Because my view of what constitutes ''reality'', isn't warped. I'm not delusional.

Because I am quite educated.

Because I have a conscience.

Because I give more credence to the European tourism boards..

And because you do not respect the sovereignty of other nations in the least.

Quoting something (Reply 99):
But this are not the rules Europe plays by anymore, and if you're not willing to comply, just don't go to Europe anymore - in exactly the same manner that since the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act and 911 paranoia I am refusing to visit the USA.

It goes beyond that. If it were that simple, just a tax people pay to go to Europe, it wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that it is extra-territorial and a blatant violation of national sovereignty. The EU could just levy an entry tax, or just tax a pro-rated portion of the flight to cover EU territory, but they don't. It's a specific measure targeting foreign planes over foreign territory.

Quoting something (Reply 99):
Judging by the lines of argumentation you 'critics' display, it is quite obvious that your knowledge doesn't exceed ''repeating what I heard on some news channel''.

It's not even in the news over here. And I don't dispute that the EU can do whatever they want in the EU. But when they start taxing the portion of a flight between, say, Los Angeles and where that flight enters the EU over Ireland, that is a serious problem. If the EU wants to take measures that make their businesses less competitive, it isn't my problem.

Quoting something (Reply 99):
The true problem is that you don't accept that global warming exists, or at least not that it's man-made

I just don't care. That's different.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-07 09:41:02 and read 3391 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
And because you do not respect the sovereignty of other nations in the least.

This is not a legal issue. Neutral, objective courts have examined the case and found it to be in full compliance with all existing trade conventions.

Why can't you accept that this is perfectly legal?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
It goes beyond that. If it were that simple, just a tax people pay to go to Europe, it wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that it is extra-territorial and a blatant violation of national sovereignty. The EU could just levy an entry tax, or just tax a pro-rated portion of the flight to cover EU territory, but they don't. It's a specific measure targeting foreign planes over foreign territory.

But that's semantics. They couldn't have called it a tax, or used taxation, because that wouldn't have set a limit to the carbon emissions, which essentially is the whole point of the scheme.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
It's not even in the news over here. And I don't dispute that the EU can do whatever they want in the EU. But when they start taxing the portion of a flight between, say, Los Angeles and where that flight enters the EU over Ireland, that is a serious problem. If the EU wants to take measures that make their businesses less competitive, it isn't my problem.

But this business couldn't be done without Europe. So if Europe says ''we don't accept imports that don't pay for the carbon they emit'', then foreign airlines can either accept that or stay out.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Quoting something (Reply 99):
The true problem is that you don't accept that global warming exists, or at least not that it's man-made

I just don't care. That's different.

Fundamentally and makes you a lot more credible in my eyes.

But if that's where you stand, then we will have to agree to disagree. You don't care about the future of the earth's environment, I (~ the EU) doesn't care about short term profits enough to neglect the effects this strategy will have in the future.


This is not directed at you, BMI727, at all, but a rather enlightening article on why Europeans and Americans disagree on so many basic political questions, titled Why Americans Believe Almost Anything:

http://www.rense.com/general12/believe.htm

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-07 10:09:52 and read 3378 times.

Quoting something (Reply 101):
This is not a legal issue. Neutral, objective courts have examined the case and found it to be in full compliance with all existing trade conventions.

What they determined is that the EU can implement this without violating the Chicago convention since the EU did not sign the agreement although member states did. Which is important since Article 1 states:

Quote:
Article 1: Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory.

So, they get around that by saying the EU didn't sign the agreement so they can't violate an agreement they didn't sign. That's fine. It essentially places EU policy over the policy of sovereign European nations, which would make me very uncomfortable if I were a European, but it is what it is.

The issue, is that Article 1 isn't anything groundbreaking or complicated, it's stating the obvious. Any nation does and should have complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory. But then here comes the EU ready to charge airlines for flying over other nations' territories. And other countries are rightfully pissed off about that.

Quoting something (Reply 101):
because that wouldn't have set a limit to the carbon emissions, which essentially is the whole point of the scheme.

They are setting and enforcing a limit outside their territory so, again, it's a violation of sovereignty.

Quoting something (Reply 101):
So if Europe says ''we don't accept imports that don't pay for the carbon they emit'', then foreign airlines can either accept that or stay out.

Now you're making an apples to oranges comparison. If the EU or anywhere else says "you can't sell this car here since it doesn't meet our standards" that's perfectly fine. If they say "you can't sell this product because you didn't buy a carbon credit for the factory that made it halfway around the world" then there is an issue. They cannot attempt to regulate things outside their jurisdiction.

Quoting something (Reply 101):
You don't care about the future of the earth's environment

Not enough to throw away $3 on carbon credits.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-07 10:21:23 and read 3359 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Yes it is. And that is a completely stupid argument since the ability for a nation to require certain conditions to be met for entry is long established and accepted.

But the US is going well beyond that by requiring personal details of anybody in a plane sitting in Europe before the plane leaves European soil, not at the time of landing in the US. Why? Because the US asserts its right to deal with a plane that is headed to the US, even when it is not in US airspace. Same for ETS.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-07 10:27:15 and read 3346 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 103):
Why?

Because such details need to be known before the plane enters the US so it can be denied entry if necessary.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 103):
Because the US asserts its right to deal with a plane that is headed to the US, even when it is not in US airspace.

The US asserts its right to not allow entry to an aircraft based on who or what may be on it.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-07 10:30:22 and read 3343 times.

This may sound stupid (knowing me) but what difference will it make ?

We'll all pay 3 bucks extra and all the crap will still get pumped out into the atmosphere. Just as in every other industry.

This is the earth ---- >>   

Two thirds of us all either starve to death in the cold and dark or we just carry on.

Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I vote we just carry on and hope technology finds an answer.

How can the old world deny the new their time in the sun ? (forgive the pun)

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-07 10:44:31 and read 3316 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
So, they get around that by saying the EU didn't sign the agreement so they can't violate an agreement they didn't sign. That's fine. It essentially places EU policy over the policy of sovereign European nations, which would make me very uncomfortable if I were a European, but it is what it is.

If you read the verdict of the EU court you will see that this has nothing to do with it.

The ETS doesn't discriminate against corporations or different countries but applies the regulation to all participants unilaterally. Because the ETS isn't a tax, since you can earn money with it, it doesn't violate any open skies agreements either.

Codified law is really simple to understand. There are different statutes and you just have to check if any new measure is in breach with them. If it isn't, it's legal.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
Now you're making an apples to oranges comparison. If the EU or anywhere else says "you can't sell this car here since it doesn't meet our standards" that's perfectly fine. If they say "you can't sell this product because you didn't buy a carbon credit for the factory that made it halfway around the world" then there is an issue. They cannot attempt to regulate things outside their jurisdiction.

But the EU does, for example, not allow products to be imported that were manufactured by children. That's the same logic.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 105):
We'll all pay 3 bucks extra and all the crap will still get pumped out into the atmosphere. Just as in every other industry.

Very right. Oil will be burned until we've run out of it. So will coal.

But governments shouldn't be and aren't nihilistic, so you have to make a start at some point, no matter how futile it may seem. They were pretty successful banning CFC after all.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 105):
How can the old world deny the new their time in the sun ?

That's a rather profound question and China's point exactly.

But the answer is rather obvious: It's irresposible and stupid to believe coal and oil are cheap sources of alternative. They're cheap to use today, but they will become unaffordable once you factor in all the damages global warming will cause.

Imagine you could fight a cold by smoking cigarettes, and it'd be cheaper over a 10 years period than taking regular meds. However, after these 10 years you have lung cancer and the treatment for that costs 1000 times the savings of choosing cigs over meds for that 10 years period.

That's the dimensions we are dealing with here.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-07 11:01:54 and read 3303 times.

Quoting something (Reply 106):
Codified law is really simple to understand. There are different statutes and you just have to check if any new measure is in breach with them. If it isn't, it's legal.

I guess the EU believes that stepping on the toes of other countries' sovereignty is legal then.

Quoting something (Reply 106):
But the EU does, for example, not allow products to be imported that were manufactured by children. That's the same logic.

And frankly, it's just as wrong. But when you're dealing with something like child labor, it's easier to look the other way. Applying EU laws worldwide is still a serious affront to sovereignty and the EU should expect a strong push back.

Quoting something (Reply 106):
Oil will be burned until we've run out of it.

The chances that we will run out of oil are basically nil.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-07 11:11:35 and read 3303 times.

Anyone that's flown as much as I have will at some point have wandered to the rear of a 747 and looked aft out of the windows in doors 5 to witness the rather impressive sight of the birth of contrails.

For one thing it's the only way to get an impression of just how fast you are actually moving mid-flight but it also inflicts (on me anyway) a pang of guilt to see all that carbon dioxide (and harmless water vapour) being jettisoned out into the crystal clear and blue.

It doesn't stop me flying though, or driving, or turning on the heating, or a light...........

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-07 14:43:37 and read 3230 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
They are setting and enforcing a limit outside their territory so, again, it's a violation of sovereignty.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still a lie.

They only enforce a limit inside their territory. Anyone can fly as much as they like outside. They can even fly over EU. What they can't do is land on EU territory, plus Norway and if not yet soon Switzerland. Any reasonable person understand this means they do not set a limit outside their territory.

That once you land inside EU they calculate the allowance based on the total trip does not constitute setting limits outside their territory. As ADP has clearly shown.

Time to stop lying about what is happening.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
Now you're making an apples to oranges comparison. If the EU or anywhere else says "you can't sell this car here since it doesn't meet our standards" that's perfectly fine. If they say "you can't sell this product because you didn't buy a carbon credit for the factory that made it halfway around the world" then there is an issue. They cannot attempt to regulate things outside their jurisdiction.

Again, they are not regulating anything outside. They are regulating what you can bring in to EU. And again that is established law. You can't bring in good produced by child labor, you can't bring in good produced with various chemicals even though those chemicals are no longer present, and so on.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 105):
We'll all pay 3 bucks extra and all the crap will still get pumped out into the atmosphere. Just as in every other industry.

And with that you show that you have still not understood what CAP and trade means. CAP sets a total limit for all participants. Some can go over their direct allocation by using other participants allocations but the total can't be exceeded. That means it stops the year by year increase of emissions and it reduces it because the CAP is 1.74% lower each year.

It isn't difficult to understand. If you have objections that's fine but object to how it is setup. Don't use false claims, especially not when you have multiple times been told how it actually works. It makes you look foolish.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-07 14:55:02 and read 3216 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 109):
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still a lie.

Except for the little detail that it isn't.

Quoting cmf (Reply 109):
Again, they are not regulating anything outside.

It's a charge based on emissions made completely outside the EU. There is no way that they can get around the extra-territorial nature of the scheme.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-07 15:07:23 and read 3208 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 109):
And with that you show that you have still not understood what CAP and trade means. CAP sets a total limit for all participants. Some can go over their direct allocation by using other participants allocations but the total can't be exceeded. That means it stops the year by year increase of emissions and it reduces it because the CAP is 1.74% lower each year.

It's a load of bullsh*t that will never work..it's totally unworkable.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-07 15:32:05 and read 3179 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
Because such details need to be known before the plane enters the US so it can be denied entry if necessary.

They don't need to be known at all. Passengers can be screened at the border, as every other country in the world does.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-07 15:48:15 and read 3168 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 109):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
They are setting and enforcing a limit outside their territory so, again, it's a violation of sovereignty.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still a lie.

...and no matter how many times you try to rationalize this to yourself, the fact is that the EU is charging airlines for something they did outside the EU, they're forcing airlines to buy EU carbon credits for carbon not emitted in the EU's jurisdiction.

Quoting cmf (Reply 109):

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
Now you're making an apples to oranges comparison. If the EU or anywhere else says "you can't sell this car here since it doesn't meet our standards" that's perfectly fine. If they say "you can't sell this product because you didn't buy a carbon credit for the factory that made it halfway around the world" then there is an issue. They cannot attempt to regulate things outside their jurisdiction.

Again, they are not regulating anything outside. They are regulating what you can bring in to EU.

This in no way makes sense, regulating carbon emissions outside of the EU is exactly what they're doing via the caps enforced and the credits airlines have to buy. Sure, they may not give you a bill until you've landed in the EU, but that bill/carbon credits needing to be purchased is levied based on emissions made OUTSIDE the EU.

Quoting something (Reply 106):
But the answer is rather obvious: It's irresposible and stupid to believe coal and oil are cheap sources of alternative. They're cheap to use today, but they will become unaffordable once you factor in all the damages global warming will cause.

Imagine you could fight a cold by smoking cigarettes, and it'd be cheaper over a 10 years period than taking regular meds. However, after these 10 years you have lung cancer and the treatment for that costs 1000 times the savings of choosing cigs over meds for that 10 years period.

That's the dimensions we are dealing with here.

But, see, just what are the limits or boundaries to this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" mentality that you seem to possess? With that line of thinking that 'we have to save the planet' it seems like you could justify just about any action. Sure, today it's forcing private companies into contracts via the purchasing of carbon credits...but where does it end? Would you support going to war with a rogue, polluting nation that refuses to do their fair share in the fight against global warming? What are the limits?

Quoting something (Reply 99):
Because my cousin is a lawyer and her dad what in the US would be a D.A. They elucidated to me why applying this scheme is not even in a grey area of any trade conventions.

Because I know how the ETS works.

Because my view of what constitutes ''reality'', isn't warped. I'm not delusional.

Because I am quite educated.

Because I have a conscience.

Because I give more credence to the European tourism boards..

Your modesty is charming  
Quoting something (Reply 101):
a rather enlightening article on why Europeans and Americans disagree

Americans often disagree with Europeans because we have a strong concept of property rights and strict recognition of the rights of the individual and we aren't so quick to rally to the subversion of those rights to the pursuit of 'great social causes'. It's not that most Americans don't believe in global warming, it's more that we're not willing to eviscerate ourselves economically for it and rather believe that through innovation and technological advancement we'll be able to find a better solution.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aerokiwi
Posted 2012-01-07 16:03:01 and read 3157 times.

Quoting something (Reply 19):
That is really cute.

You know what's cute? The disproportionate impact of the ozone depletion on southern hemisphere countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia, from the use of CFCs for decades. Perhaps you'd be cool with us levying a tax on European travelers to these parts to cover the costs of premature deaths and additional health costs? Or perhaps a case taken to the ICC? Or what about developing countries seeking financial retribution fro the EU and US for market-distorting legislation that relegates millions/billions to poverty and hunger? Seems fair.

Seems far-fetched huh?

But that's what happens with extra-territorial legislation - it sets a precedent that can have far-reaching consequences. Not so much fun when it doesn't relate to your pet-cause of climate change though, is it?

Impose a stupid tax, expect stupid consequences.

Maybe China could just stop buying junk-euro debt for a few weeks. Should topple a few teetering governments.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aerokiwi
Posted 2012-01-07 16:19:29 and read 3145 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
Sorry, but I still don't get it.

You asked - the reasons were explained. Feigning incredulity isn't going to progress things.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-07 22:19:45 and read 3055 times.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 114):
The disproportionate impact of the ozone depletion on southern hemisphere countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia, from the use of CFCs for decades.

But there is no depletion of the southern hemisphere, at least not from Freon. It is just science fiction, way to uncertain to justify action, absolutely not solid enough to justify unilateral legislation.

Do you remember those arguments? Isn't it funny how that view was pushed, especially by DuPont. Until they figured out an alternative that is.

We are going through pretty much the same process with CO2. Claim poor silence. Claim it will just add a lot of cost. Claim it will change nothing.

Let's just keep poring out CO2. Changing relative composition of gases have never changed their effects. Not a single experiment with CO2 have shown it having any kind of reaction. Arrhenius' experiments back in the late 19th century were just faulty conclusions by a person dreaming about warmer weather. He was born a bit too early. He would be much happier now. Let's keep stating reducing CO2 is just a tax so Arrhenius relatives will never freeze again.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: aerokiwi
Posted 2012-01-08 01:22:09 and read 2971 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
But there is no depletion of the southern hemisphere,

The giant ozone hole above my head would suggest otherwise.

Regardless, the point was the dangerous precedent set by extra-territorial punitive taxation. I don't actually think there should be punitive measures to account for this giant cancer-causing hole above my head. Just as I don't think the EU should be pursuing the tax against airlines.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mandala499
Posted 2012-01-08 01:22:18 and read 2984 times.

Quoting aloges (Reply 76):
The CO2 emitted between, say, BKK and the EU border is no different from that emitted between the border and CDG. All of it is emitted because the airline operates a service to an EU airport for passengers travelling to that EU airport. The cause of the emission is relevant, not its location.

Well, it's not an EU issue, it's an international issue. Why should I pay YOUR scheme for things I don't use over your territory? Can someone show me where the provision is in the ETS, that if I pay for my emissions for flights to/from EU through a non-EU ETS, I can get EUETS relief so that I don't have to pay for my emissions twice?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 79):
If the EU imposed a flat out 'takeoff tax' based aircraft type/max takeoff weight/ etc aimed at reducing consumption you'd have a perfectly legal scheme.

And most of the opposition to the EUETS scheme for airlines won't mind that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
EU is saying they are not "charging" for flying outside EU. They are saying they are "charging" you for landing on EU territory.

You are charging me for making CO2 outside EU (as well as inside)... Now, again, if I'm already paying for that CO2 I make outside the EU, I'd like to see the provisions that says I don't have to pay for that again just so that I can land in the EU. And what if I already pay for the emissions I make IN the EU through an ETS elsewhere? (Ie: Sure, I'll pay for it, but not through YOUR scheme)???

Quoting something (Reply 90):
The price falls because you can't use a 2011 certificate in 2012, therefore prices decrease in value. That's the only reason.

Err... they're SPOT prices... ie. continuously rolling delivery. The periodic certificate prices are on a different tab in that link. And yes, the SPOT prices are falling... Now if my understanding is wrong, then please enlighten me on the definition of spot price and the derivative future contract.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 93):
I changed my mind...here's the quote from European Parliament Transport Committee chairman Brian Simpson

atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/eu-mp-europe-will-not-back-down-ets-1104


“We have a situation at the moment where the US, Russia, China and India are campaigning vigorously against the introduction of ETS. And yet, within the EU, governments are keen to press ahead because they desperately need the money. They won’t say that—oh no—they will claim it’s to help the environment, just as they do with Air Passenger Duty. But let’s be under no illusions here—both ETS and APD are being used as revenue streams for hard-up governments and not for environmental protections measures,” Simpson said.

Is that factual proof enough for you...again? Nah...that guy must have it all wrong...he's only the chairman of the committee responsible for enacting the legislation. What would he know?

It's not my premise...it's my research...it's Simpson's premise. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

  

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 113):
Sure, they may not give you a bill until you've landed in the EU, but that bill/carbon credits needing to be purchased is levied based on emissions made OUTSIDE the EU.

Let me rephrase that...
]Sure, they may not give you a bill until you've landed in the EU, but that bill/carbon credits needing to be purchased is levied based on emissions made INSIDE PLUS emissions made OUTSIDE the EU.
It's the emissons made outside the EU bit everyone else is peeved off about.

And this argument of "it's hard to make it for emissions made inside the EU only, as it'll be a bureaucratic nightmare because flight paths change everyday", is total rubbish! Airlines pay enroute nav charges to each country overflown each day based on the flight paths they fly on everyday... based on distance, weight, etc... Trying to say that "it's too hard" for that aspect means someone's lazy or deliberately acting stupid to get more money!

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mikey72
Posted 2012-01-08 02:44:20 and read 2927 times.

In the past nations had the pitiful but still valid excuse of 'ignorance' with regard to the harm they were inflicting upon the planet.

Present developing nations 'do' know what they are doing.

Do they care ?

Or like the West in the 1980's are they just concerned with the length of the waiting list for the Bentley Continental V8 or where they can lay their hands on the latest Jane Birkin handbag ?

Wander the streets of London and I think you'll find the answer.

And who can blame them !

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-08 03:37:41 and read 2899 times.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 117):
The giant ozone hole above my head would suggest otherwise.

I thought the second paragraph would make it clear I was sarcastic. Of course there is a big giant hole causeing plenty of problems. But just as effects of emissions are cast in doubt now, the ozone hole, it's existence, mans influence, and so on was cast in doubt before. I remember articles stating that since the hole wasn't the same size this year it was all fake science. The similarities are incredible.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 118):
Can someone show me where the provision is in the ETS, that if I pay for my emissions for flights to/from EU through a non-EU ETS, I can get EUETS relief so that I don't have to pay for my emissions twice?

(17) The Community and its Member States should continue to seek an agreement on global measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. The Community scheme may serve as a model for the use of emissions trading worldwide. The Community and its Member States should continue to be in contact with third parties during the implementation of this Directive and to encourage third countries to take equivalent measures. If a third country adopts measures, which have an environmental effect at least equivalent to that of this Directive, to reduce the climate impact of flights to the Community, the Commission should consider the options available in order to provide for optimal interaction between the Community scheme and that country’s measures, after consulting with that country. Emissions trading schemes being developed in third countries are beginning to provide for optimal interaction with the Community scheme in relation to their coverage of aviation. Bilateral arrangements on linking the Community scheme with other trading schemes to form a common scheme or taking account of equivalent measures to avoid double regulation could constitute a step towards global agreement. Where such bilateral arrangements are made, the Commission may amend the types of aviation activities included in the Community scheme, including consequential adjustments to the total quantity of allowances to be issued to aircraft operators.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...rv.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0101:EN:HTML


Quoting mandala499 (Reply 118):
And most of the opposition to the EUETS scheme for airlines won't mind that.

Don't think so. There would be a lot of complaints about being inflexible. Not allowing for other (more efficient = cheaper) methods of reducing emissions. And all the standard complaints about not now, makes no good, only a way to fill coffers.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 118):
It's the emissons made outside the EU bit everyone else is peeved off about.

What people are peeved about is constantly changing. For a while it was because it is a tax. We had that it is a charge aviation can't handle at this time. We have had that emissions are not causing global warming. And that aviation's part is insignificant. The highlights of that volcanoes are causing more so we should put a lid on them first    What people are peeved about is just a rotating target based on what they think will get most traction. Reality is that they do not want to deal with keeping emissions down. Put it under the rug and let someone else deal with it mentality.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 118):
You are charging me for making CO2 outside EU (as well as inside)... Now, again, if I'm already paying for that CO2 I make outside the EU, I'd like to see the provisions that says I don't have to pay for that again just so that I can land in the EU. And what if I already pay for the emissions I make IN the EU through an ETS elsewhere? (Ie: Sure, I'll pay for it, but not through YOUR scheme)???

I've always understood it is EU's goal to hand it over to ICAO. As to how splitting between systems I had originally understood it to be by geography but in http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/t...tion/docs/presentation_icao_en.pdf they indicate it will be based on departure airport.

There is a lot of other interesting information in that presentation, that revenues from auctions are "100 % of revenues should be spent by EU Member States on climate change mitigation and adaptation" for example. Note: this is for the next phase so rules are different than auctions/sales so far.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-08 04:26:32 and read 2854 times.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 115):

You asked - the reasons were explained. Feigning incredulity isn't going to progress things.

Quite the opposite. I demonstrated why non-EU airlines shouldn't be particularly concerned about ETS, and my reasoning was confirmed by other posters. Instead of real reasons, they said, it should be regarded as a matter of principle. I had to leave it at that.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 108):
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 105):

Good posts sir. Sad as it may be, I believe you're rather spot on.

Quoting cmf (Reply 120):
Reality is that they do not want to deal with keeping emissions down. Put it under the rug and let someone else deal with it mentality.

   Correct. If for some reason the EU would budge and redesign ETS to only include segments flown over EU territory, our friends here would instantly come up with the next reason why the scheme would have to go.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: windy95
Posted 2012-01-08 05:50:45 and read 2793 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 120):
The Community and its Member States should continue to seek an agreement on global measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. The Community scheme may serve as a model for the use of emissions trading worldwide



The industry is already doing that themselves. It saves huge amounts of money using less energy. They do not need some green tax to push them along. And we do not need a carbon trading scam to cover for the global warming scam. The ETS was the golden goose for the whole global warming scheme. They will not give up on it so easily.

This is just another tax and another reason to not visit Europe anymore. More Americans that I know have been avoiding Europe and going to cheaper destinations in S. America, C. America and the Pacific rim.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-08 07:05:25 and read 2744 times.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
The industry is already doing that themselves. It saves huge amounts of money using less energy.

Show how that reduces the total amount of CO2 pumped in to the air each year, remember total.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-08 07:12:50 and read 2739 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 107):
And frankly, it's just as wrong. But when you're dealing with something like child labor, it's easier to look the other way. Applying EU laws worldwide is still a serious affront to sovereignty and the EU should expect a strong push back.

It's not and no pushback will ensue.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 107):
Quoting something (Reply 106):
Oil will be burned until we've run out of it.

The chances that we will run out of oil are basically nil.

If oil is infinite, why does it cost money then?   

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 108):
For one thing it's the only way to get an impression of just how fast you are actually moving mid-flight but it also inflicts (on me anyway) a pang of guilt to see all that carbon dioxide (and harmless water vapour) being jettisoned out into the crystal clear and blue.

Contrails have a much worse effect on the temperature than green house gas emissions alone

http://www.transportenvironment.org/...nce-confirms-warming-by-contrails/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-more-than-aviation-emissions.html

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 108):
It doesn't stop me flying though, or driving, or turning on the heating, or a light

Because thinking further ahead than the immediate consequences of one's actions isn't vital for human survival, therefore being far-sighted remains a mental excersize. It also explains why it's mostly younger people who reject certain sciences, for they lack life experience.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
The industry is already doing that themselves. It saves huge amounts of money using less energy.

You are so incredibly misinformed, it's not even funny anymore. Have you ever wondered why energy costs money, or do they not tell you that on Faux News?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
And we do not need a carbon trading scam to cover for the global warming scam. The ETS was the golden goose for the whole global warming scheme. They will not give up on it so easily.

Are you not even embarrassed? What golden goose? Have you even bothered to read what the revenue from the ETS is used for and where it's directed it? Largely, to fund projects in third world nations. The EU commissioners are laughing all the way to the bank..

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
This is just another tax and another reason to not visit Europe anymore.

Another? What's the first? Afraid of falling down the edge of the world?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
going to cheaper destinations in S. America

haha cheaper destinations like the quasi-communist South America. That is just sad.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-08 07:22:08 and read 2734 times.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 119):
Do they care ?

Definitely take the car.

Quoting something (Reply 124):
It's not and no pushback will ensue.

So the Chinese and Americans are mad over nothing then? It's really a shame that we even have to discuss whether levying a tax on foreign entities over foreign territory is allowed. Common sense dictates it isn't.

Quoting something (Reply 124):
If oil is infinite, why does it cost money then?

I never said oil is infinite. I said we will likely never run out. About ten seconds of thinking could answer your question too. The answer is simple: it doesn't pump itself out of the ground now does it?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-08 07:31:48 and read 2724 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
I said we will likely never run out.

And I say the future of air travel is unicorn-back-riding.

Problem solved.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: mandala499
Posted 2012-01-08 08:37:43 and read 2715 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 120):
(17)

MANY THANKS for that !   
I guess the next step in the test is, when someone else apply a similar scheme... everyone would still complain, but, if that part for adjustment when other countries/regions use an ETS, the real test would be how to make that mechanism to prevent double charging work. I hope there won't be an "EU ETS is good, other countries' ETS are a scam" argument to prevent such a double-charge prevention mechanism.

Quoting Rara (Reply 121):
If for some reason the EU would budge and redesign ETS to only include segments flown over EU territory, our friends here would instantly come up with the next reason why the scheme would have to go.

Well, I prefer that of course, but yeah, well, someone will always complain about something... even if they have no/less of a leg to stand on with that!   

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
The industry is already doing that themselves. It saves huge amounts of money using less energy.

Using less energy PER available seat kilometer flown... BUT, the available seat kilometer flown keeps growing... If the reduction in emission per ASK is greater than the ASK growth, you may have a point... but, is that what is happening or not?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: coolfish1103
Posted 2012-01-08 08:58:56 and read 2692 times.

They should just ban or make a surcharge for all flights to EU that operates aircraft with inefficient fuel usage.

The smaller the aircraft is, the hefty the surcharge.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-08 09:13:11 and read 2681 times.

Quoting something (Reply 126):
And I say the future of air travel is unicorn-back-riding.

Problem solved.

How can you profess to be so knowledgeable about such matters but then demonstrate yourself to have so little understanding of how oil depletion will actually work?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-08 09:25:33 and read 2670 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 127):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
The industry is already doing that themselves. It saves huge amounts of money using less energy.

Using less energy PER available seat kilometer flown... BUT, the available seat kilometer flown keeps growing... If the reduction in emission per ASK is greater than the ASK growth, you may have a point... but, is that what is happening or not?

Well the only real solution to this is decreasing the amount of flying being done which I don't believe in. Perhaps I'm biased because I love flying and love aviation....but the airline industry has a such a large impact economically and, comparably, an extremely small impact environmentally. I'd rather people focus on solutions that can be found with the largest CO2 emissions sources such as cars or cattle.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-08 10:12:30 and read 2649 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 130):
an extremely small impact environmentally.

Aviation is the second biggest sector in EU ETS.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-08 10:25:26 and read 2637 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 130):
but the airline industry has a such a large impact economically and, comparably, an extremely small impact environmentally.

Is that really so? We know that aviation's share of CO2 emissions is about 3% to 6%, but is its share of GDP really higher than that? I have no idea, but my guess would be that the opposite is the case.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-08 10:27:21 and read 2636 times.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
And we do not need a carbon trading scam to cover for the global warming scam.

Sorry, what's the global warming scam?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 122):
More Americans that I know have been avoiding Europe and going to cheaper destinations in S. America, C. America and the Pacific rim.

Please, do pass the news to the hordes of American turists who invade Barcelona on their way to their Mediterranean cruises. Not even the most skillful pickpockets in the world seem able to deter them from overrunning the city...

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: something
Posted 2012-01-08 10:46:28 and read 2614 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 132):
Is that really so? We know that aviation's share of CO2 emissions is about 3% to 6%, but is its share of GDP really higher than that? I have no idea, but my guess would be that the opposite is the case.

And that doesn't even account for the effects that contrails have on global warming. There's a very interesting study conducted over the three days after the post-nine-eleven flight ban. Just within those three days of contrail absense the daily temperature range in the examined areas decreased by 1 full degree celsius.

Quote:
In 2006, aviation accounted for just over $1.2 trillion in economic activity, contributing 5.6 percent to the U.S. economy
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...008_Economic_Impact_Report_web.pdf

So it's fair to assume it's much smaller in countries like Germany and France, and even smaller in other countries without aircraft manufacturers, and less air travel, and a smaller military.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-08 14:59:12 and read 2535 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 132):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 130):
but the airline industry has a such a large impact economically and, comparably, an extremely small impact environmentally.

Is that really so? We know that aviation's share of CO2 emissions is about 3% to 6%, but is its share of GDP really higher than that? I have no idea, but my guess would be that the opposite is the case.

The air transport industry has a global economic impact of 3.5 trillion dollars or 7.5% of GDP, generating over 32 million jobs globally. And as these are 2008 figures, these numbers have certainly increased.

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/Docume..._economic_social_benefits_2008.pdf

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-08 15:56:35 and read 2508 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 135):

The air transport industry has a global economic impact of 3.5 trillion dollars or 7.5% of GDP, generating over 32 million jobs globally. And as these are 2008 figures, these numbers have certainly increased.

From your own source (page 5):

Quote:
The air transport industry contributes USD 1.1 trillion to world GDP through its direct, indirect and induced impacts – equivalent to 2.3 % of world GDP.

Per the IPCC, aviation contributed about 3.5% of global climate change in 2005 (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm).

So it seems that aviation itself has, relatively speaking, a higher ecological impact than economic benefit.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-08 16:08:11 and read 2494 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 136):
Quote:
The air transport industry contributes USD 1.1 trillion to world GDP through its direct, indirect and induced impacts – equivalent to 2.3 % of world GDP.

Per the IPCC, aviation contributed about 3.5% of global climate change in 2005 (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm).

So it seems that aviation itself has, relatively speaking, a higher ecological impact than economic benefit.

I don't know where you found that, but right on page 4 it states:
"Aviation’s global economic impact (direct, indirect, induced
and catalytic) is estimated at USD 3,560 billion, equivalent
to 7.5% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."

Using IPCC figures, aviation provides more than double the economic impact versus CO2 emitted.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-08 17:16:48 and read 2459 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 137):
I don't know where you found that, but right on page 4 it states:
"Aviation’s global economic impact (direct, indirect, induced
and catalytic) is estimated at USD 3,560 billion, equivalent
to 7.5% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."

It also says "direct, indirect, induced and catalytic" to get to those numbers.

If you look at employment numbers it says

"The air transport industry generates a total of
32 million jobs globally:

5.5 million direct jobs
• The airline and airport industry directly employ
4.7 million people globally.

• The civil aerospace sector (manufacture of
aircraft systems, frames and engines, etc.)
employs 780,000 people.

6.3 million indirect jobs through purchases of goods
and services from companies in its supply chain.

2.9 million induced jobs through spending
by industry employees.

17.1 million jobs through air transport’s catalytic
impact on tourism."

So less than 20% are direct. The rest are double counting from other industries. Still important numbers but many of the 5.5 M would still work in transportation even if there was no aviation.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-08 18:10:45 and read 2430 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
So less than 20% are direct. The rest are double counting from other industries. Still important numbers but many of the 5.5 M would still work in transportation even if there was no aviation.

No, you're not thinking this through, they're factoring sectors related to and dependent on aviation, so the jobs they're counting would NOT still exist without aviation because they rely on aviation.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-08 18:19:11 and read 2429 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 139):
No, you're not thinking this through, they're factoring sectors related to and dependent on aviation, so the jobs they're counting would NOT still exist without aviation because they rely on aviation.

Seriously. 17.1 million tourist jobs would disappear. Of course not. People will still go on vacations. They will just do it closer to where they reside.

Just that is 50+% of the claimed jobs. It is a lot of double counting.

[Edited 2012-01-08 18:21:40]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-01-08 20:16:26 and read 2390 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 41):
For instance, the US's is above 90%.
Incorrect!
The national debt of the US is around 62%. The US debt held by the public is found
here and does not include intragovernmental holdings, which is a subject that confuses some people.
An international ranking of public debt is found here which shows how much better America is debt-wise compared to most of Europe.
....Europe and no other nation counts 'intragovernmental debt' as national debt since it is not owned by anyone except the government itself and it is only with this intragovernmental debt that you could possibly arrive at a 90% figure...the correct debt figure for the US is about 62%.

Quoting Rara (Reply 62):
A single economy is not defined by synchronous development (Germany wishes!), but by absence of tariffs, duties, internal market barriers and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, persons and services.

A single economy is defined in part by a single currency which is very far from the case for the EU which has many currencies.
...The economy in, for instance, the UK... is so much different than the economy in Greece or Latvia that it really is laughable how afraid EU disciples are to admit Europe is still a vastly non-unified economy. Different tax structures, different business regulations and yes different cultures - added to all the different currencies - mean no such single economy exists. The comparison with America is much flawed - compared to the single economy of the USA and the similarities between say, Hawaii and Florida - the different economies in Europe are night and day.

Pu

[Edited 2012-01-08 20:23:19]

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-08 21:05:22 and read 2362 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 141):

Quoting UALWN (Reply 41):
For instance, the US's is above 90%.
Incorrect!
The national debt of the US is around 62%. The US debt held by the public is found
here and does not include intragovernmental holdings, which is a subject that confuses some people.

The outstanding national debt of the US is over 90% of GDP. And yes, that includes intragovernmental holdings, as it does for European countries. Otherwise, it wouldn't account for debt issued by individual states, or for money borrowed by the Treasury from the likes of the federal Social Security trust. Omitting those would be laughable.

Quoting Pu (Reply 141):
Different tax structures, different business regulations and yes different cultures

You mean like the differences between, say, Texas and California?

Quoting Pu (Reply 141):
The comparison with America is much flawed - compared to the single economy of the USA and the similarities between say, Hawaii and Florida - the different economies in Europe are night and day.

What about the differences between Mississippi and Massachusetts? Or Washington state and Arkansas?

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-08 21:38:16 and read 2349 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 142):
Quoting Pu (Reply 141):
The comparison with America is much flawed - compared to the single economy of the USA and the similarities between say, Hawaii and Florida - the different economies in Europe are night and day.

What about the differences between Mississippi and Massachusetts? Or Washington state and Arkansas?

It's still not an apt comparison, the US has a single federal constitution that very clearly details the delegated and concurrent powers of the states and federal government. The EU however has neither a unified constitution nor currency.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-01-09 01:00:12 and read 2289 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 139):

No, you're not thinking this through, they're factoring sectors related to and dependent on aviation, so the jobs they're counting would NOT still exist without aviation because they rely on aviation.

However that may be, it's not relevant, because you would then also have to include the emissions from these "catalytic effects". The IPCC numbers are only for aviation, so you need to compare them with the emissions only for aviation.

Nobody doubts that aviation is hugely important for the economy, and than many other branches virtually depend on it. But we should recognize that it also has a considerable ecological impact.

Quoting Pu (Reply 141):

A single economy is defined in part by a single currency which is very far from the case for the EU which has many currencies.

It's not - since this is just a definition, I suggest you look it up.

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-01-09 02:43:37 and read 2245 times.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 143):
It's still not an apt comparison

He was talking about economy, not constitutional balance of power between federal government and the states. But, in any case, in the case of Europe, that balance is also very clearly formulated in the relevant treaties (Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon).

Topic: RE: China Vs EU ETS Update
Username: flyguy89
Posted 2012-01-09 08:00:11 and read 2140 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 145):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 143):
It's still not an apt comparison

He was talking about economy, not constitutional balance of power between federal government and the states. But, in any case, in the case of Europe, that balance is also very clearly formulated in the relevant treaties (Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon).

Yes I know and it's still not an apt comparison as an important factor when it comes to a unified economy is stability. I don't think anyone particularly fears the US will break up anytime soon or that the states will drop the dollar for their own currency.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/