Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Set To Extend Emissions Trading To Airlines  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

This looks IMO like a reasonable first step to tying greenhouse gas emissions to airline profitablility. Check out the following links:

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200...08-9c07-463d-9b9d-9191cb0dc997.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4287048.stm

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32651/story.htm

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

Boy is that a dumb move. Airlines only account for 3% of greenhouse gasses in Europe, and greenhouse gasses are not even the cause of global warming. Oh well, if the EU wants to hobble their economy and airline industry to no good purpose, it is their right.

User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
Boy is that a dumb move. Airlines only account for 3% of greenhouse gasses in Europe, and greenhouse gasses are not even the cause of global warming. Oh well, if the EU wants to hobble their economy and airline industry to no good purpose, it is their right.

Boy is this a stupid and naive comment (one of the famous few-liners of people who have no clue what they are talking about)! Every small step is a step for the future. Second: you seem to know more than scientists who are still validating/abrogating causal relations of emmissions : global warming. 3rd) Environment and development are NOT contradictions per se


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 2):
Boy is this a stupid and naive comment (one of the famous few-liners of people who have no clue what they are talking about)! Every small step is a step for the future. Second: you seem to know more than scientists who are still validating/abrogating causal relations of emmissions : global warming. 3rd) Environment and development are NOT contradictions per se

The comment was neither stupid nor naive, and I take offense.

Sorry, but the moderators do not wish the subject of the validity of the global warming THEORY to be debated in this forum, so I will not be entering into that aspect of conversation with you, but even you are admiting in your post that the theory has not been validated. My point is that 1. The EU has every right make this type of decision about their commercial airline industry. 2. Other countries have every right not to make the same decision. and 3. I do not believe that this is the best decision for the EU's population based on my conclusions of the scientific validity of the research done to date. 4. I never said that the environment and development cannot co-exist. I merely stated that this is a bad policy. I do not know of a single person who is "pro" pollution.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

The armchair experts here obviously disagree with the major carriers, who think that emissions trading is considerably more acceptable than taxation on fuel.

Several major European carriers support the move. The impact on ticket costs has been calculated at six euros or so on an average flight. It will not bankrupt any carrier, but will have an effect on overall emissions and work done to combat them.


User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

600 years ago the scientific consensus was that the world was flat.

500 years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe.

400 years ago the scientific consensus was that lead fell at a faster rate than feathers.

300 years ago the scientific consensus was that witches had supernatural powers.

200 years ago the scientific consensus was that there was no need for sterilization when working with open wounds.

100 years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was just 6000 years old.

50 (well maybe 60) years ago the scientific consensus was that the sound barrier could not be broken.

30 years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was heading toward another ice age.

Today ........

Maybe we need to have an open mind about the causes of global warming and not accept it as fact just yet.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
Several major European carriers support the move.

From the articles I read, some carriers support the move as they see it as less onerous than a fuel tax or other proposals that have been made. Kind of like deciding what part of your body you would prefer to have amputated, not whether you would like an amputation.


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The armchair experts here obviously disagree with the major carriers, who think that emissions trading is considerably more acceptable than taxation on fuel.

Several major European carriers support the move

True, but ironically IATA doesn't judging by the little dictator Bisignani's comments on the matter:

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=2539

From ATW online



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The impact on ticket costs has been calculated at six euros or so on an average flight. It will not bankrupt any carrier, but will have an effect on overall emissions and work done to combat them.

The carriers that will see the greatest effect will be the intra-EU LCCs, as the long haul flights will probably not be subjected to the scheme due to competition reasons (foreign carriers will not be subject to the scheme due to existing aviation treaties). This is also a reason some of the major EU airlines are not griping, as it is one place where the LCCs will be placed at a relative disadvantage.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AZ: EU Set To Clear Restructuring Plan posted Fri Jun 3 2005 07:41:28 by Scotron11
EU Plans To Implement Tariffs On US Airlines posted Sat Mar 9 2002 23:19:56 by Singapore_Air
Japan Airlines And Japan Air System Set To Merge.. posted Tue Nov 13 2001 03:37:15 by Wolfy
US Airlines Set To Lose US$4.4 Billion This Year posted Fri Sep 14 2001 11:17:35 by Ceilidh
Vietnam Airlines Set To Code-share With AA posted Sat Jul 7 2001 02:01:21 by Jiml1126
African Star Airlines Still Set To Fly! posted Tue Feb 8 2000 16:55:35 by Starship
Continental A Model To Other Airlines posted Sun Oct 29 2006 21:15:04 by JetBlueAUS
Whats The Meaning To Northwest Airlines Name? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 05:23:47 by Fll2993
International Flights Set To Return To MSY posted Sat Oct 14 2006 15:18:28 by MSYtristar
International Flights Set To Return To MSY posted Sat Oct 14 2006 15:17:08 by MSYtristar