EU Set To Extend Emissions Trading To Airlines — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

EU Set To Extend Emissions Trading To Airlines

Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1258 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

DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1240 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.

Mrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1238 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

DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1216 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.

WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1213 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.

Thumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1210 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.

DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1208 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.

Cornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1204 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

DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1199 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: