Ryanair Condemns European Parliament Decision
TO INCREASE TAXES ON AIR TRAVEL
MEASURE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT
Ryanair, Europe's largest low fares airline (8th July) today condemned the European Parliaments decision to include aviation in EU emissions trading systems from 2012 onwards. This vote by the European Parliament (which does untold environmental damage by moving bi-weekly between Strasbourg and Brussels) could add up to €50 per flight to the cost of passenger tickets from 2012 onwards (although even these MEP's don't know how much the final figure will be), in a measure that will substantially increase taxation on Europe's consumers, but will do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
Ryanair condemned this additional taxation on an industry which accounts for less than 2% of Europe's Co2 emissions, as just another vacuous and useless gesture. Taxation does not reduce emissions and will not effect the environment. This extra taxation will be pocketed by every European Government and will reduce the competitiveness of Europe, at a time when no other country or trading block outside Europe is pursuing these environmentally ineffective and anti consumer measures.
Speaking today Ryanair's Chief Executive Michael O'Leary said:
"It is extraordinary that a bunch of MEP's who swan around between Strasbourg and Brussels, enjoy huge expenses and flight benefits, would vote to increase taxation on Europe's consumers in a measure which won't have any effect at all on the environment, but will further damage European airlines at a time when oil is already $140 a barrel.
"These clowns in the European Parliament seem determined to destroy the European airline industry with these discriminatory taxation penalties. When aviation accounts for less than 2% of Europe's Co2 emissions, and when airlines like Ryanair have invested heavily in new aircraft to reduce our emissions per passenger by 50%, there is no justification for this tax theft by the European Union.
"Aviation is not the cause of, nor the solution to Co2 emissions or global warming. Increasing taxation on air travel will have no effect on either emissions or global warming, it will just raise the cost of air travel for ordinary European consumers and their families, at a time when the fat cat MEP's will continue to have their flights paid for from their excessive and over generous expenses. Is it any wonder that European integration is in difficulty, when instead of improving the competitiveness of European air travel, the European Parliament is further raising the tax burden on Europe's citizens with these totally ineffective but very expensive environmental tax scams."
I must say that I am, mildly spoken, a little bit "astonished" about the content of the statement and the wording.
Isn't it very clear:
If there would be no Ryan Air and no other cheap airlines, air traffic would be dramatically reduced. Many un-necessary trips would not be done and the really necessary trips would be done using electric trains. Companies like Ryan Air create a lot of totally un-necessary traffic simply by making un-necessary trips affordable.
As has been told many times before, it is not the 2% of the CO2 emission, which is the problem, but the emission of the CO2 - and quite a lot of other gases - into the higher layers of the atmosphere. Air traffic IS environmentally bad and should be avoided where ever possible. Of course, intercontinental air traffic will, in the foreseeable future, be a conditio sine qua non for the world economy. The fact that even all starts from EU airports to countries outside the EU will be affected by this new tax will, hopefully, help to make the existing problem even clearer to air travellers.
I do personally think this decision of the EP is a good one and I hope it will help to drastically reduce short distance air traffic and somewhat reduce medium distance air traffic.
ABC9 From Ireland, joined May 2006, 203 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2568 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Thread starter): As has been told many times before, it is not the 2% of the CO2 emission, which is the problem, but the emission of the CO2 - and quite a lot of other gases - into the higher layers of the atmosphere. Air traffic IS environmentally bad and should be avoided where ever possible.
This of course, is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it, but just because something is said with great verbosity and frequency doesn't automatically mean it is incontovertible. Remember there is a large body of climatologists and scientists out there who maintain that there is no convincing scientific evidence that CO2 or other so-called greenhouse gases are having an impact on the planet's climate.
Quoting Ferroviarius (Thread starter): Increasing taxation on air travel will have no effect on either emissions or global warming,
For once I find myself in agreement with Michael O'Leary
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Quoting ABC9 (Reply 4): This of course, is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it, but just because something is said with great verbosity and frequency doesn't automatically mean it is incontovertible. Remember there is a large body of climatologists and scientists out there who maintain that there is no convincing scientific evidence that CO2 or other so-called greenhouse gases are having an impact on the planet's climate.
You are right, ABC9.
I am not a climatologist, not even a meteorologist. I hold an MSc in Nuclear Physics and a PhD in Laser Microscopy and I am working in Laser Microscopy.
There is, indeed, a considerable number of qualified scientists in the field of climatology and meteorology, who express their sincere warnings against overrating the effect of CO2. As far as I know, in the existing climatological models, a considerable number of variables are not yet integrated into the theory, e.g. cloud formation.
Since the days when the Club of Rome had expressed the first concerns about the effects of global climatic changes, some economists have argued that the world economy might suffer more from the impact of global measurements to avoid the climatic change than from the potential climatic change. However, these economists, as far as I know, chiefly came from the capitalist faction. I am not an economist, however, from what I know I assume that capitalism, though successful because using human nature for the economic process, is, unlike socialism, promoting un-equality between different group of human beings. Roughly speaking: In a non-dictatory form of socialism, all will be equally poor, in capitalism, some will be rich and many neglected.
As far as I know, the majority of scientists in the field of climatology tend to assume, based on their knowledge that CO2 and other gases produced in large quantities by the human economic process at least strongly accelerates the climatic change that has been observed since the beginning of systematic recording of meteorological data.
Since there is no hard proof of either theory, political and economical decision making, at least in the western world and, as far as I can estimate, also in the so called threshold countries, mainly China, India, and Brazil, will rather pursue economical growth than listen to the warnings of the majority of climatologists since there, as you state correcly, are other climatologists, though a minority, who provide politicians and economists with the ideological cover to follow their own agendas.
I am personally inclined to, in this case, accept the statements of the majority of the climatologists.
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2434 times:
I'm not going to go into details here, but I work as an environmental scientist. Global warming caused by emissions of certain gasses is real and it's hear to stay. It's a complex issue and the understanding of the processes involved and their impacts aren't fully understood. However make no mistake, it is real and it is having a global impact. Not in 5, 10 or 20 years. NOW.
As for MOL's statement on this subject of taxation, I must say I have to agree with him. Environmental taxes are fine if the monies raised go in to providing alternatives and projects to reduce greenhouse gases or absorb them. Quite often however, the monies have no impact on reducing greenhouse gasses or very little. All it's doing is trying to out-price people from travelling and in doing so, grounding aircraft, hence less emissions. If the money raised is invested wisely, fine. But we all know it won't be.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
You make your points well Ferroviarius, but for now I'm afraid I will continue to side with the "minority" of climatologists, whilst retaining an open mind.
Quoting Dazbo5 (Reply 6): All it's doing is trying to out-price people from travelling and in doing so, grounding aircraft, hence less emissions. If the money raised is invested wisely, fine. But we all know it won't be.