Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Congress Passes Anti EU ETS Legislation  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25411 posts, RR: 49
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

The US House of Representatives following a unanimous vote in the US Senate, yesterday passed legislation which would provide exemptions for US air carriers from participating in EU ETS regulations.

The bipartisan legislation know as the Thune-McCaskill European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act, mandates the US DOT to determine within 30-days the negative impact of participation in any EU ETS scheme on U.S. consumers, carriers, and operators, along with the economic, energy and environmental security of the US to help determine if the participation prohibition would be in the "public interest".

The DOT itself has strongly objected on legal and policy grounds to EU ETS and was supportive of Congressional action.

The bill now heads to the President for signature.

Stories:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alpa-a...uds-u-house-passage-233300375.html
http://www.europolitics.info/externa...anti-eu-ets-bill-art345046-44.html

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
200 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5319 times:

Reading the stories and the bill, this is *not* an exemption at all - its the authority to prohibit US airlines from partaking in the ETS, which doesn't solve the issue at all but rather puts the airlines in an extremely difficult position.

Aside from the situation with the ETS being "suspended" for a year for external airlines this week, all this bill is doing is basically trying to use domestic law to trump foreign law in its own jurisdiction, and basically forces the airlines to consider stopping flying to Europe - if they can't take part in the ETS, and the EU don't grant a permanent exemption, then US airlines cannot fly there due to the threat of punitive action from their own government.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

Perhaps the US-airlines continue flying to Europe and just pay whatever they have to pay for partaking in the ETS. It might be more economical for them to pay ETS fee and the "partaking in the ETS system fee" compared to parking a huge number of aircraft.

I would really like to see that happen, it would be another excellent example of politicians messing up a situation that is none of their business, in this case decisions of foreign politicians. If ETS is a good thing or not and if it is acceptable to extend it to the airline industry is total different discussion and not the business of any US-American politician, especially because the system is fair and everyone has to pay the same amount regarding the sector lengths.


Too bad the EU stopped ETS for international flights outside the EU airspace today to wait for ICAO to implement their new system. It would have been a funny situation if the first US airline had to pay for flying to Europe and paying the ETS fee. That would have made the "Thune-McCaskill European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act" a good source of income for the US government and would have reduced the number of flying passengers even more. Can you imagine the outcry from airlines and media? Good to know that the politicians are as stupid over there as on our side of the Atlantic.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25411 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5306 times:

Actually its semantics.

The bill once enacted by the DOT would provide US airlines a legal "exemption" from participating in EU ETS.

This is something the US airlines have been asking for, and gives them the legal cover to stand behind.

The DOT previously had said they would "vigorously oppose" the implementation of the ETS, and this Congressional action gives it the added legal authority.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

No, they still have to pay or they are not allowed to Europe. They are just lucky now, that ETS was suspended to wait for ICAO to act.

User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
The bill once enacted by the DOT would provide US airlines a legal "exemption" from participating in EU ETS.

US legal exemptions do not have any standing in foreign countries tho - the EU would simply allow them to run up debts and then threaten to seize assets as payment. There is no legal requirement for the EU to accept the DOT "exemption", as its in a completely different jurisdiction.

The only way in which US airlines can comply is by not flying to the EU.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2795 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5304 times:

This only makes it clear that the US government will side with the US airlines if and when there is a dispute with the EU concerning ETS. But certainly it doesn't "exempt" the US airlines from complying with ETS...


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25411 posts, RR: 49
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
US legal exemptions do not have any standing in foreign countries

Certainly, but like many home country regulations it allows US airlines to be first bound by US regulations which presumably based on final DOT findings will not allow US airlines to participate in European ETS scheme.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Certainly, but like many home country regulations it allows US airlines to be first bound by US regulations which presumably based on final DOT findings will not allow US airlines to participate in European ETS scheme.

Yes, but that has no legal standing in other countries - the only solution is to not fly to the country of issue.

This isn't the equivalent of a high school gym session, where a note from your parents will get you out of it - the only way to legally get out of it is to abstain from the jurisdiction altogether.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 2):
I would really like to see that happen, it would be another excellent example of politicians messing up a situation that is none of their business, in this case decisions of foreign politicians. If ETS is a good thing or not and if it is acceptable to extend it to the airline industry is total different discussion and not the business of any US-American politician, especially because the system is fair and everyone has to pay the same amount regarding the sector lengths.

I disagree, this is a good example of American politicians standing up for legitimate American economic interests. The Europeans tried to impose their misguided will upon the entire world with the ETS scheme, and those countries with the economic might and imperative to stand up to the EU on this issue -- such as the USA and China -- have done so.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25411 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5302 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Yes, but that has no legal standing in other countries

By definition, US regulations don't have a standing in other countries, and frankly that is the same argument that EU ETS cannot tax for activities outside EU borders.

This act however provides guidance for the US industry that they don't need to continue play this game with EU governments and the US government will have their backs.

The EU is certainly free to impose what rules it decides inside member countries and US would need to comply to do business, but the notion of the EU dictating or measuring carbon output over the US, Canada, India, China or other nations is a rather bizarre notion and the center of the dispute.
Whats next - will EU seek to regulate power plants, or other industrial emissions in the US?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Maybe EU can get some income from all that road traffic in US too   I think EU went too far and got a bloodied nose, now they know the world is not to be provoked like that again.

User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5301 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
The bill once enacted by the DOT would provide US airlines a legal "exemption" from participating in EU ETS.

The US can't do anything to legally exempt anyone from complying with another country's laws when in (or over) that country. That's called Chutzpah -- which is par for the course for Congress of course; they do this stuff all the time.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

So, if US airlines stopped flying to Europe..... Are the European airlines still allowed to fly to the US because of this Act?


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
So, if US airlines stopped flying to Europe..... Are the European airlines still allowed to fly to the US because of this Act?

Why not? There is now law against the European airlines flying into the US, even if they participate in the ETS program. There is only a law now forbidding the US airlines paying the ETS fee creating a dilemma situation for them.


I am really shocked here seeing how many US-Americans really think decisions of their government have any influence on European or any other foreign law. If the US airlines want to fly to Europe they can either pay the ETS fees or ground their aircraft. Good job by the politicians. Not.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5299 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 14):

If the US airlines are not allowed to fly to Europe because of this Act, then the European airlines flying to the U.S. should not be allowed either...........

Seems fair to me.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5298 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 15):
If the US airlines are not allowed to fly to Europe because of this Act, then the European airlines flying to the U.S. should not be allowed either...........

Seems fair to me.

But that is not what the law is saying. That would need another law, which would never pass the Congress as it would financially destroy all European and US airlines.

And to get it right, the passed act is not forbidding the US airlines to fly to Europe, it is forbidding them to pay the ETS fees. But if they want to land in the EU, they have to pay the fee. This is called dilemma situation. If the EU wouldn't have changed the ETS concept yesterday the US airlines would have payed the ETS fee and the charge for paying the ETS fee to the US government.


You should see the ETS fees as an environmental landing fee. We are not complaining about other landing fees, too. Or high landing fees on US airports in the middle of the night for noise abating reasons.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
By definition, US regulations don't have a standing in other countries, and frankly that is the same argument that EU ETS cannot tax for activities outside EU borders.

To do business in the EU, you are obliged to follow EU rules. The EU won't tax you if you never step foot in their jurisdiction, but once you do then you had better cover your obligations.

The fact that you took off, landed or otherwise did business in the EU is more than enough to give them legal authority to tax you for anything they wish.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5298 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
But that is not what the law is saying.

Where did I say that? I never said it was saying that. I was stating an opinion. Again, an OPINION.

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
That would need another law, which would never pass the Congress as it would financially destroy all European and US airlines.

You never know. Congress can pass laws however they like. And I'm sure they won't be afraid to pass a law on an OPINION that I had earlier. It wouldn't financially destroy anyone to death.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):

Such a law would destroy the US at the WTO.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5302 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
Such a law would destroy the US at the WTO.

I disagree. The WTO does not set laws for the USA. Only Congress can do that.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 20):

The WTO sets the rules for international trade. Congress has to abide by international treaties as per your constitution. You voluntarily entered the WTO.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 21):

We can argue about this all day long.... U.S. can and will protect itself against unreasonable regulations if it harms self interests at home. I believe the Boeing-Airbus WTO fight proved this.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 15):
If the US airlines are not allowed to fly to Europe because of this Act, then the European airlines flying to the U.S. should not be allowed either...........

Now that's mature.

The EU has passed a law that applies to any airline flying to or over the EU. Does that sound familiar to Americans? The US also has laws that apply to any airline flying to or through the US. If you don't want to comply with US law, then don't fly to or over the US. If you don't want to comply with EU law, then don't fly to or through EU countries.

To me, both parties here are acting like bullies. Does anyone remember Helms-Burton? That is an American law that attempted to force foreign companies to comply with US law on relations with Cuba. It was a huge dilemma for private companies that deal with Cuba. Many countries, Canada included, passed specific legislation making it illegal for their citizens to comply with Helms-Burton (which is what it looks like the US is trying to do here).

For a more recent (and far more threatening) example of this, look at FATCA -- the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in 2010 and signed by Obama. That is forcing all foreign banks to spend billions in order to help the IRS catch US tax evaders -- and if the banks don't go along with this the US will try to impose all manner of sanctions and penalties on those foreign banks. It is by far the most egregious extra-territorial reach the US has ever attempted. Fortunately, a number of countries are demanding reciprocity -- which means that American banks will also have to spend billions to track down (insert name of country) tax cheats with US bank accounts. My guess is that will be the end of FATCA because the US won't tolerate the reciprocity.

Bottom line here folks -- both the US and the EU are over-reaching with this. With the passage of this DOT legislation, we are now officially in pot-kettle-black territory. It would be good for the world if they could all grow up a little and behave like adults.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5302 times:

US would win a trade war with EU, just saying, lets not get too carried away. The ETS scheme was a blunder and we had to eat cake. China and US ganging up on EU, we caved in.

25 Post contains images Maverick623 : And Congress can just as easily leave the WTO and withdraw from the treaties that govern it. Wow... so two governmental authorities standing up for t
26 Post contains images sweair : If we start the count on lost business thanks to the ETS madness this sum would be scary for us europeans. EU has this superior attitude to the world
27 Maverick623 : To be fair, America does have it's own megalomania issue...
28 Kaiarahi : Air transportation is specifically exempted from the WTO's mandate and rules. The WTO has no jurisdiction. Except it's no such thing. It's calculated
29 MasseyBrown : Wasn't Russia part of the gang, too?
30 AirframeAS : That is exactly what I thought originally, but was afraid to post that not knowing of my info was correct or not.
31 sweair : I agree, but they have even regulated cucumbers, making this world a much safer and better place..
32 Post contains links 135mech : So, poitical pressure seems to have been sent across the pond... "EU 'Suspends' ETS" EU 'Suspends' ETS (by timboflier215 Nov 12 2012 in Civil Aviation
33 speedbird128 : Who would have thought the USA/China/Russia and other major emission producers would be against reducing emissions.. LoL. And back on topic, it (the E
34 RyanairGuru : I am trying to puzzle through this, but I honestly don't see how this harms US interests. All companies doing business with the EU are equally affect
35 Lufthansa : In the real world, of course if either US aircraft started getting seized or US airlines banned from European flights, you'd very quickly see Europea
36 AirframeAS : See above reply... #35 actually sums it up on how the U.S. will protect it's interests, no matter how silly it sounds.
37 DeltaMD90 : I'm not trying to debate the ETS either way, trying to stay objective, but is the ICAO really an enviornmental agency? I mean, I'm not implying that t
38 aeroblogger : India passed a similar law a few months ago. The EU isn't going to settle this issue with trade wars - there is critical mass in the opposition, with
39 michman : I'm all for reducing emissions where it can be achieved cost effectively. Namely, land and sea transportation, and power generation, etc. I just don'
40 Post contains images qf340500 : Let them (the US legislation) pass as many laws as they wish against the rest of the world... and (ha ha ha) against something (the ETS) which has bee
41 Lufthansa : Not so fast. Remember what happened at Copenhagen, when we got China the EU, Russia, India and the US and every other man and his dog? That's right,
42 qf340500 : I agree with you, Lufthansa, thatswhy i think its good that the ICAO is now looking into it, as something must be done anyway, and if this is the case
43 par13del : Which in effect has the same effect since if the airlines do not pay, their a/c and operations can be legally affected in the EU. This is the first s
44 Post contains images Maverick623 : It's all about money, pure and simple. The EU wants to get at it, nobody wants to pay it. Nope, it's been canned. The point is not the relative harm,
45 prebennorholm : That's the same thing, canned or given to ICAO. It's the EU way to put their failures under the rug - to leave it to another organization to which th
46 qf340500 : and what about the ridiculous "rules" the US puts on the rest of the world, to correct myself: everyone outside the US, when it comes to financials (F
47 Maverick623 : They're ridiculous... but that's not the point of the thread. What is relevant (and hypocritical) is that you can support the EU unilaterally imposin
48 mohunk : Just charge the European carriers landing in the US a fee to cover the cost of the US carriers going to/from Europe, and give the collected money to t
49 Byrdluvs747 : I was just about to post that as well.
50 dfambro : I assume this would violate the bilaterals. I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up yet, but what's infuriating to me about ETS is that it vio
51 cmf : ICAO was assigned the task because aviation crosses borders. This was back in the late 90's. Then they sat on their asses doing nothing. EU brought u
52 Post contains images sweair : EU could always put a CO2 tax on aviation fuel, the money that Eu's financial black hole needs would get its funds and its free to fill up inside of E
53 michman : Well, the other issue is that fuel use (and thus the credit costs) is a huge component of running an airline (much more so than other forms of transp
54 Kaiarahi : Not to mention the International Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The European Court of Justice ruled that the E.U. could do this b
55 speedbird128 : whoah! slow down there with the shame card. I am a third world citizen by birth right and spent 90% of my working life toiling at their benefit. As f
56 Post contains images CARST : Mohunk, Maverick, you should really read what the other people here are writing, they know much more of the topic compared to you guys, really no pun
57 sweair : Where wold the EU ETS money end up? That would be the obvious question to ask, probably inside EU?! So Germany can build even more brain dead windmill
58 UALWN : Sorry, what's brain dead about the windmills? Spain currently generates almost 20% of its electricity from windmills. It is cheap and environmentally
59 Post contains links cmf : So is running a truck, ships, taxis, buses. Even for a lot of manufacturing fuel is a major part of expenses. Everything drives secondary activity. T
60 Lufthansa : Ahhh, yes, a shining example of an economic success. Look pure and simple this ETS has been applied to aviation not for practical but ideological rea
61 cmf : The problem? I have not seen anyone else even suggest it is part of the problem. The green movements thinks you should travel responsibly. Only extre
62 brilondon : Unfortunately, congress obviously doesn' t see that they have no power outside the United States, and that the US is not the ruler of the world.
63 UALWN : Uh? What do you mean? Yes, the wind energy generation in Spain has been considered an unmitigated, shining technological, environmental and economica
64 brilondon : What does Don Quixote have to do with the legislation in the US congress? Just kidding. Windmills are an expensive alternative to that have not prove
65 RyanairGuru : For the first time I actually understand the opposition to this! Thanks for bringing this up... I was trying to look at it through an anti-big govern
66 UALWN : Farmers? What do farmers have to do with large-scale electricity production from wind power? You are kidding, right? Nothing. I didn't bring it up.
67 speedbird128 : Yes, totally as deadly as CO2...
68 XT6Wagon : lol, you are being quite funny since the ETS is quite illegal under international treaties signed by all the members of the EU. But the EU court deci
69 cmf : So you say. But the only court who have looked at it says you're wrong. But of course you know better. Does this only apply to ETS or to all agreemen
70 Post contains images ElPistolero : The most amusing thing in this whole thread is the notion that US lawmakers will sit idly by if US carriers are banned from flying to the EU for not p
71 Kaiarahi : That's a different issue. In the passage you cite, the Court ruled that ETS is not a breach of the the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement (a conclusion w
72 Maverick623 : You're joking, right? A court that represents the EU, NOT it's member countries or anyone else, rules in favor of itself? Yeah... we do know better.
73 MasseyBrown : Sail would be ok. Coal or oil? No ... sorry.
74 brilondon : I will address each in reverse order. a) emmisions of aircraft is what this thread was about. b) No. In Ontario, the building of windmills has been s
75 UALWN : Good. Let's us know the findings when they are done, please... And people complain about the environmental freaks in the EU...
76 flightsimer : The US has been building windmills for hundreds of years and was a pioneer in the early 1900s of power generating turbines. Groups of windmills built
77 DLPMMM : Actually, the emissions from aircraft are immaterial to this conversation. The topic is about that the USA's congress and passed bi-partisan legislati
78 Post contains images RyanairGuru : To be honest, this probably needs a thread in-and-of itself Sure. Also global trade would come to a grinding halt, especially if sea traffic is close
79 DLPMMM : Actually, North America, South America, Asia, Africa, Non-EU Europe, Oceania....could all do much better without the EU than the EU could do without
80 RyanairGuru : I don't disagree, but cutting of the EU would still have a big impact on those areas. Sure, the EU would suffer more, but I still don't understand wh
81 UALWN : Good for you. Yet, in 2011 only about 3% of the electricity consumed in the US was produced by wind (compared to ~16% in Spain). Again, wake me up wh
82 Post contains links something : http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...7-2012/wind-power-s-health-hazards While comedy, still true.
83 UALWN : What's true? The comedy?
84 something : Did you watch the video in the link? It talks about ''wind turbine syndrome''.
85 UALWN : Right. And it (deservedly) makes fun of it. It also talks about "solar panel syndrome"...
86 UALWN : Right. And it (deservedly) makes fun of it. It also talks about "solar panel syndrome"...
87 flightsimer : Everything you have said about the US vs Spain in wind power is factually wrong. The US is the largest producer of wind power in the world, producing
88 Post contains images Deltal1011man : no kidding finally. WTO has no say so. This isn't Boeing v airbus.... and India..... and who would have thought someone with a EU flag would be point
89 RyanairGuru : I think we agree over this, I just wasn't phrasing it well. I was a bit confused by some posters in this thread who made it sound like Cold War 2 was
90 something : So if Spain builds 1 windmill per square kilometer, then that's easy to do. The US doing the same, not so much? A group of countries I would also be
91 Post contains images gipsy : The US even lags behind China. As we are talking US/EU here please take the EU numbers. 2011: EU 89,5 GW - US 47 GW In general the EU is far ahead of
92 UALWN : Really? Everything? Maybe you could be more specific. OK. so Spain is about the size of California. Well, Spain's production of wind power is over 5
93 Post contains links and images cmf : You're right. I reduced the quote too much and thus the important parts got excluded. You're right as far as they did rule EU is not a signatory. But
94 DLPMMM : It is an illegal international tax, hence why the EU is dropping it now, very quietly with their tails between their legs. While you might admire the
95 cmf : Again, that is not what the court said. When will you provide evidence, instead of statements, to support your claims?
96 DLPMMM : The EU court does not have international jurisdiction. Their tortured logic was self serving and laughable. My proof is in the EU backing down. I per
97 Post contains images cmf : EU has jurisdiction where ETS is implemented. Unlike courts outside EU. Then you have, as I suspected, nothing. USA would supply the credits?? I like
98 RyanairGuru : Backing down is probably a confession that it was a poorly thought through policy, but it in no way recognises that the ETS was a "tax". Whether it i
99 DeltaMD90 : Regarding the legality, didn't only the EU court rule on this? I am not accusing them of intentional bias, but I would think they'd think a bit differ
100 Post contains links and images Cerecl : As I said in another thread, possibly noble intentions ruined by amateur execution. Cmf, we have been through this before. What you suggests, essentia
101 cmf : Why is ETS different from APD and other charges (e.g. duty) based on what happens outside the imposers territory?
102 gipsy : (8) The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2002/358/EC (2), requires developed c
103 brilondon : I believe Canada signed the Kyoto protocol under the previous government, but has since withdrawn from it citing that the world's largest polluters a
104 moo : My apologies, that is correct. It would still open up additional action tho. And which international law is that? Considering no legal action is pend
105 cmf : No. Both are set by how far you travel. One is just more detailed. Then there is the Indian APD where the rate can differ based on what you do in a f
106 DLPMMM : The Chicago Convention on Aviation, which all the EU countries are signatories but the EU is not. This has been stated several times above. The probl
107 Aesma : Probably. Not directly like this, but with environmental taxes that would impact products according to their carbon footprint (including transport).
108 moo : Its not extra-territorial though - the fee is levied in the territory. It isn't levied for flights that don't land in the territory.
109 Kaiarahi : It is calculated according to sector length, including international airspace and non-E.U. airspace. Under the standard principles of international l
110 DLPMMM : It is extra-territorial since it is based how a foreign company operates their business outside of the EU. The EU is allowed to base their landing an
111 cmf : As is APD. No it is not. It is based on landing at an EU airport. Why is it so difficult for some here to understand? No, they also have the option o
112 moo : No it isn't, you fly to the EU then you are not being taxed on how your business is being operated outside of the EU - the ETS does not apply to flig
113 Post contains links Kaiarahi : 8 years as a prof in the Law Faculty at McGill (which is also home to the Institute of Air and Space Law) tells me that under accepted principles of
114 Post contains links something : ''The EU's legislation on aviation emissions is compatible with international law. On 21 December 2011, the European Court of Justice gave its judgme
115 DeltaMD90 : Well it seems that both sides believe they are truly right. I hope those in favor of ETS can at least respect the line of reasoning, even if they disa
116 Post contains images cmf : The (multiple) Judges who came down with the ruling represent significantly more than that. Plus, they spent significant time on the issue and put th
117 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Of course, it goes both ways Again, I'm not really convinced that this is the job of the ICAO (climate change.) I can see them trying to mediate and
118 Kaiarahi : Ummm ... Article 84: "If any disagreement between two or more contracting States ....". Since the E.U. is not a contracting state, how exactly would
119 cmf : Why not? What better organisation is there for this? You got the objectors version of the ruling. ECJ was asked to provide answers to several questio
120 DeltaMD90 : A climate organization Then what was their full answer?
121 Post contains links cmf : Aviation stated they do not understand the special circumstances of international aviation and aviation already have an organisation to handle regula
122 Kaiarahi : I don't understand your answer. The parties to the Convention who have standing to initiate proceedings are "contracting States" (i.e. countries), no
123 cmf : They did not go to ECJ. I expected an eight year prof in the Law Faculty at McGill would know that.
124 koruman : Foreign airlines have to respect the USA's insane cabotage laws which impose pathetic service on all domestic passengers in the USA. And US airlines s
125 Kaiarahi : I know full well they went to the U.K. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), which referred the case to the ECJ. In f
126 cmf : Are you really not aware of the process? Look how EU and USA have been fighting out the Boeing and Airbus WTO cases. If you spent a minimal amount of
127 Kaiarahi : I'm very aware of the process. I've presented disputes before the WTO. The WTO process has nothing to do with Chicago Convention dispute resolution.
128 Viscount724 : Cabotage isn't unique to the U.S. Almost all countries prohibit cabotage. Only very few exceptions. The EU single market is one exception for EU-base
129 koruman : Qantas and Air NZ both discontinued HNL-LAX due to cabotage laws. If those laws were as liberal as they are in Australia and NZ the routes would conti
130 Post contains images Deltal1011man : Its better than letting a wanna be country try to tell the world what to do. Its so funny how people complain when the US does it....but if the EU do
131 Lufthansa : I disagree. If there was a tag on flight within the EU and the EU said ETS must apply to that flight id say it would be more like the cabotage laws.
132 cmf : So you have presented disputes in front of WTO but after stating that it must be states and not individual airlines invoking article 84 you do not se
133 Post contains images Cerecl : Well, we are getting somewhere. At least you acknowledged there are some difference between the two. Now I will argue that the devil is in the detail
134 Post contains images Cerecl : Well, we are getting somewhere. At least you acknowledged there are some difference between the two. Now I will argue that the devil is in the detail
135 Kaiarahi : What's your point? Yes, the Boeing / Airbus subsidy issues were brought to the WTO by the E.U.. and the U.S. respectively. However, the E.U. is a WTO
136 cmf : One band, two bands, 10 bands or infinite bands, it is the same principle. Indian passenger tax can differ depending on what country I fly to after l
137 Kaiarahi : The proceedings in the U.K. were initiated by airlines, not the U.S. And they were not article 84 proceedings. This is becoming so circular that I'm
138 DLPMMM : Yet I was the one who told you months ago that the EU would back down and why. Now you try to claim that the EU is not backing down, and this is what
139 jfidler : I'm not sure I get the environmental purpose of ETS. Usually environmental "taxes" are there to encourage improvement or change of behavior. But don't
140 Post contains links and images cmf : Only because you're throwing various facts left and right. The question at hand is how to initiate article 84 proceedings where you claimed it can't
141 art : They have done well. What is needed is international consent over this issue and preventing US companies from complying with this unilateral EU measu
142 Post contains links blueflyer : EU delegations receive Convention-like protections through bilateral agreements between the EU and host countries, not from the Vienna Convention its
143 DLPMMM : The results of the next ICAO meeting will be no change. There will be no agreement on any kind of international ETS. And the EU will not reimpose the
144 cmf : Will there be something to control emissions? What about neutral growth after 2020, etc? Why use agreed procedures....[Edited 2012-11-23 06:25:18]
145 DLPMMM : EU is not a signatory to the Chicago Convention and there has been no monitary assessment yet by any EU nation on any foreign airline. No, there will
146 cmf : That the fist allowances wasn't due until next year isn't important since the requirements have been in effect since the beginning of this year. Also
147 peterinlisbon : What a good idea! The US government should also ban its airlines from paying landing fees at foreign airports and from paying for fuel. Then the EU wo
148 par13del : So the purpose of the UK referring the issue to the EU court which as you now state is irrelevant and supporters claiming that the ruling made by the
149 cmf : Amazing what you make out of a comment regarding who would be on the "EU" side in case of an article 84 hearing.
150 par13del : How did we get to sides??????? I'm trying to follow the discussion especially in light of a law professor chiming in. It has been stated by supporter
151 cmf : When Kaiarahi claimed that article 84 procedings can't be initiated because EU has not signed the Chicago convention, back in post 118. Never said th
152 sbworcs : Ok. I am confused. If APD is based on flight length (including areas outside EU) and is NOT extra terrestrial how is ETS which is based on flight sect
153 Kaiarahi : That's not what I said. I said that article 84 proceedings cannot be initiated against the E.U. I just do not understand what you're saying. You seem
154 Post contains links and images Cerecl : No, see below. See below I have used this example at least twice in this forum so here is the third time. Two flights, both from a foreign (i.e. not
155 Aquila3 : Frankly is there NONE of our US readers ashamed to see their country get support from such as China on a fundamental matter like environmental protect
156 Post contains images BMI727 : Not even a little. Those carbon credit dollars won't buy me anything. I can sleep at night as it is (not literally at the moment, but you get the ide
157 Post contains links gipsy : Eisenhower.....Dwight D. Eeeisenhower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK8gytvGf_Y
158 Cerecl : This is an extremely poor choice of words. Many countries' opposition with the EU ETS is with its poorly thought out execution not its ultimate goal.
159 Aquila3 : About the choice of words, I am sorry if my poor handling of English has hint that way. It was not my intention to insult anybody. Let me only say th
160 par13del : That is Karachi's stated position and you seemed to disagree. From your posting, the only way that the US carriers court case in the UK could be cons
161 rampart : Speak for yourself, sparky. Strange bedfellows indeed.
162 cmf : Let me remind you, again, what you said: See, you did not say that it can't be initiated against EU. You said proceedings can't be initiated at all,
163 Post contains links Kaiarahi : Anyone interested in light rather than heat may find this brief from the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law interesting: http://www.
164 Kaiarahi : Lets recap. You said: I responded I did not, at any point, suggest that proceedings cannot be initiated at all. The discipline of law teaches one to
165 cmf : Are you still in the dark about how to initiate proceedings? Please specify what text you consider for this statement.[Edited 2012-11-24 08:08:13]
166 Kaiarahi : I never have been. I have no idea what you're trying to prove, other than personal rudeness. You could start with the one referenced two replies ago
167 cmf : Why all the objections then? And all the attempts at making it about everything but the question at hand. It is very rude. Of course I asked for what
168 Kaiarahi : I'm afraid I have no idea what the question at hand is, in your mind. Every time someone gives you an answer, you reframe the question. Other posters
169 cmf : I've read it. Where have I cast any doubt about it? I asked you a straight question as to what in it you think is supporting your statement but I not
170 Kaiarahi : Section 2.4 "The Role of the Kyoto Protocol in the ECJ Ruling"
171 tommytoyz : Unfortunately, here in the USA, many people still doubt man made global warming. Something that is laughed at in the EU and by 90%+ of climate scient
172 Post contains images Maverick623 : And yet Italy is still throwing scientists in jail. Please, tell me where you got the impression that he was ever "in the dark" about any of this?
173 cmf : Here is the text: "The Court held that the Kyoto Protocol, in particular Article 2(2), 37 could not be taken into account when assessing the validity
174 Maverick623 : Isn't that right here? Emphasis mine.
175 Kaiarahi : Thank you. The text of section 2.2 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC reads: “The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emi
176 cmf : Where does it say failure to respect? Where does it analyse why ECJ stated it is not in effect? That is one interesting theory. How do you support it
177 Kaiarahi : Oh dear! Maverick623 even bolded it for you: Whether or not you like it, I just know. Hint - I'm involved in the Canada - E.U. free trade negotiation
178 cmf : Read the ruling from ECJ. They provide reasons why it doesn't apply. That isn't a sign of failing to respect. You have spent good part of your posts
179 Kaiarahi : Quotes, please? "Respect" in a legal context means abide by. Examples, please? Apparently, your rudeness now extends to all Canadians. BTW, I happen
180 Maverick623 : On the contrary, that is the definition of "failing to respect". Kaiarahi beat me to the explanation of what "respect" means in law. Real mature.
181 cmf : Waiting for yours. Thanks for stating the obvious. Kyoto. I know, Auckland 1967. A lot of bickering is great when you want to stall things. Question
182 Kaiarahi : Which, pray tell? It was apparently necessary. Canada exercised its legal rights under article 27 of the Protocol. That's not reneging (definition: f
183 cmf : Where in the text it stated EU does not respect the agreement. They state there is a disagreement about one small part. I said backtracked. I didn't
184 Post contains images art : In my opinion a reduction in emissions could be achieved in a simple way - by taxing fuel used by aircraft. I have proposed this in the past on a.net
185 cmf : Look at the cost of fuel and actual amount of emissions released and it is clear that raising cost cause, at best, very temporary reduction. Hard cap
186 Kaiarahi : OK. Let's try some baby steps here. 1. The Kyoto Protocol provides that ICAO has exclusive authority with respect to aviation emission limitation/red
187 cmf : You stop too early. You need to include the reasons given. Then you can reason if they mean not respecting Kyoto. But the simple fact is that EU is a
188 Kaiarahi : That says it all. Your view is apparently that a country (or the E.U.) can sign an agreement and then pick and choose which provisions it will follow
189 cmf : I never said they can pick and choose. It is presumptuous to state that one of precious few who actually is following the spirit of the agreement doe
190 Kaiarahi : Pretty much every country outside the E.U. disagrees, which would suggest it's not "one small part". Yep, it's called the rule of law. Democratic cou
191 cmf : How do you connect the number of people disagreeing with how big part of the agreement it represents? No, stalling because you don't like the outcome
192 Kaiarahi : There's obviously no rational basis to continue this conversation or endure your continual rudeness. Of course, you may continue talking to yourself i
193 cmf : Rudeness is all on you. Refusing to address the topic and constantly trying to make it about me.
194 DLPMMM : Sorry, but you are the rude one in the way that you argue and deflect and make ad hominum attacks. He has proven his point over and over, while you c
195 cmf : There you go again. No, he doesn't respond to the points and constantly sidetracks. Take the simple case of opening article 84 proceedings. You may n
196 DLPMMM : There was never any reason to file under article 84. 1. The EU is not a signatory to the Chicago Convention. 2. No EU state had actually levied any pe
197 cmf : At least we agree on something. Making this about no penalties is the kind of distraction you keep bringing up, it is irrelevant. The law was passed.
198 DLPMMM : The political fact is that regardless of the ICAO meeting, the US congress will not agree to an ETS type of taxing scheme. The horse is dead....you ca
199 Maverick623 : ICAO has exclusive authority to regulate aviation emissions. The EU signed a treaty agreeing to that. End of story. There is no "reason" to get away
200 SA7700 : This thread will now be locked as it has veered into an off-topic debate. Any posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purpo
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...
USA Vs. EU ETS posted Sun Jan 8 2012 10:22:15 by AeroBlogger
China Vs EU ETS Update posted Thu Jan 5 2012 01:25:30 by ChazPilot
EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS posted Wed Dec 21 2011 03:55:41 by Pe@rson
Congress Passes Sweeping New Pilot Rules posted Fri Jul 30 2010 12:05:49 by Logos
US Congress To Ban Cell Phones On Airplanes? posted Thu Jul 31 2008 20:12:34 by PiedmontINT
US Congress To Mess With ATC? posted Thu Sep 20 2007 04:06:43 by Mir
Can US ATC Network Handle EU-US Open Skies? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 00:05:40 by IADguy73
US Bill Seeks Anti-missile Technology On A380 posted Thu Jun 16 2005 09:19:31 by Virgin744
Airbus In The US, Boeing In The EU posted Thu Apr 18 2002 18:20:40 by Udo
EU 'Suspends' ETS posted Mon Nov 12 2012 08:28:39 by timboflier215