Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Signs Bill To Block EU ETS Participation  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24724 posts, RR: 46
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7665 times:

US President signed into law on Tuesday the legislation that enables the US DOT to prohibit US airlines from participating in the EU ETS scheme.

The widely supported bill cleared Congress two weeks ago. ( US Congress Passes Anti EU ETS Legislation (by LAXintl Nov 14 2012 in Civil Aviation) )

Under the now enacted legislation, the US government would make the determination that participating in EU ETS would not be “in the public interest, as participation would produce negative impacts on US consumers, US carriers and US operators, along with impacts on the economic, energy and environmental security of the United States and its US foreign relations, including existing international commitments.”

Stories:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...bre8aq1ar-20121127,0,1400336.story
and
http://atwonline.com/international-a...ling-us-airlines-skirt-eu-ets-1127

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7496 times:

At last we have some bi-partisanship in the USA. Thank you Europe!

Put a fork into the EU ETS...it is done


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7465 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
Put a fork into the EU ETS...it is done

Or at the very least, compromise. The EU is completely convinced that it's legal and valid while many other countries think it's absolutely invalid and illegal. Instead of fighting using brute strength and possible causing economic collateral damage, how about they work out the extra-territoriality issue?

Ignoring the issue and trying to implement it 100% in tact hasn't gotten anyone to back down (and it's even suspended right now) and on the flip side, killing the entire thing is kinda silly since only part of the ETS is controversial.

I've said it for a while now... work for a compromise. Otherwise, at least one side will be totally unhappy, maybe even both



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24724 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7143 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
At last we have some bi-partisanship in the USA. Thank you Europe!

Ha ha. Yes funny how an aviation issue brought the bickering sides together.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

Now all the EU need to do is enact a bill blocking EU financial institution participation in FATCA and everything should get real interesting...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
how about they work out the extra-territoriality issue

Because they don't need to.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7058 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
Instead of fighting using brute strength and possible causing economic collateral damage, how about they work out the extra-territoriality issue?

Look at the stalling at the previous ICAO assemblies and what has come out of ICAO lately and it is clear that this is what was needed to end the head in the sand mentality. Hopefully there will be an agreement at the 38th assembly and all those suggesting EU is not following ICAO will not start claiming it is right to break ICAO rules...


User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3946 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
how about they work out the extra-territoriality issue

The only extra-territoriality issue is the US congress legislating on something that happens on EU territory (in short: "if you land in the EU or cross its airspace, you have to pay XY EUR"). The US government (or myself for that matter) may not like the EU legislation, but certainly the US cannot enact a law that has any direct relevance in relation to this (well, of course they can, but it is completely irrelevant from a legal point of view).


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 6):

Actually, it was the EU trying to legislate a tax on the fuel efficiency of foreign airlines aircraft that never even enter the EU's airspace, as well as CO2 emissions on portions of flights that were not over EU airspace. This was all contrary to the Chicago Convention, and as such has been "suspended" by the EU due to objections raised by countries representing most of the world's population.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
it was the EU trying to legislate a tax on the fuel efficiency of foreign airlines aircraft that never even enter the EU's airspace

I'd like to see a link to something backing that up please.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
as well as CO2 emissions on portions of flights that were not over EU airspace.

If the aircraft enters EU airspace, its fair game - if you do business on EU soil, you get to play by the same rules as everyone else. You can repeat the mantra's "exta-territorial" and "not over EU airspace" all you want, but the moment that aircraft touches EU jurisdiction, its covered under the same rules.

If the TSA can demand all my personal details and even block me from flying based on a flight from the UK to Canada that never touches US airspace, then this shouldn't have any issues at all.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
This was all contrary to the Chicago Convention

Times change.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
and as such has been "suspended" by the EU due to objections raised by countries representing most of the world's population.

Spin it that way all you want, but it was suspended because the ICAO want to do something globally based on the ETS...


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
If the aircraft enters EU airspace, its fair game - if you do business on EU soil, you get to play by the same rules as everyone else. You can repeat the mantra's "exta-territorial" and "not over EU airspace" all you want, but the moment that aircraft touches EU jurisdiction, its covered under the same rules.

If the TSA can demand all my personal details and even block me from flying based on a flight from the UK to Canada that never touches US airspace, then this shouldn't have any issues at all.

All this really is is negotiating leverage. People making a big deal out of it are being silly. That being said the US law is no less valid than the EU law. Everyone is just posturing at this point.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6639 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 6):
the US cannot enact a law that has any direct relevance in relation to this (well, of course they can, but it is completely irrelevant from a legal point of view).

This is a good point, and one I had not even considered. The new law is totally unenforceable. It's the equivalent of Congress passing a law that bans me from paying any parking fines I might accrue in Europe. If I tried to rely on that in France the Gendarme would laugh the entire way into court!

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
Actually, it was the EU trying to legislate a tax on the fuel efficiency of foreign airlines aircraft that never even enter the EU's airspace

Actually, it is probably both.

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
If the aircraft enters EU airspace, its fair game - if you do business on EU soil, you get to play by the same rules as everyone else

Personally I agree, so long as it is fairly enforced on everybody then I don't see the problem from a purely economic standpoint. However, it seems to have ruffled some feathers over on this side of the pond (and elsewhere) from a vocal group of people who scream sovereignty.

I'll go get the popcorn  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6642 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
Actually, it was the EU trying to legislate a tax on the fuel efficiency of foreign airlines aircraft that never even enter the EU's airspace

Please show us where they did this  


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6629 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 4):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
how about they work out the extra-territoriality issue

Because they don't need to.

So we're just pretending that the EU countries didn't sign the ICAO treaties that say they do have to?

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
If the aircraft enters EU airspace, its fair game - if you do business on EU soil, you get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Those rules include existing treaties, which have not (yet) been negated.

Tom.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 9):
That being said the US law is no less valid than the EU law.

Which laws are we talking about? The anti-ETS one or the TSA screening requirements I mentioned?

If its the anti-ETS one, the US law has no validity within the EU - the exemption is worthless because the airline will still end up owing the debt, US law cannot stop a foreign nation from operating its own rules within its own jurisdiction.

The only outcome of this law is for US airlines to stop flying to the EU - the nuclear option. But unless retaliatory laws are passed against EU airlines, all that will do is damage US airline TATL business because EU airlines will still fly  


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6592 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
So we're just pretending that the EU countries didn't sign the ICAO treaties that say they do have to?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Those rules include existing treaties, which have not (yet) been negated.

And yet significantly there hasn't been any legal action lodged about it... Funny that, eh? Almost as if it weren't as in violation as some think.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6497 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
If its the anti-ETS one, the US law has no validity within the EU - the exemption is worthless because the airline will still end up owing the debt, US law cannot stop a foreign nation from operating its own rules within its own jurisdiction.

You can call it meaningless but it really isn't depending on what the penalties for complying are. The main purpose of this I believe is for negotiating leverage and it should be fairly effective in that regard. It signals that congress is probably willing to go down the path of enacting the necessary laws to retaliate against EU based airlines if necessary. That is really the whole purpose of this in my view.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6467 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 15):
You can call it meaningless but it really isn't depending on what the penalties for complying are.

But as it stands, those penalties can only apply against US airlines - not sure how that's going to punish the EU  
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 15):
It signals that congress is probably willing to go down the path of enacting the necessary laws to retaliate against EU based airlines if necessary. That is really the whole purpose of this in my view.

Then that's what they need to do, but how are they going to achieve that without really breaching all those sacred treaties being brought up in these threads?


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6432 times:

Wouldn't it have been so much less aggravation if ETS had been set up covering emissions in EU airspace?

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 16):
Then that's what they need to do, but how are they going to achieve that without really breaching all those sacred treaties being brought up in these threads?

Treaties are a waste of time in my view. They have no more force than nations want them to have at any point and certainly I was not bringing them up.

Quoting moo (Reply 16):
But as it stands, those penalties can only apply against US airlines - not sure how that's going to punish the EU

Yeah, but it basically makes things a game of chicken. If US airlines are told they can't pay what is the EU going to do? Impound aircraft? The EU won't cross that line. They don't want to start that kind of a battle right now. This will end up being settled and because I am betting that more nations will object to the EU plan than won't, particularly places in Asia.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6316 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):

The ETS is based on the fuel efficiency (CO2 emitted per RPK and RTK) of the foreign airline's aircraft fleet. That is how they measure the fuel efficiency of an airline and what their baseline credits are.

A vast majority of these flights for foreign airlines do not go near EU airspace.

I thought you understood how the EU ETS scheme worked for airlines


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6303 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 19):

That's a world of difference from "it was the EU trying to legislate a tax on the fuel efficiency of foreign airlines aircraft that never even enter the EU's airspace".

The ETS scheme uses standard values for all aircraft - spin it whatever way you like.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6293 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 20):

No, it uses the CO2 RPK history from the airlines....that is why the airlines have been having to report their RPK to the EU. They have also had to submit data on their fuel usage to back up their other data.

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/pages/emissions-europe.aspx


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6276 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 21):

Good, still don't see an issue with it - don't like it, don't do business in the EU.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6082 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
But unless retaliatory laws are passed against EU airlines
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 15):
congress is probably willing to go down the path of enacting the necessary laws to retaliate against EU based airlines if necessary

Which has the little problem of being without a doubt against treaties.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 19):
The ETS is based on the fuel efficiency (CO2 emitted per RPK and RTK) of the foreign airline's aircraft fleet. That is how they measure the fuel efficiency of an airline and what their baseline credits are.

No it isn't. It is based on emitted emissions on the flight to/from EU. They do not care one bit about how many passengers are onboard.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 19):
A vast majority of these flights for foreign airlines do not go near EU airspace.

They only count when they land/takeoff at an EU airport.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 19):
I thought you understood how the EU ETS scheme worked for airlines

Why I objected to your erroneous statement.


User currently offlineBoxBoy From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 49 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

I, for one, wish that all airlines around the world would have to contribute to this tax so that they can finally fix the hole in the ozone layer. Just imagine how much better off our children, pets, and plants will be once it is plugged and we can start filling the atmosphere back up with oxygen.

25 DLPMMM : If you bothered to read the link provided by me above from ICAO you would see that you are wrong. Otherwise there would be no point in all the data b
26 DeltaMD90 : So the legal opinions of other countries don't matter? I know you three think the EU's court decision is correct and legal but obviously they aren't
27 Post contains links cmf : Lets look at the templates EU provide for reporting data, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/e.../monitoring/templates/index_en.htm Open report_tkm_e
28 vfw614 : Legal opinion here in Europe is, for example, that the death penalty is unconstitutional and violates human rights. So let us assume the European Par
29 moo : Legal opinions of other countries don't matter in other jurisdictions unless that jurisdiction makes special difference to that opinion. How can it b
30 DLPMMM : I don't agree with your interpretation that the Article 84 proceedings are the most appropriate method from the foreign countries to fight the EST tax
31 moo : If it doesn't then I see the ETS being reinstated. Simple as that really. There has been plenty of opportunity for international action on carbon emi
32 Lufthansa : There has been a long established principle of international law that a vessel, be it an aircraft or a ship is a part of the country that it is regis
33 DLPMMM : There is no chance that the EU will reinstate the ETS tax scheme since the airlines from the USA, India, Russia, China, and lots of other countries w
34 moo : Really? There's nothing they can do? Sieze aircraft as payments of debts? There's plenty that can be done, which is why I see it being reinstated.
35 Post contains links vfw614 : We are talking about different things. The ETS may or may not be lawful. But the US Congress has no powers to legislate on the application of a law o
36 DLPMMM : LOL, So the EU is going to try to sieze the aircraft of every major foreign airline? You really think they would?
37 DeltaMD90 : Not following 100% but instead of talking to other countries and trying to resolve this, they're just trying to get it implemented through the ICAO.
38 vfw614 : Are we on common ground with this: What is being taken into the calculation is the emission of the whole flight that departs or arrives in the EU, whi
39 cmf : If the claim is that it is illegal because of the Chicago agreement then how can it not be the appropriate place to test it? You call it dead but it
40 XT6Wagon : I.... wow..... really? The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with CO2, and in fact has allways been there thanks to the mechanics of how Ozon
41 phxa340 : Your clearly not an economics major ? The EU needs the US and Asia as much they need the EU. You understand that LH and BA make a ton of revenue off
42 DLPMMM : If the EU think that the ETS complies with the Chicago Convention, then they can try to enforce it through filing under it against the USA and Russia
43 cmf : Yet again you fail to provide support for your statements. All you have are snarky comments. You can't even provide support from the site you linked.
44 Viscount724 : But as I understand it, the scheme was only intended to apply to airlines with flights to/from the EU. I don't understand why you seem to be saying t
45 harleydriver : This is the problem with the ETS as it stands. The fact that an aircraft departing LAX as an example with a destination of Shannon, Ireland would need
46 cmf : How is this different from the APD implementations where you pay depending on the length of the flight? Or the Indian APD where the rate is different
47 DLPMMM : It has been explained to you over and over, yet you still don't seem to get it. Those are APDs and are allowed under internationa aviation treaties..
48 UALWN : They can buy credits from anybody who has them, say other companies, even other airlines who have taken steps to reduce their emissions.
49 DLPMMM : Only if there are credits available...which the Governments control the supply and can arbitrarily change the amount available merely by changing the
50 sweair : They could buy them from German nuke plants, no wait these will be replaced with coal power plants..
51 UALWN : Any proof of that? If so, please do tell the appropriate judge. If not...
52 UALWN : The aim of ETS is to encourage voluntary reduction of emissions. So a certain company is allocated an initial free supply of credits. If it manages t
53 DLPMMM : It is not voluntary...it is a tax enforced by a fining system called carbon credits..and the number of free credits decreases every year by an arbitr
54 UALWN : The reduction of carbon emissions is voluntary: you either reduce emissions or you buy more credits. It is not really a tax: credits can be bought fr
55 Aquila3 : OK, so now that the President has signed, it is clear, we have a winner. The ETS is dead. The US, together with all the worlds bigger polluter won. No
56 par13del : I recall a case being bought in the UK courts which resulted in a EU appeals court ruling that since the EU was not a party to the Chicago Convention
57 tdscanuck : If you think that the actions of the elected representatives even represent the opinion of *their* voters, let alone all US citizens, then you don't
58 BMI727 : Sounds like something from Enron. Hooray! Now, can the rest of the world take FATCA to the woodshed? I know one that doesn't.
59 Post contains images cmf : This is like your claim about what airlines are required to report, wrong. Again, there is little difference between the "extraterritorial" element o
60 rduddji : The legislation passed by Obama is essentially meaningless. However, the US, China, Russia, et al, should simply charge EU airlines a tax that's tripl
61 Post contains images par13del : Not this again, the EU is not a party to the Chicago Convention, so the ETS which was created by the EU cannot be abrogated by a convention to which
62 cmf : Which would be clearly against the treaties you use as justification... Sounds a lot like the animal farm. Well, since my original comment was about
63 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : We may not see eye to eye on this issue, but the last thing I would want is to combat a questionably illegal portion of a larger idea (ETS) with blat
64 Aquila3 : I am sorry that you think like that. I was one of these youngs that when the wall fall down thought that we where going to build a Nation inspired to
65 par13del : Why, I said it was one of the reasons. The EU is a continuing evolution of common market which as we know was a trading group, political leaders have
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...
US Congress Passes Anti EU ETS Legislation posted Wed Nov 14 2012 06:18:36 by LAXintl
Austrian: "All Signs Point To VO Transfer" posted Mon Mar 12 2012 13:03:49 by LOWS
FR Complains About W6's Ownership To The EU posted Tue Feb 14 2012 09:24:35 by ju068
CO's 757 To UK & EU posted Tue Jan 17 2012 12:29:34 by olddominion727
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
Bill To Strip TSA Of Badges? posted Sat Dec 10 2011 05:09:37 by comair25
Lufthansa Encouraging Canada To Block EK: Flanagan posted Mon Dec 6 2010 09:42:37 by EK156
Passengers Sue To Block UAL/CAL Merger posted Tue Jun 29 2010 17:10:20 by delimit
US To Block 40 LGA Slots Flying 94 Mile Route posted Fri Nov 27 2009 07:18:36 by Enilria