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.”
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5290 posts, RR: 48 Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6338 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
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5931 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...
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3584 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5729 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).
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.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5549 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...
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5525 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.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2495 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5512 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.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5515 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
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5502 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.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5473 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
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5370 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.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5340 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?
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5295 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.
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
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.
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.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4955 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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
BoxBoy From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3272 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.
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 being demanded by the EU from the foreign airlines. And since the data includes aircraft that never enter the EU, it is even more so egregious.
You can object to anything you like, but you are still wrong.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5290 posts, RR: 48 Reply 26, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
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 the only opinion and the EU's court is not anymore special that anyone else's.
I'm not even again ETS, I'm just saying that there are legitimate concerns and just trying to go ahead with ETS at the complete disapproval of many other countries probably isn't the best option. It's not like the ETS will completely fall apart if they change a part of it to make it more appealing to other countries. Had they done that in the first place, there wouldn't be a pissing match between various countries and the EU, and the ETS would probably still be in effect today.
This thread reminds me of the Israel-Palestine threads. Both sides think they're completely 100% right and aren't willing to negotiate. The US isn't calling to end the ETS, they are objecting to a, let's be honest, minor part of it.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 27, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 25): 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 being demanded by the EU from the foreign airlines. And since the data includes aircraft that never enter the EU, it is even more so egregious.
"The EU ETS for aviation has been expanded to cover the three EEA EFTA States Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. This means that aircraft operators also need to monitor and report their emissions and tonne-kilometre data from domestic flights within the EEA EFTA States, flights between the EEA EFTA States and flights between EEA EFTA States and third countries.
Accordingly, all references to Member States in this template should be interpreted as including all 30 EEA States. The EEA comprises the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway."
Very clear they are only requesting data to, from and inside the 30 states.
I have no idea where in the link you provided you think it states they require worldwide reporting but the data direct from EU is clear it is only the flights I mentioned above.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26): 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 the only opinion and the EU's court is not anymore special that anyone else's.
Beg your pardon, where have I stated legal opinions of other nations do not matter? But I think you agree that a stated opinion and a court ruling carry very different degrees of substance. Nor should there be any doubt that a ruling by an EU court is legal.
Of course there is the possibility that other courts will see it differently and just as we have multiple levels of courts in most countries it may be that an overruling court, or ICAO procedure in this case, may see it differently.
But why aren't the nations claiming it is a violation of the Chicago conventions using the procedure agreed in it to solve this issue? We have seen some make the claim it is because EU isn't a signatory but as we saw with A4A it is an argument not holding water as you initiate it against the administrating nation.
Isn't that what EU have clearly indicated they are willing to do? How can it be clearer than holding back after ICAO finally produced something to show they are going to address the task they stated they would do but ignored for a decade and half.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3584 posts, RR: 5 Reply 28, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2559 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
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 the only opinion and the EU's court is not anymore special that anyone else's.
Legal opinion here in Europe is, for example, that the death penalty is unconstitutional and violates human rights. So let us assume the European Parliament passes a law that makes executions of EU citizens not only within the EU territory, but also in the rest of the world unlawful. By your logic, the US would have to stop executions of EU citizens immediately, right? Just as much as you expect that US airlines do not have to play by the rules set up by the EU for aircraft touching its soil or overflying its airspace.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 29, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2500 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26): So the legal opinions of other countries don't matter?
Legal opinions of other countries don't matter in other jurisdictions unless that jurisdiction makes special difference to that opinion. How can it be any other way?
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 30, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
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 scheme, but that really doesn't matter.
No one needs to initiate legal proceedings under the Chicago Convention because the point is moot and the EU ETS tax scheme is dead WRT foreign airlines. You seem to be intent on beating this dead horse.
Why fight a legal case over something that you have already won?
And BTW, ICAO will continue to come to no agreement in the foreseeable future.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 31, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2425 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 30): And BTW, ICAO will continue to come to no agreement in the foreseeable future.
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 emissions, and there has been an equal amount of squirming and excuses given from various quarters which has resulted in nothing being done with international jurisdiction - at least the EU are doing something, and at least they are forcing discussion on the matter.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 3074 posts, RR: 10 Reply 32, posted (5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28): Legal opinion here in Europe is, for example, that the death penalty is unconstitutional and violates human rights. So let us assume the European Parliament passes a law that makes executions of EU citizens not only within the EU territory, but also in the rest of the world unlawful. By your logic, the US would have to stop executions of EU citizens immediately, right? Just as much as you expect that US airlines do not have to play by the rules set up by the EU for aircraft touching its soil or overflying its airspace.
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 registered in. This is the big difference. Now while that vessel is in the airspace, or waters of a foreign country it must abide by certain conditions enabling its visit. These can include things such as tariffs, safety standards, etc. And for these reasons a lot of these conditions where negotiated between countries as part of bilateral trade negotiations. In other words, diplomatic agreements. (that means both sides agreeing, something the EU didn't attempt to even try to do) But as soon as that vessel has left the visiting countries territory it has no further rights over it, and when in international waters/skies is basically 100% subject to the laws of its country of registration. Lots of examples, like for example, 'party ships' that would take swedish party goers on tax free drinking nights the moment they left swedish waters and could 'bypass' Sweden's sin on alcohol tax. Similar things were happening in asia were casino's were outlawed, and the moment they departed the home port and were in international waters the roulette tables opened for business. The problem with this ETS, is they're ignoring this issue of a vessels sovereignty. And that's why this is different to the example above.
And this is why foreign countries have a big problem. For Ideological reasons, that is, the EU wanted to see 'carbon trading' they pushed this. They wanted it to be treated the same as everything else inside the EU, but attempted to apply it to something outside the EU. If they passed a tax based on aircraft takeoff weight, for example, they would have got away with it. Or a departure tax based on distance flown. They haven't attempted to apply their law to property of another country outside their country. But by trading... they are applying it to something happening outside their territory. Thats the big issue. And if they want to do that they need to negotiate that with other countries. But if they set a precedent of being able to do that without negotiation, that opens the flood gates to all kinds of issues of property rights and sovereignty. It's basically violating other nations sovereignty. Some might point economic sanctions do that all the time. But they work like this: make a choice them or us. It does become a giant game of chicken. Now if the EU has every other big nation on earth saying "ummm...i don't think so that's our turf not yours" then they'd be very very stupid to push ahead. And the reality of that, has basically just confronted them.
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 33, posted (5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 31): If it doesn't then I see the ETS being reinstated. Simple as that really.
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 will simply refuse to participate and pay the EU. It would just accelerate the demise of the EU airlines. There is nothing that the EU could reasonably do to enforce the tax when the other countries refuse to let their airlines pay it.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3584 posts, RR: 5 Reply 35, posted (5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 32): 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 registered in. This is the big difference.
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 of a foreign sovereign. If someone does not like a law, he can take it for review to a court which has jurisdiction in the matter or retaliate by imposings tariffs or a similar law for his jurisdiction. But there is no way a parliament of state A can legislate on the applicability of a law of state B. Or overrule the decision of a foreign court. I would be very surprised if the US would find it acceptable if foreign nations overruled every decision of the US Supreme Court which they don't like by passing a law to that extent.
The international principle you are talking about, by the way, is not a universal principle, but limited to criminal offences (and some aspects of public law) - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_principle. The ETS has nothing to do with. If it were different, the US Congress could just as well legislate that rules on slot allocation under EU law or the ban of certain aircraft are not applicable to US carriers.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5290 posts, RR: 48 Reply 37, posted (5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2245 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 27): Isn't that what EU have clearly indicated they are willing to do? How can it be clearer than holding back after ICAO finally produced something to show they are going to address the task they stated they would do but ignored for a decade and half.
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. That doesn't seem like compromise to me. I mean it might work and all, but I still don't think that is considered compromise
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28): Legal opinion here in Europe is, for example, that the death penalty is unconstitutional and violates human rights. So let us assume the European Parliament passes a law that makes executions of EU citizens not only within the EU territory, but also in the rest of the world unlawful. By your logic, the US would have to stop executions of EU citizens immediately, right?
That is completely not what I'm saying. It's about jurisdiction, read my reply to the next quotation. I 100% support the EU's RIGHT to charge ETS within the EU's jurisdiction. Funny you should mention the death penalty (which I oppose) but the EU does not extradite anyone when they are going to face the death penalty in the other country
Quoting moo (Reply 29): Legal opinions of other countries don't matter in other jurisdictions unless that jurisdiction makes special difference to that opinion. How can it be any other way?
Because jurisdiction is the crux of the issue. To my knowledge, no country objects to having their airlines pay ETS *in EU airspace.* They are objecting to being charged for the portion of the flight outside of the EU's jurisdiction and the actual country suing.
Now you are free to agree or disagree, but at least understand the argument. The big bad US isn't trying to prevent the EU from having ETS. The US' opinion is that it is the ETS that is extra-territorial.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3584 posts, RR: 5 Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2216 times:
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, which means that also the emissions count that are emitted into international airspace which is not over EU territory.
So in a way like you are having to pay a national tax / levy for a non-domestic flight although some / the bigger part of the flight is outside the territory of the state that levies the tax. So the argument consequently is that the US Congress could also enact a law binding the UK that says that a charge under UK law for a longhaul flight from the UK to the US is lawful only as long as it covers only the portion of the flight that is over UK airspace? Because everything else is extra-territorial?
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 30): 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 scheme, but that really doesn't matter.
No one needs to initiate legal proceedings under the Chicago Convention because the point is moot and the EU ETS tax scheme is dead WRT foreign airlines.
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 is far from. Hopefully ICAO will come to an acceptable agreement but if it doesn't the EU ETS is back on. If you're so convinced it is against the agreement then initiate proceedings to make sure it doesn't come back.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 30): Why fight a legal case over something that you have already won?
As stated above, your conclusion is wrong
Quoting moo (Reply 29): And BTW, ICAO will continue to come to no agreement in the foreseeable future.
Maybe, maybe not. It is clear this will be a big issue at the next assembly.
As to the issue you brought up before and is now completely missing; Do you now accept that EU are not asking for data only for flights to/from or inside the ETS area?
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 33): It would just accelerate the demise of the EU airlines. There is nothing that the EU could reasonably do to enforce the tax when the other countries refuse to let their airlines pay it.
I hope we will never find out, but I expect you're wrong about what would happen. They would clearly not allow those airlines to land. Counties preventing EU airlines to land as retaliation will be clearly in breach of treaties and EU would bring it up there.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 36): So the EU is going to try to sieze the aircraft of every major foreign airline?
You really think they would?
Outstanding fees, absolutely.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): 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. That doesn't seem like compromise to me. I mean it might work and all, but I still don't think that is considered compromise
Even the objecting countries state it is an ICAO issue so why not?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): Now you are free to agree or disagree, but at least understand the argument. The big bad US isn't trying to prevent the EU from having ETS. The US' opinion is that it is the ETS that is extra-territorial.
The argument is clear. The question is why US isn't using the dispute resolutions of the agreements they lean on to state it is a breach.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3130 posts, RR: 4 Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Quoting BoxBoy (Reply 24):
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.
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 Ozone is formed in the upper atmosphere. (hint: It requires a magnetic field, which the poles are a little short on). Ozone at ground level is a polutant, and there is no transfer between the upper atmosphere and ground level. There was some speculation that modern jet aviation helps RESTORE the ozone layer as the ozone in its combustion by-products is released at altitude, but I haven't kept up on the research to see if they ever got hard evidence to support that theory.
2nd, we aren't missing any oxygen. The levels of CO2 people are complaining about are trival compared to the ammount of O2 in the air.
3rd, Aviation and modern automobiles are two of the WORST places to go looking for reductions in emissions. If you waved a magic wand and made the planes and cars built next year put out 1/2 the CO2 of today... It would be lost in the noise of total human caused CO2.
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 its N American routes right ? And if the US said fine your payin the same tax our side it would be detrimental to EU airlines. The claim that nobody can do anything about this is laughable. Asia and the US will retaliate but cooler heads will prevail and this will get settled in a haphazard way eventually.
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 and China and India and the other countries which are not compliant.
I love how you take the failure of ETS so personally and try to spin it's demise.
I can't wait for the EU to start impounding planes
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.
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 that it applies to airlines that never even enter EU airspace.
harleydriver From United States of America, joined May 2010, 71 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1845 times:
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 to purchase credits for the duration of the flight, as a rough estimates I will use a nine hour flight with maybe an hour at the most of the flight in European Airspace yet the European Union will reap the benefits of the fees for that whole duration. Why should the airline pay the European fees for the entire flight when that flight was in U.S. and Canadian airspace for a majority of the flight?
It's no secret that most countries outside the EU are opposed to these fees as while there was an attempt to negotiate these fees, when negotiation didn't work the EU tried to just imposed the fees anyway. If the fees were to be charged for just the duration of the flight over EU airspace I feel there would be a lot less resistance but it would still need to be negotiated. The Chinese government delayed and almost canceled Hong Kong Airlines purchase of A380's. I believe the order is still on hold and might be cancelled but it's due to market conditions and their cancelling their London route and no longer tied to the ETS.
My question is where would the fees paid for credits go? Who within the EU receives the money and how would it be spent within the EU, plant more trees maybe and since its being collected for the duration of the flight no matter the duration of the flight in European airspace, how much of the money received for the credit will go to other countries like Russia for the duration of flights that cross their airspace since European to Asia flights spend a significant amount of time over Russian airspace.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 46, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1817 times:
Quoting harleydriver (Reply 45): 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 to purchase credits for the duration of the flight, as a rough estimates I will use a nine hour flight with maybe an hour at the most of the flight in European Airspace yet the European Union will reap the benefits of the fees for that whole duration. Why should the airline pay the European fees for the entire flight when that flight was in U.S. and Canadian airspace for a majority of the flight?
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 depending on what country you're flying to and sometimes depending on where you're flying after that country?
Quoting harleydriver (Reply 45): My question is where would the fees paid for credits go?
Most credits are given out so no revenue for them. Most of the remaining credits are bought from companies not needing their allocation. The money collected for the few credits sold by governments to airlines are earmarked for environmental use.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 47, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 46): 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 depending on what country you're flying to and sometimes depending on where you're flying after that country?
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...That is why they were not protested against by other nations.
The EU and it's member nationws is free to initiate such APDs (and indeed some have).
The ETS Scheme is not allowed under international aviation treaties (at least according to the Governments of the USA, China, Russia, India, and many other countries, despite what the ECJ might think).
Quoting cmf (Reply 46): Most credits are given out so no revenue for them. Most of the remaining credits are bought from companies not needing their allocation. The money collected for the few credits sold by governments to airlines are earmarked for environmental use.
They start out with most credits free, and then decrease the amount of credits each airline gets each year...so the airlines will be forced in the long run to either shrink their operations year over year, or pay the EU for more credits.
It is just another tax scheme with tax raises planned into it from the beginning...but they will say it costs almost nothing...at the beginning...A big old camel nose.
And from what I have read, the member nations are not required to spend the additional tax receitps on the environment...it goes into their general fund.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2320 posts, RR: 2 Reply 48, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1612 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 47): so the airlines will be forced in the long run to either shrink their operations year over year, or pay the EU for more credits.
They can buy credits from anybody who has them, say other companies, even other airlines who have taken steps to reduce their emissions.
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 49, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1577 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 48): They can buy credits from anybody who has them, say other companies, even other airlines who have taken steps to reduce their emissions.
Only if there are credits available...which the Governments control the supply and can arbitrarily change the amount available merely by changing the amount they provide "free". Otherwise they must "buy" these indulgences from the EU High Priests.
Just another scam by politicians to line their own pockets.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2320 posts, RR: 2 Reply 52, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 49): Only if there are credits available...which the Governments control the supply and can arbitrarily change the amount available merely by changing the amount they provide "free".
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 to decrease its emissions below the level covered by those credits, then it can sell those extra credits to other companies that emit beyond their free allocation of credits. If there are no sellers, then, indeed, companies can (or rather have to) buy the credits directly to the EU.
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 arbitrary amount determined by politicians...who then sell credits to those who need them.
Regardless of the aim, it is seen by most of the major non-EU governments as being impermissible under international treaties....and it is now dead in international application.
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
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.
Now, after having so brilliantly demonstrated their power supremacy (not that this was really necessary, with a weak opponent like EU) I would expect the US to exercise their Moral supremacy (that they indeed had exercised for at least the last century, and that I am very grateful of)in order to find a decent solution for the GLOBAL carbon emission.
This would be the best for everybody, and I feel that ETS was an effort in that direction.
Failing that , since it seems that the US Citizens, by the deeds of their rightly elected representatives do not care at all of the problem, I would kindly ask them to keep at least their CO2 under their jurisdiction (just to be clear : KEEP YOUR GARBAGE AT HOME). As a favor, of course.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 56, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 14): And yet significantly there hasn't been any legal action lodged about it... Funny that, eh?
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 the ETS even thouhj its member countries were.
Quoting cmf (Reply 39): If you're so convinced it is against the agreement then initiate proceedings to make sure it doesn't come back.
Already done, next.
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 55): Now, after having so brilliantly demonstrated their power supremacy (not that this was really necessary, with a weak opponent like EU)
I thought one of the reasons for the creation of the EU was to have an economy larger / greater than the USA.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 57, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 55): since it seems that the US Citizens, by the deeds of their rightly elected representatives do not care at all of the problem
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 understand the US political system.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 58, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 54): After all, ETS stands for Emission Trading Scheme.
Sounds like something from Enron.
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 55):
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
Hooray! Now, can the rest of the world take FATCA to the woodshed?
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 55): Failing that , since it seems that the US Citizens, by the deeds of their rightly elected representatives do not care at all of the problem,
I know one that doesn't.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 59, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1200 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 47): It has been explained to you over and over, yet you still don't seem to get it.
This is like your claim about what airlines are required to report, wrong.
Again, there is little difference between the "extraterritorial" element of APD and ETS. If one is good in that aspect then so is the other. That you don't want it to be so isn't legally binding. The countries who thing it is against the Chicago agreement should initiate proceedings as specified in the Chicago convention.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 47): so the airlines will be forced in the long run to either shrink their operations year over year, or pay the EU for more credits
Again you miss the main point. There is a third option, the option ETS promote: be more efficient.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 47): It is just another tax scheme with tax raises planned into it from the beginning...but they will say it costs almost nothing...at the beginning...A big old camel nose
As has been explained to you multiple times - it is a cap on emissions. Stay inside the cap and there is no cost.
If it was about generating tax revenue it would have looked very different. So obvious most objectors fail to see it.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 47): And from what I have read, the member nations are not required to spend the additional tax receitps on the environment...it goes into their general fund.
Read again. I have provided links to where it is stated all revenue generated from aviation will go to environmental projects. Then look at how much the governments currently spend and it is clear that line of argument is nothing but a red herring.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 49): Only if there are credits available...which the Governments control the supply and can arbitrarily change the amount available merely by changing the amount they provide "free". Otherwise they must "buy" these indulgences from the EU High Priests.
More misleading information, sprinkled with insults. There is a cap set for each period. Once those have been allocated that's it, no more credits to sell or give away. This is why cap and trade is guaranteed to reduce emissions, there are no additional credits. If you want to fly more become more efficient or buy them from other who could do it cheaper than you.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 49): Just another scam by politicians to line their own pockets.
A populistic statement aimed at playing on the sympathies of the anti government populous. Ironically, you can look at this as a requirement for a balanced budget, just that it is about environment instead of money.
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 55): The ETS is dead. The US, together with all the worlds bigger polluter won.
Be careful. ETS is in effect and all flights inside EU are still requiring credits provided next year. Only internation flights have been suspended and it had everything to do with the news from ICAO and nothing with US.
Quoting par13del (Reply 56): 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 the ETS even thouhj its member countries were.
Not again. Read the ruling and you will find that the explanation is different.
rduddji From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1313 posts, RR: 3 Reply 60, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1162 times:
The legislation passed by Obama is essentially meaningless. However, the US, China, Russia, et al, should simply charge EU airlines a tax that's triple whatever the EU charges them.
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 61, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 59): The countries who thing it is against the Chicago agreement should initiate proceedings as specified in the Chicago convention.
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 it is not a party to, but I'll accept your statements from the previous thread that this is incorrect, I think that one ended on technicalities and precise wording.
Quoting cmf (Reply 59): I'll take a link supporting your statement
No problem, see your reply below.
Quoting cmf (Reply 59): Not again. Read the ruling and you will find that the explanation is different.
In case you missed it, the comment "already done" was to a posters claim that no legal action had been taken against the ETS, I trust that you are credible link
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2476 posts, RR: 35 Reply 62, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1098 times:
Quoting rduddji (Reply 60): The legislation passed by Obama is essentially meaningless. However, the US, China, Russia, et al, should simply charge EU airlines a tax that's triple whatever the EU charges them.
Which would be clearly against the treaties you use as justification... Sounds a lot like the animal farm.
Quoting par13del (Reply 61): In case you missed it, the comment "already done" was to a posters claim that no legal action had been taken against the ETS, I trust that you are credible link
Well, since my original comment was about initiating article 84 proceedings... that has not taken place... I find your comment that it is already done, strange... But I'm glad you agree with my point.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5290 posts, RR: 48 Reply 63, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 62): Quoting rduddji (Reply 60):
The legislation passed by Obama is essentially meaningless. However, the US, China, Russia, et al, should simply charge EU airlines a tax that's triple whatever the EU charges them.
Which would be clearly against the treaties you use as justification... Sounds a lot like the animal farm.
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 blatantly illegal measures.
I apologize cmf (and others) for not replying to some of your retorts... I am not fully educated on this subject and do not want to argue for the sake of arguing when I am unsure of something. I will continue to voice my concerns and listen to yours, please realize I'm not trying to dodge the "tough questions."
Aquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 979 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 56): I thought one of the reasons for the creation of the EU was to have an economy larger / greater than the USA.
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 the same principles of Freedom an Equality as the USA.
They where the people thinking only in terms of economy and market that made what we have now, that useless, shaming ruling of overpaid bureaucrats. And it is probably the same kind of people that made the US what it is now, but I would not care too much, at the end it is Their Country and and They should do whatever they like of it.
Nonetheless, some of the ideas of those days, like the protection of the environment, still stand out in many of us, and this gives me some little hope for the future.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 65, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 920 times:
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 64): I am sorry that you think like that.
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 stated time and time again how the creation and consolidation of the economies in Europe have created a bloc that rivals and in some cases exceeds the USA in economic strength, are you really denying this?
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 64): I was one of these youngs that when the wall fall down thought that we where going to build a Nation inspired to the same principles of Freedom an Equality as the USA.
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 64): Nonetheless, some of the ideas of those days, like the protection of the environment, still stand out in many of us, and this gives me some little hope for the future.
How does this affect the fact that the EU is a continued consolidation of the economies in Europe into a single trading bloc with immense economic power in the world, you think ETS would be going anywhere if Germany or any of the other individual countires in the EU had implemented the scheme by themselves?
Whether you like it or not, the creation of the trading group and its economic power has empowered the individual nations and advanced a number of them - economically and politically - much further in a shorter space of time than could / would have happened if they went by themselves, economic integration has gone full speed ahead, you see it and experience its benefits on a daily basis, the political integration is what is lagging behind as you quite likely state, however I do noe see where they are not mutually exclusive if that is your implication.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22024 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3584 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2495 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From Christmas Island, joined exactly 14 years ago today! 
, 3074 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2320 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, 
From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 208 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, 
From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1313 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
