Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5597 times:
This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.
Quote: US airlines must pay for their carbon dioxide emissions or face a curb on flights to the European Union, the EU transport commissioner has warned.
The "go green" ultimatum was issued by Jacques Barrot as the transatlantic airline market undergoes its biggest shakeup in 30 years when limits on flights between the EU and US are lifted this month. Barrot said negotiations on a second phase for the treaty, will include a demand that US carriers join the EU emissions trading scheme or an equivalent system in the US.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6373 posts, RR: 34 Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5510 times:
Quoting Joni (Thread starter): Barrot said negotiations on a second phase for the treaty, will include a demand that US carriers join the EU emissions trading scheme or an equivalent system in the US.
The EU can demand all they want; it doesn't mean they'll get anything -- just as the EU may refuse US demands for passenger information. Moreover, choosing to suspend the rights of the new US entrants at Heathrow will also lead the US to suspend the rights of EU carriers to operate flights between the EU and airports which are not located within their home country -- and force BA to move a number of its US flights back to LGW as well.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5409 times:
Typical EU bureaucrat bullcrap.
Let's assume for the time being that we have a problem with excessive CO2 emissions on this planet (Which is likely, but far from proven).
Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology (biomass to liquid, nuclear and/or renewable power, etc), some bigshot comes up with another monster of bureaucracy that helps no one (least the climate) except the goverments which have another excuse to squeeze some more money outta the people. Hell, in 15 years from now, we in Europe will have to pay for work, instead of earn something ... Count me outta here sooner or later
N1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 555 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5407 times:
Quoting Joni (Thread starter): This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.
Just like competitive advantage of all the other airlines around the world - except the EU?
The fact that the EU wants to lead in environmental protection doesn't mean it has to force everybody to play by their rules. If they can't even convince the ICAO to adopt their rules, then will threaten US airlines and try to force them by cutting a deal in the open skies treaty.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10225 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
I have no doubt the U.S. will fight this - as well it should.
If the E.U. wants to cause harm to its airlines by punishing them for the "global warming" that they don't even cause, then fine, be my guest. But they have no right to unilaterally impose this pseudo-scientific, hysteria-driven bullsh*t on the rest of the world.
If the E.U., in turn, wants to refuse to go along with America's security regime for flights across the Atlantic, then fine. It doesn't really make us all that much safer, anyway, and I'd much rather have an economically viable transportation system free of the tyranny of bad public policy and guilt-ridden European bureaucrats than pre-notification seven years in advance when anyone with a suspicious name gets onto a plane bound for the U.S.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5180 times:
I agree whole heartedly with this innitiative, especially the part where if the US does not introduce the same slot restrictions and curfew's that exist at LHR etc, the carriers will loose their ability to serve the EU.
Yippie at long last we would have a level playing field.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5084 times:
Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 1): And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?
Well that would pre-empt the whole issue of having to offset carbon emissions from transatlantic flights by eliminating the emissions along with the flights.
Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 6): Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology
Emissions trading is in fact a nifty idea, since it uses a market mechanism to shift reductions in GHG emissions to the industries and companies that can implement the cuts cheapest.
I'm quite optimistic the US will join this system, or implement a similar one. Remember that they'll likely have a working government in 2009 that will be able to face the reality that a problem exists that needs to be confronted.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10225 posts, RR: 62 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5049 times:
This really isn't the forum for it, but I think it is quite relevant to the topic of airlines having someone's interpretation of "science" foisted upon them, to the detriment of not only the airlines themselves but also the traveling public ...
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11): I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.
Some are articles, some are reports, declarations, etc. The point is that there is a cornucopia of information available out here on the information superhighway to suggest to those who are open enough to hearing it that "global warming" is absolutely not "settled science," as so many continually repeat.
If you want to stick only to more technical reading, may I suggest those last two links, and the website they point to, which is excellent: junkscience.com.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4947 times:
"US to suspend the rights of EU carriers to operate flights between the EU and airports which are not located within their home country -- and force BA to move a number of its US flights back to LGW as well".
Presumably you are referring flights to or over the USA.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10225 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4886 times:
Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'... moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.
Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions - last estimate I heard was somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. That is absolutely nothing when compared with automobiles.
Airlines are hardly "one of those biggest contributors." Airlines are among the most minimal contributors, actually.
Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.
It's equally unbelievable about how so-called "environmentalists" (on A.net and elsewhere) are so inseparably wedded to their ideology, and their theological belief in human-caused "global warming" that when anyone provides contrasting view points that are based on equally-sound evidence and science, they are treated as if they are debating gravity.
Pvd757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 18 Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4829 times:
Some readings I have come across state that the population would still produce too much green house gases if you removed all industry that contributes. Until a consensus can be found in all countries, not just EU, that would even include the exempt countries in Kyoto, I think it is all just a bunch of hot CO2 until everyone acknowledges there is some things we can do to reduce the problem but not eliminate it. Climate change is already happening, whether this is implememted or not. BTW, I'm not against doing something to improve the situation just because my government has yet to acknowledge the issue, but more than just a few people in the US think that the EU is trying to do this to either jumpstart their stagnant industries or level the playing field with economies that are still showing long-term growth.
I'm upping my two cents to five due to the weakness in the dollar....................
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4769 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 18): Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions - last estimate I heard was somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. That is absolutely nothing when compared with automobiles.
3% sounds small but it's a slice that's worth including in the emissions trading system nonetheless. Otherwise airlines would be freeloaders. Obviously, they'd only bear 3% of the cost as well, and even less if they're more efficient than industry on average in cutting down their carbon emissions.
For me the definition is very simple: the greenhouse effect provokes global warming, that's it. Otherwise, tell me what's a greenhouse for, or write an article proposing a name change.
Everyone looks at the problem according to their most convenient perspective. That's why we are all f***ed up. Not taking small actions is why nothing will stop China and India from becoming the largest polluters, nothing will stop Brazil from wiping out the Amazon forest, etc, etc, etc. And when someone tries to bring this out to the attention of people like you, is deemed as an 'Eco-terrorist'.
There's only one freedom of the press: That of the survivors - (G. Arciniegas)
25 Commavia: Airlines are hardly freeloaders. They - and really, not the airlines themselves, but actually their passengers - already pay enough. Air travel is am
26 Robffm2: As soon as the problem of global warming is solved. And of course no more kids starving....
27 Kellmark: Yup, let's all bankrupt the airlines with that EU Global Warming tax based on false science. It is true that the Polar ice cap has been melting. On Ma
28 Commavia: Okay, so never, then. So never is the answer. Thanks for clearing that up.
29 RedFlyer: Let's include all fat people, too. Their excesses no doubt leave a larger carbon footprint, everything from consuming more and larger quantities of f
30 Gigneil: I will read through your links, although clicking briefly through I don't see much science from any university studies or national departments, which
31 FreequentFlier: Oy vey. Airlines are now dealing with 110 dollar a barrel oil. If there was ever a time for them to limit fuel consumption and any carbon emissions a
32 DLPMMM: The earth revolving around the sun was a "fringe belief" as well for a very long time. I have dealt with alot of "scientific computer models", and th
33 Gigneil: Snowfall is indicative of warming trends. I didn't ask for any childish responses. We can discuss science if you'd like. You clearly didn't read my p
34 Commavia: In my experience - as a college student - I have found that academics and the "intelligentsia" are often some of the most biased sources of research
35 Glbltrvlr: That's the problem in a nutshell. Commonly held belief is not provable, scientific fact, no matter how much someone might wish it to be. Here's an ex
36 474218: That easy, if you feel that every breath you take is contributing to global warming, just stop breathing!
37 Gigneil: Sigh, I hate the Internet. This sort of discussion is far better held with a beer, or boxing gloves. I'm not sure my actual position is getting across
38 Commavia: Gigneil, allow me to introduce you to the mob: Gigneil, Internet. Internet, Gigneil. No arguments here. And it just so happens that the bat-, torch-
39 Cytz_pilot: Thank you!!! 50 years from now, if the science proves man-made climate change, and we have sat on our hands the whole time, then it's 10 times the pr
40 DocLightning: Well seeing as how I just shelled out over US$1.50 for €1.00 and the US Dollar is continuing to fall, it would essentially isolate the U.S. from th
41 DocLightning: The proof is adequate. It's like the "DNA is the molecule of heredity" argument. Or the "HIV is necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS" argument. The
42 Commavia: Absurd to you, since you believe it. But there are plenty of people - and no, not all of them are stupid or misinformed - who have looked at things a
43 MD-90: You're aware that the earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998, right? You're aware that the earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998,
44 Gigneil: Even unscientific observation says that's not true. The drowning polar bears don't agree either. Anyway. This thread isn't to debate global warming, b
45 Azstagecoach: Believe what you want. Believe that airplanes don't contribute to carbon emissions, or that carbon emissions contributte to global warming. Hey, it's
46 PWM2TXLHopper: If CO2 is heavier than air, and the air at high altitude is thin, wouldn't it be logical to assume the gas decends to lower levels?
47 Warren747sp: Another way for the EU to milk more money from the Americans under the disguise of globel warming which the airliner industry accounts a very low perc
48 Gigneil: Right, so they sit down in Brussels and hatch schemes to tax Americans? Are you suggesting that governments shouldn't tax constituents at all? Further
49 Lufthansa411: The problem with your logic is that the EU is not saying that the US has to adopt a carbon trading system for all US flights within US airspace other
50 Rampart: I much prefer arguing this debate in my own circles. Granted, there is still differing opinion to be found there. But more civil. And less invoking re
51 Commavia: Slight difference between me and some others here and elsewhere: I have looked at the spectrum of thinking out there, and made up my mind, just as th
52 Ikramerica: What part of "we signed an Open Skies treatry" does the EU not understand? Obviously a lot of it, because they keep trying to impose restrictions and
53 Gigneil: Here's what I really want to debate. What IS gravity? I think that its the inherent propensity of matter to collect towards planar radii in spacetime.
54 Khobar: One of the largest (if not the largest) contributor to the "man-made" global warming account is land-use change, and one of the most damaging forms of
55 Rampart: OK. So that means you could be wrong, doesn't it? I've yet to see you admit that. Does it worry you that if you, and more importantly, people who hol
56 Gigneil: I agree. Also right there with you. So much for clean burning hydrogen. NS
57 MD-90: And since when do you EVER trust politicians when they want to control you? That's what all this carbon nonsense is about. If you control carbon you
58 Gigneil: And how do you propose the world be run? You don't trust governments, do you want to trust private industry to look after your best interests? Please
59 EnviroTO: It solves any problem Air Canada might have expanding and filling seats. With no EU flights to the US and no US flights to the EU maybe Gander Airpor