This is the latest move in the simmering battle on this issue; the decision was no doubt communicated to Angela Merkel, on her visit to China last week, looking for China's help in the ongoing Eurozone crisis. We can only hope for a quid quo pro, but whether Merkel (or any of the EU leaders) have room to manoeuvre remains to be seen. The intelligent thing would be for the EU to shelve this plan, since in the current crisis, it serves no-one's interests, but generally the intelligent thing is the least likely thing that they will do.
However, the ball is now firmly in the EU's court.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3979 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4871 times:
It would be more clever not to tax the airlines, but the airports (since departures from them can be tracked precisely and airports usually have to pay taxes anyways). The airports then can put this into their fees, so instead of MTOW CO2 production could go into their formula, having the same effect in the end to favor aircraft with low fuel consumption.
garpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2103 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4667 times:
Personally, I support China's stance.
This tax is not about curbing emissions, it's about the EU trying to get money to pull themselves out of the financial hole we are in.
In Britain, there has been an environmental tax on air travel for a few years now, the environment has not benefited, but the government coffers have. And it's only aviation that has this tax. Buses, trains and shipping do not have an emissions tax on their ticket prices even though combined they contribute so much more in emissions.
No amount of Tax will stop climate shift, it is a geological phenomenon that happens once every so often on Earth (Plenty of evidence in the bark of trees, the soil, etc). Nothing we do will stop it, though we are not helping with our emissions. But we will not stop it, even if we stopped all green house emissions tomorrow.
Taxes are just profiteering measures by governments, using scaremongering tactics to justify them.
Once again, aviation is the easy target for governments who want to look like they are helping the environment,
liyangjen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4362 times:
About this EU's new emissions tax supposedly for environmental purpose, I have a question? Maybe someone can answer me?
I just book a ticket to Rome this April. Then, I check online for tickets between Italy and various Europe cities. To my surprise, there are so many city-pair fares around US$100 round-trip, such as Rome-Athen, Rome-Bru, MXP-Berlin, etcs. These fares seem to be cheaper than the comparable fares (for the same distances) in US or Asia, or costs per mile. If EU wants to reduce the emmisions, how can they let their airlines offering such cheap fares for intra-Europe flying? Is this logical? Can someone explain this?
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Quoting garpd (Reply 5): This tax is not about curbing emissions
How can capping the amount of emmisions not be about emissions.
Quoting garpd (Reply 5): In Britain, there has been an environmental tax on air travel for a few years now
It does not enforce a cap.
Quoting garpd (Reply 5): Buses, trains and shipping do not have an emissions tax on their ticket prices even though combined they contribute so much more in emissions.
They are looking at how to include shipping. Trains are mostly electric and electrical generation is already included. Buses are taxed on fuel.
Quoting garpd (Reply 5): No amount of Tax will stop climate shift, it is a geological phenomenon that happens once every so often on Earth (Plenty of evidence in the bark of trees, the soil, etc). Nothing we do will stop it, though we are not helping with our emissions. But we will not stop it, even if we stopped all green house emissions tomorrow.
That is your opinion. My opinion is that we are already changing a lot that is natural and see no reason why we should not do what we can to stop something that will cost enormous amounts of money to move cities etc. Look at it as building a flood wall instead of moving the Netherlands.
As to China. Maybe they should stop the higher departure tax on international flights before complaining about having to pay for CO2 emissions when using EU airports. That tax is more than the CO2 costs by the way. If they don't want to pay it they should stop flying to Europe.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
SurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2378 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Instead of childishly defying about a relatively small tax that (theoretically) serves a good purpose, China would do well to start a similar program of its own. The air quality in Beijing, Shanghai, and other cities is absolutely terrible, and only going to get worse.
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6129 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4142 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2): For a country like China to be so defiant against an environmental inititive really does strike me as a bold move.
Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 8): Instead of childishly defying about a relatively small tax that (theoretically) serves a good purpose,
Does it even "theoretically" serve a good purpose?
The way I see it, is this whole thing is a scheme by the EU to increase income in these times when countries are struggling financially. They have not promised to spend the income on protecting the environment or actually doing something to fight the emmissions. This is purely about making money. I think it is fantastic that someone is willing to stand up to this ridiculous scheme. I am all for protecting the environment and even this tax would make perfect sense to me if they decided to spend 100% ot it on the environment, whether it is planting trees, stopping deforestation etc... but sadly it isn't about any of that.
aeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4117 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): I am all for protecting the environment and even this tax would make perfect sense to me if they decided to spend 100% ot it on the environment, whether it is planting trees, stopping deforestation etc... but sadly it isn't about any of that.
+1. I would support this tax if this happened as well. Unfrotunately, I don't think that the EU budget has any space for actually trying to help the environment...
Air India is definitely much better than you think it is.
georgiaame From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4074 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2): For a country like China to be so defiant against an environmental inititive really does strike me as a bold move.
Smart move on China's part, for once! The whole emissions/global warming thing is a total fraud, nothing more that a socialist, anti capitalist move to tax productive, profit producing individuals and corporations which are collectively endeavoring to improve the lives of the general population. What ticks me off is that it took a nation like China to make the call, rather than a Western democracy. Says a lot about how far we in the West have really sunk into our current economic and political decline.
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): The way I see it, is this whole thing is a scheme by the EU to increase income in these times when countries are struggling financially. They have not promised to spend the income on protecting the environment or actually doing something to fight the emmissions. This is purely about making money
If it was about generating taxes they would just increase ADP the way UK and Germany has done. B.t.w. US, India and China have departure tax too. And they all have higher tax for international than domestic.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): I am all for protecting the environment and even this tax would make perfect sense to me if they decided to spend 100% ot it on the environment, whether it is planting trees, stopping deforestation etc... but sadly it isn't about any of that.
It 100% is about that. The main method is the cap set for CO2 emissions each year. A cap that is reduced each year. How that can not have an effect is beyond me. On top of that it has also been stated that at least money collected for aviation is going to environmental projects.
Still, I'm sure EU governments have spent and will spend more money on environmental projects than is collected from ETS. Other groups have reason for complaining
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
aeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
Quoting georgiaame (Reply 12): The whole emissions/global warming thing is a total fraud, nothing more that a socialist, anti capitalist move to tax productive
While I agree that there are many things to criticize about the ETS, this statement seems rather ridiculous.
- There is no doubt that humans are polluting the environment, and that needs to be stopped.
- There is no doubt that the Earth is warming, and it may result in bad things to our species.
Keeping these 2 things in mind, trying to reduce pollution (emissions) is an excellent idea.
The current form of ETS - filling the EU's coffers by taxing companies - is bad. As I said above, the EU should be actively working to reduce pollution, not just be actively working to balance its budget. Otherwise, it should call this a TAX, which is what it is. It should not advertize it as a means to "help the environment" because it is not actually using the income to offset the emissions.
Moving on to the second part of your sentence, you call the ETS "socialist" and "anti-capitalist," which makes me highly doubt that you know what the word socialist means. The ETS is not really something that can be described as "socialist" if you are using "socialist" in the normal usage of the word. I really wish that you Americans would actually bother to learn what socialism is instead of using it as a synonym to "the plan of a boogeyman who is out to get us"
Capitalism is not perfect in any way.
Air India is definitely much better than you think it is.
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4020 times:
Neither does ETS. It sets a somewhat arbitrary, some what calculated cap that businesses are fined if they do not meet. They can flagrantly exceed the cap. Which is what the EU wants, because then they get paid.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 16, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
Quoting luckyone (Reply 15): They can flagrantly exceed the cap. Which is what the EU wants, because then they get paid.
I can flagrantly exceed speed limits. If I doo it too much I will lose my drivers license. I can continue driving without it. By that logic speed limits are only about governments collecting fines. It has nothing to do about reducing accidents. Are you calling for removing speed limits everywhere?
To tie in with caps. Yes they can be exceeded . Though the cost of doing so is more expensive than complying.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3950 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 16): I can flagrantly exceed speed limits. If I doo it too much I will lose my drivers license. I can continue driving without it. By that logic speed limits are only about governments collecting fines. It has nothing to do about reducing accidents.
In many places that is EXACTLY what happens. Drive down I-75 in BFE Georgia and watch the speed limit drop 10mph in certain places that just so happen to corroborate county lines--none of them could be described as "crowded." Count how many police cars are sitting just behind it.
In addition, does the ETS provide a "do it too much" provision?
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3915 times:
Quoting luckyone (Reply 15):
Neither does ETS. It sets a somewhat arbitrary, some what calculated cap that businesses are fined if they do not meet. They can flagrantly exceed the cap. Which is what the EU wants, because then they get paid.
No, it's a cap. Total emissions are capped. If all businesses stay within reduction targets, CO2 certificates will be cheap, and businesses will not be affected. If they emit more, they have to acquire certificates off other companies, and their value will rise because their total number is limited. At a certain point, it will be too expensive to acquire certificates, which will cause total emissions to be within predefined limits. The market mechanism ensures that this is done in the most economic way possible. It's really not hard to understand.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3817 times:
Quoting luckyone (Reply 17): In many places that is EXACTLY what happens. Drive down I-75 in BFE Georgia and watch the speed limit drop 10mph in certain places that just so happen to corroborate county lines--none of them could be described as "crowded." Count how many police cars are sitting just behind it.
In addition, does the ETS provide a "do it too much" provision?
So a few hicks in GA and other places abuse it. Doesn't mean that in the majority of cases it is there without good reason. Don't try to make this in to that ETS is abusing caps.
ETS does provide a "too much" in that airlines lose their right to fly to EU airports if they do not submit credits and then don't pay fines.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2629 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3806 times:
Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2): For a country like China to be so defiant against an environmental inititive really does strike me as a bold move.
Even if a non-EU country supported the sceme in principle, why should airlines flying to/from its territory hand all the revenue to the EU? If the EU were doing this for purely environmental reasons they would distribute revenue raised to all the countries overflown according to the CO2 produced in their airspace. Altering the scheme along those lines might gain the co-operation of more countries.
I think there are too many opponents (China, US etc) for this scheme to be workable without the EU negotiating changes with the countries opposed to the scheme. Proceeding risks putting airlines in a position where they cannot stay with the law whatever they do (illegal to participate under their country's law/ illegal not to under EU law).
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
Quoting art (Reply 20): Even if a non-EU country supported the sceme in principle, why should airlines flying to/from its territory hand all the revenue to the EU? If the EU were doing this for purely environmental reasons they would distribute revenue raised to all the countries overflown according to the CO2 produced in their airspace. Altering the scheme along those lines might gain the co-operation of more countries
EU has a much better solution. Instead of distributing what EU collects EU wants other regions to do their own collection.
Actually EU doesn't want to deal with aviation at all. Their goal is for ICAO to handle it. But after all this time ICAO has not even been able to produce a draft proposal. EU essentially lit a fire under their belly and hopefully something will happen and then aviation will be outside of ETS.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6093 posts, RR: 38 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3620 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): Does it even "theoretically" serve a good purpose?
The way I see it, is this whole thing is a scheme by the EU to increase income in these times when countries are struggling financially.
It doesn't serve any purpose apart from raising revenue for EU governments and giving politicians an "accomplishment" to tout for the Greens. The fact is that carbon dioxide emissions are global, and fossil fuel markets are also largely global, so reducing EU usage of fossil fuels has nearly negligible impact as that supply will simply be taken up elsewhere. (There's a small exception for consumption of resources like locally-mined coal which might not be exported otherwise.)
Aviation is a particularly ineffective target for emissions control regimes precisely because its fossil fuel source -- petroleum -- is traded on a global market. Reducing EU demand for petroleum-based fuels simply lowers the global market price slightly, which leads to higher demand for petroleum in other countries around the world. Attempting to restrict the global supply of oil is essentially unworkable, and this would also fail since coal-producing countries with less concern for the environment would simply substitute more coal for their energy needs.
Quoting cmf (Reply 19): So a few hicks in GA and other places abuse it. Doesn't mean that in the majority of cases it is there without good reason. Don't try to make this in to that ETS is abusing caps.
The same sort of argument could be made about red-light cameras. They are ostensibly introduced due to safety concerns, but any attempt to remove them is countered with an argument about the amount of revenue they produce.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3620 times:
Whether or not one supports the emission trading scheme, the argument that it has been introduced as a response to current financial woes is mistaken. The scheme was introduced several years ago and the aviation industry have had several years respite not afforded to other industries.
Airlines have had several years to prepare for the extension of the scheme to their industry but have seen fit to campaign against it rather than plan to live with it or prepare for it. That is entirely up to them but to introduce red herrings about fiscal problems in the EU several years after the legislation drawing up the scheme misses the point.
Liberty means responsibility.
25 Rara: What would be the alternative? Either you have a system in place or you don't. If Chinese airlines ignore binding legislation, and the EU lets them g
26 blueflyer: The Chinese government has NOT banned its airlines from co-operating, they have been banned from PAYING for ETS. All Chinese carriers have so far appl
27 luckyone: "No, it's a cap. Total emissions are capped. If all businesses stay within reduction targets, CO2 certificates will be cheap, and businesses will not
28 tugger: Wow, everyone ignored your reply! It is by far the smarter thing for the EU to do. Would have completely avoided the whole fiasco. Tugg
29 Rara: I don't understand what you mean. Every market operates in a regulatory environment. If I take out a bank loan, I'm legally obliged to pay it back. I
30 gigneil: Every educated human being on earth disagrees with you, and there are no reputable scientists that can dispute it. So, not to put too fine a point on
31 luckyone: "I don't understand what you mean. Every market operates in a regulatory environment. If I take out a bank loan, I'm legally obliged to pay it back.
32 DeltaMD90: I think the EU could probably curb emissions/'insert whatever they are trying to accomplish here' as much if they taxed time in EU airspace, instead o
33 cmf: Not sure how to read your comment. I'd guess the alternative if they don't pay the fines is to confiscate the planes when they land on an EU airport
34 Aesma: Just so you know, the EU budget has nothing to do with, say, the US federal budget. It's very small, and the main part is about subsidizing farmers. I
35 Rara: My mistake, I didn't understand your original comment correctly. I thought you said the EU did "too much" (for carbon avoidance) by holding foreign a
36 flyguy89: It tells you that the politicians have noticed it wouldn't be publicly palatable to create an additional, up-front, direct tax on aviation so they've
37 DeltaMD90: Do arrival and departure taxes vary on how far the airplane travels/has traveled? The big stink that most countries have been raising (or what I've s
38 Rara: Nice story, but entirely wrong. Politicians have created "additional, up-front, direct taxes on aviation". For instance, in Germany there's "Luftverk
39 SonomaFlyer: The EU scheme is illegal. They are placing a tax on emissions which take place outside their territory. What will wind up happening is the whole thing
40 flyguy89: Exactly, and you think creating another tax on top of the myriad of current taxes would reflect well upon the politicians?! Hardly. Especially in the
41 fiscal: It is an unfair tax, no equity in it all. It is an arrogant tax with the EU making themselves out to be the "rulers" of the world, using climate chan
42 vaus77w: You just contradicted yourself. If they do exceed the cap, they have to buy credits off others not exceeding the cap. If not, they get fined. Seems l
43 cmf: Which is why the well known socialist George H. W. Bush (a.k.a.the 41st U.S. president) endorsed it. In India departure tax is 500 INR unless you fly
44 StickShaker: The issue here is not about the relative merits of carbon pricing/taxing but is about the ability or right of one sovereign entity to impose and colle
45 cmf: Please explain how it is different from the departure taxes applied differently depending on how far the flight is. Should show how important they th
46 DeltaMD90: I see what you are saying (I was confused in the previous posts.) Well IMO two wrongs don't make a right, I think any violation of sovereignty should
47 StickShaker: Its very different - the departure tax is levied by a government within its own jurisdiction - ie the airport is within its own borders. If it was th
48 Rara: I don't know. All I know is that taxes will be raised again in the future, and by experience, I expect they will be called "tax". Not sure about the
49 StickShaker: If China and the US have been reluctant to act it means that they either have a different take on the issue or they want to deal with it in their own
50 Rara: Chinese emissions are skyrocketing and will continue to do so - wind farms or not. The only way to quickly decrease CO2 emissions is to cap them. Chi
51 art: The basic failing to me is that the EU wishes to regulate commercial activity outside the EU. The EU cap and ETS should be confined to emissions prod
52 StickShaker: Whether its a tax or a cap it is effectively a financial penalty for emissions. The EU is perfectly entitled to pursue such a policy within its own b
53 flyguy89: I'm sorry, but was that supposed to prove that ETS is NOT socialist? Bush I and Bush II were easily two of the most socialistic presidents in US hist
54 cmf: Agree, but I find it interesting the same argument has not been done against them. Don't think it has been up in any other courts. I think the ICAO s
55 cmf: Again, they don't. They only put requirements on airplanes using their airports. Even ICAO disagrees with you. They state growth happening after 2020
56 Rara: Correct.. but remember they can acquire carbon credits off other industries which have more potential for efficiency gains. Oh and there's biofuel, a
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11362 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3979 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2028 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3399 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2103 posts, 
From India, joined Dec 2011, 425 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6129 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2629 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
