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.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3678 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 19):
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.
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 get away with it, how can the EU possibly justify applying the scheme to European airlines?
Quoting ScottB (Reply 23): 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.
What you describe is a prisoner's dilemma. You know the only possible solution to a prisoner's dilemma? Start doing the right thing and hope the other party will follow.
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2523 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3640 times:
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 applied for all the free ETS credits they are entitled to.
One way to keep the issue alive while punting the solution until later, again.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24): The scheme was introduced several years ago and the aviation industry have had several years respite not afforded to other industries.
Sadly, whether this is government or industry, this kind of attitude where nothing gets done until the absolute last second seems to have become the norm. The EU and other countries had years to come up with a mutually satisfying solution, problem is the EU wanted other countries to do something, anything, either unilaterally or through ICAO, while most other countries's position was that they didn't want to do anything (other than keep on polluting at will).
We should also keep in mind, however, that China's latest move is in line with the communist party's agenda of "the rest of the world against China" that they only have strengthened in the past few months to avert a "Chinese spring." ETS is only the latest red herring. If it couldn't be that, it would be something else. They could have announced months ago that their airlines would not be allowed to comply, but then what foreign peril would they have had left to talk about?
Autocratic rulers from around the world know that the population tends to unite with their government when the (perceived) threat is from without.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 23): 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.
Or more to the point, they are removed when they don't produce enough revenue to cover their cost.
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3679 times:
"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."
Ahh but that is a market mechanism. Not a legal mechanism. There is a difference. Any airline has the ability to exceed the "cap" regardless of the expense. Therefore, at the end of the day, the cap is not "enforceable." It can be encouraged, influenced, and even moderated. But not enforced.
"Don't try to make this in to that ETS is abusing caps."
I don't have to try. To me and me any others it is blatantly obvious that is what is happening. The EU in its divine wisdom has come up with limits they see fit for their own jurisdiction, which is fine, that they also seem applicable to outside their jurisdiction.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 28, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3670 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 1): 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.
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
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 29, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3410 times:
Quoting luckyone (Reply 27): Ahh but that is a market mechanism. Not a legal mechanism. There is a difference. Any airline has the ability to exceed the "cap" regardless of the expense. Therefore, at the end of the day, the cap is not "enforceable." It can be encouraged, influenced, and even moderated. But not enforced.
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. Is that "enforcable"?
Quoting tugger (Reply 28): Wow, everyone ignored your reply! It is by far the smarter thing for the EU to do.
Yes, if this was about taxation, that would have been the smarter thing to do. Since it didn't happen, what does that tell you?
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15616 posts, RR: 90 Reply 30, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3396 times:
Quoting georgiaame (Reply 12): The whole emissions/global warming thing is a total fraud,
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 it, but you're wrong and there's no hope of defending your position.
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3265 times:
"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. Is that "enforcable"?"
Unless there is a provision in ETS that states airlines simply cannot exceed X emissions, with no monetary repercussions permissible the "cap" is merely words. Therefore, the cap isn't enforceable because as long as an airline is willing to pay for carbon credits they can exceed the "cap" as much as they want. It isn't the same as a loan, whereby if one doesn't pay, one's assets are seized as compensation.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 32, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
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 of flights originating and terminating in the EU. Then you avoid stupid cases like LAX-LHR paying but DXB-JFK not paying, and most importantly, most countries wouldn't be objecting if I read their complaints correctly. The other countries do have a legitimate point, and it is borderline illegal under the Chicago convention (I don't want to argue that out again.) It would just be a lot easier and less sketchy if the EU taxed over airspace verses O/D.
PS: I used the word "taxed" because I don't know the technical/correct term, so please don't nitpick my post for that and argue semantics
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 33, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 25): 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 get away with it, how can the EU possibly justify applying the scheme to European airlines?
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 and use the money to pay the fines ad return whatever remains. Don't like that idea much.
If you're talking about that China should create a something similar to ETS in China. I don't think they can do much more than they do now.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 23): 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.
The local city introduced 10 cameras about a year ago. It has helped dramatically. There is an intersection outside one of or office that had accidents almost daily. I doubt we see one per month now.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 27): I don't have to try. To me and me any others it is blatantly obvious that is what is happening. The EU in its divine wisdom has come up with limits they see fit for their own jurisdiction, which is fine, that they also seem applicable to outside their jurisdiction.
They apply it to everyone landing in their jurisdiction. Not different than how many countries set requirements on planes landing in their jurisdictions.
Quoting tugger (Reply 28): Wow, everyone ignored your reply! It is by far the smarter thing for the EU to do. Would have completely avoided the whole fiasco.
I don't think it would have changed anything.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 31): Unless there is a provision in ETS that states airlines simply cannot exceed X emissions, with no monetary repercussions permissible the "cap" is merely words. Therefore, the cap isn't enforceable because as long as an airline is willing to pay for carbon credits they can exceed the "cap" as much as they want.
The complete ETS system can't exceed x emissions. Anyone who exceed their emissions need to buy credits from someone else. Fines for not having credits are set to be much higher than the cost of buying credits.
The problem isn't different in many other CAP systems.
Large consumers of water here must make plans on how much they will use. We have had projects denied because we would need more water than they wanted to assign to us with the motivation that water levels were too low. At times of severe drought homeowners are only allowed to water at certain times per week, sometimes only once per week. At those times there are people checking compliance.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32): and it is borderline illegal under the Chicago convention
I thought so too. The more I learn the less I think it is an issue. It really isn't much different than arrival and departure tax already taken by many countries, including the vocal objectors. Funny enough. departure and arrival taxes are most of the time higher than the ETS cost is expected to be.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 34, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
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. It is not linked to the fate of any EU country's coffers, and doesn't help countries either (hence the need to create a rescue fund). And yes, the EU does act for the environment, helping green projects, but also just passing legislation and enforcing it, which doesn't cost much to its own budget. For example France is being regularly penalized because some of our rivers are too polluted by swine dejections, and we end up paying penalties. Cost to the EU is negative.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 35, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2580 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
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 and use the money to pay the fines ad return whatever remains. Don't like that idea much.
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 airlines accountable. I see what you meant now.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 31):
Unless there is a provision in ETS that states airlines simply cannot exceed X emissions, with no monetary repercussions permissible the "cap" is merely words. Therefore, the cap isn't enforceable because as long as an airline is willing to pay for carbon credits they can exceed the "cap" as much as they want. It isn't the same as a loan, whereby if one doesn't pay, one's assets are seized as compensation.
OK, that's not how the system works. The credits aren't "for unlimited sale", and airlines can't just keep on buying from the government (if that were the case, it would be really be a tax, so I see where that misconception comes from). The number of credits is limited. If one airline needs more, it can buy them off other airlines, but not all airlines can do that simultaneously, because every buyer needs a seller. If they tried, the price would rise up to a point where they'd stop trying.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2514 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 29): Quoting tugger (Reply 28):
Wow, everyone ignored your reply! It is by far the smarter thing for the EU to do.
Yes, if this was about taxation, that would have been the smarter thing to do. Since it didn't happen, what does that tell you?
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 instead come up with an unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic "scheme" which indirectly draws revenue from the aviation industry.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 30): Quoting georgiaame (Reply 12):
The whole emissions/global warming thing is a total fraud,
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 it, but you're wrong and there's no hope of defending your position.
I'd laugh if some of you drone-like lemmings weren't so disturbing...would you like me to re-post the 15 or so links I provided in a previous thread concerning the thousands of doctors and scientists skeptical of the proposition of man-made global warming?
The question for most people isn't whether the earth is currently going through a warming period or not, but the theory that humans are the cause of it. It is in fact the theory of man-cause global warming that I, as well as many scientists and climatologists, find absurd.
Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 14): 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"
It actually is "socialist" in every definition of the word. A government is trying to create a commodity out of thin air (excuse the pun) that has no intrinsic value and is to be traded on a market created by said government. Only in a "socialist" or mixed-market system would such a government-sanctioned and subsidized market exist.
No system is, but Capitalism is unarguably the most perfect and most fair economic system.
Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 14): - 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.
There is ALWAYS doubt, the first rule of science is that nothing can ever be 100% proven. It is precisely these two bullet points you made that are the source of contention for many. Both of these points are more or less true but it doesn't mean that one relates to the other, it is the distinct lack of definitive evidence linking man-made activity as the cause of global warming that leaves many skeptical.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 37, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 33): It really isn't much different than arrival and departure tax already taken by many countries, including the vocal objectors.
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 seen at least) is not that they believe in AGW or not, but the fact that ETS tacks on for the part of the flight not in the EU. The fact that FCO-LHR costs more (ETS wise) than FCO-JFK is because the area from JFK to 'right outside the EU's airspace' is also included, and the non-EU countries are arguing that is extra-territorial.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm not saying the Chicago Convention was violated or not. I'm not saying the EU's court that ruled in favor of the ETS is right or wrong. I'm not making a big deal whether this money goes to the environment or the governments' pockets. I'm saying that other countries are mad and making a huge deal about this... can't it be alleviated by taxing the airspace only? I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure the money / effect will be about the same. Most of all, most of the countries that are objecting should cooperate. It's a win-win I daresay...
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 38, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 36):
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 instead come up with an unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic "scheme" which indirectly draws revenue from the aviation industry.
Nice story, but entirely wrong. Politicians have created "additional, up-front, direct taxes on aviation". For instance, in Germany there's "Luftverkehrsabgabe" since 2011, up to 45 Euros tax per ticket. In the UK, there's the even higher "air passenger duty" since 2009, up to 170 Pounds per ticket. These are taxes, meant to increase government revenue. Nobody likes them, everybody pays them, and nobody has ever tried to conceal that fact.
See, in Europe, if our governments want more money, they simply raise taxes.
ETS, on the other hand, is not a tax, it's a cap&trade scheme.
PS: If you want to discuss the merits of capitalism, or the existence of global warming, there are great threads at non_av for that.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 565 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
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 will wind up in litigation. That will either be via the Euro Courts or the WTO.
The suggestion above to tax the airports will get at the issue from the opposite side of the equation and the passenger will still pay. It will however, nullify the legal issue.
Yes flyguy89, there is disagreement that humanity is a cause or the cause of climate change. However, the previous periods of global warming didn't have the added variable of carbon emissions thrown into the equation. Its likely a combination of factors. The more humans are packed onto their planet, the greater the impact on the enviroment in one form or another.
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 instead come up with an unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic "scheme" which indirectly draws revenue from the aviation industry.
Nice story, but entirely wrong. Politicians have created "additional, up-front, direct taxes on aviation". For instance, in Germany there's "Luftverkehrsabgabe" since 2011, up to 45 Euros tax per ticket. In the UK, there's the even higher "air passenger duty" since 2009, up to 170 Pounds per ticket. These are taxes, meant to increase government revenue. Nobody likes them, everybody pays them, and nobody has ever tried to conceal that fact.
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 UK where the domestic aviation industry is falling apart from the APD and other crushing expenses imposed on the airlines. The very fact that the Luftverkehrsabgabe is being slightly reduced to make way for the additional expenses of ETS is a de facto recognition of it's revenue generating purpose.
fiscal From Australia, joined Oct 2009, 201 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2347 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.
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 change as the platform.
Quoting garpd (Reply 5): Taxes are just profiteering measures by governments, using scaremongering tactics to justify them.
Hear Hear!
Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 14): Keeping these 2 things in mind, trying to reduce pollution (emissions) is an excellent idea.
Carbon emissions have NEVER been pollution, this is the manipulation of the word to suit political rhetoric.
vaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32): Unless there is a provision in ETS that states airlines simply cannot exceed X emissions, with no monetary repercussions permissible the "cap" is merely words. Therefore, the cap isn't enforceable because as long as an airline is willing to pay for carbon credits they can exceed the "cap" as much as they want. It isn't the same as a loan, whereby if one doesn't pay, one's assets are seized as compensation.
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 like pretty clear monetary repercussions to me.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 43, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 36): It actually is "socialist" in every definition of the word.
Which is why the well known socialist George H. W. Bush (a.k.a.the 41st U.S. president) endorsed it.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): Do arrival and departure taxes vary on how far the airplane travels/has traveled?
In India departure tax is 500 INR unless you fly to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Maldives Islands, Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar or Sri Lanka where the tax is 150 INR if you will return to India and 300 INR if you don't.
In China the departure tax is 90 CNY for international flights and 50 CNY for domestic.
In US there is a 16.80 USD arrival tax on international flights and an equal departure tax. Domestic flights and flights to a 225 mile buffer zone in Mexico and Canada do not have this tax but are taxed on the value of the fare,
Then there is the UK ADP that changes based on length.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm not saying the Chicago Convention was violated or not.
Neither am I. I'm just saying that the more I learn the more it looks as it may be legit.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): can't it be alleviated by taxing the airspace only? I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure the money / effect will be about the same. Most of all, most of the countries that are objecting should cooperate. It's a win-win I daresay...
Don't remember the numbers but I have seen reports stating that the non-EU part of international flights is the largest part of all emissions so it would make a big difference.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 39): 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 will wind up in litigation. That will either be via the Euro Courts or the WTO.
Be careful with such absolute statements. They have a habit of biting back.
Quoting fiscal (Reply 41): Carbon emissions have NEVER been pollution, this is the manipulation of the word to suit political rhetoric.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 461 posts, RR: 4 Reply 44, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
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 collect taxes outside its jurisdiction. The EU plans to tax the entire flight including the portion which occurs outside the EU borders.
To do so is particularly provocative and in past history such behavior has led to confrontation, trade wars and also wars where people shoot at each other. Not suggesting that will happen here but significant economic retaliation by opposing countries is likely. Levying taxes is one of the primary means for any government to exert control over its sovereign territory - to attempt to extend that control outside its jurisdiction is bound to elicit a hostile response no matter how noble the reason given for the tax.
This is quite different to trade and tariff barriers - the EU seeks to tax any airline that lands in Europe for the entire length of the flight. Arguing about the rights and wrongs of carbon pricing is missing the point - this issue is about control over your own sovereign territory. The correct approach would be a collaborative one where international agreements dictate how flights are taxed.
Given that the EU will be seeking substantial financial assistance from the Chinese to get through their financial crisis this is not a good time to be picking a fight with the Chinese. The Russians have a good stranglehold on gas supplies into the EU and have no qualms about turning off the taps as they demonstrated a few years ago over a relatively minor dispute with Ukraine. The US (the principle western ally of the EU) is also bitterly opposed.
Plenty of ammunition there for opponents to dissuade a weakened EU from their course of action.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 39): 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 will wind up in litigation. That will either be via the Euro Courts or the WTO.
I really think that the boffins in Brussels are living on another planet.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 45, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1077 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 44): . The EU plans to tax the entire flight including the portion which occurs outside the EU borders.
Please explain how it is different from the departure taxes applied differently depending on how far the flight is.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 44): Given that the EU will be seeking substantial financial assistance from the Chinese to get through their financial crisis this is not a good time to be picking a fight with the Chinese. The Russians have a good stranglehold on gas supplies into the EU and have no qualms about turning off the taps as they demonstrated a few years ago over a relatively minor dispute with Ukraine. The US (the principle western ally of the EU) is also bitterly opposed.
Should show how important they think it is to deal with CO2 emissions.
Quoting cmf (Reply 43): I really think that the boffins in Brussels are living on another planet.
Ahh, the name calling.
However, the irony of suggesting the people taking action to ensure we can continue living on this planet are living on another is amusing.
[Edited 2012-02-06 21:59:46]
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 46, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 995 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 45): Quoting StickShaker (Reply 44):
. The EU plans to tax the entire flight including the portion which occurs outside the EU borders.
Please explain how it is different from the departure taxes applied differently depending on how far the flight is.
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 be removed.
Look, I don't really agree with ETS, but I have respect that the EU is trying to clean up the environment even if no one else is (even if they end up being dead wrong, I tip my hat to them.) That being said, I think there is a much simpler way that avoids all legal gray area. If I say the ETS violates sovereignty, then yes I think certain other taxes violate sovereignty and should be removed (I'd have to look into it though, airport taxes might not fall under the Chicago Convention.)
Another question here, just something to think about and not to derail the thread. The EU's court said there was no violation. But what about other courts? Do they not count?
Again, I think EU overflight should be affected. Less revenue would be gained from LAX-LHR, but more would be gained in cases like DXB-JFK. Seems fairer IMO. Doesn't take away the EU's right to implement ETS and doesn't violate sovereignty of anyone else
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 461 posts, RR: 4 Reply 47, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 969 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 45): Quoting StickShaker (Reply 44):
. The EU plans to tax the entire flight including the portion which occurs outside the EU borders.
Please explain how it is different from the departure taxes applied differently depending on how far the flight is.
Its very different - the departure tax is levied by a government within its own jurisdiction - ie the airport is within its own borders.
Quoting cmf (Reply 45): Quoting StickShaker (Reply 44):
Given that the EU will be seeking substantial financial assistance from the Chinese to get through their financial crisis this is not a good time to be picking a fight with the Chinese. The Russians have a good stranglehold on gas supplies into the EU and have no qualms about turning off the taps as they demonstrated a few years ago over a relatively minor dispute with Ukraine. The US (the principle western ally of the EU) is also bitterly opposed.
Should show how important they think it is to deal with CO2 emissions.
If it was that important they would use accepted diplomatic protocols to negotiate an international agreement which would have far more chance of success. The EU approach is almost "your either with us or against us". To use such a clumsy approach makes one suspect of their motives.
Quoting cmf (Reply 45): Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
I really think that the boffins in Brussels are living on another planet.
Ahh, the name calling.
However, the irony of suggesting the people taking action to ensure we can continue living on this planet are living on another is amusing.
I'm not going to get into the debate over whether carbon pricing is the correct approach but I certainly will dispute that the EU position is going to contribute to a combined global approach to the issue. If they feel so compelled that this is the way to go then there are many international forums available to produce that global approach.
The EU are not going to sell their position on this issue by attempting to violate the sovereign territory of other nations whose participation is vital for the much needed global approach. Their current position is arrogant, provocative and doomed to either fail or invite retaliation from very powerful global players.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 48, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 747 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40): Exactly, and you think creating another tax on top of the myriad of current taxes would reflect well upon the politicians?! Hardly.
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 U.S., but this is how it's done here usually.
You would have a point if ETS was a tax, which is isn't.
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40): The very fact that the Luftverkehrsabgabe is being slightly reduced to make way for the additional expenses of ETS is a de facto recognition of it's revenue generating purpose.
No, it recognizes that ETS may place a burden on airlines, and therefore tries to alleviate the tax burden a little.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47):
If it was that important they would use accepted diplomatic protocols to negotiate an international agreement which would have far more chance of success. The EU approach is almost "your either with us or against us". To use such a clumsy approach makes one suspect of their motives.
That isn't quite how this came about. The EU is about as multilateral as you can get. If there's any chance to find a consensus, you bet the EU will seek it. However, the EU and its member states have decades of experiences in climate summits, where year after year, China and the US make clear that they're not going to act, period. So after lots and lots of negociation, you are at a point where you either do nothing, or start doing something yourself hoping others will follow. That's where the EU is at right now.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 461 posts, RR: 4 Reply 49, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 671 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 48): That isn't quite how this came about. The EU is about as multilateral as you can get. If there's any chance to find a consensus, you bet the EU will seek it. However, the EU and its member states have decades of experiences in climate summits, where year after year, China and the US make clear that they're not going to act, period. So after lots and lots of negotiation, you are at a point where you either do nothing, or start doing something yourself hoping others will follow. That's where the EU is at right now.
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 way. This is where the EU approach is somewhat sanctimonious in assuming that they are right and others are wrong and that they must be pulled into line - not the normal stuff of international diplomacy.
The Chinese in particular will take offense at western nations preaching to them how they should run their affairs - and they will see taxes upon flights within their own airspace as their own internal affair.
Not only do the EU want to apply taxes in the jurisdiction of other countries they want the revenue raised from those taxes to go to EU coffers. Can you imagine having to drive through a toll gate on your way to work where you are required to pay a tax imposed by a foreign country which will go to that country's coffers and be spent for the benefits of the citizens of that foreign country (not yours) and the justification given is that it is all helping to save the planet.
Different societies and cultures all have different ways of doing things. Taxation is very much a European response to emissions but other countries are addressing it differently. Being a state run economy China is using direct capital expenditure to achieve the same result - more wind farms under construction than anywhere else on earth.
Asian countries tend to be low tax economies where a new tax is not the automatic response to deal with any given issue.
This issue needs to be seen through the lens of the prevailing culture and economic mindset of each respective country. The EU seems unable to respect the right of other countries to deal with an issue as they see fit. Other countries are not necessarily reluctant to act - they just don't agree with the implementation produced by the EU.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 50, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 638 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): Taxation is very much a European response to emissions but other countries are addressing it differently. Being a state run economy China is using direct capital expenditure to achieve the same result - more wind farms under construction than anywhere else on earth.
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. China is not willing to do so, neither is the US. Both are willing to let their CO2 emissions rise; Europe is not.
It's true that European social democracies rely on taxation for governance, but ETS is not an example of it. It's not a tax, it's a cap. Total emissions are capped, and market mechanisms regulate who gets to emit how much as what prices.
It would have been entirely feasible to regulate emissions via a CO2 tax, as you suggest. It would have had advantages (no trading system/bureaucracy needed) and disadvantages (less efficient/less predictable). The EU has decided against taxes, in favour of a cap.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2629 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 554 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 33): Quoting luckyone (Reply 27):
I don't have to try. To me and me any others it is blatantly obvious that is what is happening. The EU in its divine wisdom has come up with limits they see fit for their own jurisdiction, which is fine, that they also seem applicable to outside their jurisdiction.
They apply it to everyone landing in their jurisdiction. Not different than how many countries set requirements on planes landing in their jurisdictions.
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 produced within its borders.
On a different note, it is not going to be possible for the airline industry to cap its emissions if air travel increases as predicted over the next 20 years. If route miles flown grows 3% pa, it will not be possible for emissions to be held at the same level. The world stock of airliners does not produce 3% less CO2 on average each year for each mile flown. Yes, there are quantum leaps forward with a reduction of 10%+ fuel burn on new designs compared with the old but that only happens every 20 years or more. Even if all airliners in use now were magically replaced overnight with the most efficient equivalents available, emission levels would be back to current levels within very few years. So in the end ETS is bound to become a revenue provider for the EU.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 461 posts, RR: 4 Reply 52, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 548 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 50): It's true that European social democracies rely on taxation for governance, but ETS is not an example of it. It's not a tax, it's a cap. Total emissions are capped, and market mechanisms regulate who gets to emit how much as what prices.
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 borders - it can tax the living daylights out of aviation if it thinks that is the way to go.
Quoting Rara (Reply 50): The only way to quickly decrease CO2 emissions is to cap them.
This might be the EU position but it obviously isn't the position of the US, China, Russia, India and a host of others.
Quoting Rara (Reply 50): China is not willing to do so, neither is the US. Both are willing to let their CO2 emissions rise; Europe is not.
China is undergoing a massive urbanisation process - described as the biggest demographic movement in human history with similar processes occurring in India and other nations. It is inevitable that emissions will rise as people move to the cities and consume more commodities as part of the higher standard of living produced. Europe went through this process many years ago (and increased their own emissions as a result) - what right do they have to deny 1.2 billion people the same quality of life simply because per capita emissions might raise to the same level as in Europe - quite a bit of hypocrisy there (not directed at you personally Rara).
There's quite a bit of antagonism between developed (western) nations and developing nations on this issue for the reasons outlined above.
Quoting Rara (Reply 50): Both are willing to let their CO2 emissions rise; Europe is not.
Europe has achieved this by moving "dirty" industries offshore to eastern Europe and Asia while still consuming the products produced which are part of the European standard of living. There is considerable debate as to how effective the European ETS has really been.
Quoting Rara (Reply 50): It would have been entirely feasible to regulate emissions via a CO2 tax, as you suggest. It would have had advantages (no trading system/bureaucracy needed) and disadvantages (less efficient/less predictable).
It obviously suits the EU economy (and public) but it might not be such a neat fit in the very different Asian economies - there is no "one size fits all" for this issue.
Again - don't want to get too bogged down in the merits or success of any ETS - if the EU likes it then fine but apply it within your own jurisdiction. No offense to all my European mates on A.net.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 53, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 526 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 43): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 36):
It actually is "socialist" in every definition of the word.
Which is why the well known socialist George H. W. Bush (a.k.a.the 41st U.S. president) endorsed it.
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 history, saying that Bush 41 endorses ETS is no different to me than if you said Obama endorses it.
Quoting cmf (Reply 45): However, the irony of suggesting the people taking action to ensure we can continue living on this planet are living on another is amusing.
Right right right, it's politicians who will ensure we can continue living on this planet
Quoting Rara (Reply 48): 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 U.S., but this is how it's done here usually.
You're right, that's the beauty of it once taxes are in places. Setting up a new tax is the most politically painful part for the politicians, but once it's in place they can keep raising and raising the tax with very few headlines.
Quoting Rara (Reply 48): You would have a point if ETS was a tax, which is isn't.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....
Quoting Rara (Reply 48): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):
The very fact that the Luftverkehrsabgabe is being slightly reduced to make way for the additional expenses of ETS is a de facto recognition of it's revenue generating purpose.
No, it recognizes that ETS may place a burden on airlines, and therefore tries to alleviate the tax burden a little.
It's recognition that ETS IS calculated to have burden to the effect of whatever percent the Luftverkehrsabgabe is being reduced by. Again, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 54, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 468 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46): Well IMO two wrongs don't make a right, I think any violation of sovereignty should be removed.
Agree, but I find it interesting the same argument has not been done against them.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46): The EU's court said there was no violation. But what about other courts? Do they not count?
Don't think it has been up in any other courts.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46): Again, I think EU overflight should be affected. Less revenue would be gained from LAX-LHR, but more would be gained in cases like DXB-JFK. Seems fairer IMO. Doesn't take away the EU's right to implement ETS and doesn't violate sovereignty of anyone else
I think the ICAO solution, which is what EU has been working for too, as a global solution is the right way to go.
Understand that overflight was intended to be included in the beginning but was dropped because it would violate agreements.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47): Its very different - the departure tax is levied by a government within its own jurisdiction - ie the airport is within its own borders.
No it is not different. They purposely wrote it so ETS only affects at the airport. There is no difference to how India has different rates if you fly to Pakistan or Singapore. Funny thing is that India actually tax you for not flying back to them from Pakistan.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47): If it was that important they would use accepted diplomatic protocols to negotiate an international agreement which would have far more chance of success. The EU approach is almost "your either with us or against us". To use such a clumsy approach makes one suspect of their motives.
Have you missed all the things they did before including aviation in ETS? How aviation wasn't included from the begining because they hoped ICAO would fullfill what they had been tasked to do. Including aviation in ETS is nothing but a fire under ICAO's belly.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47): I'm not going to get into the debate over whether carbon pricing is the correct approach but I certainly will dispute that the EU position is going to contribute to a combined global approach to the issue. If they feel so compelled that this is the way to go then there are many international forums available to produce that global approach.
What global forum have they not used? ICAO got tasked with coming up with a solution 14 years ago. They have not even produced a draft proposal yet.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 47): The EU are not going to sell their position on this issue by attempting to violate the sovereign territory of other nations whose participation is vital for the much needed global approach. Their current position is arrogant, provocative and doomed to either fail or invite retaliation from very powerful global players.
They have won the current battle, the issue is back on the topic list. Interesting times going forward.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): This is where the EU approach is somewhat sanctimonious in assuming that they are right and others are wrong and that they must be pulled into line - not the normal stuff of international diplomacy.
How is that different from what US and China is doing?
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): Not only do the EU want to apply taxes in the jurisdiction of other countries they want the revenue raised from those taxes to go to EU coffers
They don't. Everything is happening in EU.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): Can you imagine having to drive through a toll gate on your way to work where you are required to pay a tax imposed by a foreign country which will go to that country's coffers and be spent for the benefits of the citizens of that foreign country (not yours) and the justification given is that it is all helping to save the planet.
The toll gate is at the airport in EU. Why are other nations trying to impose what toll EU can charge in their jurisdiction...
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): Different societies and cultures all have different ways of doing things. Taxation is very much a European response to emissions but other countries are addressing it differently
But this is not a tax. It is a cap. The cap and trade system has been in use in US and was proposed by conservative presidents including Nixon and Bush.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): Being a state run economy China is using direct capital expenditure to achieve the same result - more wind farms under construction than anywhere else on earth.
Funny thing. Wind farms create credits that can be sold under ETS. In other words, that approach not only works under ETS, it is how they want it to work.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 49): This issue needs to be seen through the lens of the prevailing culture and economic mindset of each respective country. The EU seems unable to respect the right of other countries to deal with an issue as they see fit. Other countries are not necessarily reluctant to act - they just don't agree with the implementation produced by the EU.
Other countries have proven they are reluctant to act. There is no other way to interpret the lip service statements from international forums.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 55, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 447 times:
Quoting art (Reply 51): 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 produced within its borders.
Again, they don't. They only put requirements on airplanes using their airports.
Quoting art (Reply 51): On a different note, it is not going to be possible for the airline industry to cap its emissions if air travel increases as predicted over the next 20 years.
Even ICAO disagrees with you. They state growth happening after 2020 will be done without increasing CO2 emissions.
Bio fuel is one option. There are reports suggesting it only takes 1.5% of all fuel for it to become economically viable. Sounds low to me.
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 53): 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 history, saying that Bush 41 endorses ETS is no different to me than if you said Obama endorses it.
You should learn about what cap and trade is.
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 53): Right right right, it's politicians who will ensure we can continue living on this planet
If not via the democratic process how do you expect change to happen? There are reasons the world has/is moving away from various forms of dictators.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 56, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 425 times:
Quoting art (Reply 51): it is not going to be possible for the airline industry to cap its emissions if air travel increases as predicted over the next 20 years.
Correct.. but remember they can acquire carbon credits off other industries which have more potential for efficiency gains. Oh and there's biofuel, as cmf pointed out.
Quoting art (Reply 51): So in the end ETS is bound to become a revenue provider for the EU.
Not correct - because countries don't necessarily sell off credits, they can also just distribute them. If airlines really start suffering from ETS at some point (not unlikely), I expect governments to supply them with certificates free of charge, to lessen the burden.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 52):
The only way to quickly decrease CO2 emissions is to cap them.
This might be the EU position but it obviously isn't the position of the US, China, Russia, India and a host of others.
That's not yet a "position", it's a fact. China and friends have decided against decreasing emissions, so they don't necessarily need to bother with capping them (they could still use caps to limit emission increases, but they seem to be willing to do even that).
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 52): what right do they have to deny 1.2 billion people the same quality of life simply because per capita emissions might raise to the same level as in Europe - quite a bit of hypocrisy there (not directed at you personally Rara).
No worries. Yeah, I freely admit not knowing what's right or wrong. Perhaps it's morally right to let the climate go down the gutter, as long as it helps poorer people get richer. No idea. I guess what we can all agree on is that developed nations have more of an obligation to cut down on emissions than developing nations. But that is precisely what the EU is trying to do with ETS! Remember it's only about flights originating or ending in Europe. Europe isn't going to tell China how to regulate its aviation market.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 52): Europe has achieved this by moving "dirty" industries offshore to eastern Europe and Asia while still consuming the products produced which are part of the European standard of living.
Correct! European climate politics (especially Germany's!) are full of hypocrisy.
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 53):
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....
... then it's a duck. Alright: it doesn't "look" like a tax, because it's called a cap. It doesn't "walk" like a tax, because it's not designed to generate revenue. And it doesn't "quack" like a tax, because it's completely unfit for generating revenue in the long run. If anything, it will lower total revenue, because it might give airlines some serious grief, less capacity and therefore less aviation taxes in general.
Hey, if the EU were really in it for increasing government revenue, there'd be a much better and simpler way to go - which would be? Exactly, a new tax. Which ETS isn't.
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, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 3001 posts, 
Yeah, I freely admit not knowing what's right or wrong. Perhaps it's morally right to let the climate go down the gutter, as long as it helps poorer people get richer. No idea. I guess what we can all agree on is that developed nations have more of an obligation to cut down on emissions than developing nations. But that is precisely what the EU is trying to do with ETS! Remember it's only about flights originating or ending in Europe. Europe isn't going to tell China how to regulate its aviation market.
Printer friendly format 
