Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Thu May 10, 2007 11:46 pm

The debate is heating up.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-aviation-emission-proposals.html

Quote:
Blakey blasts European greens for aviation emission proposals
US FAA Administrator Marion Blakey on 9 May issued a fierce counter-punch against a movement in Europe to “unilaterally” impose an aviation emissions trading system.
“In Europe, there are factions working to curtail aviation growth regardless of the benefits we offer to the economy and quality of life,” said Blakey, who addressed the Phoenix Aviation Symposium.
“Trying to force a European solution on the world given the different aviation sectors, economic circumstances, and environmental issues of countries is unworkable, not to mention illegal,” she added.
Blakey described several anecdotes to illustrate the seriousness the issue of aviation emissions is in Europe, even as no public outcry exists so far in the US. Blakey described an attempt to impose a $200 green tax on all flights to Europe and Africa and $500 on flights to the rest of the world.
In her speech, Blakey mocked a proposal by the residents of one region of Belgium to use airborne surveillance to monitor emissions from backyard “barbecue grills”.
“It’s a bird. It’s a plane. No, it’s a helicopter with a thermal imaging sensor that’s cracking down on backyard BBQ,” she said, using the American acronym for barbecue. “So eventually cooler heads prevailed. But keep in mind that even if the average civilian helicopter burns about 10 or 12 gallons of fuel an hour --. We’re laughing, but it’s really not funny.”
The level of concern in Europe raises fears of a rapid backlash against aviation in the US as well.
“One thing is for sure: This shift in the European view toward aviation happened virtually overnight,” Blakey said. “We should not be so foolish as to presume that it can’t happen here.”

As a way of illustrating her point, I've noticed that the media seems to be jumping onto this bandwagon in a big way. Note this article from the BBC on aviation in India. It contains what is by now the almost obligatory reference to environmental concerns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6640147.stm

Quote:
Few of those flying today, though, know what all this will mean in terms of pollution and carbon emissions.
"I'm not thinking about all that right now," said Anita Gupta as she arrived to catch her flight to Mumbai.
"How it impacts the environment is difficult to grasp," added Anjali, as she queued at the security gate.
Danesh, a businessman, was the only person we found who was concerned.

Aviation is getting a bad rap IMO and it's going to get much, much worse.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 12:03 am

So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

Seriously, to some degree air travel is like mass transit. Should we shutdown mass transit systems because they cause harmful emissions? Of course not.

While I am in favor of higher airfares, another tax is not the answer.
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 12:24 am

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
Seriously, to some degree air travel is like mass transit. Should we shutdown mass transit systems because they cause harmful emissions?

Follow the money!

I've said it before, I'm saying it now, and I'll keep on saying it.

Come on, IPCC, this should be easy with all the $BILLION$ behind you - just prove conclusively that CO2 does all that you claim. No more of this maybe might possibly could perhaps "science" you've been peddling all this time. Put up or shut up.

Of course they've already done an about face, from it's too late to save the environment to we've got seven years to save the environment. Perhaps this has to do with the IPCC scientists filing suit against the IPCC for misrepresenting their work? LOL.
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 12:35 am

What an extraorfinary outbust. I wasn't aware that the FAA was a political organisation. Surely their job is to regulate and monitor the industry, not get involved in political debates about issues such as taxation?

Personally, I am all in favour of a reasoned, intelligent, debate about the conflicting interests of the global environment and the global economy. Of course aircraft polute the atmosphere, and with predicted growth that will increase; but aviation isn't the only industry that polutes the atmosphere. That doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand and hope that the issue will go away - it won't. Instead of polarising the debate, political and industry leaders on all sides should be rationnally discussing how to make aviation sustainably greener, not spouting hysterical rhetoric to alienate either side of the debate. If organisations such as the FAA have a role to play, it is in working with the government and industry to push 'cleaner' solutions forward. The economy can take a hit in this area, so long as the hit is manageable, and is applied in such a way that it doesn't constrain future growth.

What's not an option is to say "There's no problem." That's just stupid, and irresponsible.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15323
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 12:41 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 3):
Personally, I am all in favour of a reasoned, intelligent, debate about the conflicting interests of the global environment and the global economy

The EU, however, is not.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 12:55 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
The EU, however, is not.

What is that based on...? As far as I can see, we are having a very healthy debate about environmental impact on this side of the pond, and there are members of EU that don't want any kind of restriction, and will certainly do their best to block any such move. The EU won't/can't 'impose' anything without the agreement of France & Germany, and France has very little interest in this issue so far. I can't see that changing with their newly elected president.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

Why, you can use sail boats -- you know like they use to have 200 years ago. Should take about a month, but hey, we are all suffering from high blood pressure and a nice sea voyage would do you wonders. Big grin

Sometimes I wonder if some of the greens shouldn't get a life. While they raise legitimate points, all too often their solutions are worse than the problem.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 1:12 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 6):
Sometimes I wonder if some of the greens shouldn't get a life. While they raise legitimate points, all too often their solutions are worse than the problem.

Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate. Of course their solutions are way off to the extreme, there wouldn't be any point in their idealistic position otherwise. The point of the debate is surely to find the middle ground that I alluded to above, and the 'green' lobby have a role in that, if only to counteract those political & corporate voices that say there isn't a problem.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7715
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 1:33 am

Wow, the words of an unelected political apointee of a president with a 72% disapproval rating.

It is fair to say her words mean nothing. To call our partner's proposals "illegal" is provocative. The WTO itself has no idea yet.

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

No, but we should pay the minimum monthly payment on our atmospheric VISA card through a cleanup fee per ticket (as we should with all fuel, and many countries agree). Also, there are concerns about fairness with the USA/EU taking out natural debts that will impact all 6 billion people, without their consent. The atmosphere debts will need to be paid, the question is when, how and by whom.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 1:54 am

The point I find funny with the whole green vs. aviation debate is this:

I cannot think of one industry that has reduced carbon emmisions per unit of work MORE than the aviation sector in the last 30 years. For the airline industry I would think a reasonable measure would be fuel per seat mile. Today aircraft are vastly more efficient than yester-year's and tomorrow will be vastly mroe efficient than today. Sure it's for very selfish reasons, but the fact remains that I think you would be hard pressed to find many airlines that wouldn't meet the conditions of the Kyoto agreement individually.

And for those that don't, with the advent of the 380, 787, 748 and 350, they likely soon will.

I strongly feel that while being environmentally conscious is a good thing (regardless of global warming issues, I still like clean air), picking on air travel is a very poor place to start. How about cleaning up the global reliance on coal fire power plants. Or perhaps automobile emissions (and don't just ask automakers to do it all either, fix infrastructure so you don't have traffic jams constantly in major urban centers).

I would wager if every major city in Europe cleaned up their traffic woes, the carbon savings would vastly outweigh the total carbon emissions by all air travel originating or terminating in Europe. The down side ofcourse is that the governments would be spending rather than making money from such a solution and therefor have no interest in doing it.

Heaven forbid logic prevail in these sorts of debates though... :/
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 2:04 am

Kind of funny that Marion Blakey would slam the Europeans for "curtailing aviation growth" when she is on the cusp of doing the exact same thing in the USA with her plan to impose user fees on our Air Traffic Control system... sarcastic 
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13771
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 2:09 am

The point that should be taken is that the $500 tax is illegal. The EU can not apply such a punitive tax under treaties, no matter what the reason. They could apply the $200 tax to the EU only, as that is "local" but that can't be spread to the world.

It also smacks of one more attempt at wealth redistribution. Much of Africa is a longer trip from London than Boston, for example, but the tax to Boston would be 250% of the tax to Zimbabwe...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Wow, the words of an unelected political apointee of a president with a 72% disapproval rating.

Actually, it's a 35% approval, which doesn't even translate into 65% disapproval when the option "neutral" is offered. No president has ever had 72% disapproval, no matter how much they sucked...

Not that it's a great number by any means (a few points lower than congress), but it's also typical of people to exaggerate when they disagree, right?  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 2:14 am

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

no, we should stay where our governments put us and don't go anywhere.
That's the end result if the Euro greens get their way, a travel system pretty much like the middle ages where almost noone ever left their own town or village because they couldn't afford to travel any distance whatsoever.
I wish I were flying
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 3):
I wasn't aware that the FAA was a political organisation

Ms. Blakey (no comment) is a Political Appointee from the President, like all FAA Administrators....so yea she's basically a pawn of the white house office. (Which is sad since i voted for him....twice.....Im shootin myself now)

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
Kind of funny that Marion Blakey would slam the Europeans for "curtailing aviation growth" when she is on the cusp of doing the exact same thing in the USA with her plan to impose user fees on our Air Traffic Control system...

Good Show, Good Show! Amen my Brotha

ATCT
Trikes are for kids!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):

Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate. Of course their solutions are way off to the extreme, there wouldn't be any point in their idealistic position otherwise. The point of the debate is surely to find the middle ground that I alluded to above, and the 'green' lobby have a role in that, if only to counteract those political & corporate voices that say there isn't a problem.

Sadly most don't like or want to go to the "middle ground" which is why so many discussions become rancorous arguments. Though I must say the tone of this thread so far is very balanced, with no one really espousing an "my way or the highway" (or dare I say "you're either with us or against us"! Oooo bad! ) view point.

On the topic I would say that Osiris30:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
I cannot think of one industry that has reduced carbon emmisions per unit of work MORE than the aviation sector in the last 30 years. For the airline industry I would think a reasonable measure would be fuel per seat mile.

is right on target. Aviation has got to be one of the most efficient forms of travel for what it is used for (long distance, time sensitive). Has anyone ever studied the per person resource use of aviation (from airports, to fuel, to manufacturing of the airframes, traffic control, etc) compared to other modes of travel?

Tug

[Edited 2007-05-10 23:09:05]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 3):
What's not an option is to say "There's no problem." That's just stupid, and irresponsible.

Lots of respected scientists say that the Earth is warming naturally, that it's not due to human activities, and it's a well-known fact that a lot of fraudulent "research" has been passed off as being actual science regarding the climate.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):

Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'?

I regard all collectivists as "the enemy."

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
Has anyone ever studied the per person resource use of aviation (from airports, to fuel, to manufacturing of the airframes, traffic control, etc) compared to other modes of travel?

One of Flying's columnists wrote about this recently. There is a formula that can be used to determine how efficient a particular mode of travel is that takes velocity into account. On that scale, large jets like 747s are the most efficient form of travel.
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 7:11 am

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Blakey described several anecdotes to illustrate the seriousness

Are there any real sources that this $500 and $200 tax is actually planned?

People seem to be freely mixing some statements from backbench or non-parliamentary politicians or even local activists with actual policy. Ms. Blakey's anecdotes are certainly amusing, but don't bring us closer to understanding the real situation.

What is actually being debated as a possible legislative measure? And what are the actual positions of "the greens"?

1. A quick Google search on the German green party mentions in some remote document of their website that they want to extend the VAT (19%) to kerosene and use the proceeds to build rail infrastructure. I haven't heard them rehashing that idea for years, but maybe I just missed that.

2. And there is discussion on the EU level to include air traffic in the emission trading scheme.

So what other plans are real?
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 7:40 am

Nice to see this discussion remaining civil - lots of other threads on this topic have turned nasty - kudos to all who've posted so far.
Osiris30 really nailed it with his post - couldn't have said it better myself. Commercial aviation has unfairly been targeted as a whipping boy on this issue and it's time to focus elsewhere when folks start talking about greenhouse gas emissions.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 15):
Lots of respected scientists say that the Earth is warming naturally

Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon.  duck 
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 8:02 am

This is nothing more than silly politics. Pay it no mind. The idea of environment credits is fine if Europe wants to implement it on themselves. Let them vote on it, and so be it. Here is an interesting thought, the taxes on gasoline in Europe are far higher than in the United States, which causes Europeans to drive less and to drive smaller cars, ultimately in benefit, probably, to the environment. Do the Europeans tax jet fuel for commercial airlines more than the US, like they do gasoline? If they really meant what they said about reducing emissions, why not just place the same level of taxation on Jet A that they place on gasoline (petrol) or diesel.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon. duck

Exxon's annual revenues are greater than the GDP of many, if not most of the countries on Earth, their scientists should be given some authority, right? Haha.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 8:33 am

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
�Trying to force a European solution on the world given the different aviation sectors, economic circumstances, and environmental issues of countries is unworkable, not to mention illegal,� she added.

She forget the most important one: it is also not desirable since they have already got an american model to impose on
the World!

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):
Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate. Of course their

Because they are in the way of big$$$. They are in the midst of a smear campaign with the phases of "no warming",
"not our fault", and "too late anyway". We are at phase 2, expect phase 3 slowly starting in about 10-20 years.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 8:47 am

global warming threats are no different than an aweful of well meaning but dead wrong theories like acid rain.... remember hearing how the US NE was going to be destroyed by acid rain.

I am all for all of us being responsible with the resources we have been entrusted with - the earth. But simply grinding commerce to a halt because a few scientists and alot of politicians have created a hysteria that says the world is on the verge of environmental collapse is just plain wrong.

Ms. Blakey has the sense to realize that if this global warming nonsense is not quickly put into the proper perspective and if it is not properly REDIRECTED away from aviation, the entire industry will collapse. If Europe wants to watch their aviation sector collapse, let them go for it. The rest of the world will not be so easily hoodwinked.
 
smokeyrosco
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:21 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 8:53 am

To quote southpark, European greens tend to be wimpy tree hugging hippies, speaking from the point of view that Ireland is having an election right now and I had to deal with one particular green a couple of years ago, they are very extream, some things they want to implement should be taken "on board" but damn, if they got control they would kill us all.
John Hancock
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 9:37 am

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 21):
some things they want to implement should be taken "on board" but damn, if they got control they would kill us all.

Funnily enough that applies equally to the other end of the political spectrum!

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 20):
Ms. Blakey has the sense to realize that if this global warming nonsense is not quickly put into the proper perspective and if it is not properly REDIRECTED away from aviation, the entire industry will collapse. If Europe wants to watch their aviation sector collapse, let them go for it. The rest of the world will not be so easily hoodwinked.

Your tongue is VERY firmly in your cheek, isn't it? Isn't it??!!! Wow. It actually scares the s**t out of me that you might be serious...

I haven't heard anyone say that the aviation industry should be shut down, that we should stop all air travel, or that we should ONLY worry about aviation. The odd eco-warrior might believe some or all of those things, but the environmental groups that have any standing tend to take a more pragmatic approach, because they KNOW that aviation is here to stay.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 15):
One of Flying's columnists wrote about this recently. There is a formula that can be used to determine how efficient a particular mode of travel is that takes velocity into account. On that scale, large jets like 747s are the most efficient form of travel.

Nice, but completely worthless on a practical level, as we tend to use 747's (except in Japan) for journeys that we simply wouldn't make otherwise, because of the distances involved. If you want to compare equitable modes of transport over a distance that would be appropriate in each case, then you'll find that trains win, hands down.

But I still love flying, so I have to accept that air travel must become greener, in order to close the 'eco' gap. There are many ways in which that can be achieved, and yes, indeed, the industry has faced commercial presssure since its birth to become more and more efficient, but please don't equate efficiency with 'clean' - that's simply disengenouous. 'Cleener' means engines that consume cleaner fuel, which might - initially - be more expensive, hence the need for a political approach to force it forward; it also includes ideas such as the one promoted by VS, eg. having aircraft towed around airports until the engines are needed for takeoff, rather than burning fuel for up to half an hour in taxi patterns; it means spending money on new kinds of engines that reduce emmissions; it means improving public transport systems around airports in order to reduce the vast number of private cars that accumulate around them. None of these things are out of reach of sensible and visionary planning, but cannot be left to the industry on its own to sort out.

Finally,

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
I would wager if every major city in Europe cleaned up their traffic woes, the carbon savings would vastly outweigh the total carbon emissions by all air travel originating or terminating in Europe. The down side ofcourse is that the governments would be spending rather than making money from such a solution and therefor have no interest in doing it.

- that's also rather misguided, I'm afraid. European cities generally have much more effective/extensive public transport systems than just about anywhere else in 'The West', and we are far less dependent on our cars than our friends in N America (for example). An interesting view, but invalid.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 9:41 am

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon. duck

Honestly, that's not true. Think about how "Global Cooling" was supposed to be our doom back in the 70s...
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 10:29 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 22):
I haven't heard anyone say that the aviation industry should be shut down, that we should stop all air travel, or that we should ONLY worry about aviation. The odd eco-warrior might believe some or all of those things, but the environmental groups that have any standing tend to take a more pragmatic approach, because they KNOW that aviation is here to stay.

it sure won't be if you slap taxes on aviation the size of what are now occurring and will only grow if these proposals are allowed to move forward.

if you don't understand the cost of regulation, I suggest you take a simple course in economics.... and then ask yourself what other industries are being asked to "contribute" to the effort as aviation is.

and why don't you ask yourself why the food history isn't being targeted to solve the problems of AIDS in Africa? the reason why aviation is viewed as an endless source of money for every political whim is because some people simply don't get the concept that aviation is not a luxury but a necessity in a global economy. If one part of the globe wants to check itself out of said economy, go for it but let cooler heads prevail that can be both responsible to the environment and keep business and people moving.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 11:11 am

Quoting Magyar (Reply 19):
Because they are in the way of big$$$. They are in the midst of a smear campaign with the phases of "no warming", "not our fault", and "too late anyway". We are at phase 2, expect phase 3 slowly starting in about 10-20 years.

Actually there is huge money in the environmental side too. Don't kid yourself. They'll just become the next "entrenched" business interest. Wherever the money goes the $$$ interests and corruption go.

Still we do need to do something that will affect positive change.

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 11:28 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 24):

Eh? Didn't make any sense out of that, sorry. I can assure you that the aviation industry is just as important to the economy in Europe as it everywhere else. It's inconceivable that the EU will tax the industry out of existence. That is simply not going to happen, whatever the scaremongerers say.

What is true is that at present aviation fuel is not taxed, unlike other forms of fuel, and there is a debate going on in the EU about removing the historic exemption that aviation has from VAT. That debate is a long way from over, and views are quite strong on both sides. I'm not convinced that aviation 'deserves' that exempton, but I'd prefer to see any fuel tax replace rather than supplement the more discretionary Air Passenger Duty charges that vary from country to country. It seems reasonable to have a standardised charge regime, especially in an area such as Europe, and replacing individual government charges with a fixed VAT rate would achieve that.

If that standardised tax includes a 'green' component, I see no reason why not, so long as it can be demonstrated that the funds raised are being spent on such projects as mentioned in my earlier post. However, it doesn't make economic sense (since you brought that up) to tax something out of existence. More likely any such taxation would be set at the maximum level that economists predict is sustainable by, and without a detrimental effect on, the aviaton industry as a whole, and that will be a lot less than the figures waved around above.

At the end of the day governments care about jobs, and aviation employs hundreds of thousands of people. It's just too important, but that doesn't mean it can't take a small hit for the sake of our global future.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5188
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 11:30 am

The price of fuel is doing a lot to close the alleged "Eco-gap". Of course, God forbid an actual market force would be allowed to have an effect, rather than collectivist anti-development, anti-commerce politician meddling. Bravo to the Administrator.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 11:42 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 27):
The price of fuel is doing a lot to close the alleged "Eco-gap".

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark  Bingo!!! Once it becomes economically feasible to phase in greener technologies, it will happen. That is, for better or worse, the way of the world. Money drives decisions at the corporate and government level. You can love it or hate it, but for now, we must accept it.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 1:41 pm

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 22):
- that's also rather misguided, I'm afraid. European cities generally have much more effective/extensive public transport systems than just about anywhere else in 'The West', and we are far less dependent on our cars than our friends in N America (for example). An interesting view, but invalid.

Call me from Rome will you. Last I checked that was in Europe.. many European cities have brutal traffic jams despite having alternatives. The view point is actually NOT invalid. The viewpoint was that European cities have nasty traffic jams and that those traffic jams account for more carbon emissions than likely all air traffic to/from and within Europe. Whether or not light rail, subways, buses, etc. exist does not change the validity of the statement.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
SB
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:29 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 3:33 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):

I couldn't have said it better myself! If only the people in charge had the same mindset .... But it's easier to just blame aviation, without looking at what the effect of other means of transport may be for the same trip.

Something must be done to diminish pollution, but it would be preferable to start with the emissions that are futile (electric cars anyone?)

S.
"Confirm leave the hold and maintain 320kts?!"
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 4:39 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
“One thing is for sure: This shift in the European view toward aviation happened virtually overnight,” Blakey said.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Has she really been asleep for that long??? Seriously, saying it happened "overnight" is like saying the last global ice age ended yesterday morning at 10:00am...

Aviation has done far more than most other means of transport, but that does not absolve it of all wrongdoing - whenever there is the chance to improve something, that chance must be used... which is just what's happening.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 5:48 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 31):
rotfl rotfl rotfl

Has she really been asleep for that long??? Seriously, saying it happened "overnight" is like saying the last global ice age ended yesterday morning at 10:00am...

This time last year, was anyone accusing aircraft of ruining the planet? I don't think so.
 
jdevora
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 6:11 pm

Quoting Khobar (Reply 2):
Come on, IPCC, this should be easy with all the $BILLION$ behind you - just prove conclusively that CO2 does all that you claim. No more of this maybe might possibly could perhaps "science" you've been peddling all this time. Put up or shut up.

I though that the global warming was now a SCIENTIFIC FACT
My understanding was that the IPCC had to keep everyone happy and had to add some sugar for have in the same camp the ones that have a different "political view" of the issue

Cheers
JD
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 6:18 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 32):
This time last year, was anyone accusing aircraft of ruining the planet? I don't think so.

Then you were just as asleep as Ms Blakely: that discussion has been running over here for at least 10 years, if not more.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Fri May 11, 2007 9:05 pm

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):
Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate.

Yes, the "end of the debate" that wants humanity back in caves. Thats why they are "the enemy".
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sat May 12, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon.

Actually, no.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 25):
Actually there is huge money in the environmental side too. Don't kid yourself. They'll just become the next "entrenched" business interest. Wherever the money goes the $$$ interests and corruption go.

Yup. Follow the money, as I've said many times before.

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 33):
I though that the global warming was now a SCIENTIFIC FACT

There's a difference between global warming and man-made global warming, and both are different from the "new" term - climate change - which was invented to cover butts when global warming theory failed to show up as predicted in the real world.

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 33):
My understanding was that the IPCC had to keep everyone happy and had to add some sugar for have in the same camp the ones that have a different "political view" of the issue

Even some of the IPCC scientists have filed suit against the IPCC for misrepresenting their findings. Oops.

Now, with all the doom and gloom predicted by the IPCC, I find this particular article rather refreshing, and ironic.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0511hereitcomes0511.html

Let's see - we had snow this winter here in Mesa, enough to build snow persons that lasted several days. Thanks, global warming! We had a phenomenal spring. Thanks again, global warming. And now we're in for four months of summer, "The same as every year", so sayeth the National Weather Service.

Newsflash! IPCC "experts" predict Arizona will become a desert if we don't drastically curb CO2 emissions. Really? Imagine that!
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sat May 12, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 26):
At the end of the day governments care about jobs, and aviation employs hundreds of thousands of people. It's just too important, but that doesn't mean it can't take a small hit for the sake of our global future.

but they will push for as many taxes as they think they can do without stalling out aviation. they might not stall out aviation in Europe altogether but the proposed actions might have a chilling effect on the growth of the low fare segment in Europe (which may be exactly what the Euro flag carriers want). And countries in other parts of the world are not going to add aviation taxes to the extent that Europe is proposing, so European carriers will be uncompetitive.

there's a reason why Europe as a region has some of the slowest growth in the world - and far slower than the US.

while I want to see all countries reduce their use of natural resources and the accompanying pollution, I do not want to see an industry that has become efficient at a faster rate than just about any other industry be penalized because too many fat cats think aviation is a piggy bank for every tax that can be imagined.
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sat May 12, 2007 11:40 am

Quoting Khobar (Reply 36):
There's a difference between global warming and man-made global warming, and both are different from the "new" term - climate change - which was invented to cover butts when global warming theory failed to show up as predicted in the real world.

Ok, since we're on the subject of the 'science'...: global warming, aka climate change, happens today for two significant reasons, 1) the natural, cyclical variations in global climate, and b) the impact of (human) industrialisation. The latter aspect is relatively recent, and as a result can be measured against the predicted effects of the former. What is, and has been, worrying the scientific community is the increasing departure of real-time measurements from those extrapolated predictions. Put another way, If you take the standardised effect of industrialiation, and add it to a graph of predictable climate measures such as temperature, you don't get anywhere near what is actually being detected. Politicians can argue as much as they like about whether or not man is the cause of that gap, but the gap is there, and is getting bigger, and scientists are working their arses off trying to understand why. It might just be a matter of coincidence - if you believe the doubters - that a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere has been occuring at the same time, but there is very little doubt in the scientific community that the two are interconnected (except when they have to bow to political interference).

There is also not much doubt about the effect of increased climate temperatures over time, as has been born out by data used to measure those exact same natural fluctuations. I.e. a few degrees increase from where we are now will cause enough polar ice to melt to wipe out millions of homes (and lives/livelihoods) in low-lying regions around the globe. This may probably happen naturally over the next few hundred thousand years or so, but we are in grave danger of it happening a lot sooner, and a lot quicker, and whilst the global system can right itself eventually if those changes happen slowly enough (as the data has shown), no-one knows how our world will cope with a faster rate of change.

Now there is an argument in line with what religious 'end-timers' in the US believe, which as that the sooner we bring about the end of the world, the sooner the righteous can go to heaven. If you believe in that, fine, but for the rest of us, the debate should be about what we can do to reduce the climate variation gap, and therefore prolong the presence of our successors on this planet, rather than whether or not man is responsible for it or not. (Simple logic should alone be enough to deduce that since we are the beings on our planet who have industrialised it, and continue to do so, we probably are the cause.)

In the real world, people - governments, NGO's, etc - are looking at ALL areas where CO2 emmissions can be cut. In the UK and Europe there are discussions about individuals reducing their carbon footprints by over 50%, whether they fly or not. Aviation is just another factor in the equation, probably smaller than motor vehicles, coal-fired power stations, shipping, whatever, but it is a high profile industry that can appear to those who are not able to make use of it to be a frivolity. It doesn't help its cause for its representatives to dismiss and demonise those calling for changes, rather we should all be working together as aviation enthusiasts in our respective fields, both inside and outside the industry, to come up with ways of making aviation cleaner, more efficient, more eco-friendly. Then we all win.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sun May 13, 2007 2:47 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
Ok, since we're on the subject of the 'science'...: global warming, aka climate change, happens today for two

Global warming is not aka climate change - climate change can also refer to "global cooling".

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
the impact of (human) industrialisation.

Even the IPCC admits it's not absolutely sure on this.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
and as a result can be measured against the predicted effects of the former. What is, and has been, worrying the scientific community is the increasing departure of real-time measurements from those extrapolated predictions.

Everything is based on computer models, but the reality has thus far contradicted what the computer models have shown must happen in order for the theory to be correct. The latest fiddling with the data has brought the discrepancies closer together, but the results still do not agree the way they should.

The hockey stick. Once the corner stone of the IPCC, it has fallen somewhat out of favor (the IPCC now downplays its importance) once it was revealed that the data used to create the graph could have originated from random data fed into the same algorithm. In fact, recently the hockey stick was re-tested with the widest latitude possible, and the conclusion? Plausible. Lots of things are plausible. Hardly scientific proof.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
What is, and has been, worrying the scientific community

What is, and has been worrying, the scientific community is the IPCC's misrepresentation of research, which has led some IPCC scientists to sue the IPCC over the matter. Even within the IPCC there is disagreement over whether man is causing any effect at all, or if so, how much of an effect, and what that effect - if it even exists - may have on the climate. To couonter this, the IPCC proclaims "consensus", holding up a list of signatures - which prompted fresh lawsuits from IPCC scientists to have their names removed from "the consensus".

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
There is also not much doubt about the effect of increased climate temperatures over time, as has been born out by data used to measure those exact same natural fluctuations. I.e. a few degrees increase from where we are now will cause enough polar ice to melt to wipe out millions of homes (and lives/livelihoods) in low-lying regions around the globe.

Except not all polar ice will cause a rise in sea level.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
Now there is an argument in line with what religious 'end-timers' in the US believe, which as that the sooner we bring about the end of the world, the sooner the righteous can go to heaven.

Um, okie dokie.

The IPCC itself is relying on flat-earth "science" to sell man-made CO2-based global warming to the faithful, and when someone says "hey, wait a minute" they are set upon as heretics." Now we have "An Inconvenient Truth" being taught in grade school completely unchallenged, because "the debate is over." And it's easy to see why the IPCC and their followers are so intent on silencing anyone who disagrees - they don't want their "science" exposed for what it is. Hence their efforts to draw attention to "what must be done!!!!"

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
Simple logic should alone be enough to deduce that since we are the beings on our planet who have industrialised it, and continue to do so, we probably are the cause.

Global warming has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. In fact the IPCC even says that global warming would be happening now even if man had never existed.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
In the UK and Europe there are discussions about individuals reducing their carbon footprints by over 50%

Indeed, in the UK and all over the world, lots of people love to talk, talk, talk, and talk some more, but in reality very little is actually done. In the UK, for instance, carbon emissions are increasing. Proclaiming a debate over is a sure indication it's not.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
but it is a high profile industry that can appear to those who are not able to make use of it to be a frivolity.

If ever someone wanted to make the point that environmental attacks against aviation are firmly rooted in political ideology rather than actual facts, they'd have a hard time beating what you just said.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 38):
rather we should all be working together as aviation enthusiasts in our respective fields, both inside and outside the industry, to come up with ways of making aviation cleaner, more efficient, more eco-friendly. Then we all win.

The aviation industry is already making aviation cleaner, more efficient, more "eco-friendly". The "greens" are only in it for the $$$ as evidenced by their calls for hefty taxes that will not make aviation cleaner, more efficient, or eco-friendly except in the same sense that cutting off your head will solve all of your problems.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7715
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sun May 13, 2007 4:20 am

Quoting Khobar (Reply 39):
The "greens" are only in it for the $$$ as evidenced by their calls for hefty taxes that will not make aviation cleaner, more efficient, or eco-friendly except in the same sense that cutting off your head will solve all of your problems.

Well obviously you have a scientific opinion that is informing your politics. My own opinion is, don't have strong opinions about things you don't understand.

I don't have any opinion about global warming. However, almost all climate specialists agree that it is real... like black holes, cancer, evolution and many other things the average person cannot possibly self-verify.

[Edited 2007-05-12 21:25:34]
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sun May 13, 2007 6:04 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 15):
Lots of respected scientists say that the Earth is warming naturally, that it's not due to human activities,

yup. Some figures:
Since the end of the little ice age the earth has gotten warmer at a constant 0.5 +/0 0.1 degrees per century.
That rate has not changed, and is consistent with the recovery of the climate from the lows of the little ice age.

Currently Mars is undergoing a period of rapid warming, at a rate far greater than earth.
The same "scientists" who claim that the warming of the earth is all due to human action acknowledge that the warming of Mars (which is faster than that of earth) is due to increased solar output.
Now why would increased solar output not affect earth to a degree similar to which it affects Mars, they don't take it into account at all?

It's also well established that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the last ice age (when glaciers ran all over Europe and North America) were several times HIGHER than they are today.
Yet this too is fully ignored by the alarmists.
I wish I were flying
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sun May 13, 2007 9:21 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 37):
but they will push for as many taxes as they think they can do without stalling out aviation. they might not stall out aviation in Europe altogether but the proposed actions might have a chilling effect on the growth of the low fare segment in Europe (which may be exactly what the Euro flag carriers want).

Now this is a very interesting take! Could this be used later as a defense against EK's pending A380 assault?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Sun May 13, 2007 10:05 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 42):
Now this is a very interesting take!

Sorry but this is another example of conspiracy crap. The current EU proposals are aimed at taxing CO2 emissions, and we all know that the 738's of Ryanair and A319's of esayJet are a lot more fuel efficient than the planes of many European legacies, that operate 733's, M80's, etc.

LCC's operate in airports that are a lot less complicated in terms of taxiing, holding patterns, etcetera; reducing in less fuel burn.

Furthermore, the LCC's carry more passengers in their planes with on-average higher load factors, so there is LESS CO2 emitted per pax on board. If anything, CO2 taxes in Europe will be a great advantage for LCC's.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Tue May 15, 2007 12:11 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 40):
I don't have any opinion about global warming. However, almost all climate specialists agree that it is real... like black holes, cancer, evolution and many other things the average person cannot possibly self-verify.

I agree. And?
 
Rivet42
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Tue May 15, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 43):
Furthermore, the LCC's carry more passengers in their planes with on-average higher load factors, so there is LESS CO2 emitted per pax on board. If anything, CO2 taxes in Europe will be a great advantage for LCC's.

Well, that's an interesting point. If you compare similar sectors around Europe (say), then yes, it is arguable that LCC's might be more fuel efficient, except that as far as I know they carry fuel for the outward and return sectors, thus increasing fuel burn on the outward sector. I'd be interested to see some stats of how many 'legacy' carriers do that, rather than refuelling at each turn round.

However, within aviation as a whole, the LCC's will be near the top of the emissions per passenger table, as they fly small aircraft over short distances, against longhaul operators using larger aircraft that make fewer flights over longer distances. Even with up to 4 engines they are likely to be more CO2 efficient per passenger per mile flown.
I travel, therefore I am.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Tue May 15, 2007 2:33 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
Kind of funny that Marion Blakey would slam the Europeans for "curtailing aviation growth" when she is on the cusp of doing the exact same thing in the USA with her plan to impose user fees on our Air Traffic Control system...

Maybe the problem here is that the proposal is European. I seem to recall all manner of changes to aviation security in the wake of 9/11, and they were all driven by the US, with the rest of the world forced to go along for the ride (or stay out of the US). We've all accepted that now, but I seem to recall a significant level of grousing from Europe and elsewhere when the new rules were introduced.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
The point that should be taken is that the $500 tax is illegal.

Why is it illegal? As far as I know, any nation can tax anything it wants within its boundaries, as long as it is non-discriminatory and applies to everyone equally. There's nothing illegal about imposing a tax on all incoming/outgoing flights from European cities; it already happens, and not just in Europe.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 20):
global warming threats are no different than an aweful of well meaning but dead wrong theories like acid rain.... remember hearing how the US NE was going to be destroyed by acid rain.

Thousands of lakes in Ontario and Quebec were seriously damaged, and fish stocks severely impacted, by acid rain cause by sulphur-laden emissions from coal-fired power plants. The two countries signed an acid rain treaty to lower the emissions and coal plants, while still heavy CO2 emitters, don't pump much sulphur dioxide into the air any more. That was a good thing.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Tue May 15, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
The WTO itself has no idea yet.

WTO isn't (yet) involved - It's ICAO on this one. Subject will be discussed at the assembly scheduled for September (in YMQ).

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon.

Shouldn't that be ...the White House AND Exxonn?

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Do the Europeans tax jet fuel for commercial airlines more than the US, like they do gasoline? If they really meant what they said about reducing emissions, why not just place the same level of taxation on Jet A that they place on gasoline (petrol) or diesel.

Now that would be 'illegal'. The Chicago Convention prohibits taxation on International Air Transport (with a few exeptions when such taxation is targeted to support aviation). The airline industry in Europe (and elsewhere) already pays for it's infrastructure - unlike trains, buses and other 'mass transport'. In any case adding cost to the price of ticket is unlikly to discourage travel - just look at the effect of the tripling of fuel costs over the past years - traffic has grown, not declined.

Any comparison of train vs. plane on short, or medium haul has to be an apples to apples comparison. The only data I've seen compares the 'energy costs' of operating a train from A to B vs similar costs to operate an aircraft. Factor in the costs to produce the steel for the rails and overhead gantrys, to produce the rolling stock and the noise footprints the numbers wouldn't look so convincing.

[Edited 2007-05-14 20:22:15]
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Tue May 15, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 41):
The same "scientists" who claim that the warming of the earth is all due to human action acknowledge that the warming of Mars (which is faster than that of earth) is due to increased solar output

I've never heard this about increased solar output casuing warming before. Got a source for that?

My understanding is the average surface temperature on Mars is wildly fluctuating over a period of decades, and is caused by the albedo effect. This is simply a change in the reflectivity of the surface of the planet, caused by giant dust storms. Very different to what is happening on earth.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article

Tue May 15, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 48):
My understanding is the average surface temperature on Mars is wildly fluctuating over a period of decades, and is caused by the albedo effect. This is simply a change in the reflectivity of the surface of the planet, caused by giant dust storms. Very different to what is happening on earth.

One of the "great worries" in the melting of polar ice on Earth is precisely that it changes reflectivity and thus will cause even greater warming.

"Polar regions are expected to experience the greatest rates of warming compared to other world regions (IPCC, 2001). In part, this is because ice has greater reflectivity (also known as albedo) than ocean or land. Melting of highly reflective snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces, increasing absorption of the sun's heat and further warming the planet, especially in those regions."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070502201830AAWKXY3

Interesting that on Mars, atmospheric particulates don't block sunlight (actually, they do but it's inconvenient for some scientists to admit - screws up their models), yet on Earth they do, and that atmospheric CO2 plays no part in the warming there, but here it's all the rage. I wonder, does gravity work differently there, too?

But while some think albedo is the answer for Mars, not everyone does. For example, NASA says it's orbital variations. And it's not just Mars, either. "Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?"

Hmm, what kind of cars do they drive on Triton, I wonder? Has Exxon/Mobil been up to no good in these places, too? And people say George W is out there, and that may be true, but I don't think he's quite that far out, not yet anyway.  Wink