This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.

Quote: US airlines must pay for their carbon dioxide emissions or face a curb on flights to the European Union, the EU transport commissioner has warned. The "go green" ultimatum was issued by Jacques Barrot as the transatlantic airline market undergoes its biggest shakeup in 30 years when limits on flights between the EU and US are lifted this month. Barrot said negotiations on a second phase for the treaty, will include a demand that US carriers join the EU emissions trading scheme or an equivalent system in the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...theairlineindustry.carbonemissions

And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 1): And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

Saves us a good part of the airliners CO2 emissions  

Someone's making a buttload.

Quoting Joni (Thread starter): This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.

On the heels of demands that Al Gore be charged with fraud and that the scam of "climate change" be brought into court.

Brilliant!

Typical EU bureaucrat bullcrap.

Let's assume for the time being that we have a problem with excessive CO2 emissions on this planet (Which is likely, but far from proven).

Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology (biomass to liquid, nuclear and/or renewable power, etc), some bigshot comes up with another monster of bureaucracy that helps no one (least the climate) except the goverments which have another excuse to squeeze some more money outta the people. Hell, in 15 years from now, we in Europe will have to pay for work, instead of earn something ... Count me outta here sooner or later  

SailorOrion

[Edited 2008-03-14 09:45:56]

Quoting Joni (Thread starter): This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.

Just like competitive advantage of all the other airlines around the world - except the EU?

The fact that the EU wants to lead in environmental protection doesn't mean it has to force everybody to play by their rules. If they can't even convince the ICAO to adopt their rules, then will threaten US airlines and try to force them by cutting a deal in the open skies treaty.

How nice - and how unilateral of the EU.

- n1786b

I have no doubt the U.S. will fight this - as well it should.

If the E.U. wants to cause harm to its airlines by punishing them for the "global warming" that they don't even cause, then fine, be my guest. But they have no right to unilaterally impose this pseudo-scientific, hysteria-driven bullsh*t on the rest of the world.

If the E.U., in turn, wants to refuse to go along with America's security regime for flights across the Atlantic, then fine. It doesn't really make us all that much safer, anyway, and I'd much rather have an economically viable transportation system free of the tyranny of bad public policy and guilt-ridden European bureaucrats than pre-notification seven years in advance when anyone with a suspicious name gets onto a plane bound for the U.S.

[Edited 2008-03-14 09:50:33]

Yet this is the same thing prohibited by treaty. It amounts to an international tax.

Nothing more then EU BS. I hope it cannot and does not prevail.

Sarcasm on:

I agree whole heartedly with this innitiative, especially the part where if the US does not introduce the same slot restrictions and curfew's that exist at LHR etc, the carriers will loose their ability to serve the EU.
Yippie at long last we would have a level playing field.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8): But they have no right to unilaterally impose this pseudo-scientific, hysteria-driven bullsh*t on the rest of the world.

LOL.

LOL.

LOL.

I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

Preferably, one not from TotalFinaElf or Royal Dutch Shell or ExxonMobil, please.

NS

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 1): And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

Well that would pre-empt the whole issue of having to offset carbon emissions from transatlantic flights by eliminating the emissions along with the flights.

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 6): Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology

Emissions trading is in fact a nifty idea, since it uses a market mechanism to shift reductions in GHG emissions to the industries and companies that can implement the cuts cheapest.

I'm quite optimistic the US will join this system, or implement a similar one. Remember that they'll likely have a working government in 2009 that will be able to face the reality that a problem exists that needs to be confronted.

This really isn't the forum for it, but I think it is quite relevant to the topic of airlines having someone's interpretation of "science" foisted upon them, to the detriment of not only the airlines themselves but also the traveling public ...

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11): I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

Some light reading:

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/michreviews.html

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20010617kellyforump6.asp

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5038

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html

Some are articles, some are reports, declarations, etc. The point is that there is a cornucopia of information available out here on the information superhighway to suggest to those who are open enough to hearing it that "global warming" is absolutely not "settled science," as so many continually repeat.

If you want to stick only to more technical reading, may I suggest those last two links, and the website they point to, which is excellent: junkscience.com.

Enjoy.

Quoting Joni (Reply 12): Well that would pre-empt the whole issue of having to offset carbon emissions from transatlantic flights by eliminating the emissions along with the flights.

I wonder how much a fleet of ocean liners going back and forth between the Americas and Europe would pump out in CO2?

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11): I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person proposing a theory, not the rest of the world to disprove one.

ScottB

"US to suspend the rights of EU carriers to operate flights between the EU and airports which are not located within their home country -- and force BA to move a number of its US flights back to LGW as well".

Presumably you are referring flights to or over the USA.

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 6): Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology (biomass to liquid, nuclear and/or renewable power, etc),

FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'... moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.

It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'... moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.

Incorrect.

Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions - last estimate I heard was somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. That is absolutely nothing when compared with automobiles.

Airlines are hardly "one of those biggest contributors." Airlines are among the most minimal contributors, actually.

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.

It's equally unbelievable about how so-called "environmentalists" (on A.net and elsewhere) are so inseparably wedded to their ideology, and their theological belief in human-caused "global warming" that when anyone provides contrasting view points that are based on equally-sound evidence and science, they are treated as if they are debating gravity.

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'...

Excuse me? Try about 3%. The single largest generator of CO2 is living creature respiration.

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.

You seem to be confusing global warming with the greenhouse effect. They aren't the same thing. There's a good explanation here about half way down the page. http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17): It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.

The problem is that you have unproven theories and political agendas being presented as proven fact.

[Edited 2008-03-14 14:38:07]

Problem is what can you do about living creature espiration  

Some readings I have come across state that the population would still produce too much green house gases if you removed all industry that contributes. Until a consensus can be found in all countries, not just EU, that would even include the exempt countries in Kyoto, I think it is all just a bunch of hot CO2 until everyone acknowledges there is some things we can do to reduce the problem but not eliminate it. Climate change is already happening, whether this is implememted or not. BTW, I'm not against doing something to improve the situation just because my government has yet to acknowledge the issue, but more than just a few people in the US think that the EU is trying to do this to either jumpstart their stagnant industries or level the playing field with economies that are still showing long-term growth.
I'm upping my two cents to five due to the weakness in the dollar....................

Yeah, let's make airlines even less profitable. . . that'll make them more likely to order newer, more efficient planes!   

Quoting Commavia (Reply 18): Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions - last estimate I heard was somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. That is absolutely nothing when compared with automobiles.

3% sounds small but it's a slice that's worth including in the emissions trading system nonetheless. Otherwise airlines would be freeloaders. Obviously, they'd only bear 3% of the cost as well, and even less if they're more efficient than industry on average in cutting down their carbon emissions.

Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 19): You seem to be confusing global warming with the greenhouse effect. They aren't the same thing. There's a good explanation here about half way down the page. http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/in....html

For me the definition is very simple: the greenhouse effect provokes global warming, that's it. Otherwise, tell me what's a greenhouse for, or write an article proposing a name change.

Everyone looks at the problem according to their most convenient perspective. That's why we are all f***ed up. Not taking small actions is why nothing will stop China and India from becoming the largest polluters, nothing will stop Brazil from wiping out the Amazon forest, etc, etc, etc. And when someone tries to bring this out to the attention of people like you, is deemed as an 'Eco-terrorist'.

Quoting Joni (Reply 23): Otherwise airlines would be freeloaders.

Airlines are hardly freeloaders. They - and really, not the airlines themselves, but actually their passengers - already pay enough.

Air travel is among the most taxed products on earth, especially in a place as already tax-happy as Europe.

Example: I can buy a ticket on Ryanair Stansted-Rome for £22.98, plus £40.30 in taxes. The taxes are almost twice as much as the fare!

And we need to pay more?

Taxes for global warming here, taxes for feeding starving kids in Africa there. When will it ever be enough?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 25): Taxes for global warming here, taxes for feeding starving kids in Africa there. When will it ever be enough?

As soon as the problem of global warming is solved. And of course no more kids starving....

Yup, let's all bankrupt the airlines with that EU Global Warming tax based on false science. It is true that the Polar ice cap has been melting. On Mars. Funny, there are no SUVs or airplanes on Mars. It is also true that this year the ice on Earth has gotten thicker. Nobody seems to notice the extreme winter that we are having? The sun is now appearing to enter a cooler cycle. Hello, has anyone heard of the Sun? Also, where are all of those severe hurricanes that Al Gore warned us about? Not in the last 2 years.

Not to mention that a lot of scientists believe that CO2 does not cause global warming. No evidence of it. It actually follows warming trends. But it doesn't fit the 'religion" of Al Gore and his minions in which he is making money. He should be sued so he has to defend this BS.

The EU just seems to want to impose itself on everyone based a purely false science. It seems an opportunity for certain politicians to gain more resources and power. So they favor it, no matter that it is false.

The fact is that climate change is constant. Since the earth was created. There will always be warming and cooling cycles. And it will continue to be so, no matter what man does. But this is the first time I have heard of a government tax on a natural process. Next they will tax the air you breathe. Oops. they have already thought of that, I would bet.

Quoting Robffm2 (Reply 26): As soon as the problem of global warming is solved. And of course no more kids starving....

Okay, so never, then. So never is the answer. Thanks for clearing that up.   

Quoting Joni (Reply 23): 3% sounds small but it's a slice that's worth including

Let's include all fat people, too. Their excesses no doubt leave a larger carbon footprint, everything from consuming more and larger quantities of food to the fact that their automobiles burn more gas by straining under the increase in weight whenever they ride about town.

I will read through your links, although clicking briefly through I don't see much science from any university studies or national departments, which frankly are the least biased sources of research.

I will admit to myself being less concerned with carbon and global warming than I am about health-impacting pollution as well as wildlife conservation, and even that falls short of my concerns about energy cost, dependence and renewability. I find those issues vastly more immediate and compelling than thousand-year long slowly building concerns.

Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 15): It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person proposing a theory, not the rest of the world to disprove one.

I'm sorry, no. Carbon pollution and global warming are commonly accepted principles held by the majority of people, governments, and major businesses.

The opposite is a fringe belief, hence must defend itself.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 18): Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions

I concur. Aviation is a vastly more carbon efficient mode of travel than pretty much every other available.

Sailboats win, however.

NS

Quoting Robffm2 (Reply 26): As soon as the problem of global warming is solved. And of course no more kids starving....

Oy vey. Airlines are now dealing with 110 dollar a barrel oil. If there was ever a time for them to limit fuel consumption and any carbon emissions associated with it, it would be NOW. Adding a tax on top of that is merely a scheme for governments to raise money. The justification is irrelevent, EU bureaucrats just feel entitled to more taxpayer money.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30): I'm sorry, no. Carbon pollution and global warming are commonly accepted principles held by the majority of people, governments, and major businesses. The opposite is a fringe belief, hence must defend itself.

Incorrect, and you are merely proving what "global warming deniers" have said all along. Repeat a lie, loudly and often enough, and it becomes the "truth". Except we don't live in totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany was and will demand proof of a theory which so far has produced none. We just had one the highest records of snowfall in the US this year. It's been the coldest year in a decade. Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly like your religion is as wrong as global cooling religionists were back in the 70s.

Nice try though.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30): I'm sorry, no. Carbon pollution and global warming are commonly accepted principles held by the majority of people, governments, and major businesses. The opposite is a fringe belief, hence must defend itself.

The earth revolving around the sun was a "fringe belief" as well for a very long time.

I have dealt with alot of "scientific computer models", and the more complex the model, the less accurate they are.

Global climate models are so complex that they haven't even identified all the primary variables, much less been able to quantify the effect of each. In addition, they are trying to make predictions based on changes that are on the very edge of measurability abouve the background noise. All they are doing is complex curve fitting with what variables they have any sort of record of. That sort of exercise can yield any desired result. Garbage in, garbage out.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 31): We just had one the highest records of snowfall in the US this year.

Snowfall is indicative of warming trends.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 31): Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly like your religion is as wrong as global cooling religionists were back in the 70s.

I didn't ask for any childish responses. We can discuss science if you'd like. You clearly didn't read my post well if you find me to be religious about anything except brushing my teeth.

The truth is, in fact, that there is a majority belief, accurate or otherwise, and my comments below further my position on why the burden of DISPROOF is far more important in this case.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 32): Global climate models are so complex that they haven't even identified all the primary variables,

I concur that the science is vastly complex and there is so much we don't know about it and so many variables we can't identify. Global warming is theory, not fact.

Using the basics of risk management, the simple risk of it being true, including the correctly weighed measures of science pro and con, and the potential impacts ecological, social, and financial, compel action now.

Its basic statistics. We spend billions of dollars in many industries, aviation is one, combating risk due to the potential implications of failure. Redundant systems, financial investments, insurance policies, everything in business life is done based on risk,reward, impact.

I don't prefer hugging trees. I don't even really care for the outdoors all that much. But as a businessperson sufficient risk exists to warrant investment.

NS

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30): from any university studies or national departments, which frankly are the least biased sources of research

In my experience - as a college student - I have found that academics and the "intelligentsia" are often some of the most biased sources of research out there. They have an agenda, just like everyone else.

The truth is that, by and large, there is no such thing as unbiased sources of research. There are only sources that are varying shades of biased, and its our jobs as individual voters to take these flawed sources and make up our own minds.

You have made up your own mind one way, I have made up mine another. That's fine, and I respect that.

What I don't respect, however, is unelected bureaucrats in Brussels imposing their worldview (based on their judgments of the aforementioned biased research) on airlines and their customers to try and right the wrongs that they perceive in the world.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30): Carbon pollution and global warming are commonly accepted principles held by the majority of people, governments, and major businesses.

Not to be too hysterical, or dramatic, but honestly, before 1492, the vast majority of people, governments and major businesses in Europe and the rest of the world were convinced that the world was flat. Before 1543, the vast majority of people, governments and major businesses in Europe and the rest of the world held it as "commonly accepted" that the universe revolved around the earth, not the sun. Prior to only a few centuries ago, the vast majority of people, governments and major businesses in Europe and the west were convinced that black people, and those of African or non-European lineage, were genetically inferior to white people.

In all the above cases, and so many others, people in the west were so certain of the world as they sought it - usually with themselves at the center of it, or on top of it - that they could not possibly conceive of anything else. And that is precisely the same thing I see with many of the global warming hysterics these days: people with way, way too much arrogance in the ability of mankind to have any material impact on natural processes, cycles and trends that have been occurring unabated - without any interference from burning nylons or SUVs - for billions of years.

Now sure, this is usually where people chime in and give the standard response, that denying global warming is tantamount to denying gravity, or evolution. And you know what, perhaps they're right. But it still doesn't change the fact that - as far as I'm concerned - global warming is very, very far from "settled science" and there are still plenty of very, very smart people in the world in think it's a bunch of bullsh*t. They just don't yell as loud as the other side does.

So yeah, lots of people in the world have been sold on global warming. That doesn't make it any more factually accurate.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30): I'm sorry, no. Carbon pollution and global warming are commonly accepted principles held by the majority of people, governments, and major businesses. The opposite is a fringe belief, hence must defend itself.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Commonly held belief is not provable, scientific fact, no matter how much someone might wish it to be.

Here's an example. Google on the words "American Eugenics Movement". Less than 100 years ago, it was a commonly held principle that certain races, alcoholics, uneducated people and people of limited means, should not be allowed to reproduce. So called scientists were all over the place with "tests" that would show whether individuals had positive or negative genes. This was long before DNA testing by the way, not that DNA testing would show such things.

Quote: From one source: Eugenics was first embraced politically as a scientific means of halting the rising stream of "defective" immigrants who came to the United States from 1880 to 1914 seeking relief from the economic problems besetting Europe. On the basis of IQ tests given to immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, eugenicist Henry H. Goddard "discovered" that more than 80 percent of the Jewish, Hungarian, Polish, Italian, and Russian immigrants were mentally defective, or feebleminded.

Many scientists testified in front of Congress in support of mandatory sterilization as there was a fear that such people would soon outnumber the "intelligent" people. Even President Roosevelt supported such measures.

Funny how these "commonly accepted principles" seem to fade over time.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 20): Problem is what can you do about living creature espiration

That easy, if you feel that every breath you take is contributing to global warming, just stop breathing!

Sigh, I hate the Internet. This sort of discussion is far better held with a beer, or boxing gloves. I'm not sure my actual position is getting across.

The conversation of the flat world and racial supremicism is not needed here folks. I'm not defending commonly held belief as being a positive aspect, nor do I like mob rule.

I'm trying to have a frank discussion related to the fact that commonly held belief is, in fact, the situation, and if anyone wants governments to not legislate in a certain way or companies to not act on public input, then they must address that mob.

I'm not saying I subscribe to it because everyone else does and I'm a good little lemming. Personally, I do buy it, I think there's some good science there and I've what I've read tends to trend in the direction of it being reality. Driven by my policy-oriented decisionmaking process and the risk assessment framework I mentioned, I make what I believe are informed decisions about my support for legislative positions on it. I make far more "green" choices based on US energy independence, cost, and renewability.

The simplification of my personal view is that the risk of it being true warrants whatever we can do to prevent it, until such time that the MASSIVE preponderance of evidence either states it to not be true, or that the impact of it is not of any real weight.

The simplification of the situation at large is that the mob is the one with the bats, torches, and sticks, and they're demanding satisfaction.

NS

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 38): I'm trying to have a frank discussion related to the fact that commonly held belief is, in fact, the situation, and if anyone wants governments to not legislate in a certain way or companies to not act on public input, then they must address that mob.

Gigneil, allow me to introduce you to the mob: Gigneil, Internet. Internet, Gigneil.  

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 38): The simplification of the situation at large is that the mob is the one with the bats, torches, and sticks, and they're demanding satisfaction.

No arguments here.

And it just so happens that the bat-, torch- and stick-yielding mob, which is unelected, happens to be running Brussels. Go figure.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 34): Using the basics of risk management, the simple risk of it being true, including the correctly weighed measures of science pro and con, and the potential impacts ecological, social, and financial, compel action now.

Thank you!!! 50 years from now, if the science proves man-made climate change, and we have sat on our hands the whole time, then it's 10 times the problem at 10 times the urgency at 10 times the expense to do anything about. If we take tough steps now, then 50 years later, even if science proves that global warming is completely false then we've got 50 years more research into greener technologies and we're that much closer to some form of sustainable living.

This has been my position ever since the whole global warming issue magically settled exactly along American party lines. For me, that's always my indicator that everything I hear about it is bulls**t.

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 1): And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

Well seeing as how I just shelled out over US$1.50 for €1.00 and the US Dollar is continuing to fall, it would essentially isolate the U.S. from the future single largest economic power in the world.

And that would be really silly.

Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 15): It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person proposing a theory, not the rest of the world to disprove one.

The proof is adequate.

It's like the "DNA is the molecule of heredity" argument. Or the "HIV is necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS" argument. There is no single experiment that demonstrates that either is true, yet the evidence is SO overwhelmingly in favor of these theories that it is absurd to claim otherwise.

The same is true at this point of the global warming debate. The evidence is overwhelming.

And if you are in the "CO2 doesn't cause global warming and global warming isn't happening camp" then, well...

...you're an idiot.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42): the evidence is SO overwhelmingly in favor of these theories that it is absurd to claim otherwise.

Absurd to you, since you believe it. But there are plenty of people - and no, not all of them are stupid or misinformed - who have looked at things and come to a different conclusion.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42): The evidence is overwhelming.

Once again, overwhelming to you, and others. But there are plenty of others for whom it is far less than overwhelming.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11): I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

You're aware that the earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998, right?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42): And if you are in the "CO2 doesn't cause global warming and global warming isn't happening camp" then, well... ...you're an idiot.

You're aware that the earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998, right?

Even unscientific observation says that's not true. The drowning polar bears don't agree either. Anyway. This thread isn't to debate global warming, because its a pointless activity, as I'm obviously right.

The EU is a major global power. This is not an insignificant event.

NS

Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 19): The problem is that you have unproven theories and political agendas being presented as proven fact.

Believe what you want. Believe that airplanes don't contribute to carbon emissions, or that carbon emissions contributte to global warming. Hey, it's a free country, believe what you want. Meanwhile, the collected governments of the world seem to think climate change is indeed accelerating, and that carbon emissions are a major contributor to this problem. The intergovernmnent panel on climate change has said as much in report after report. We are talking 99% acceptance by the scientific community here, who by most accounts are more rational and objective than most.

Of course, skeptics remain, which is good, because science requires a healthy dose of skepticism. But it is difficult to believe that the entire world has somehow been "fooled" into believing what is obviously happening right this moment, for example causing the dramatically increased melting of the polar ice caps, which is happening far more rapidly than anyone had predicted even a year earlier... or the increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes caused, or the rising temperature of the world's oceans, or the loss of permafrost land in Alaska.

Sure, this could all be a big coincidence. Believe what you want. Believe that environmentalists, who by most accounts are making a poor income at best, are secretly reaping the rewards. This would certainly be news to the environmentalists. Feel free to review my bank account, and see just how much supporting emission reductions has earned me. And be sure to write it all down, so your children and grandchildren can laugh about it when we're really, really screwed.

Something else that was wrongly dismissed is that high-altitude carbon emissions do indeed impact the atmosphere disporportionatley to those on the ground due to their relative concentrations. We would be foolish to presume otherwise. Obviously airplanes are the top and probably the only producer of high-altitude carbon emissions. How much, and what to do about it, is another matter.

Quoting Azstagecoach (Reply 46): We would be foolish to presume otherwise. Obviously airplanes are the top and probably the only producer of high-altitude carbon emissions. How much, and what to do about it, is another matter.

If CO2 is heavier than air, and the air at high altitude is thin, wouldn't it be logical to assume the gas decends to lower levels?

Another way for the EU to milk more money from the Americans under the disguise of globel warming which the airliner industry accounts a very low percentage. Each time, they need money they find an successful company such as Microsoft over here to tax and fine. It is bad enough that they tax their own citizens, now they want more fat by milking people on this side of the pond. Perhaps they feel invincible after the tanker contract.

Right, so they sit down in Brussels and hatch schemes to tax Americans?

Are you suggesting that governments shouldn't tax constituents at all?

Further, are you suggesting that Brussels and taxes have something to do with the tankers? So when Boeing closes a deal with Air France, that should embolden Washington to tax imports of champagne?

As to Microsoft, whatever, we hate them here too. Microsoft has a history of anticompetitive behavior which directly leads to some of that success, and our courts have fined them on hundreds of occasions.

NS

Quoting N1786b (Reply 7): Just like competitive advantage of all the other airlines around the world - except the EU? The fact that the EU wants to lead in environmental protection doesn't mean it has to force everybody to play by their rules. If they can't even convince the ICAO to adopt their rules, then will threaten US airlines and try to force them by cutting a deal in the open skies treaty. How nice - and how unilateral of the EU.

The problem with your logic is that the EU is not saying that the US has to adopt a carbon trading system for all US flights within US airspace otherwise it will pull the plug on open skies, it is saying that if the United States wants to operate flights into the EU those flights will have to be carbon neutral. It is EU airspace, they can do what they want with it.

I see it as a large game of "when in Rome".


Lufthansa411