Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
[email protected]
Topic Author
Posts: 16616
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:55 am

"Europe's right to tackle pollution from all airlines using its airports does not breach international law, EU judges ruled today.

They threw out a challenge by a group of American and Canadian-based airlines and airline associations over an emissions trading scheme which includes even non-EU aircraft in rules designed to curb CO2 output.

The verdict will heighten transatlantic tensions in a week when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to help reverse the policy - warning of "appropriate action" by Washington if nothing was done.

But today's ruling from the European Court of Justice described the way the EU's emissions trading scheme is applied to the aviation sector as "valid".

The judges declared: "The uniform application of the scheme to all flights which depart from or arrive at a European airport is consistent with the provisions of the Open Skies Agreement designed to prohibit discriminatory treatment between American and European operators.""

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-air-emissions-scheme-6279999.html

===

I wonder the ramifications of this decision.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:13 pm

Quoting [email protected] (Thread starter):
They threw out a challenge by a group of American and Canadian-based airlines and airline associations over an emissions trading scheme which includes even non-EU aircraft in rules designed to curb CO2 output.

I read about this yesterday in the paper but was too lazy to open up a thread, so thanks for that  
The article I read went on to say that the USA plans to levy ''sanctions'' (~countermeasures) on European airlines that fly into the USA and that China plans to take similar steps.

It's a shame that not all countries have arrived in the 21st century yet. The lawsuits against the trade scheme was just another petty attempt to make money talk. I for one am very happy it had its mouth shut for a change.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
G500
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:51 pm

Quoting something (Reply 1):
The article I read went on to say that the USA plans to levy ''sanctions''

Its not just the U.S... 20 other countries are actually supporting the U.S on this, according to Hillary Clinton, the EU finds itself "isolated on the issue".

I read the article yesterday, but figured it would turn political so I didn't open a thread on this


On a related note, UPS is contemplating the idea of flying "around the EU as much as possible" to avoid the charges, this would increase flight times and actually polute more, according to an article on the WSJ

 
G500
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:01 pm

I agree with Mrs. Clinton on this.

And this comes from a "tree-hugging Californian", I believe in global warming and that we must do something, but going after the beleaguered airline industry at a time like this is not the right move.

go ahead, flame away
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:09 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 2):
UPS is contemplating the idea of flying "around the EU as much as possible" to avoid the charges, this would increase flight times and actually polute more, according to an article on the WSJ

And probably cost more too to UPS, so what's the point?
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10612
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:35 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 4):
And probably cost more too to UPS, so what's the point?

Well since the trade balance is more goods moving from the EU to the USA one would assume that the higher cost that UPS incurs will be passed on to its customers, EU imports to the US will get more expensive and US exports to the EU will get more expensive.
Conspiracy theory may be that this is a backdoor way for the US to reduce it trade imbalance with the EU, after all, there is no one single way to fix the imbalance, small steps, small steps.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:49 pm

Quoting something (Reply 1):
The article I read went on to say that the USA plans to levy ''sanctions'' (~countermeasures) on European airlines that fly into the USA and that China plans to take similar steps.

This would likely run afoul of the "no discriminatory treatment" part of the Open Skies agreement, though.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
jollo
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:12 pm

Well, if the EU says "anyone landing in EU airports pays a fee", and the fee really applies to anyone regardless of the nationality of the carrier, that doesn't qualify as discriminatory in international trade. On the other hand, sanctions applied in retailation only to EU carriers would be, without a doubt, discriminatory and a no-brainer WTO case.

In my opinion, there's only one correct course of action for anyone not pleased with the new tax: just avoid landing in EU airports. That's going to be expensive, for sure, and more so for EU countries.

Whether the EU "carbon landing tax" initiative will ultimately succeed in curbing carbon emissions and whether it will end up being more cost-effective than other, less contentious, carbon-trading schemes, is up for anyone's opinion but not an international trade issue.

One thing is for sure: for any environment management initiative, in any given moment in time, you will always find a "beleaguered industry" that cannot stand the initiative "right now". In my opinion, that's not a good reason to stop trying to manage our (planetwide) environment: our planet should be *managed* (not conserved) for long term habitability, and we're not doing that.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:30 pm

These protests forget a little detail: Every airline that was flying a few years ago get a certain amount of free certificates, which can be traded. So if an airline decides to replace thirsty planes by new ones, they get free unused polution rights which they can sell, so generating profit, and another airline that still comes with 742 can purchase these instead of a 748I. Even moving from 767 to 757 makes the emission rights a cash cow...

US poiticians should stop to complain about every single dollar that does not flow into the pockets of the hand full of US investors who control their media, their rating agencies, their banks and finance the campaign of every US politian. But its her job to complains...
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:41 pm

This scheme is valid for an EU court no doubt.

But do we really need it now? I dont care about the airline industry. They have to be able to pay for what they destroy. But cant we wait two years?
Do we havr to piss off 20% of our trading partners in this business environment?

I know all other industrys already pays but I dont feel this issue is important enough to make a dispute about.
The EU stood up to US loobying on Genetically modified crops, thats an important subject where I am happy the EU said no despite the WTO fining them. BUT inclusion of aviation in the ETS ((every other industry (including all US companies in Europe) already participates)) whats the point of this now?
And in this case many countries is against it not just one including our own airline industry. I assume only the US and one or two allies will take action and impose sanctions but its still pointless to have all those lawyers earning so much for such a small gain.

The US lives in a different world when it comes to the environment though...
They didnt even dare to screen all episodes of Sir David Attenboroughs Frozen Planets and had ten local Tv stations opt out of it due to climate change being a sensitive subject!!!
The TV series was filmed by BBC, ZDF, Discovery Canada and a few other TV channels and narrated by the worlds most famous nature TV producer; Sir David Attenborough. Apparently eventually Discovery dared to show the last episode in the US but some stations opted out. Few others think facts and science are that sensitive.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:56 pm

Ok, the EU is not a member / signatory of the Chicago Convention, hence the EU court says that it does not have to observe the rules and regulations signed and agreed in the Chicago convention.

Now, it's member staes however are signatory states of the Chicag convention, have ratified and having made it part of their national aviation law.

Now the EU tells its member states to ignore their own laws and tax (or whatever you call it, at the end of the day it is another tax, nothing else) a service produced outside their national boundaries.

This is going to get ugly, at the expense of the EU carriers and their customers.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 5111
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:08 pm

Quoting [email protected] (Thread starter):
I wonder the ramifications of this decision.

Get some popcorn or biscuits, it should be interesting.

I think the crux of the argument, is the following:
Can the EU levee an emissions tax on a flight whilst operating outside of the EU airspace, e.g. a carrier operating from NRT-LHR will be judged on its emissions for the entire trip, not just the bit over the EU airspace. I suppose Russia would like some of that green tax $ as well, but the EU has decided to gobble that piece. Smells of hording from an outside view.

Various EU countries will be collecting these taxes, and no guarantee has been made that the taxes, once collected, will be used to improve environmental efforts or improve an archaic aviation infrastructure (lack of rwy's at major aerodromes, acceleration of the SESAR project, procedural CDA profiles where applicable, etc). That seems counter intuitive.

The data from which the baseline was set for emissions, had an anomaly, which was the Iceland volcano cloud. That prohibited many flights from operating, thus skewing the true fuel burn consumption models. Thus probably setting up all carriers involved to be granted less credits vs. a normal flying period.

In the end, this will likely give some advantage to carriers like UAE and Turkish who operate large transit hubs beyond EU borders.

I don't see it really causing a major step change in emissions however, as that primarily falls into the laps of the ANSP's (ATC sector) to devise and allow for more efficient RNP procedures and the OEMs to develop more efficient aircraft/engines, that is a very slow process and requires large amounts of capital.
mercure f-wtcc
 
jollo
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:19 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 10):
the EU court says that it does not have to observe the rules and regulations signed and agreed in the Chicago convention

Sorry, I plead ignorance on this count. Which articles of the Chicago convention (or IATA rules) does this initiative violate? I tried looking it up, but every provision I found refers to fees applied to "foreign airlines". I wans't able to find rules against national taxes applying to *all* airlines (my fault, no doubt).
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:49 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
These protests forget a little detail: Every airline that was flying a few years ago get a certain amount of free certificates, which can be traded. So if an airline decides to replace thirsty planes by new ones, they get free unused polution rights which they can sell, so generating profit, and another airline that still comes with 742 can purchase these instead of a 748I. Even moving from 767 to 757 makes the emission rights a cash cow...

US poiticians should stop to complain about every single dollar that does not flow into the pockets of the hand full of US investors who control their media, their rating agencies, their banks and finance the campaign of every US politian. But its her job to complains...

That's exactly it. I feel that the people who demonize this scheme don't actually know the conditions of it. 85% of all certificates are thrown out for free, the remaining 15% (and progressively more over the coming years) are up for trade. As far as Germany is concerned, the departure tax will also be reduced by about 8% to compensate for this new ''strain''.

Lufthansa said the new trading scheme would cost them (them being LH, LX, OS, SN) up to €130m. First of all, that's about €0.60 per sold ticket on average, excluding cargo. Secondly, these €130m. don't account for the certificates that LH, with their modern fleet, will be able to sell. If anything, they'll make money with this.

Quoting jollo (Reply 7):
One thing is for sure: for any environment management initiative, in any given moment in time, you will always find a "beleaguered industry" that cannot stand the initiative "right now". In my opinion, that's not a good reason to stop trying to manage our (planetwide) environment: our planet should be *managed* (not conserved) for long term habitability, and we're not doing that.

  

I'm not exactly a ''tree hugger'' who opposes every human interference in nature but keeping global warming in check should be unnegtionable. We're talking about losing a few dollars and a few jobs now in the west, while there are hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia today who can't feed themselves and suffer from the effects of global warming already today. Everybody who has a basic understanding of how evolution works, knows that nature as we know it is not a very resilient machine, but rather a temporary condition that works under the status quo. If you tamper with key variables, the atmospheric temperature being one of them, you will throw the eco system off balance and trigger a chain reaction. It's also virtually irreversible and its effects and their magnitude unpredictable.

I understand that this all comes down to a clash of mentalities. European mentality can best be described as deliberate, hesistant optimism versus the naive optimism in the USA. Europeans are scared of the unknown and are unwilling to make such a high wager, Americans are optimistic it's not gonna be as bad as people make it out to be and somehow, mysterically, a new invention will be made just in time to save the world before it's too late.

There are merits to both approaches, but since we only have this one world it's a bit much of a gamble to run this experiment on the living patient. And just as Europe can't force other nations/regions to adapt their ''ecological responsibility'', they can't force Europe to adapt their ''ecological recklessnes''.

I for one am very happy the EU commission didn't budge.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
peanuts
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:26 pm

It's another tax. Just packaged differently.
And who pays for taxes? Everybody, including the Euro's themselves.
Cracks me up, this obedient support.

Quoting something (Reply 13):
European mentality can best be described as deliberate, hesistant optimism versus the naive optimism in the USA.

What is naive: thinking all these other countries are just going to roll over and stand idly by doing nothing to compensate for these expenses...

The EU is working very hard making itself very irrelevant at some point. A giant self imploding boondoggle.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:44 pm

Quoting peanuts (Reply 14):
The EU is working very hard making itself very irrelevant at some point. A giant self imploding boondoggle.

So your alternative suggestion is to just F everything because everybody else is doing it too?
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:01 pm

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 9):
They didnt even dare to screen all episodes of Sir David Attenboroughs Frozen Planets and had ten local Tv stations opt out of it due to climate change being a sensitive subject!!!

That sounded like an urban legend, but alas, I looked it up, you are perfectly right. Insane.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 11):
Can the EU levee an emissions tax on a flight whilst operating outside of the EU airspace, e.g. a carrier operating from NRT-LHR will be judged on its emissions for the entire trip, not just the bit over the EU airspace. I suppose Russia would like some of that green tax $ as well, but the EU has decided to gobble that piece. Smells of hording from an outside view.

The US has no problem insisting on certain security standards for flights to the US, even at the departure airport outside the US. I don't see a difference. As for "Russia wants some too", there is a provision in the ETS that clearly states that if another state establishes a similar scheme those credits will be counted in the ETS, i.e. if Russia introduces a Russian ETS carriers won't have to provide emission rights for their overflight of Russia.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 11):
Various EU countries will be collecting these taxes, and no guarantee has been made that the taxes, once collected, will be used to improve environmental efforts or improve an archaic aviation infrastructure

No, wrong. The money polluting carriers have to spend goes to other companies who did reduce their emissions and therefore have superfluous emission rights they can sell to dirty companies. It's not that hard a concept to grasp, is it?

Quoting g500 (Reply 3):
going after the beleaguered airline industry at a time like this is not the right move.

The airline industry loses one advantage it had over other forms of transportation. Complaining about this while still enjoying tax-exemption for jet fuel is laughable. It's one small step towards leveling the playing field.
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:24 pm

This is the last thing we need at the moment with a global recession looming very close on the horizon, with Europe sparking it off this time round.

We need to get the economies working and trading again and taxes that hit trade, tourism and employment will just make it worse.

These EU Bureaucrats are just so far removed from reality, with their gravy train of expenses, salaries and guaranteed pensions, unlike employees in Airlines, tourism sectors, and trade who are suffering from salary cuts and job losses.

This could be the final nail to bankrupt a lot of airlines which are hit hard by the recession.
 
slinky09
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:32 pm

I get the need to encourage ways to reduce carbon emissions, I get the planet is warming and humans have a large part to play in that (and that ultimately, that's going to be a problem), but what I don't get is the tax penalization of industries that don't yet have an alternative.

If an airline had a lower carbon alternative and chose not to adopt it, then I can think such a scheme is justified to encourage change. Until then, it just strikes me as punitive taxation.
 
SQ325
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:54 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 17):
This is the last thing we need at the moment with a global recession looming very close on the horizon, with Europe sparking it off this time round.

Exactly my point. I feel that the aviation industry is kind of a milk cow for the european union.
Most european carriers are struggeling to be profitable right know and the EU has no better idea than making it even harder to compete with their international competetors.
It is a true shame!!!
 
staralliance85
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:29 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:51 pm

This new EU Law is ridiculous! They are only punishing themselves by putting in this tax because people from the US will find it too expensive to fly to Europe. Everyone is going to have the pay the price and airlines are already taxed to the hill. The EU seems to want people to sail across the Atlantic rather than flying.
brad Fitzpatrick
 
GIANCAVIA
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:45 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:06 pm

Quoting peanuts (Reply 14):
The EU is working very hard making itself very irrelevant at some point. A giant self imploding boondoggle.

Agree its quite embarassing and self indulgent. Its all well and good saying "we are doing our bit" if everyone doesnt follow suit "your bit" its pointless and the only thing you do is make life harder for your businesses and citizens then ones in areas that dont apply hippy taxes to everything. British govt is doing a good job destroying the aviation industry with all its taxes while we all need work and stimulation in the conomy so Europe adding more taxes will just f*** up more European companies at a time where "europe" is broke.

I dont understand.. what is the point in saving something 500 years in the future (if at all even possible) and making everyone nows life a misery? Makes no sense.

Cant say I find myself on the side of the USA most of the time but when it comes to emissions no amount of Green Backed BS will convince me my life needs to be worse for the benefit of some schmuk 100 yrs from now.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:09 pm

I have a few concerns:

1-Doesn't this kinda violate the Chicago convention? Even if the "EU" is not a member?

2-How much does aviation actually pollute? Isn't it about 1%?

3-How much CO2 will it actually cut? Does this fraction of 1% (assuming it's correct) really justify the harm done to the airlines and the economy, both which are hurting / not doing too well? (Look at profit margins, not net profit.)

4-Will this reduce CO2 or will the cost be simply eaten up by passengers via higher fares? Just like every other tax (do you really think the airlines will just eat this cost?) Even worse, it can just be buried in the "tax" section of an airfare and carriers can charge a little bit more than the tax and make a quick buck, using this as an excuse/

5-Treating carriers fairly, well, there are 2 sides to this. Is it fair to European carriers who have 99%-100% of their flights to and from the EU get taxed way more than a carrier just outside of the EU?

6-Aren't high fuel prices enough incentive to get carriers to operate more fuel efficient aircraft? Just look at the what airlines are complaining to A and B about, efficiency!

7-Can't all this time and effort go from the ETS to instead developing alternative energy, especially algae?

IMO-too much political fallout for little to no results. It's going to be hard to measure the results too! I don't deny there is climate change, and I think it is advantageous for everyone to develop viable alternative energy. But this ETS scheme just seems like a "feel good" measure that won't really achieve many good results. Add that, the threat of this quasi-trade war. The EU should have its own sovereignty and shouldn't bow to the US/the world, but in this case (especially if #1 is correct) they really need to cooperate with the world a bit more and work on less intrusive (and more effective) ways to combat climate change.

Feel free to nit-pick, I have an open mind and will listen to all arguments  
 
corey07850
Posts: 2335
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:33 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:27 pm

Quoting jollo (Reply 7):
Well, if the EU says "anyone landing in EU airports pays a fee", and the fee really applies to anyone regardless of the nationality of the carrier, that doesn't qualify as discriminatory in international trade. On the other hand, sanctions applied in retailation only to EU carriers would be, without a doubt, discriminatory and a no-brainer WTO case.

The main issue is they are not taxing operators on flights only on flights within EU Airspace to EU airports but on the entire portion of flights that land or depart from participating EU nations. For example from LA to London the EU is going to "charge" you for the entire flight - including the portion over US airspace, Canada airspace, etc etc. That is the part that operators are protesting.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
These protests forget a little detail: Every airline that was flying a few years ago get a certain amount of free certificates, which can be traded.

The free allocation is a minute percentage of what they will actually require.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:39 pm

Everyone is missing the actual point, whether you agree with the scheme or not:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 11):
Can the EU levee an emissions tax on a flight whilst operating outside of the EU airspace,

  

This is a clear violation of sovereignty. Thank goodness we're "mature" enough to levy economic sanctions back, as wars have been started over far less than is at stake here.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 14):
It's another tax. Just packaged differently.

Exactly.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:43 pm

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 21):
when it comes to emissions no amount of Green Backed BS will convince me my life needs to be worse for the benefit of some schmuk 100 yrs from now.

"That schmuck" could be your grandchildren (or even your children - who knows where medical science is going to go). Just saying.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
GRIVely
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:46 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:47 pm

Hmm, let's see. The current atmospheric CO2 count is estimated at around 390 PPMV. Notice, that is estimated because no one knows for sure what is the actual worldwide distribution of CO2. The "official" measurement is made on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii and they have to "apply an adjustment" to the raw data because, even though the volcano is dormant, it still emits some vapors containing carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gas" components which have to be "accounted for." They also treat the entire atmosphere as being "well-mixed" even though you can make spot measurements locally and get figures that naturally vary enormously. For instance, 800-900 PPMV above deciduous forests in the afternoon in still air. (For comparison, confined space rescue safety tables set the "some concern" level for CO2 at 10,000 PPMV and, since photosynthesis in plants ceases below about 240 PPMV, many greenhouse operators artificially keep their CO2 level at around 1,000 PPMV to ensure good plant growth and reduces their transpiration of expensive water.)
Of those 390 CO2 molecules, 97% are generally held to come from natural sources, primarily outgassing from the oceans, but also decomposition of organic material, and living creatures’ respirations and outgasses. So the usual claim is that 3% of those 390 parts per million come from manmade sources, mostly due to combustion of various materials in support of human activities. That leaves about 12 PPMV from human-related activities. It is hard to calculate just what percentage of those 12 molecules per million might be from aviation since it is all down to double precision arithmetic operations against highly estimated data but let's say 5%. So, rounding off for ease of reference, there might be one molecule of carbon dioxide per million parts of the atmosphere derived from aviation.
I am sure that lighting off what will amount to a bitter trade and tax war in the middle of a worldwide economic recession to save that one molecule, maybe, of vital plant food is really going to be seen as a great idea in a few years.
Two more points. The carbon certificates mentioned by some posters above have been so reduced in perceived value over the last three years that the Chicago Carbon Exchange closed last year because no one saw any value in them and there were insufficient trades to justify the expense of staying open. The EU and the Australians still have a government-set floor on the worth of their exchange certificates but no one else is trading in them. Oh, and the global warming temperature increase since 1910, again estimated because there isn't any actual global temperature, is calculated as 0.6 degree Celsius.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:53 pm

Quoting racko (Reply 16):
No, wrong. The money polluting carriers have to spend goes to other companies who did reduce their emissions and therefore have superfluous emission rights they can sell to dirty companies. It's not that hard a concept to grasp, is it?

You would think it isn't. But even going through this thread you see the majority of posters demonizing the trade scheme as something it isn't. Critics of this scheme, by the way, laugh about its effectiveness for it is far too weak to make any significant change at all. As I noted above, a company like LH will actually earn money with this.

Quoting SQ325 (Reply 19):
Exactly my point. I feel that the aviation industry is kind of a milk cow for the european union.
Most european carriers are struggeling to be profitable right know and the EU has no better idea than making it even harder to compete with their international competetors.
It is a true shame!!!

The shame is that you didn't even take the time to read about the ETS but still make blanket statements about it. What advantage exactly do international competitors have over European airlines, when they all fall under the new regulation? Maybe the Gulf carriers have a slight advantage, as a flight to their hub is shorter than a flight to the hubs of CX or SQ or a non-stop flight from Europe.

Quoting staralliance85 (Reply 20):
This new EU Law is ridiculous! They are only punishing themselves by putting in this tax because people from the US will find it too expensive to fly to Europe. Everyone is going to have the pay the price and airlines are already taxed to the hill. The EU seems to want people to sail across the Atlantic rather than flying.

If you make your travel dependent on a $20 price difference in your TATL ticket, maybe you shouldn't be spending your money on travel in the first place?

I book about 10-20 round trips a month for friends and family and I can assure you that I hardly save them less than 20-30% of the cheapest fare they could come up with. Sometimes even more. The point being, people waste a lot of their money by living uneconomical, irresponsible lifestyles. There are various ways to maintain your standard of living without augmenting your income, even in the face of increased prices.
Besides, every single Euro-country has had a much lower inflation since the introduction of the euro than they had with their old, own currency.

Remember the outcry of the auto industry when stricter exhaust regulations were put in place, how expensive extras and filters would make cars unaffordable. In reality however, the average emissions of European cars sunk by 4% last year, while the exact same, slightly cleaner cars, became 2.4% cheaper in the same period.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 21):
I dont understand.. what is the point in saving something 500 years in the future (if at all even possible) and making everyone nows life a misery? Makes no sense.

First of all, educating yourself on the trading scheme and global warming would benefit the quality of your posts. Second of all, if paying a few, literally a few, Euros or Pound more on a ticket is making your life a misery, I am flabbergasted how you drag yourself out of bed every morning? Third of all, the next time you book a now unaffordable flight, I would suggest you do that to regions that suffer from the effects of global warming even today already.. not in 500 years from now, and ask the people there how miserable your life is compared to theirs.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):

Long time no see brother   

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
1-Doesn't this kinda violate the Chicago convention? Even if the "EU" is not a member?

If the highest court in Luxembourg has found this to be in compliance, I trust them it is.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
2-How much does aviation actually pollute? Isn't it about 1%?

5% according to recent studies so while still bad, not the right victim to be scapegoated indeed.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
3-How much CO2 will it actually cut? Does this fraction of 1% (assuming it's correct) really justify the harm done to the airlines and the economy, both which are hurting / not doing too well? (Look at profit margins, not net profit.)

Airlines cry a lot of rivers when it comes to anything that could potentially move their bottom line. I would want to see hard numbers first before even paying attention to any of what they say. After all, ''modern'' airlines like EK or AF/KL should actually be able to make money with the scheme.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
4-Will this reduce CO2 or will the cost be simply eaten up by passengers via higher fares? Just like every other tax (do you really think the airlines will just eat this cost?) Even worse, it can just be buried in the "tax" section of an airfare and carriers can charge a little bit more than the tax and make a quick buck, using this as an excuse/

The aim is to incentivize airlines to fly more efficient airplanes. EK will make a lot of money with this. But it's nothing but a tiny step in the right direction and lightyears away from actually doing something against global warming.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
6-Aren't high fuel prices enough incentive to get carriers to operate more fuel efficient aircraft? Just look at the what airlines are complaining to A and B about, efficiency!

If fuel prices were actually high, aviation wouldn't grow that fast. High oil prices are actually another urban myth. I was lectured on a quite interesting correlation between income and the oil price recently and not only is the oil price, relative to median incomes, not higher than it has ever been in the last 30 years, but it actually cheaper than it was in the 60s and 70s.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
7-Can't all this time and effort go from the ETS to instead developing alternative energy, especially algae?

The people behind the ETS and the people in the energy developing labs aren't exchangeable lol

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
IMO-too much political fallout for little to no results.

IMO not enough political fallout. We're not talking about another runway being built and a few frogs that have to move to another swamp, or the water quality of a certain river. We're talking about CO2 here which doesn't break down once in the atmosphere. We'll be stuck with this, and the higher temperature, for a very long time, if not forever. The damages this will do in the meantime are unpayable.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
But this ETS scheme just seems like a "feel good" measure that won't really achieve many good results.

It is. But it's better than nothing.

Blowing a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, costs %u20AC7.40 as of yesterday. Half a year ago, certificates were traded at %u20AC16.90 per ton of CO2. The price actually fell below %u20AC1 for a while, just after the industry had claimed they'd be hit with over %u20AC30 a certificate and could not operate profitably under the new regulation. The EU is therefore considering to hold back 1.4 billion certificates in 2013 that they could then choose to sell if the prices get too high.

People complain too much. Whose life has actually worsened over the last decades, other than those of the poorest of the poor in third world nations, who have been surprisingly mute about the whole ETS issue?

It lies within human nature to react short-sightedly. In the struggle to survive, one needs not concern oneself with the whats, ifs and maybes of next year. But I thought we had left this most primitive stage of existence behind us?
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
SQ325
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:54 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:05 pm

Quoting something (Reply 27):
What advantage exactly do international competitors have over European airlines, when they all fall under the new regulation?

For me there is a big difference! If only 10% of airline A' s routes are subject to the ETS and the other 90% are not I see a big advantage for Airline A. Airline B has 100% of flights which are subject to the ETS.
So Airline A might take a very little risk to be a bit more aggressive on their ETS routes.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting SQ325 (Reply 28):
For me there is a big difference! If only 10% of airline A' s routes are subject to the ETS and the other 90% are not I see a big advantage for Airline A. Airline B has 100% of flights which are subject to the ETS.
So Airline A might take a very little risk to be a bit more aggressive on their ETS routes.

Those are their local advantages. TAM also pays significantly less for labor and mechanics than LH does. Air Asia should also have a cheaper cost structure than Ryanair. Saudi Arabian probably pay nothing for fuel. Qatar is government funded (or so I hear). US airlines benefit from the lack of high speed rail. Japanese airlines benefit from its geography, in that you have to cross the sea or high moutains for most of your travels. People in Singapore are a lot wealthier than people in Vietnam and can afford higher air fares and fly more often. There are more people in China than there are in Canada, so there will naturally be more customers. US airlines have to maintain various frequencies to the most abandoned places; KLM doesn't even have a single domestic flight (unless the MST-AMS is still existent?). EY can raise capital very easily, start up airlines can hardly get a credit.

There will always be local differences that will be either in favor, or against airlines. There never has, and there never will be a true level playing field in the aviation business.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:26 pm

Quoting something (Reply 27):
The aim is to incentivize airlines to fly more efficient airplanes.

And this is the silliest reason of all. *Most* airlines have all the incentive they need, it's called profit.

Now, let's say this scam did indeed induce airlines to purchase more efficient planes. Where are they expected get those planes with backlogs stretching for years? And have the bureaucrats considered the carbon created in replacing an otherwise perfectly good airplane?

Carbon tax trade schemes are just another more complicated way to extract money from the pockets of others.
 
SQ325
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:54 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:40 pm

Of course there will always be local differences.
Most of what you have mentioned are advantages foreign carriers have over EU carriers.
With the ETS there goes another little piece of competitiveness of the European carriers and I see the ETS as a wrong signal at a wrong time for the Airlines and the Economy in general.
Sometimes I miss a bit of protectionism by the EU!
In Germany we had the Air Traffic Tax last year, now we get the ETS. In comparison to other industries Airlines have been stressed a lot in the last years.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:10 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 2):
On a related note, UPS is contemplating the idea of flying "around the EU as much as possible" to avoid the charges, this would increase flight times and actually polute more, according to an article on the WSJ

On all but a few routes that will cost them a lot more. Even landing just before entering Europe and thus have ETS calculated on a shorter distance will most of the time cost more.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 9):

But do we really need it now? I dont care about the airline industry. They have to be able to pay for what they destroy. But cant we wait two years?
Do we havr to piss off 20% of our trading partners in this business environment?

Europe has already waited several years. A big part of the problem is that the the airline industry is moving so slow that they only expect to have a draft proposal some time in 2013 - 2014.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 10):
Now the EU tells its member states to ignore their own laws and tax (or whatever you call it, at the end of the day it is another tax, nothing else

It certainly isn't a tax at this time since money is not going to governments. If they start selling rights, as they are for other industries, it may be considered a tax. Right now it is ONLY a cap on CO2.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 11):
Can the EU levee an emissions tax on a flight whilst operating outside of the EU airspace, e.g. a carrier operating from NRT-LHR will be judged on its emissions for the entire trip, not just the bit over the EU airspace. I suppose Russia would like some of that green tax $ as well, but the EU has decided to gobble that piece. Smells of hording from an outside view.

As soon as Russia puts something in place that part of the flight will be handled by Russia. Of course the same applies to all other regions.

Quoting something (Reply 13):
I feel that the people who demonize this scheme don't actually know the conditions of it.

Absolutely correct. Most are little more than unknowing lobbyists.

Quoting something (Reply 13):
We're talking about losing a few dollars and a few jobs now in the west

Actually there will probably be more jobs created than lost. Green technology has already created lots of jobs. This will just increase it.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 18):
I get the need to encourage ways to reduce carbon emissions, I get the planet is warming and humans have a large part to play in that (and that ultimately, that's going to be a problem), but what I don't get is the tax penalization of industries that don't yet have an alternative.

They do have alternatives. And it is not just buying more efficient planes.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
2-How much does aviation actually pollute? Isn't it about 1%?

Depends on where and how you count. The main problem is that it is increasing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
How much CO2 will it actually cut? Does this fraction of 1% (assuming it's correct) really justify the harm done to the airlines and the economy, both which are hurting / not doing too well? (Look at profit margins, not net profit.)

Main objective is to stop the year by year increases in total CO2 released.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
Will this reduce CO2 or will the cost be simply eaten up by passengers via higher fares? Just like every other tax (do you really think the airlines will just eat this cost?) Even worse, it can just be buried in the "tax" section of an airfare and carriers can charge a little bit more than the tax and make a quick buck, using this as an excuse/

Most importantly it will stop the ever incising amount of CO2 released. And yes, passengers will need to pay. Which is fair, they are the users.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
Aren't high fuel prices enough incentive to get carriers to operate more fuel efficient aircraft? Just look at the what airlines are complaining to A and B about, efficiency!

No. Look at how A and B are re-engine instead of brand new models.

But it isn't just about getting newer equipment, actually that is just a small part. Bigger parts is about operating smarter. Another example is that by switching to bio fuel that can save 20% in CO2 rights needed.

Of course part of smarter operations comes back to better ATC and with that back to the governments.

Quoting corey07850 (Reply 23):

Quoting jollo (Reply 7):
Well, if the EU says "anyone landing in EU airports pays a fee", and the fee really applies to anyone regardless of the nationality of the carrier, that doesn't qualify as discriminatory in international trade. On the other hand, sanctions applied in retailation only to EU carriers would be, without a doubt, discriminatory and a no-brainer WTO case.

The main issue is they are not taxing operators on flights only on flights within EU Airspace to EU airports but on the entire portion of flights that land or depart from participating EU nations. For example from LA to London the EU is going to "charge" you for the entire flight - including the portion over US airspace, Canada airspace, etc etc. That is the part that operators are protesting.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
These protests forget a little detail: Every airline that was flying a few years ago get a certain amount of free certificates, which can be traded.

The free allocation is a minute percentage of what they will actually require.

No, it covers 85% of their CO2 emissions in (IIRC) 2005. I would not call that a small percentage.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Semaex
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:33 pm

Just read the ETS story on german online-paper and since I have dug myself into the subject for some time now, here we go...

Quoting g500 (Reply 2):
Its not just the U.S... 20 other countries are actually supporting the U.S on this, according to Hillary Clinton, the EU finds itself "isolated on the issue".

There are more than 160 nations on this planet. 20 of them not 'following Europe's will' hardly leaves the old continent isolated. Yes, those 20 may be the global players of today, but what I find genuinely fantastic about European politics is its foresight. Those other 140 may be the players of the day after tomorrow....

Quoting g500 (Reply 2):
On a related note, UPS is contemplating the idea of flying "around the EU as much as possible" to avoid the charges, this would increase flight times and actually polute more, according to an article on the WSJ

Rhetoric, nothing else. They'd spend quite a bit more on going around European airspace than paying. Besides, I don't think a Cargo airline such as UPS can afford to spend even half an hour more flighttime avoiding some airspace. Pax planes may, but time is all that matters when handling cargo.

Quoting g500 (Reply 3):
And this comes from a "tree-hugging Californian", I believe in global warming and that we must do something, but going after the beleaguered airline industry at a time like this is not the right move.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 9):
But do we really need it now? I dont care about the airline industry. They have to be able to pay for what they destroy. But cant we wait two years?
Quoting clydenairways (Reply 17):
We need to get the economies working and trading again and taxes that hit trade, tourism and employment will just make it worse.

So when exactly is the right time? I'd say about 50 years ago, but hey! Too late. Let's better start now.
I seriously disagree with the usual political nonsense which goes something like this in regular intervals:
- If the economy is in a downturn, do not impose taxes because it will just make everything worse.
- If the economy is in a boom, do not impose taxes because it will kill the boom.
Seriously, we have to start at some point in time!

Quoting something (Reply 13):

   Liking everything you post! +1 respected member.

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 17):
This could be the final nail to bankrupt a lot of airlines which are hit hard by the recession.

You mean those airlines that are struggling on life-support anyways? Bad management, tough luck, get absorbed by a competitor and move on!

Quoting staralliance85 (Reply 20):
This new EU Law is ridiculous! They are only punishing themselves by putting in this tax because people from the US will find it too expensive to fly to Europe

I read that on long-haul flights additional charges (if at all imposed on the pax) are around 2-16€. Hardly a decision-making amount, especially when flying to Europe, where a single dinner costs the same amount.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 21):
I dont understand.. what is the point in saving something 500 years in the future (if at all even possible) and making everyone nows life a misery? Makes no sense.

WOW !! I don't think you really meant this statement. I hope not.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
2-How much does aviation actually pollute? Isn't it about 1%?

Different sources different numbers, but count around 3-5%

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
3-How much CO2 will it actually cut? Does this fraction of 1% (assuming it's correct) really justify the harm done to the airlines and the economy, both which are hurting / not doing too well? (Look at profit margins, not net profit.)

If you read into how the ETS works, then you will see that the incentives in cutting personal CO2 output are really a way to go. As mentioned a couple of times in this thread: LH will likely even make money on the scheme, since they are using new euqipment which comparibly produce little CO2, thus they are (1) able to cut emissions and (2) earn money doing so. Win-win for companies which are dedicated to trying to help the environment. Again, tough luck for those that don't care.

In the german online-paper article I read it states that roundabout 50% of the global CO2 emissions produced in aviation are on flight to/from Europe, so there you can figure out how much impact a real and honest trading scheme would have on cutting CO2.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
6-Aren't high fuel prices enough incentive to get carriers to operate more fuel efficient aircraft? Just look at the what airlines are complaining to A and B about, efficiency!

I like your username, considering the question you are bringing up. Delta MD-90. Does it ring?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
7-Can't all this time and effort go from the ETS to instead developing alternative energy, especially algae?

That's comparing apples and peaches. There are people working hard to cut emissions on CO2 in the airline industry, and there are other people working equally hard to look for alternative fuels in the airline industry.
I don't think an 'Emission-Stuart' is any good at researching algae.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast if you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Quoting something (Reply 13):
I for one am very happy the EU commission didn't budge.

Yet.  
"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
jollo
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:27 pm

Quoting corey07850 (Reply 23):
The main issue is they are not taxing operators on flights only on flights within EU Airspace to EU airports but on the entire portion of flights that land or depart from participating EU nations. For example from LA to London the EU is going to "charge" you for the entire flight - including the portion over US airspace, Canada airspace, etc etc. That is the part that operators are protesting.

Now, this sounds like a reasonable objection. The goal of ETS is sound (incentivizing operators to go "green" as a competitive advantage), the emission rights trading mechanism is well meant (that is, meant to keep the whole scheme a zero-sum game, transferring money from "bad" to "good" operators, unlike a tax), but the details should be kept as simple and as little objectionable as possible. Charging "for the entire flight - including portions outside EU airspace" is clearly asking for trouble - and finding it.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:37 pm

Quoting SQ325 (Reply 31):
In Germany we had the Air Traffic Tax last year, now we get the ETS. In comparison to other industries Airlines have been stressed a lot in the last years.

The ''Luftverkehrssteuer'' aka departure tax is being reduced by 8% so that the ETS will mean no additional cost for the airlines.

I also think the nuclear energy sector in Germany was hit a bit harder than aviation.  
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Europe has already waited several years. A big part of the problem is that the the airline industry is moving so slow that they only expect to have a draft proposal some time in 2013 - 2014.

ICAO has been asked to implement just any reglementation really but has failed to do so. Now that the ETS is about to come into effect, they've promised to come up with something over the next 2 years. If these regulations are sufficient, airlines will be taken out of the ETS scheme again. 20 years from now, people will have forgotten about the ETS and refer to the ICAO's selfless decision to regulate itself, and how the market needs no government.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Most importantly it will stop the ever incising amount of CO2 released. And yes, passengers will need to pay. Which is fair, they are the users.

If they ''victims'' actually received that money in compensation, then yes it'd be fair. On my last visit to the Phils I visited an oyster farm which employs many hundreds Filipinos but will have to go out of business in the coming decade, as the sea water has already become too warm to still grow them there. Farther north off the coast of Japan, thousands of fishermen have lost their jobs because increasing sea temperature has lead to an overpopulation of 800 pound jellyfish that destroy the fisher's nets, poison their catch and render fishing grounds inaccessible. And those are just two random examples of which I am sure there are thousands.

At the end of the day, ignoring global warming does not create jobs.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
But it isn't just about getting newer equipment, actually that is just a small part. Bigger parts is about operating smarter. Another example is that by switching to bio fuel that can save 20% in CO2 rights needed.

Of course part of smarter operations comes back to better ATC and with that back to the governments.

Imagine how much fuel could be saved if instead of 30+, only 15 airplanes would fly LON-NYC everyday and if LHR was granted the third runway to bring down holding times. I doubt having to fly on a BA A388 instead of a UA 752 in exchange for a 2 hours later flight would make people's lives miserable.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 33):
There are more than 160 nations on this planet. 20 of them not 'following Europe's will' hardly leaves the old continent isolated.

Again, people cry too much. Nothing is going to change. Not a single airline will stop flying into Europe because of this ETS. And if they do, that means one airplane less and the ETS proves to work even better than expected  
Quoting Semaex (Reply 33):
Rhetoric, nothing else. They'd spend quite a bit more on going around European airspace than paying. Besides, I don't think a Cargo airline such as UPS can afford to spend even half an hour more flighttime avoiding some airspace. Pax planes may, but time is all that matters when handling cargo.

While I would expect passenger planes to be more time-sensitive than cargo, this is indeed nothing but hot air. Overflying Europe doesn't even require certificates, and landing in Europe at some point will be mandatory if UPS intends to continue making business here. Unless, they move their CGN hub to KEF, OSL or SVO and deploy carrier pigeons from there on.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 33):
I read that on long-haul flights additional charges (if at all imposed on the pax) are around 2-16€. Hardly a decision-making amount, especially when flying to Europe, where a single dinner costs the same amount.

If it's even that much. LH expects to pay Euro 130m. under the new trading scheme. The LH group combined transports close to 80m. passengers annually, numbers increasing. If they leave their cargo prices unaffected, they'd have to increase every round trip ticket by less then 2 Euro. And that right there is a very flawed calculation already.

In any case, even if certain flyers will have to pony up a couple more dollars/pounds/euros, they should remind themselves that compared to the damage their lifestyles does to the lives of other people, thousands of miles away, is much bigger than this additional charge could ever make up for.

Quoting glideslope (Reply 34):
Quoting something (Reply 13):
I for one am very happy the EU commission didn't budge.

Yet.  

True, but the Danes are about to take control over these matters next and if anything, things will become stricter under their ''rule''. It would be rude for me to point out that Denmark is a quite wealthy country, despite their relatively close friendship with the word sustainability.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
GIANCAVIA
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:45 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:20 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 25):
"That schmuck" could be your grandchildren (or even your children - who knows where medical science is going to go). Just saying.

-Mir

Yeah I dont like kids or ever want them .. I mean I'm only 26 but no thanks. 
Quoting Semaex (Reply 33):
WOW !! I don't think you really meant this statement. I hope not.

I most certainly do mean it. Selfish as it may seem I am just being honest and logical. My time to live is now, I wont be coming back to this planet again so why would I want it to be better for people hundreds of years in the future to the detriment of myself? Who knows what sickos might be roaming the earth with all the egos and wars etc etc. I dont want my life to suck now because of the small possibility it might help someone that wont even exist for hundreds of years.

Hate on it all you want, Thats my way of seeing it.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:05 am

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 37):
why would I want it to be better for people hundreds of years in the future to the detriment of myself? Who knows what sickos might be roaming the earth with all the egos and wars etc etc.

Complaining about the egos of people, eh.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
User avatar
ual747den
Posts: 1604
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:24 am

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
US poiticians should stop to complain about every single dollar that does not flow into the pockets of the hand full of US investors who control their media, their rating agencies, their banks and finance the campaign of every US politian. But its her job to complains...

LOL!!! Where do you get this stuff!

Quoting something (Reply 13):
There are merits to both approaches, but since we only have this one world it's a bit much of a gamble to run this experiment on the living patient. And just as Europe can't force other nations/regions to adapt their ''ecological responsibility'', they can't force Europe to adapt their ''ecological recklessnes''.

Your statement and thinking is flawed. The USA is a big place, there are many views. The US and most other nations with modern airline industries being against this does not really have to do with their view on the environment, it comes down to the fact that this policy violates an international convention which governs airlines worldwide. Other nations do not want to allow the EU to tax for activity within the boarders of their own nation and I see nothing wrong with that. The issue is not really an EU issue because the EU is not a party to the Chicago Convention, this issue will need to be taken to the specific countries involved and the matter is very clear.

Quoting something (Reply 27):
If the highest court in Luxembourg has found this to be in compliance, I trust them it is.

I do agree that the court was correct, this is not an EU issue but rather an issue for the individual countries involved. This does however further show the weakness of the EU to govern policy within the bloc at a time when the EU needs to be showing the ability to be a central government.

Quoting something (Reply 27):
The aim is to incentivize airlines to fly more efficient airplanes. EK will make a lot of money with this. But it's nothing but a tiny step in the right direction and lightyears away from actually doing something against global warming.

This statement alone shows how backwards this policy is! If you believe in the idea that airlines are hurting the environment to such a degree that we need this trading policy then you MUST agree that EK is a huge creator of waste! EK has a major hub where no hub is needed. Dubai doesn't have the O&D to support a huge operation like EK but they are able to make it work by connecting passengers who would otherwise take a much more direct flight thus polluting our planet far more than would be required if they did not exist. The fact that this kind of airline will actually benefit from such a program while filling A380's full of passengers heading hundreds or thousands of miles off the direct path to their final destination is a complete joke. Just to be clear, I am not saying that I think EK is a bad airline or should go away, I am just trying to show an example of how this program is completely flawed.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 33):
There are more than 160 nations on this planet. 20 of them not 'following Europe's will' hardly leaves the old continent isolated. Yes, those 20 may be the global players of today, but what I find genuinely fantastic about European politics is its foresight. Those other 140 may be the players of the day after tomorrow....

The foresight? I think you need to take a few history lessons before you start congratulating Europe on their foresight!

I also doubt that the world will suddenly change and the major players in the world today will suddenly drop from power and watch as less powerful countries take over!

Quoting Semaex (Reply 33):
In the german online-paper article I read it states that roundabout 50% of the global CO2 emissions produced in aviation are on flight to/from Europe, so there you can figure out how much impact a real and honest trading scheme would have on cutting CO2.

Again, the EU can tax airlines however they see fit in their territory. The problem is trying to tax and airline for use in an area where the EU has no authority or control. The EU cannot impose fees on for example AC while they are operating in Canadian airspace!

Quoting something (Reply 36):
Imagine how much fuel could be saved if instead of 30+, only 15 airplanes would fly LON-NYC everyday and if LHR was granted the third runway to bring down holding times. I doubt having to fly on a BA A388 instead of a UA 752 in exchange for a 2 hours later flight would make people's lives miserable.

You are wrong. It makes a huge difference being able to use smaller aircraft to fly directly from smaller airports and also with more frequency. There are markets where frequency does not matter as much but Europe is one where it DOES matter. Europe and specifically NYC-LON is a route where passengers can time their flight to meet their needs. If I have a meeting in London I can fly in just in time and back out without having to waist a whole day in the hotel.

Quoting something (Reply 36):
Again, people cry too much. Nothing is going to change. Not a single airline will stop flying into Europe because of this ETS. And if they do, that means one airplane less and the ETS proves to work even better than expected  

If their is one less flight to Europe it would prove that this system is hurting Europe because that is one less plane full of people who are going to spend money in Europe. Your way of thinking is completely flawed and until you understand that you will never really get it.
Frontier Airlines - Low Fares Done Right
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:29 am

Something, pretty much agree with everything you say.

Quoting something (Reply 36):
If they ''victims'' actually received that money in compensation, then yes it'd be fair.

But not with this. The victims are receiving the benefits of reduced CO2 emissions. The money goes to companies reducing their emissions as a way of making that process cheaper and thus more justifiable. And in one way or another, we are all victims.

Quoting something (Reply 36):
At the end of the day, ignoring global warming does not create jobs.

Who knows what will actually happen. I know I do not want to find out. It is bad enough already.

Quoting something (Reply 36):
Again, people cry too much. Nothing is going to change. Not a single airline will stop flying into Europe because of this ETS. And if they do, that means one airplane less and the ETS proves to work even better than expected  

It is the same story each time there is a cost added in some way, we can't afford it now, why us when x is so much worse, thousands of jobs will be lost. It is the same each time and so far any negative effects have been short. And the costs this time are way smaller than most other times. The US security increase will be higher in most cases.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
GIANCAVIA
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:45 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:44 am

Quoting something (Reply 38):
Complaining about the egos of people, eh.

Cry me a river so I can pave over it.
 
nomorerjs
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:24 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:58 am

The EU did not exist at the time of the Chicago convention. If the EU wishes to impose the fee on carriers, the US has every right to charge fees to EU carriers flying here. It's sad that piddly shit like this has turned into a pissing match! And to think the current US government compliments Europe and looks to Europe as the example of the world and will not go along with this. Must be an election coming up in the US!
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:09 am

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 42):
If the EU wishes to impose the fee on carriers, the US has every right to charge fees to EU carriers flying here.

...as long as they don't discriminate and charge US airlines as well.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:11 am

First, anyone who insists the protests to the ETS are only from the USA, is seriously mistaken. So far, I havn't seen a single non EU country or any airline, (in or out of the EU), that favors the scheme.

Second, energy trading schemes do nothing specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's just a way for producers of more than their allotment of GHG's to pay a price...(either by purchasing unused credits from someone else or a fine), and the money's usually go into general revenue, not into any specific GHG's reduction program. If a company or industry can afford to pollute...it can pollute as much as it desires...just pay the fines and screw the polar bears.

Third, and specifically to this case, even European Parliament Transport Committee chairman Brian Simpson admits this is a cash grab and will likely do nothing to reduce GWG emissions...and you'd think he would know.

atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/eu-mp-europe-will-not-back-down-ets-1104

Quote:
We have a situation at the moment where the US, Russia, China and India are campaigning vigorously against the introduction of ETS. And yet, within the EU, governments are keen to press ahead because they desperately need the money. They won’t say that—oh no—they will claim it’s to help the environment, just as they do with Air Passenger Duty. But let’s be under no illusions here—both ETS and APD are being used as revenue streams for hard-up governments and not for environmental protections measures,” Simpson said.

So even the people responsible for enacting the scheme call it a tax.
What the...?
 
nomorerjs
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:24 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:22 am

As mentioned above, this is not a US vs. EU issue. Canada, Russia, and China are strongly against this as well. This is a fee / surcharge / government sanctioned fees waiting to happen. This is an international issue, and the US / Canada / Russia / China will not be bullied by and EU court for international issues. Sure, the EU can say what happens in the EU, but they have no say in the US / Canada / Russia / China. If they wish to impsed their rule against other nations, expect actions from the other nations.

How often do the US / Canada / Russia / China agree? This is unprecidented! I wish the EU could bring the rest of the world together for other issues than a $20USD fee for carbon emissions?
 
User avatar
Semaex
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:24 am

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 39):
I also doubt that the world will suddenly change and the major players in the world today will suddenly drop from power and watch as less powerful countries take over!

I think a Brit would've laughed at my statement 100 years ago as much as a Roman 2000 years ago, you, an American today or a Chinese in 100 years from now.
Talking about a history lesson...

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 39):
If their is one less flight to Europe it would prove that this system is hurting Europe because that is one less plane full of people who are going to spend money in Europe. Your way of thinking is completely flawed and until you understand that you will never really get it.

God help this system. Money, it's all about the money.
Why would anyone cry out if one European airport misses out on one flight a day if that comes down to tons and tons of reduced CO2? It doesn't get to me, I'm sorry.
Money is a tool, not a goal. The goal is sustainability. Or in your words: "Your way of thinking is completely flawed and until you understand that you will never really get it"  
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast if you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:45 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):
Second, energy trading schemes do nothing specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Explain how a cap does not have an effect.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):
and the money's usually go into general revenue

No, the money goes to the company selling the right. How the company got that right depends. For now airlines are not paying for their allotment.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 45):
If they wish to impsed their rule against other nations, expect actions from the other nations.

They get around that by only imposing it on planes landing in EU. Not like some other country who impose things just for flying over it.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:11 am

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 39):
If their is one less flight to Europe it would prove that this system is hurting Europe because that is one less plane full of people who are going to spend money in Europe. Your way of thinking is completely flawed and until you understand that you will never really get it.

Ok, so there are two theories: 1.) I ''don't really get'' that earning money is the objective of airlines. 2.) You don't really get that all of this temporary trade between first world nations is entirely meaningless compared to the issues mankind as a whole will be facing if we don't re-assess our ways of living.

My personal hunch is it's not 1.)

To preempt accusations of me disliking capitalism. Earning money is great - if you earn your more honestly. But if you earn money because you make others pick up your tab, then that money wasn't really yours to begin with. Pay to clean up the mess you leave behind, price your product accordingly and nobody will say a bad word about it.

But if you try to keep your product cheap, by forcing others to pay the price you can't ask from your customers (ie, make the Maledives disappear), then expect the one or the other criticism. To stay with that example, the Maledives and Seychelles are literally going to disappear in the next few decades. But what are a few million people around the globe losing their home, when a few thousand people can be spared the inconvenience of looking for another job, right?
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
User avatar
MarcoPoloWorld
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:37 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:52 am

Quoting g500 (Reply 3):
I agree with Mrs. Clinton on this.

And this comes from a "tree-hugging Californian", I believe in global warming and that we must do something, but going after the beleaguered airline industry at a time like this is not the right move.

go ahead, flame away

No flaming necessary - and count me into your category as well.  

Unfortunately, this taxing scheme reminds me of the kind of ugly unilateralism we saw in the last decade - only, now it's the EU rather than the US trying to impose its will upon others.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos