Airlines Savaged by Environment Minister
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why ryanair
It seems airlines are going to be given for free CO2 quotas that they can sell.
That means the airlines that are shrinking can make a fortune selling the right to emit CO2 so the Old airlines will not be too upset. In fact it could be a good windfall for the likes of BMI. Buy some less old planes and sell some quotas. I assmue ryanair will get less quotas as they already have newer planes! You can see them getting upset.
Ryanair needs to grow to use up the vast number of aircraft it has on order. The EU CO2 trading system may be why they wanted aer lingus. MOL could take the quotas, cut Aer Lingus down to the bone and use the quota to expand ryanair. He then also has somewhere to use all his new planes that he stole from Boeing. love him or hate him he is very good at getting a deal.
That means the airlines that are shrinking can make a fortune selling the right to emit CO2 so the Old airlines will not be too upset. In fact it could be a good windfall for the likes of BMI. Buy some less old planes and sell some quotas. I assmue ryanair will get less quotas as they already have newer planes! You can see them getting upset.
Ryanair needs to grow to use up the vast number of aircraft it has on order. The EU CO2 trading system may be why they wanted aer lingus. MOL could take the quotas, cut Aer Lingus down to the bone and use the quota to expand ryanair. He then also has somewhere to use all his new planes that he stole from Boeing. love him or hate him he is very good at getting a deal.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what is worse about the minister's statement is the sheer hypocrisy of it, given the recent tax on aviation; he accuses the industry of not taking global warming seriously, yet just how much of this will actually go towards doing anything meaningful or effective about global warming?
Given the importance of aviation to Britain's - and indeed the world's - economy, wouldn't it be a good idea for them to incentivise the design and development of more environmentally friendly engines, rather than (as they seem to be doing now), knocking the aviation industry. It's all stick and very little carrot and that has to change. The govt needs to understand that there are neo-luddites who would like nothing better than to stop aviation altogether; let's not hand the platform over to them. Part of achieving that is setting targets which can be met. There is a balance which can be achieved, but penalising aviation (particularly when it's done cynicially, as with the new tax) is not the way to do it. A flat tax on all flying, "full stop", achieves nothing; it doesn't reduce flying (possibly not the intention anyway, despite pretence to the contrary) and it doesn't offer any incentive to airlines or manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient aircraft/engines, which really should be the aim.
Why is it such a big step to say to airlines: "if you introduce and aircraft which reduces emissions to x/pax/mile, no tax is payable". But do they want to reach that position; that's the question...
Given the importance of aviation to Britain's - and indeed the world's - economy, wouldn't it be a good idea for them to incentivise the design and development of more environmentally friendly engines, rather than (as they seem to be doing now), knocking the aviation industry. It's all stick and very little carrot and that has to change. The govt needs to understand that there are neo-luddites who would like nothing better than to stop aviation altogether; let's not hand the platform over to them. Part of achieving that is setting targets which can be met. There is a balance which can be achieved, but penalising aviation (particularly when it's done cynicially, as with the new tax) is not the way to do it. A flat tax on all flying, "full stop", achieves nothing; it doesn't reduce flying (possibly not the intention anyway, despite pretence to the contrary) and it doesn't offer any incentive to airlines or manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient aircraft/engines, which really should be the aim.
Why is it such a big step to say to airlines: "if you introduce and aircraft which reduces emissions to x/pax/mile, no tax is payable". But do they want to reach that position; that's the question...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lichfield UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6233019.stm
Why he should pick on RyanAir of all airlines is beyond comprehension. Regardless of your view on MOL, RyanAir's fleet, like many of the LoCos' is probably as efficient as is practically possible
It's an irony that one needs to point people to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation that started this anti-air travel campaign to show that Aviation is the least of our worries...if indeed we need to be worried about anything (see Global Warmng thread in JetBlast).
Why he should pick on RyanAir of all airlines is beyond comprehension. Regardless of your view on MOL, RyanAir's fleet, like many of the LoCos' is probably as efficient as is practically possible
It's an irony that one needs to point people to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation that started this anti-air travel campaign to show that Aviation is the least of our worries...if indeed we need to be worried about anything (see Global Warmng thread in JetBlast).
Perhaps it something to do with this from Leo a week or so back
“Gordon Brown’s Christmas present to the travelling public is to double the taxes on low fare flights from £5 to £10 per ticket. This decision will hit the poor much harder than the fat cats in business class, and these taxes, while generating over £1bn. for “Scrooge” Brown, wont make any difference to the environment whatsoever.
“Ordinary people should not suffer high taxes. British tourism will be damaged by these taxes which deter visitors coming to London and the UK at Christmas and the New Year.
“Ryanair is today inviting all passengers booking tickets over the Christmas period to write to Gordon “Scrooge” Brown “the ghost of Christmas present” asking him to reverse this unfair and regressive tax on travel, a taxation which will do nothing at all for the environment when aviation only accounts for 1.6% of global greenhouse gases.
Gordon Brown’s New Year resolution should be tax the rich, not the poor. Tax the fat cats in business class, not the ordinary families on average wages who can only afford fly thanks to Ryanair’s low fare flights.
If “Scrooge” Brown wont listen to Ryanair, then perhaps he will listen to the pleas of ordinary passengers many of whom –next year – will have to pay more in taxes to Gordon Brown than they pay to Ryanair for their tickets next year”.
It could just be that this astonishing and intemperate attack has more to do with Pearson toadying up to 'Prime Minister Brown' (earning 'Brownie Points' and the chance of a nice cabinet job come the succession), than any real concern for the enviroment.
Don't be silly RealFish! Brown and Bliar and his mates don't listen to the electorate and you only know that they are lying to you because they are speaking! Writing to them will do no good.Doc C
ps, yes, I know you were quoting, but still.....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think we have a problem?
It is a sobering thought, well I think it is, that China and India combined will open a coal fired power station every five days for the next seven years to satisfy their energy demands.
If UK PLC were to shut down for the next 30 years, India and China would input the saved emmisions from such a silly excercise in 93 days.
These figures are gross approximations, as are all the arguments about global warming, simply because the whole model is so very variable.
Can someone please tell me how Carbon Trading reduces CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell us where the revenue (stealing) from Mr. Gordon, Chance it, Brown's 'Green Tax' will go and how it will help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
The whole subject is simply so much hot air, and we waste a lot of time and money trying to alter what is inevitable.
Fly On!
If UK PLC were to shut down for the next 30 years, India and China would input the saved emmisions from such a silly excercise in 93 days.
These figures are gross approximations, as are all the arguments about global warming, simply because the whole model is so very variable.
Can someone please tell me how Carbon Trading reduces CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell us where the revenue (stealing) from Mr. Gordon, Chance it, Brown's 'Green Tax' will go and how it will help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
The whole subject is simply so much hot air, and we waste a lot of time and money trying to alter what is inevitable.
Fly On!
I just see it as another way for the government to get money out of everybody's pockets and in to their coffers; look at the way they tax deisel fuel when overall it's environmentally friendlier than petrol.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rubik,
Sadly, I think only the last question stands any chance of obtaining an accurate answer, now or in the future 
Can someone please tell me how Carbon Trading reduces CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell us where the revenue (stealing) from Mr. Gordon, Chance it, Brown's 'Green Tax' will go and how it will help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
Can someone tell us where the revenue (stealing) from Mr. Gordon, Chance it, Brown's 'Green Tax' will go and how it will help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They government won't touch road haulage because they would have a fight on their hands and road chaos would ensue.
The main problem is that we face an issue that noone wants to confront, so everyone looks for someone else to blame, and for someone else who should be targeted first. Many just refuse to accept it exists. This leaves any government in a tight spot. They are after all shallow vote seekers wishing to save their lying hides. They will therefore not be able to tackle any sector that is 'essential' to day to day running of the country, as the chaos from any disruption would be unbearable. They therefore target a sector that offers cheap hits without major disruption.
They also cannot target road users too much as the rail network would be shown to be the total disaster zone that it is. Extra pressure on road users is also a vote loser. They want to go green in the long run, but not at the expense of vote losses in the short term.
But MOL is also wrong to be smug about FR's green credentials. If the industry is seen as arrogant and unwilling to play it's part it will be a further target. This despite the governments unwillingness to show what it will be spending these 'green' taxes on.
All need to grow up on this issue. Industries need to wake up and smell the carbon. Cross industry bodies need to come up with real solutions to reduce carbon in a fair manner, at reasonable levels. If they don't (and they have not so far), the the government will tax through frustration.
The government need to realise we are not all pillocks. We want to know what they are going to do with green taxes to reduce carbon. They need to face down the real CO2 producers and get action plans in place, and quick, rather than go for easy targets. If they cannot be honest then they will lose any public support on these issues and we will all be screwed.
We need to grow up and take our heads out the sand. We need to accept that all industries are affected by this. It is no use trying to be NIMBY's about change. We all have to change our habits. We cannot all 'offset' our CO2 production. Someone must reduce output somewhere. The changes we need to make are perfectly plausible, but no one seems to give two hoots quite frankly. We all want to consume everything now.
The main problem is that we face an issue that noone wants to confront, so everyone looks for someone else to blame, and for someone else who should be targeted first. Many just refuse to accept it exists. This leaves any government in a tight spot. They are after all shallow vote seekers wishing to save their lying hides. They will therefore not be able to tackle any sector that is 'essential' to day to day running of the country, as the chaos from any disruption would be unbearable. They therefore target a sector that offers cheap hits without major disruption.
They also cannot target road users too much as the rail network would be shown to be the total disaster zone that it is. Extra pressure on road users is also a vote loser. They want to go green in the long run, but not at the expense of vote losses in the short term.
But MOL is also wrong to be smug about FR's green credentials. If the industry is seen as arrogant and unwilling to play it's part it will be a further target. This despite the governments unwillingness to show what it will be spending these 'green' taxes on.
All need to grow up on this issue. Industries need to wake up and smell the carbon. Cross industry bodies need to come up with real solutions to reduce carbon in a fair manner, at reasonable levels. If they don't (and they have not so far), the the government will tax through frustration.
The government need to realise we are not all pillocks. We want to know what they are going to do with green taxes to reduce carbon. They need to face down the real CO2 producers and get action plans in place, and quick, rather than go for easy targets. If they cannot be honest then they will lose any public support on these issues and we will all be screwed.
We need to grow up and take our heads out the sand. We need to accept that all industries are affected by this. It is no use trying to be NIMBY's about change. We all have to change our habits. We cannot all 'offset' our CO2 production. Someone must reduce output somewhere. The changes we need to make are perfectly plausible, but no one seems to give two hoots quite frankly. We all want to consume everything now.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also needs pointing out to this loonatic that Britain's aged train population is blowing a damn site more CO2 into the atmosphere
I recently had to take a train from London's Paddington Station and at 8am on a weekday, the diesel fumes pouring out of the IC 125s were frankly appalling. This is a scene probably repeated at Kings Cross, St Pancras, and to a lesser extent at Birmingham's New Street, Manchester's Piccadilly, Newcastle's Central and other UK major railway stations. Even the all-electric powered trains require a power source that's generated by the burning of fossil fuel.
The real moral issue concerning the low-cost airline sector is (assuming that you subscribe to the environmentalist persuasion) that it encourges many folk to travel just for the sake of it i.e. not because it's absolutely necessary.
Agreed, you could also argue that the same logic applies equally to the charter market.
Years ago (before fuel became expensive through hikes in duty and the roads became appallingly congested) people often 'went out for a drive' at a weekend, as a form of relaxation and pastime.
This 'following the bonnet' habit was a culture adopted by hundreds of people all over the country and from most socio-economic backgrounds.
Nowadays, who the hell would from choice, undertake ANY car journey that wasn't essential and for which the driver had a destination in mind.
Ultimately, it may be that the low-cost airline sector (particularly the likes of Ryanair which unlike easyJet doesn't operate solely into the major European airports) will eventually go the same way and for the same reasons.
As far as utterences by politicians such as our illustrious Environment Minister, nobody east of Dover gives a damn about what's said by transient UK politicians.
In 25 years time long after they've gone, the major global polluters will be China and India (and much of Africa if the majority of its countries are ever enabled to defeat debt, poverty, disease and corruption) whilst the UK will have become a minor global player with - relatively speaking - an insignificant environmental footprint.
And the green lobby many of whom have - now that the Cold War has ended and nuclear disarmament is less of a issue - adopted the environmental cause as a secular religion will have moved on to another hair-shirt and sackcloth issue.
Oh, and BTW, with the undoubted climatic change that's so far meant I've not run my central heating at all so far this winter, if this pattern is repeated across Western Europe during the Northern Hemisphere's winter, perhaps the Environment Minister could tell me the net benefit in CO2 emissions given that we're not burning as much fossil fuel during the winter months...?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did this idiot politician actually turn up on TV at all, I think at one point the BBC reporter claimed he was no where to be found! What cowardice even for a politician ... hit and run.
Well why don't users on pprune email a quick message to the Conseravtive party and let them know that their anti-aviation and pro-fuddy-duddy stance is no good neither. The email doesn't cost anything so why not let them have it !
Well why don't users on pprune email a quick message to the Conseravtive party and let them know that their anti-aviation and pro-fuddy-duddy stance is no good neither. The email doesn't cost anything so why not let them have it !
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this sh1t head minister can take a look at this a weep:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 44
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this sh1t head minister can take a look at this a weep:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm
Ryanair have done a press release today announcing that they are the cleanest greenest airline around and to celebrate they are doing a BOGOF deal.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik
I was once daft enough to join FOE, and even looked into Greenpeace before I realised they were political organisations purely against any form of progress. To answer your question, if you look back over Earth's climate history, it is constantly going through variable cycles of warming up and cooling down. So it's on a warm up cycle now- it happens. Bit better than falling into another ice-age, but the polar bears and penguins won't like it. I'm afraid it's nature, and there's nothing we can do that will affect the cycle. One damn good volcano vomits more CO2 into the atmosphere than we care to know about. Making us pay more air travel tax or petrol duty to 'spend crazy Robber Brown' will make not one iota of difference to climate. The climate has been far warmer than now, and far, far cooler than now. Man's influence is probably less than we give ourselves credit for. The world will not runaway into a Venusian greenhouse effect- it does have a natural restoring effect as the heating effects go as the Earth's rotating axis spins slowly and other astronomical effects occur. Yes, one day Birmingham will once again be covered with glaciers one or two miles thick, and Liverpool will either be underwater or covered in thick ice (and is that so bad?). Ice ages come and go constantly, it's 'go' at the moment, and the world will warm up. Just hope the volcanos don't break out, but apart from that there is nothing we can do that will have any significant effect. If it salves your conscience to pay extra tax, well good luck, but cutting your energy consumption by 20% is laudable, but insignificant. What is true is that mankind must keep progressing in space so its future does not depend on just this planet. Stop listening to these absurd doom-mongers and their absurd science and predictions (and finger of blame!). They know nothing.
The new whipping boy is aviation- root of all evil! Is it 2% of all CO2 emissions? What about dirty trains and empty buses? 'Energy efficient cars'? Their batteries cause incredible pollution at production (and disposal), and.... er..... those batteries need energy for charging! They're virtually no more efficient- but they make Leonardo di Caprio and Cameron Diaz feel 'cool' and conscience free. They're nonsense! Just enjoy life without a conscience- take your longhaul holidays and enjoy them and ignore these Luddites!
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
The new whipping boy is aviation- root of all evil! Is it 2% of all CO2 emissions? What about dirty trains and empty buses? 'Energy efficient cars'? Their batteries cause incredible pollution at production (and disposal), and.... er..... those batteries need energy for charging! They're virtually no more efficient- but they make Leonardo di Caprio and Cameron Diaz feel 'cool' and conscience free. They're nonsense! Just enjoy life without a conscience- take your longhaul holidays and enjoy them and ignore these Luddites!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps these people should have a look at the railways, they leave a train in the siding near me with its two engines running for at least 4/5 hours chugging clouds of fumes out
G-I-B
G-I-B
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe... excellent post, summarises well how I think a large proportion of the population feels. Agree totally about space exploration, the world is getting far too fond of studying it's own navel and turning in on itself with unconstructive/undeserved blame and ill thought sticking plaster remedies from governments scared to show leadership except when it comes to extracting more in taxes.
Bring back James T Kirk and nuclear power!
Bring back James T Kirk and nuclear power!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It also needs pointing out to this loonatic that Britain's aged train population is blowing a damn site more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the aircraft flying into and out of the UK."
Not entirely fair, many rail companies have new fleets, or have them on order. If both are full, a train will cause far less emmissions per mile than flying. But that is quite a substantial caveat!
I'd love to see us being able to get whisked around the country on high speed, contact friction free, maglevs. But I rarely see any politicians or campaigners speak rationally when it comes to weighing up the economics with the environmental costs.
Having recently sat for 3 hours in the BHX lounge waiting for a delayed flight to GLA, I am more than happy to accept that the trains can often be more convenient than flying anyway. But we just get lectured about the "carbon" emmissions. The fact is that had I taken a Virgin Train from Coventry to BHX, I would have ran up more in subsidies at 20p/mile than the allegedly unpaid carbon cost for my whole flight (about 50p according to climate care). Even these calculations don't consider the fact that when the Q400 finally turned up, it was almost full - save 2 pax who'd walked off in digust!
Virgin's subsidy has to increase for longer journeys so they can compete more with the airlines, so the environmental costs are really quite insignificant, compared to the huge amount the rail companies soak up.
"Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect."
This argument can easily be countered by the fact that emmissions from aircraft are generally well away from humans, except for take-off and landing, and that even during this phase, most of the affected people have chosen to live near airports long after they opened. The human costs of road traffic accidents, and illnesses due to pollution are significant. The dangers posed by aircraft are minimal, whereas afaik no peer reviewed study has ever proven a link between local pollution caused by airports (as opposed to the roads which surround them), and any respiratory illness.
Not entirely fair, many rail companies have new fleets, or have them on order. If both are full, a train will cause far less emmissions per mile than flying. But that is quite a substantial caveat!
I'd love to see us being able to get whisked around the country on high speed, contact friction free, maglevs. But I rarely see any politicians or campaigners speak rationally when it comes to weighing up the economics with the environmental costs.
Having recently sat for 3 hours in the BHX lounge waiting for a delayed flight to GLA, I am more than happy to accept that the trains can often be more convenient than flying anyway. But we just get lectured about the "carbon" emmissions. The fact is that had I taken a Virgin Train from Coventry to BHX, I would have ran up more in subsidies at 20p/mile than the allegedly unpaid carbon cost for my whole flight (about 50p according to climate care). Even these calculations don't consider the fact that when the Q400 finally turned up, it was almost full - save 2 pax who'd walked off in digust!
Virgin's subsidy has to increase for longer journeys so they can compete more with the airlines, so the environmental costs are really quite insignificant, compared to the huge amount the rail companies soak up.
"Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect."
This argument can easily be countered by the fact that emmissions from aircraft are generally well away from humans, except for take-off and landing, and that even during this phase, most of the affected people have chosen to live near airports long after they opened. The human costs of road traffic accidents, and illnesses due to pollution are significant. The dangers posed by aircraft are minimal, whereas afaik no peer reviewed study has ever proven a link between local pollution caused by airports (as opposed to the roads which surround them), and any respiratory illness.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If both are full, a train will cause far less emmissions per mile than flying.
Aviation is simply the currently fashionable populist target for the hairshirt brigade who it seems, have a great need to feel guilty about themselves, their circumstances, their upbringing and their social/cultural/national/ethnic heritage, and most of the politicians dabbling in the pastime of 'aviation bashing' are only really interested in securing these voter's votes. The World today is in a far more tolerant and culturally aware sitiation than it would be if it wasn't for aviation and international travel.
The great irony of all this is that if it wasn't for air travel, 90% of the hairshirt brigade wouldn't even know about glacial melting or drought in Africa because even if they themselves haven't been to such locations, the reporters and TV crews who bring the pictures to our screens and to our newspapers have - and they didn't do it by overland travel.
