CO2 hysteria to raise airfare costs to Europe

[Flying Binghi]

...:hmm:

European Union tax on carbon to push up airfares

QANTAS will be forced to lift international airfares to Europe from next January after being slapped with a penalty by the European Union because Australia does not have a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

The national carrier told business leaders at a meeting in Canberra this week that under changes to the EU's emissions trading scheme, Qantas would be forced to pay a tax on 15 per cent of its carbon emissions from its nearest port of call.

This would mean the tax would be payable from emissions incurred by flights from ports as far as Singapore and Bangkok under a "border tax" adjustment contained in the EU scheme.

Government sources believe US airlines, which will also face the EU carbon impost, are likely to challenge its validity in the World Trade Organisation... continues - European Union tax on carbon to push up airfares | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/european-union-tax-on-carbon-to-push-up-airfares/story-e6frg95x-1226055649562)











.

[601]

Just land somewhere in Switzerland and then continue to your European destination. Costs less but dumps more CO2 into Europe with the extra fuel burn at the lower levels

[Ndicho Moja]

Just out of interest;

For the A320 group of aircraft, if you take the fuel figure from the flight plan (Burn+reserves etc) and double it, that is roughly the number of Metric Tonnes of CO2 that will be emitted into the atmosphere. For example, a flight from one of the major SE Asia cities to Perth will emit about 40 Tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.

Have a good day.

[Short_Circuit]

QANTAS will be forced to lift international airfares to Europe from next January after being slapped with a penalty by the European Union
But Julia said that responsible companies would absorb any cost of carbon tax, not pass it on to consumers..:ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

if you take the fuel figure from the flight plan (Burn+reserves etc) and double it, that is roughly the number of Metric Tonnes of CO2 that will be emitted into the atmosphere


Ndicho Moja, not knowing what the "reserves etc" are, do you have a better conversion figure available ?





.

[Dark Knight]

For the A320 group of aircraft, if you take the fuel figure from the flight plan (Burn+reserves etc) and double it, that is roughly the number of Metric Tonnes of CO2 that will be emitted into the atmosphere. For example, a flight from one of the major SE Asia cities to Perth will emit about 40 Tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.Ndicho Moja are you suggesting the amount of Carbon (Carbon Dioxide??) `produced' is greater than the amount of fuel carried or burnt?

[Wunwing]

SC
What has Julia got to do with the EEC ruling?

Wunwing

[Short_Circuit]

Ww
She has nothing to do with EEC ruling, BUT for Oz carbon tax, her guarantee that companies will not pass on the tax to consumers is cr@p.

[Teal]

Interesting that the EEC does not obviously take into account airline carbon offset programs...or do they?


Carbon Offset Program
In September 2007, the Qantas Group launched a Carbon Offset Program that allows Qantas and Jetstar passengers to offset their share of flight emissions when making a booking. The offset cost is based on a full life cycle assessment of all operations and a calculation of the emissions associated with carrying a passenger from one point to another. An online calculator advises customers of their emissions and the cost of offsetting them.

If emissions are genuinely offset, why a tax from anybody?

[halas]

Strewth Moja, Is that summer or winter? V2500 or CFM56? What FL? How much is etc? Must be a lot to produce more than the flight planned burn.
Whats it like from SE Asian city to elsewhere?
Am sure the 73NG releases half that.

halas

[flyingfox]

So the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere is just hysteria.... I must have been misinformed... I thought it was a scientific issue.

[maui]

FF

Suggest you widen your reading a little. Stay away from the hysterical circulation grabbers in the media.

A good start would be "Heaven and Earth" by Pilimer.

Might set you off in search of some truth. It must be out there.

M

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm..:hmm:

Snipets via the Fin Review...

Qantas’s total carbon emissions in financial 2010 were 11.7 million tonnes.

At a carbon price of between $20 and $25 a tonne...is likely this equates to an annual hit to profit before tax in the range of $100 million.

Qantas chief backs Labor carbon tax (http://www.afr.com.au/p/business/companies/qantas_chief_backs_labor_carbon_yZzWjrD5b3e0HhlOieWR7O)

.... and at the green wish of $40, say $200 million.. though thats just where it starts in the first year.. and passed on to ?..:hmm:

And all them other airlines gunna have the same nonsence imposed on them ?.....



The Greens say the carbon tax will need to be far above $40 a tonne | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-greens-say-the-carbon-tax-will-need-to-be-far-above-40-a-tonne-while-the-government-says-it-will-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057628289)






.

[Flying Binghi]

So the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere is just hysteria.... I must have been misinformed... I thought it was a scientific issue.



Tell us more flyingfox.. How did you come to believe it were a "scientific issue" ?








.

[Groaner]

Dark Knight, yes, there is more CO2 produced than fuel burnt. That's because it picks up oxygen from the air - one of carbon from the fuel (the hydrogen bits are very light-weight) plus two of oxygen to make CO2.

In climate-change discussions, there's lots of slips about tonnes of carbon vs tonnes of CO2.

[Flying Binghi]

In climate-change discussions, there's lots of slips about tonnes of carbon vs tonnes of CO2.


Heh, and they want to tax 'carbon' so they say..:hmm:






.

[Teal]

In climate-change discussions, there's lots of slips about tonnes of carbon vs tonnes of CO2. Economics guru Terry McCrann had an article recently published on this point. Worth reading:


Carbon not the same thing as CO2

Terry McCrann
March 08, 2011

ASTONISHINGLY, the PM, the Cabinet and members of the Canberra Press Gallery don't know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.

There are two great lies told about the need to "put a price on carbon". Lies which I can't recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with -- far less the prime liar herself.

And it'll be a cold day in hell before you see a critical commentary from any of the supposed leading lights of the gallery such as Fairfax's Michelle Grattan or Peter Hartcher applying a critical analysis to the claims.

Now these two lies are in addition to Julia Gillard's "there will be no carbon tax" lie. They precede it and will be told again and again after it.

The first is that "climate change policies" are aimed at "carbon pollution". No they are not; they are aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

There is neither the need to abbreviate carbon dioxide to carbon; and the exercise of abbreviation renders it inaccurate. A bald-faced, quite deliberate lie.

For if carbon dioxide can be called "carbon pollution", in this or any other universe, in this or any other reality, well then rain has to be called "hydrogen pollution".

The reason the term is used by Gillard is an exercise of quite deliberate despicable dishonesty. It is the modern political form of those subliminal advertisements that are banned.

To suggest that it is about stopping dirty bits of grit -- the very real carbon pollution of yesterday's coal-burning home fires which gave London its sooty smog and killed thousands every year.

The real carbon pollution which no longer exists in modern developed economies, mostly precisely because of clean coal-fired power stations. And which does exist -- and kills -- in developing and third-world countries, denied centralised power generation.

The great sick irony is that to the extent we do cut our emissions of CO2, it will merely relocate those emissions in developing countries where they will be accompanied by bits of grit. Most notably and significantly: China.

Indeed, those supposedly virtuous Europeans might have cut their CO2 emissions they produce in Europe. But their consumption of CO2 emissions has increased by 44 per cent since 1990. It's just they are now being emitted in China.

Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term "carbon pollution", a competent journalist would ask questions like:

Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don't you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?

The second great lie is that so-called "de-carbonising our economy" as a consequence of "putting a price on carbon" is the 21st century equivalent of the tariff reforms of the 1980s.

In fact it is the exact opposite: it is the equivalent of imposing tariffs on the Australian economy. This is true whether or not the rest of the world follows. It's just that much worse if we do it solo.

This lie has been peddled not just by the government but also by Treasury.
Be afraid, be really afraid that we have a Treasury which is that incompetent.

Cutting tariffs and other forms of protection removed artificial costs that were imposed on both producers and consumers. It enabled them to buy especially goods but also services at the lowest competitive price.

The carbon tax or an ETS (emissions trading scheme) does the exact opposite. It imposes a totally artificial additional cost, in its case, on everything consumers and business buy.

It forces us to pay -- totally artificially -- higher prices for energy than we could otherwise, like right now, pay for it.

You'd think this would be obvious to even the most junior reporter in Canberra. But even the most senior, such as Grattan, are apparently oblivious to the obvious.

Again, I've never seen a Canberra commentator respond to the PM or the treasurer or the treasury secretary spouting this nonsense with a simple comparison.

Tariff cuts reduced the price of things. The carbon tax/ETS will increase the prices.

All to utterly no point. We ain't going to get so-called alternative energy. Treasury can assume a million can-openers. It doesn't and won't exist in any meaningful form.

And our pain will make zero difference to any climate outcome.

Welcome to Julia and Wayne's world. Their policy pollution is your pain.

[Mud Skipper]

The way the tax has been imposed on some carriers is just totally unfair.

If one passenger flew from Europe with Qantas via Singapore and another with a middle east operator via Dubai - both going to Sydney, then the Qantas passenger pays almost twice the amount of tax as the first port of call ouside Europe is further but they would both be accountable for producing the same CO2 over the entire journey.

Go figure:*

[HF3000]

Correct, MS. And such anomalies will continue to be created until there is globally coordinated CO2 emissions control. Since we haven't been able to develop globally coordinated anything since the year dot, it will never be fair.

What I would like to know is, will our proposed Carbon Tax exempt us from this EU tax when/if it becomes operational?

[flyingfox]

Maui and Flying Binghi. You are obviously pushing a line here of the global warming deniers. If science isn't your forte, keep to the soap operas of life. You have managed to ferret out the views of a a tiny percentage of the scientific community and adopted it as your view. The world will move towards controlling CO2 emmissions and aviation will have to share the pain. Even the Chinese Government has acknowledged the issue of CO2 in Global Warming as fact. They have declared any alternative view as 'unscientific and dangerous'. Keep reading Plimer and bury your heads deep.

[HF3000]

So, I ask again, if Julia succeeds in Carbon taxing, will we be then exempt?

[stewser89]

HF 3000

I haven't looked much at the issue and this is just pure speculation but I would except should our tax get through I imagine that the EU tax would still stand unless there was a treaty signed with Australia by the EU countries. After all they are not getting their money.

[Flying Binghi]

It gets worse...

"Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young floated a $100 tax..."

Looking again at the Financial Review figures -

Qantas’s total carbon emissions in financial 2010 were 11.7 million tonnes.

At a carbon price of between $20 and $25 a tonne...is likely this equates to an annual hit to profit before tax in the range of $100 million.

Hmmm.... If Sarah Hansen-Young had her way Qantas would be up fer somewhere around $500 million ....Half a billion dollars !..:ooh:


Lets not ferget though - "THE Gillard Government has confirmed there will be a "steady increase" in its carbon tax every year..."


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/carbon-tax-to-increase-every-year-gillard-government-confirms/story-e6frf7jo-1226057839496 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/carbon-tax-to-increase-every-year-gillard-government-confirms/story-e6frf7jo-1226057839496)

Edit to add - The above news paper report title has been changed since i put the link - interesting..:hmm:







.

[Dark Knight]

there is more CO2 produced than fuel burnt. That's because it picks up oxygen from the air - one of carbon from the fuel (the hydrogen bits are very light-weight) plus two of oxygen to make CO2Physics and chemistry will not support that statement.

However, in the original creation of fuel (a hydrocarbon) oxygen is created or released into the atmosphere then at a later stage CO2, a gas necessary to sustain life, regenerates oxygen again?

[Flying Binghi]

From an interview with one of the key Australians pushing the CO2 hysteria -

(extract)

CHRIS UHLMANN: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?

BOB BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...

CHRIS UHLMANN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating jobs, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.

BOB BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...

CHRIS UHLMANN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.

BOB BROWN: Treasury...

CHRIS UHLMANN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...

BOB BROWN: I'm sorry....







7.30 - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3219517.htm)



.

[blow.n.gasket]

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/storage/disaster.jpgTEN MYTHS of Global Warming

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything.Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Source: Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2) website.



Providing Insight
Into Climate Change

The Sun Causes Climate Change
Northern Hemisphere Temperature vs Solar Irradiance 400 years

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/ScafettaWestSunvsTemp%20Adj.jpg

The graph shows a correlation between the solar irradiance and the Northern Hemisphere temperatures since 1600. The temperatures to 1850 were derived from proxy records. The temperature curve is from surface temperature record from 1850 to 1980, and from satellite lower troposphere record from 1980. The surface temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development. Black soot aerosols have contributed to a portion of the recent warming. Two solar irradiance proxy reconstructions are shown.

Note the low solar activity periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715, the Little Ice Age) and during the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825).

The graph shows that changes in solar activity are the primary cause of climate change.

[flyingfox]

Blow.N.Gasket now joins the misinformation conga line. Looks impressive to copy a spiel from a discredited web site. 'Friend of Science' are yet another oil industry funded bunch of ideologues. There are many of these web sites masqueading under scientific sounding names. (Some of them even share the same office and telephone.) You can Google this particular one as an example. Enter the murkey world of propoganda sites following the old tobacco industry 'standard ploy' of creating confusion in the mind of Joe public by issuing contradictory reports. Plimer, Monkton et al! All are there worrying that any government regulation is the first step towards the fall of democracy, the oil industry, the status quo or whatever. If you have any interest in science, visit NASA, CSIRO and any of the many reliable scientific organisations around the world which are slowly and independently building a knowledge base of what is happening on this fragile planet. If the name of an organisation sounds a bit suspicious... it probably is. Check its' credentials before you swallow the hooks completely. Glib arguments to the contrary of weighty scientific evidence are easy to sell to the superficially informed. Example: CO2 is indeed a minor atmospheric gas by volume and weight. So are most catalysts in relation to larger chemical reactions. Size does matter... for a nano partical or a whale. CO2 has well known properties when mixed with other gasses or disolved in liquids. CO2 issues in relation to atmosphere, ocean, biology and the complex systems like our biosphere is much more profound as the behaviours change in complexity. Still the evidence is mounting. You can't just see the system wide changes by wandering around with your eyes open in the hope they will appear. Hard painstaking slog by many scientists and their organisations has already built the main body of evidence. The debate in science has moved on now from 'is there a problem' to 'how big and what are the consequences'. Forget the politics of Australia or the Qantas fuel bill. They are not the big issues of our time or the 'elephant in the room'. This subject is critical to our future and not just an attack on our lifestyles. Solving problems is a human forte.... but only once the problem is known!

[601]

If one passenger flew from Europe with Qantas via Singapore and another with a middle east operator via Dubai - both going to Sydney, then the Qantas passenger pays almost twice the amount of tax as the first port of call ouside Europe is further but they would both be accountable for producing the same CO2 over the entire journey.

Land at an intermediate landing point outside the UC but close to the UC, like ZRH and you only pay to/from that landing point.

LHR - ZRH - SIN or SIN - ZRH - LHR.

[OL9876]

Flyingfox, it is very easy to simply label all Global warming sceptic websites as discredited. The 10 points are very well put and make clear sense. Instead of trying to claim the site or points as discredited, why not counter the points.
Sorry to disappoint you flyingfish, but the tide is turning. The world is waking up to the lies of Global warming alarmism. The biggest con job and worst example of group think in human history is being exposed and the alarmists are becoming more desperate.
Sceptics are lining up to publicly debate the likes of Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut in a one on one forum/debate, but they won't engage. Why? They know they don't have a case anymore. People are now aware of the lies, fear, and rhetoric.

[Flying Binghi]

...The debate in science has moved on now from 'is there a problem' to 'how big and what are the consequences...


flyingfox, ...What debate ?..:confused:


...many scientists and their organisations has already built the main body of evidence...


flyingfox, ...What evidence ?..:confused:





Land at an intermediate landing point outside the UC but close to the UC, like ZRH and you only pay to/from that landing point.



Careful what yer do 601. There might be a Federal Police officer there to meet your aircraft if you step out of line..:ooh:

"THE Australian Federal Police could be required to investigate new climate change offences under Julia Gillard's carbon tax...

... AFP officers as climate inspectors... "

Australian Federal Police could become carbon cops | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/julia-gillard-says-carbon-trading-will-be-rort-proof/story-e6frg6xf-1226059107920)








.

[flyingfox]

OL9876.... First post ehh!? You joined this web site just to push your 'climate change skeptic' views? Admirable!!! I suggest to you that by inference, using your logic, as a skeptic you are dismissing the web sites and research of national organisations such as NASA (amongst many others), in favour of 'Friends of Science'. With a total membership of 6 members they are certainly a scientific force to be reckoned with. Not because of their cogent arguments, but because of the confusion and 'group think' they can inspire through misinformation. Scientists by training are analytical in their reasoning. What this means is, that politically they are poor performers. They don't get lies, misinformation and denial as tools of trade to promote a contrary view. Your suggestion that I commence a scientific debate on this website to counter the 'ten point' posted earlier on this thread is absurd. You just don't get it do you! Those ten points are typical headline grabbers specifically designed to create confusion and doubt. They are not dismissable, but the depth of discussion required to refute or explain these queries is immense and complex. Most listeners will be long gone before the discussion ended. It certainly couldn't be conducted in depth here due to this being an aviation site, not a scientific forum.
By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Hopefully you will live long enough to acknowledge your present obtuse and misguided views. Best wishes.

[OL9876]

WOW! Flying fox I really did touch a raw nerve. Especially with that very childish comment about my wife.
Anyway, about those scientists , even the NASA ones. They may not be that politically bright , but they sure know where the funding is coming from. With millions to be made from trading carbon credits and governments that love an excuse to tax people , lots of funding available for those who can come up with a particular finding.

[Flying Binghi]

Maui and Flying Binghi. You are obviously pushing a line here of the global warming deniers. If science isn't your forte, keep to the soap operas of life. You have managed to ferret out the views of a a tiny percentage of the scientific community and adopted it as your view. The world will move towards controlling CO2 emmissions and aviation will have to share the pain. Even the Chinese Government has acknowledged the issue of CO2 in Global Warming as fact. They have declared any alternative view as 'unscientific and dangerous'. Keep reading Plimer and bury your heads deep.


"...global warming deniers..." flyingfox, the earths climate has been getting naturaly warmer since we came out of the last mini ice age about 150 years ago. It is a well known event and i'm not aware of anybody 'denying' the fact. The main debate is about what part, if any, of the global warming is from human CO2 emmissions.

flyingfox, IMO by using the term "global warming deniers" you show a basic lack of understanding of the 'climate' debate.






...the depth of discussion required to refute or explain these queries is immense and complex. Most listeners will be long gone before the discussion ended. It certainly couldn't be conducted in depth here due to this being an aviation site, not a scientific forum...



"...move towards controlling CO2 emmissions and aviation will have to share the pain..."


"...It certainly couldn't be conducted in depth here due to this being an aviation site..."


flyingfox, methinks yer being a bit contradictory there. For one you point out that aviation will be affected by CO2 emmission controls, and yet, it appears to me you dont think us pilots should be allowed to discus the subject..:hmm:

Where is the debate ? ....better yet, where is the proof ?



As has been shown by the thread starter news paper reference the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hysteria will cost Australian aviation dearly and IMO needs a full discusion of the issue. I wonder about the attempts by some to stop any debate of the subject.





.

[gobbledock]

In 1967 the report of the special study group called, "The Report From Iron Mountain" was published. Some say it was a hoax or spoof but others say it provides the foundation for government policy over the last 40 years, and it is spot on. Carbon tax is just another well co-ordinated government rort and scare tactic designed to extract even more money from human beings. Those who believe in and fall for the scam hook, line and sinker need their heads read….

[HF3000]

WOW! Flying fox I really did touch a raw nerve. Especially with that very childish comment about my wife.
Anyway, about those scientists , even the NASA ones. They may not be that politically bright , but they sure know where the funding is coming from. With millions to be made from trading carbon credits and governments that love an excuse to tax people , lots of funding available for those who can come up with a particular finding.


You really think the US government, of all governments, WANTS to prove that carbon dioxide emissions causes climate change? It will destroy the American way! Even they, reluctantly, are starting to believe it. Maybe not Sarah Palin. But I'm sure they'll be one of the last ones to tax it too.

My wife and I enjoy a healthy Dom/Sub relationship :8

[flyingfox]

OL9876. Two posts now! I'm overwhelmed. You will be an 'old hand' before we know it... if you stick around that is! I don't have raw nerves, but now that you've said it, there will probably be some 'believers' out there who will think it is so. That is exactly the game played by the climate change deniers. The childish remark about 'beating your wife' is a classic and often used example of how by saying something wrong you can sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of some. (You obviously have not heard it before.) There could now be some reader of this thread who earnestly believes that you beat your wife and will be wondering who the heck you are. That is the whole point of misinformation. It clouds the real issues with irrelevant garbage which draws attention away from the main game. Your assertion that scientist are in fact concocting the evidence for the effects CO2 are having on the biosphere in order to pull billions of funding dollars into their Universities, research organisations and laboratories is conspiratorial beyond belief. Such international collusion and cunning on the part of the scientists of this world is breath taking! I suggest you contact ASIO, MI5, The FBI, SVR and MPS without delay. They will want to know about this! Then again; here's some doubt. They will probably be part of the scam, receiving a percentage of all that filthy lucre from carbon credits trading and new wonderful taxes brought about in the name of CO2 hysteria. I'm on the edge of my seat in expectation of your next spray!
Flying Binghi. I personally prefer the term 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. IYHO this makes me lack a basic understanding of the climate debate. You can never be denied the right to hold an opinion! However the pedantics of the debate over which term should be used is of no concern to me. Neither of them is adequate or exclusive of the other. As for your reference to the fact that the earth has been warming since the last ice-age, I commend you for your knowledge. The science of 'climate change / global warming' (take your pick) is about the size of the acceleration and overshoot of this phenomonen beyond the normal 'peak', due to human activities. Right now we are approaching the time of the cycles anticipated peak but no slowing is evident. Some models suggest the overshoot may be irreversible and catastrophic. I am not being contradictory or trying to stop any debate in this thread. Without new technologies aviation will suffer greatly from restrictions brought about by world governments and their decisions about these issues. My objection is to the notion, as the thread title suggests, that this science is purely 'CO2 hysteria' without good and quantitative evidence supporting it.
Gobledock. Atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 was first suggested in 1939 by G.S.Callandar. (Weren't you awake?) You say that 'Carbon tax is just another well co-ordinated government rort and scare tactic designed to extract even more money from human beings' So we can assume that for the first time in history, all the governments of the world are cooperating in this operation, so as to level new taxes and charges on a hapless world poulation, in the name of Climate Change. Remarkable. I'm gob-smacked at this revelation!
The following is an excerpt from a published document, followed by its link.
By the 1950s, as temperatures around the Northern Hemisphere reached early-twentieth-century peaks, global warming first found its way onto the public agenda. Concerns were expressed in both the scientific and popular press about rising sea levels, loss of habitat, and shifting agricultural zones. Amid the myriad mechanisms that could possibly account for climatic changes, several scientists, notably G. S. Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Hans Suess, and Roger Revelle, focused on possible links between anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the geochemical carbon cycle, and climate warming.
http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy/pages/9historical.pdf

[D.Lamination]

The whole premise of this thread seems to be incorrect - QF discriminated against becaue of no OZ ETS/carbon tax.

The EU will tax all airlines EU or not, ETS or not.

If you can stand the Euro babble here it is: Reducing emissions from the aviation sector - Policies - Climate Action - European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm):ugh:

So regardless of climate change converts/deniers it has nothing to do with Australia's climate policy.

BTW guess where the money is going - green programs? no - EU treasuries yes. They will spend it really well: as we can see they are great financial managers.:confused:

Mud Skipper is right (post#19) this will advantage ME carriers as they have a shorter inbound last leg to the EU tax zone than Asia/Oceania carriers. The irony, giving advantage to oil shieks in a greenhouse program!:mad:

Standby for QF to move its intermediate stopping point from SIN/BKK/HKG to the closest airport to the EU that is in year round range from SYD/MEL. In other words instead of an 8 hr leg SYD to SIN then 14 hrs to LHR we'll see 14 hrs SYD-to "X" then 8hrs or less to the EU.

[DutchRoll]

I think the mods should move this thread.

As soon as Binghi posted it, I knew it was an attempt to hijack a board topic. He has extremely narrow political views and not much of a clue about science, as do a couple of others here who regurgitate internet mythology. He has previous form on this issue.

I could post a response to blow.n.gaskets nonsense which is cut & pasted and repeated ad nauseum around the web, but I won't bother here on the D&G Reporting Points forum.

OL9876 - so cancer research gets millions of dollars of government funding. Do you think that cancer researchers are hiding the discovery of the real cause/cure for the last few decades so they can continue to get this funding? How far do your scientific research conspiracy theories go exactly?

[Dark Knight]

The Government has committed to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal capable of delivering our 450 ppm or lower goal.

If global ambition is insufficient to achieve stabilisation at 450 ppm, Australia will reduce its emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.

The Government has also committed to a long-term emissions reduction target of at least 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. The Government has previously stated it is prepared to seek a new election mandate for a stronger target for 2050 if this is warranted by an ambitious international agreement.


It is widely accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that aviation accounts for around 2 per cent of CO2 emissions, which may rise to 3 per cent by 2050.

In comparison, road transport contributes 18 per cent of all CO2 emissions, with industry accounting for 23 per cent and power generation at 35 per cent.


In 1985, the average aircraft fleet consumed eight litres per passenger per 100 kilometres – today it is less than five litres, with an anticipated drop to three litres in 15-20 years: i.e. a 60% reduction.

"In the last 40 years, the aviation industry has cut fuel burn and CO2 emissions by70%, NOx emissions by 90% and noise by 75%."

The aviation industry has already met and surpassed any targets; why then is the aviation industry to be TAXED out of existence???

[stewser89]

Dark Night

Do you have a source for that article/stats

Cameron

[Dark Knight]

Yes

Research Airbus, Boeing, NASA, FAA, CAA, CASA, IPCC, etc.

[HF3000]

Which of the following is relevant to global warming and which is irrelevant:

1. Litres of fuel consumed per passenger per 100 km; or
2. Litres of fuel consumed by the industry in total.

LCCs are responsible for a rapid increase in fuel consumed by the industry. More planes flying.

The answer will eventually be biofuel, but the aviation industry should not be unfairly targeted for two reasons:

1. It only consumes 2% of global consumption; and
2. Unlike many other industries, alternative fuels or sources of energy cannot power aircraft.

For example, we can use wind or solar power to make hydrogen to power a car, but it cannot power an aircraft. We should direct attention to industries where solutions exist.

Aircraft seem to be easy targets because they are visible and obvious. We see them every day with those huge engines screaming and guzzling fuel. But that's just psychological. What about shipping? About 30% of global consumption I have heard. This is-called economic principle of "globalisation" is responsible for a rapid increase in shipping and associated fuel consumption.

[teresa green]

It takes 12 tonnes of carbon and 32 tonnes of oxygen to produce 44 tonnes of CO2. To my senile brain $40 a tonne equates to a tax of $146.76, which suggests to me this is where that Christine Milne of The Greens, gets her amount of $120.00 (she is being generous) which she throws around when Gillard is not around. South of $40 is chicken feed if this is the case, and we can all look forward to many more little add ons over the time. Until the next election anyway.:ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

via flyingfox:

Flying Binghi. I personally prefer the term 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. IYHO this makes me lack a basic understanding of the climate debate. You can never be denied the right to hold an opinion! However the pedantics of the debate over which term should be used is of no concern to me. Neither of them is adequate or exclusive of the other.

As for your reference to the fact that the earth has been warming since the last ice-age, I commend you for your knowledge. The science of 'climate change / global warming' (take your pick) is about the size of the acceleration and overshoot of this phenomonen beyond the normal 'peak', due to human activities. Right now we are approaching the time of the cycles anticipated peak but no slowing is evident. Some models suggest the overshoot may be irreversible and catastrophic.

I am not being contradictory or trying to stop any debate in this thread. Without new technologies aviation will suffer greatly from restrictions brought about by world governments and their decisions about these issues. My objection is to the notion, as the thread title suggests, that this science is purely 'CO2 hysteria' without good and quantitative evidence supporting it.



"...The science of 'climate change / global warming' (take your pick) is about the size of the acceleration and overshoot of this phenomonen beyond the normal 'peak', due to human activities..."

flyingfox, is that what the infamous hocky stick graph and the climate models are trying to proove ?


"...My objection is to the notion, as the thread title suggests, that this science is purely 'CO2 hysteria' without good and quantitative evidence supporting it..."

flyingfox, i'd be interested to see any "quantitive evidence" you might have.






.

[Flying Binghi]

"Canadian airlines have joined the fight opposing the European Union’s plan to include the aviation industry in its emissions trading plan at the start of next year.
Under terms of the EU strategy, any airline flying in or out of Europe would be forced to buy carbon permits for 15% of their emissions based on 2010 levels. They would also be required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 3% in 2012, and by 5% from 2013 onward, based on their average emissions between 2004 and 2006.
The National Airlines Council of Canada, which represents the country’s largest carriers, including Air Canada and Air Transat, has lent its support to a legal challenge being mounted against the plan, which will be heard by the EU’s high court in Luxembourg Tuesday..."


Canada’s airlines fight EU carbon tax | Transportation | Financial Post (http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/04/canadas-airlines-fight-eu-carbon-tax/)





.

[Gmac115]

Eh who cares?
I'll happily pay few extra bucks in tax to fly into the EU then pay a few extra bucks on everything back home... I'll pay a carbon tax when the US, china and India introduce one...
As an Australian I find it funny that so many of us are so naive to think the rest of the world cares one little bit about what we do or think.. We have no influence.... Nothing what so ever... :ugh:

However, wait for JQ to start a new base in some obscure European country, employ locals on $1 a day and start flying back to Aus.. You heard it here first..:rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

Eh who cares?


Looks like it will get more interesting yet...

"The European Court of Justice is set to hold its first hearing today on the legality of the European Union's emissions trading plan for the airline industry. The Air Transport Association and several of its American member airlines are suing to overturn it. If they succeed, the first and only legally binding legislation to curb climate forcing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from air transport will be grounded at the gate...

...while not formally joining the lawsuit, several governments -- most notably the U.S. and China -- have begun to cry foul. ...and China is reported to have delayed a $4 billion deal to purchase 10 Airbus A380 jets out of protest..."


Kelly Rigg: Aviation Industry on Trial: The Dark Arts of Climate Obstructionism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/eu-emissions-cap_b_889912.html)





.

[Flying Binghi]

China understands what its all about..:hmm:


China: We want to *receive* climate swindle cash, not *cough up* climate swindle cash

via tomnelson.bl*og*sp*ot.com

"A European Union plan to include all airlines flying to Europe in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from next year is unfair and contrary to global efforts to fight climate change, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency said on Tuesday...

...Xinhua, whose commentaries are a reflection of government thinking on major issues or controversies, said the scheme had been ill-thought out.

“In the name of dealing with climate change, the EU’s approach will generate enormous financial benefits at the expense of the rest of the world, including developing countries,” it said in an English-language commentary .

“Studies show that the extra costs of the EU’s plan will amount to $1.6 billion dollars in the first year alone. The direction of the cash flow is contrary to the spirit of the agreements reached at the UN Cancun climate change conference last year.”..."



China commentary slams EU airline CO2 scheme | Eco-Business (http://www.eco-business.com/news/china-commentary-slams-eu-airline-co2-scheme/)






.

[Mahatma Kote]

blow.n.gasket

What you missed is the fact that the Earth has an elliptical orbit and gets closer to the sun and further away in an annual cycle

In the Southern Hemisphere our summer coincides with earth's closest approach to the sun. Winter coincides with furthest away from the sun.

The Northern hemisphere is the opposite so Northern weather and climate is way reduced in range compared to Southern.

If you look at the solar 'forcings' in the Southern hemisphere they way exceed any CO2 forcings by order of magnitude - and that's over millenia scale.

So for an objective view check out Southern Hemisphere climate and weather changes and see whether that is anything to worry about (Melbourne excepted :D )

[Trent 972]

As the EU Carbon Trading tax (a capricious tax) is to be levied based upon the carbon emissions from the flights originating point, even though that place could be many thousands of miles distant from ‘Europe’, I propose that the Australian Government extend their ‘Flood Levy’ tax (another capricious tax) to all Europeans visiting Australia. Of course those European residents living farther west of Istanbul would need to pay a greater tax on a sliding scale, for the very same reasons that the EU propose to tax activities outside of their area of governance. ‘Fares, fair’ (pun intended)

[AirResearcher]

Trent, thats brilliant!! :ok:

Ive been fascinated at this whole bizarre ETS scheme, and our 'wonderful' APD here in the UK which is also allegedly to help reduce emissions, and of which zero revenue is directed specifically to reducing emissions etc

What I cant understand is how SO many people in the EU think ETS can work when its not a globally agreed and managed system - I can only think there is some kind of collective myopic contagion effect causing this... ( the 'Hedegaard" effect maybe?)

What would be a lot more useful perhaps is unilateral Government support and initiatives to get the cost of producing sustainable/renewable (aviation) fuel down to levels which make it viable. Taxing airlines with ETS/APD etc is actually preventing airlines from having the cash to invest in the technology and testing thats needed.

I know there are some interesting developments happening, such as the new algae based fuel farms in Oz, and the US Govts biomass plans, and LH and KL biofuel flight tests - but its not enough to make a difference yet.

I'd also love to know where the money from carbon offsetting actually goes...no doubt one day we will hear that the cash is being siphoned off in the countires where its allocated for tree planting etc.....

[Flying Binghi]

.


China plans to boycott a new European Union tax on airline carbon emissions, becoming the latest in a line of countries to challenge the law.


Who will win. China or the global warming muppets ?..:cool:



China set to boycott EU carbon tax - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-06/china-eu-airline-emissions-tax/3761122)






.

[Ixixly]

Dear FlyingFox,

A link from your Precious NASA Scientists (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-Warming-Alarmists/2011/07/28/id/405200), its entitled "NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong" ,enjoy :)

Love,
Ixixly

[Howard Hughes]

I'd also love to know where the money from carbon offsetting actually goes...no doubt one day we will hear that the cash is being siphoned off in the countires where its allocated for tree planting etc.....
Here in Oz I expect it will go to 'consolidated revenue', where the current Government will spend it to keep the Greens and other independant sycophants happy.

[F.Nose]

Some interesting reading here. (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links)

[Flying Binghi]

Some interesting reading here. (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links)


F.Nose, some interesting reading indeed..:)


Very interesting the bit "...the process of producing IPCC reports, which reference thousands of scientific papers. The reports are thoughly reviewed to make sure that the scientific work included is relevant and diverse..." ...:hmm:

Suggested research fer those who are new to the global warming subject would be to look at 'climate gate' which covers the IPCC and climate scientist corruption of science.

For further reading about the global warming scam in general can i recomend Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)







.

[konstantin]

Some interesting reading here, too

When Your Paycheque Depends on a Climate Crisis « NoFrakkingConsensus (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/12/08/when-your-paycheque-depends-on-a-climate-crisis/)

"In other words, there is now a small – perhaps even middling-sized – army of people around the world whose economic lives depend on the rest of us believing that climate catastrophe is just around the corner. If we were to liberate ourselves from climate fear and anxiety they’d all be out of work. Their travel to exotic places, their moments in the media spotlight – and a significant portion of their self-identities – would all disappear."

Something tells me there`s a lot more AGW apparatchiks being paid by "Big Carbon" than there are sceptics paid by "Big Oil"...and Big Al has made just a little pocket money himself out of this construct, I hear... :rolleyes:

[Slasher]

But Julia said that responsible companies would absorb any
cost of carbon tax, not pass it on to consumers..

You mean that butt-ugly bogan hag...actually....lied??? :ooh:

[Flying Binghi]

.

Wonder what the Oz Prime Muppet thinks of this...


"China will take swift counter-measures that could include impounding European aircraft if the EU punishes Chinese airlines for not complying with its scheme to curb carbon emissions, the China Air Transport Association said on Tuesday.
The warning came as the U.N.'s aviation body expressed concern about the growing threat of bilateral reprisals.

Chinese airlines, which have been told by Beijing not to comply with the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, refused to meet a March 31 deadline for submitting carbon emissions data..."


China ready to impound EU planes in CO2 dispute | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-iata-china-emissions-idUSBRE85B09W20120612)






.

[teresa green]

Just incredible that the Droner from Altona, plus the maniacal Greens really believe they can control the earths climate from Parliament House CBR. It just gives me the total :mad:. Our Lions Club mob have set up a deal with some large companies to get any broken or nearly used by date food, for the pensioners around here. We sell everything for a $1.50 per kilo, that includes packaged and bottled groceries. The word has spread, but they have to show a pension card, to get the goodies. We have already had to chase the bums away that don't and won't work. As one old dear said to me the other day its like be back in the war. Freckin ridiculous that we even have to do it, but there is no other way for these good old people to eat properly, and they are the backbone of the country, and its going to get worse. What a bunch of tossers.

[Flying Binghi]

.


..:hmm:


AIRLINES have made up to half a billion euros in windfall profits by passing on a carbon surcharge to travellers despite an EU decision to freeze its controversial carbon tax, environmentalists say...



Read more: Airlines profit from EU carbon tax freeze | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/airlines-profit-from-eu-carbon-tax-freeze/story-e6frfkui-1226559623152#ixzz2Ii7DkKav)




.