China Vs EU

[2EggOmelette]

To early to tell how this may change the larger game?

BBC News - Top China airlines to ignore EU carbon tax, body says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16421117)

Will be dam interesting times ahead for some in the trade....... :confused:

[Chidken Sangwich]

I think its fantastic that China has come out with this. I only hope that the US and other countires that were objecting join forces with them and take the same stance.

At the end of the day this is just yet another tax that the poor punter will have to absorb, levied on the easy pickings of Airlines as it would be impossible to impose on car users.

[Jet Jockey A4]

GO China GO!

[Momoe]

EU could easily impose a carbon tax on motorists, simply put the price up at the pump.
Damn sight easier than imposing it on the airlines, either buy fuel and pay tax or don't drive - political willpower and self-preservation due to piss poor timing are the only things currently stopping this.

[Kingfisher]

200 bucks on China. The Game is up for the EU and the only thing left for them is to try to tax themselves out of their own incompetence.

[oldchina]

“At a time of deep recession,” O’Leary said, “only the European Commission could invent something as stupid as this.”

[Denti]

Dunno, over here car users pay around a 65 euro cent energy tax (aka carbon tax) per liter gasoline. It is a bit less for diesel (47 cent). Quite a bit more expensive than what airlines have to pay.

Since fuel prices are going up five times faster than the average inflation for the last 10 years the politicians had to stop any further increase in carbon tax or they would have lost the next election. Airlines are a cheap target though, anybody knows they just absolutely pollute the world, don't they? Therefore it is the second tax in two years that supposedly helps the environment which applies to airlines. I surely hope the chinese and american airlines can win this war, it would in turn help our airlines over here as well.

[His dudeness]

“At a time of deep recession,” O’Leary said, “only the European Commission could invent something as stupid as this.”

Can´t say I´d agree with many things O'Leary says, but this time he hit the nail squarely...

[brakedwell]

Saving the planet my ar$e, like all "green" taxes it's just another way of emptying wallets and on top of APD it is adding insult to injury.

Good on China though, I hope the US follows them - forcibly.

BTW, will Cruise Liners be affected?

[Kingfisher]

British Govt have already admitted APD is only used to plug their deficit. If O' Leary is anti EU why are his aircraft carrying pro EU propaganda? As my old boss used to say follow the money.

[kwateow]

O'Leary can't be anti-EU as that's what has allowed his airline based in a green bog to fly between any cities it chooses in the "union".

He probably just sees the European Commission as a gassing shop of overpaid civil servants who couldn't have run an airline even in the bad old days of bilateral fare fixing.

[mutt]

Is it fair that Chinese airlines have to pay for emissions produced during the whole flight and not only the distance covered in European airspace?

[Jet Jockey A4]

I think that's the whole point the airlines are trying to say. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind paying for the "carbon tax" if only it was for the portion they fly over the EU and not the total flight.

[JCviggen]

I'm not one to support new taxes generally, but I have to say currently flying is too cheap. Car fuel prices are taxed to hell, why should air travel - a fairly polluting business in its own right - be exempt?

IMO flying is currently too cheap if you take everything into account, sorry for everyone whose job is involved. Since a tax should apply to all airlines equally it should simply raise ticket prices a little. And it'd still be cheap if you look at the amt of fuel burned.

That said calling it a green eco tax is of course BS and they should call a cat a cat.

[Ten-miles final]

Indeed this new tax is unbelievably stupid thing for today. I don't believe in any kind of this "global warming" rubbish.

[Ten-miles final]

JCviggen (http://www.pprune.org/members/301097-jcviggen)
Do you really assume the money collected by means of this new tax will be spent for sake of environment?! My experience by no way could confirm this.

[Carbon Bootprint]

He probably just sees the European Commission as a gassing shop of overpaid civil servants who couldn't have run an airline even in the bad old days of bilateral fare fixing. Would he not be correct then? :}

[JCviggen]

Do you really assume the money collected by means of this new tax will be spent for sake of environment?! My experience by no way could confirm this.

Not at all, but neither is the insane amount of tax levied on other fuels. Hence why I said they should just have called it what it is (a regular tax to plug their budgets)

Even in cases of a road tax levied on registered cars, often very little of the road tax goes towards maintaining roads. Par for the course...

[Ten-miles final]

Hence why I said they should just have called it what it is (a regular tax to plug their budgets)

It would be at least honestly.
IMHO ticket prices don't look so cheap.

[jackieofalltrades]

Can´t say I´d agree with many things O'Leary says, but this time he hit the nail squarely...

I was thinking exactly the same.

This tax is madness and will do nothing positive for the economy.

[dood]

Carbon tax is wholly dependant on the aircraft x the amount flight hours. The only way to reduce it would be to lower journey times (in the short term), which can be viable on short haul flights but are much harder on long haul flights since they generally follow the great circle route. Penalising passengers or airlines for the efficiency of the aircraft or the effectiveness of the Air Traffic services seems like a money making game rather than having any actual benefit to aviation. Most utilised long haul aircraft are made by Airbus or Boeing.
Another point to note is the efficiency of operators is very dependent on the saturation of the market and predictability of the public. In Europe where most markets are explored, airlines can increase utilisation of aircraft based on historic data. But, in emerging economies statistics are blurry and demand is volatile. Asking for high levels of efficiency is just not possible until the data and infrastructure to support it are in place.
USA on the other hand will simply oppose it on principle. Taxing an already heavily taxed and regulated industry is never going to get very far with them.
I feel this tax is very very biased and unfair almost to the point of being underhanded and sly behind a facade of environmental caring. It will most definitely stall growth of Asian carriers coming into Europe primarily due to competition by European airlines which are more efficient and thus will pay lower carbon taxes. This would mean the Asian carriers will have to either absorb the difference in cost and suffer from lower margins or pass it on to the passengers by which they become uncompetitive.
The tax will most likely be used to increase research in efficiency for Airbus aircraft giving them a competitive edge and thus killing competition that is naturally found between aircraft manufacturers. Whilst Airbus is a good manufacturer and produce some amazing aircraft I definitely don't want it to become a one man show.
Looking back on history it's easy to see that during the golden years of aviation in Europe, European carriers had little worry for the environment and posted amazing growth figures year after year with little tax and huge government subsidies. If we compare that to Asian carriers at present in what I believe to be Asian aviation's golden years where Europe is trying to deter their growth that they themselves had the pleasure of experiencing in order to maintain an advantage or even stay relevant.
On a similar playing field European carriers would be irrelevant due to heavy bureaucracy, high labour wages and frankly much poorer levels of service compared to Asia.

Your thoughts?

[SMT Member]

To bring a bit of balance into the discussion, a couple of points.



The ETS is not a new invention, neither is it something the EU cooked up on a whim in the middle of a recession. Aviation was told in 2005 the scheme would come into force, and was given 7 years to come to terms with that fact.
Aviation was only included in ETS because years of talks with ICAO had gone nowhere. Still going nowhere, actually. EU wanted to include aviation in ETS and grew tired of waiting, so forced the issue
Airlines have been given carbon credits based on 2009/2010 fuel usage. They will be given 85% of that in credit. Airlines who are able to find ways to burn less than their allocation will have credits to sell, and might actually make a buck or two
The first airline to react, Delta, has imposed a 3 USD per ticket ETS surcharge. This will of course grow, but even a four fold increase will hardly have an impact
The European Court has ruled against US protests and declared ETS legal
EU takes environmental policy quite serious, and is not expected to bow to US/Chinese/Russian pressure

[mattman]

SMT Member you sound like one of those Eurocrats.

What a load of bollocks you spout, fair enough this is the same crap the European Parliment produces.
Do you really think the more than 10% of this monies will benefit anybody but the pockets of said morons.
The fundamental flaw in the EU plan is the money for carbon produced outside of the EU goes to the EU and does not benefit anyone else.
A simple and effective plan would have been to add a levy to fuel but that would have mainly penalized the European operators and this is not allowed.

Having to deal personally with this stupid scheme is a burucratic nightmare and insanely expensive.

But apparently the unelected politicians in the EU are smarter than us.

We are in a toilet bowl slowly circling the drain.

[con-pilot]

EU takes environmental policy quite serious, and is not expected to bow to US/Chinese/Russian pressure


Then the EU expects the rest of the world, including the US/China/Russia bow to greedy EU pressure?


So it is the EU's way or no way? It is beyond bizarre to charge carbon credits (tax) on aircraft that are not in the EU's airspace. Just what gives the EU the right to charge a tax on aircraft for the entire length of the flight from say China or New Zealand, all the way to EU airspace.

If they wish to charge this tax while aircraft are in EU airspace, I see no other option but to pay. But outside, get serious.

When I flew corporate aircraft around in China, I paid a 'pollution' tax on every leg, thought it was a bit silly with all the pollution in China, but we paid it and went on.

Because it was their airspace. China did not charge me for a pollution tax in the airspace flying into or out of China.

[500 above]

EU takes environmental policy quite serious, and is not expected to bow to US/Chinese/Russian pressure

I'm sure the pending Airbus cancellations won't have any effect either... We'll see how we bow then.

[500 above]

If they wish to charge this tax while aircraft are in EU airspace, I see no other option but to pay. But outside, get serious.

I agree with you Con Pilot - and I'm a 'European' (apparently)

We all need some kind of a level playing field - keeping operators and the tree huggers happy. How the powers that be have gone about this is not the way. What we can't have is the European operators paying and the rest of the world not. Scrap the idea and put it down to a bad experience, just like the Euro!

[757_Driver]

EU takes environmental policy quite serious, and is not expected to bow to US/Chinese/Russian pressureI'm not going to pass comment on the rest of your pro-EU rant but, seriously - do you actually believe what you wrote there? or did you copy it from some socialist / environmentalist workshop somewhere? Firstly this is a TAX, not an environmental policy.
secondly, the EU is a washed up, unelected talking shop, which has given itself huge legal powers, but actually has very little mandate from any of the EU population, and as such will garner very little popular support for any of this
Thirdy - "The EU will not bow to China / US / Russia". Wow, really? What not even if russia and china close their airspace to all EU airlines? or they cancel all airbus orders? or they impose huge trade tarifs, I mean its not as if the EU imports much from china is it.
I'll pop down to the bookies and put a million euros on china winning this one. Of course this won't be too hard, as due to the stunning competence of the EU in other endeavours, a million euros will be worth about £2.68 in a few years time.

[Uncle Fred]

Kelvin Lau, a Hong Kong-based airlines analyst at Daiwa Securities, said: "Maybe it's just a political gesture for Chinese airlines to say they won't pay - showing that China strongly opposes the rule.
"But it may not work as this is a law with legislative power and the EU would not easily let go."



He perhaps knows better than I, but if he is just high or low of the mark this could prove interesting. Of course a lot rests on the legal basis of the various bi and multilateral air accords that have been inked but in such standoffs one has to ask "do the EU nations need air access to China more than China needs air access to the EU?" This will prove to be the leverage point around which any resolution "or standown" will hinge. Of course I think the answer to this question is obvious that the EU nations need China access far more than China needs them. Plus, Air China is in harness in the Star Alliance with, among so many others, LH with would get them a lift there if they really needed it...so I cannot see the Chinese foregoing much sleep over this one.

[mattman]

I think it's time to invest in Boeing then. :hmm:

Whoever believes the EU drivel should get a free membership and passport to Brussels then close the borders and airspace and let them live in La la land. :E

[500 above]

And to top it all, some Eurocrat has deemed we need to calculate our trip emissions as great circle distance plus 90 KM's - yes, kilometres!

Shove it up yer hectopascal!

[mattman]

Oh dear Uncle Fred

Is that all we should worry about, I guess the peddling of Euro debt by our esteemed leaders to the Chinese counts for nothing, or the nice airbus orders hmmmm one should forget the avergage Chinaman bringing some currency to the United Euro States to see the sights or buy new fancy Bm's and Mercs.

If one had to lose I guess the Chinese wont be it, and seeing we can't produce plastic crap in the EU we still need there workforce.

Last time I checked my IpAd was made in China.........

[Uncle Fred]

Mattman--not putting forth the position that the Chinese are independent of the worries that a little malentendu would cause for both sides--after all, major trade means that both sides are significantly invested in the outcome. I am just maintaining that in this case if all other factors are equal and if the above quoted analyst is (note the subjunctive tone here) off the mark in his expectation, then it seems that one side would have to blink first and it is my mere postulation that it would perhaps be the EU.

In trade wars (or even spats) one side rarely prevails without scars. This would need to be settled long before Foxconn (sp?) workers have to idle the assembly lines for our iPads or that Airbus has to tell its workers to take a long weekend away with the missus.

Without that level of brinkmanship I just have a hunch that the Chinese have a bit more leverage in this game.

[500 above]

Fred - impressive vocabulary. Tell the tree hugging environmentalists you promise not to buy any more paper books (instead, you will download them on the iPad from China)

That aught to save a vast quantity of trees and reduce your carbon footprint!

In all seriousness, obviously both sides have a vested interest in the outcome. Let's hope they can work it out soon to end this lunacy. With the ailing state of the Euro economy, let's hope it's soon.

[mattman]

Absolutely Fred, the problem we have with the EU is that they think they are bigger than the rest.
You can only push so far, China is the first to openly oppose this using there airlines (it is probably safe to say there is a huge political influence there). The Americans have logged their complaint by aggreeing on the bill to ban any American operator of complying. 26 ICAO members have lodge compalints.

But in true EU political form the plan to steam roll it through, this time there are people that will not sit ideally by and accept that we should pay more.

[SMT Member]

MT Member you sound like one of those Eurocrats.

What a load of bollocks you spout, fair enough this is the same crap the European Parliament produces.Apart from the last point, I only listed facts. I didn't say I agree to them, nor did I advocate against them. Merely stated facts.

As for the last point, well, that was a personal observation. But I'm not saying I'm in favour of the EU position, merely that in my opinon (and that of others who know much more about this than me) it's unlikely they'll succumb. Particularly after the US has more or less admitted defeat (by Congress not making it illegal for US airlines to join the EU ETS).

Thirdy - "The EU will not bow to China / US / Russia". Wow, really? What not even if russia and china close their airspace to all EU airlines? or they cancel all airbus orders? or they impose huge trade tarifs, I mean its not as if the EU imports much from china is it.

I take it you're quite alright with anti-EU rhetoric of gutter quality, but anything that's not is labelled as pro-EU rant. Gotcha, nice to know where we stand.

As for China cancelling orders, how many times have we heard that? One week it's Boeing cancellations because us.gov have made remarks on human rights, next week it's Airbus because Germany or France has gone done something China doesn't agree to. Well, they've got to buy their aircraft somewhere, and neither Airbus, nor Boeing, nor a combination of either and local production, can meet the demand alone.

And on your last point, China exports more to the EU than the EU does to China. You do the math.

[500 above]

SMT

This has been a long time coming...

China Blocks Airbus Order Over EU’s Emission Trading Scheme ‹ Aviation News – AviaTime.com (http://www.aviatime.com/china-blocks-airbus-order-over-eus-emission-trading-scheme.html)

And this...

China backs off Airbus order in favor of 747-8s - KCPQ (http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-china-backs-off-airbus-order-in-favor-of-7478s-20110624,0,3531786.story)

More...

China blocks billion-dollar Airbus order - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ce5aa0-9e4b-11e0-8e61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1idH3WBW6)

EU Emissions Policy Throws Spanner in Broughton Airbus works (http://johnbufton.eu/issues1/airbus-contract-blocked-by-china/)

Interesting reading...

In 2011, No Clear Resolution on EU-ETS | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association (http://www.nbaa.org/ops/environment/eu-ets/20120102-no-clear-resolution-on-eu-ets-in-2011.php)

Report: EU-ETS Will Be Costly, Have Minimal Emissions Impact | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association (http://www.nbaa.org/ops/environment/eu-ets/20111202-eu-ets-costly-minimal-emissions-impact.php)

EU takes environmental policy quite serious, and is not expected to bow to US/Chinese/Russian pressure

Let's wait and see.

Smoke/fire??

[mattman]

Hey I am all for Pro Eu if it is fair trade, ETS is not!

Want to play tree hugger, bunny ect.... Why don't you tell the EU to pay all those credits back to the countries that these airliners cross for there very own wind farms Eco crops blah blah blah.....

If they were clever, they would have made the EU a cheaper place to live then we could have produced our own and not relied so heavly on China. Plus there are only so many Airbusses the EU can actually purchase, maybe one of the biggest aviation growth markets is a little bit important.

But skirt the fact that I made earlier, of Eurocrats trying to sell bonds to the Chinese to save there precious Euro.

We can go in circles for days regarding the failure of the EU, and I might not be so eloquent as some but I see it for what it is and where we are going and it is not a good place.

[TOTitan]

The tax is stupid. Global warming is reality. What do you think happened to all the glaciers? I'll give you a hint...they m*****.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

I'll give you a hint...they m*****.

Not the first time ... and in the past .. we were not there :)

[lomapaseo]

Unilateral economic rule making doesn't work.

Hard times will result and somebody is going to lose big time. I guess I'll just watch and see how powerful ICAO and IATA are when backed up by governments versus governments.

[yelena]

How about getting the EU to pay restitution to all the people in Central Asia and Eastern Europe for the years of environmental and health damage done due to emission and pollution as a result of the European Industrial revolution? The emissions from the US during the early 20th century which circled the globe many times were pretty damaging too, according to some Russian researchers whilst not forgetting the damage the old Soviet industries did too. So the first world nations must pay the poorer nations now if they want to enjoy less carbon emissions as our developing economies play catch up.

[vapilot2004]

I am curious to know when the first payment is due from the airlines that are playing along with the EU-ETS aka EU-REP*? Will said fees be refunded if the EU backs down?

The triumvirate of Chinese, US, and Russian political and economic pressure will surely soften the ground, but will it be enough? Inclusion of the rest of the non-EU ICAO member states would seem to have little additional effect, so my impression is all eyes are best focused on the angry big three.

Finally, is it possible the un-elected gang of 27 aka the European Commission is so far out of touch with reality that they will refuse to back down? At what point do their home governments pull the plug on their profound arrogance?

*revenue enhancement programme

[SMT Member]

I am curious to know when the first payment is due from the airlines that are playing along with the EU-ETS aka EU-REP*? Will said fees be refunded if the EU backs down?

Payment is not due until 2013. On the second part of your question, only speculation can be offered at this point in time.

[Chidken Sangwich]

I'm not one to support new taxes generally, but I have to say currently flying is too cheap. Car fuel prices are taxed to hell, why should air travel - a fairly polluting business in its own right - be exempt?

IMO flying is currently too cheap if you take everything into account, sorry for everyone whose job is involved. Since a tax should apply to all airlines equally it should simply raise ticket prices a little. And it'd still be cheap if you look at the amt of fuel burned.

Do you realise how much Airlines actually contribute to the worlds Carbon Emissions on a yearly basis? Its a massive 2%, yes 2% so why the hell tax the backside out of an industy with such low emissions when quite clearly there are obviously other polluters that need tackling first?

[turbine100]

Are the U.S still going to pay it then?

[His dudeness]

Finally, is it possible the un-elected gang of 27 aka the European Commission is so far out of touch with reality that they will refuse to back down? At what point do their home governments pull the plug on their profound arrogance?

Yes they are. They think they are sacrosankt, which thery really are cause as you mentioned, they are not democratically elected and the Governments like to have the opportunity to blame the bull**** they want onto the Commission.

Easy way out for them if the **** really hits the fan.

[The SSK]

Or, if you knew a bit more about the subject, you might say that much of this mess was due to the tireless work in the European Parliament (which for all its faults is a democratically elected institution) of people like Peter Liese and Caroline Lucas (now a democratically-elected UK MP).

The indigestible bits of ETS - the baseline, the cap and the level of free credits - were all political decisions hammered out within the Parliament.

That said, this issue is the territory of one particular Commissionrer (from Denmark) who is probably more pig-headed than all the rest put together.

[Brie]

Even as a pilot i'm not really against the ETS since i think aviation is indeed partly responsible for the emission of carbondioxide. And yes if you are partly responsible you can not ignore your responsability.

BUT!!!!!!... I'm more worried about the fact what the collected money is being used for. If it is for green purposes, investing money in green projects, saving the world forrest, investing in alternative energy or i don't know what, YES, it get's my support.

However, if it is being used for, salary increase of commitee members, giving fundings to agriculture or tomato farmers in spain to boost economy (however these tomatoes will be destroyed because the price will be too low anyway), funding greek problems, that's it is a NO for me!!!

Why not making financial efforts of airliners to reduce CO2,making tax deductible?

[The SSK]

The cost to airlines of ETS will come from the purchase of credits over and above their free allowances. They can either buy them on the open market (from other airlines, other firms in ETS-governed sectors, or brokers) or from Governments who will have held back 15% of the available aviation allocation when giving out the free credits. The money will not go to the EU.

‘Earmarking’ of revenues for environmental projects would be nice, but not necessary from an economist’s point of view – he would say simply that what is important is that the price of the product reflects its external costs (environmental damage etc) as well as its production cost, thereby allowing the customer to make a rational decision whether or not to purchase. In this Utopia, revenues could just as easily be spent on healthcare or education.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Brie wrote... "Even as a pilot i'm not really against the ETS since i think aviation is indeed partly responsible for the emission of carbondioxide. And yes if you are partly responsible you can not ignore your responsability.

BUT!!!!!!... I'm more worried about the fact what the collected money is being used for. If it is for green purposes, investing money in green projects, saving the world forrest, investing in alternative energy or i don't know what, YES, it get's my support.

However, if it is being used for, salary increase of commitee members, giving fundings to agriculture or tomato farmers in spain to boost economy (however these tomatoes will be destroyed because the price will be too low anyway), funding greek problems, that's it is a NO for me!!!

Why not making financial efforts of airliners to reduce CO2,making tax deductible?"

Most on here would agree with you on your points but the big problem is the unfair way on how the EU decided this carbon tax should be levied and where exactly the funds are going with no proof it will all be used towards some sort of fund for the environment?

If the EU had decided to levy the tax on aircraft while only in European airspace, then I could see this as normal but to tax all airlines from their departure points outside Europe is totally ridiculous.

Where is this going to stop? Now what if the USA, Canada, Russia, and China to name a few countries decide to retaliate and charge the same sort of tax to all airlines that fly over their airspace.

You now have not one but possibly two or three taxes being added to the cost of a ticket. Fly from London to Chicago and you would not only get the Euro tax, but a Canadian tax and an American tax charged to the operator who would then have to increase the ticket prices accordingly.

Just imagine if all countries decided to jump at the occasion of taxing all airliners when they overflew their airspace... What a nightmare!

[boeingairbus1981]

"The tax is stupid. Global warming is reality. What do you think happened to all the glaciers? I'll give you a hint...they m*****."

Apart from all the glaciers that have increased in size due to global cooling. :ugh:

[wassupman]

EU bureaucracy, China 1 - 0 EU. Its a message for the EU idiots who still are living in their own world, that EU will be finished soon.

I am sick of paying increasing airline tickets, obviously the low cost greedies happy to keep increasing their fares too

Come on China, buy the EU greedy :mad: out :D

[MaxRange120]

Other beneficiaries of the EU ETS include extra-EU companies deliberately producing emissions to take advantage of the scheme. ETS installations are able to buy up to half their allowance in the form of the cheaper credits available through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism and these credits, called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), are worth the same as EU ETS credits. These are generated by reducing emissions in developing nations and were designed to incentivise green investment there. However, entire companies have developed to manipulate this. In China especially, firms produce the gas HFC-23, which is 11,700 times more potent than CO2 so it generates 11,700 credits for each tonne destroyed. With a profit margin of 7,000%, it is little wonder the World Bank has invested in some of these firms (and lobbied to delay the EU from banning them) and the Chinese Government even taxes the firms’ profits at 65%. The only other winners are the big financial firms that assess the worthiness of these projects on behalf of the UN and are paid on the number of CERs they can generate for their clients: a gross conflict of interest. A study of the top five UN-accredited validatory bodies found that on a scale from ‘A’ (very good) to ‘F’ (very poor), none scored higher than ‘D’.

The EU ETS is not fit for purpose and there is little reason to foresee the scheme getting better. Indeed, as auctioning grows and prices of energy and goods are forced higher, the average consumer will be made worse off and for nigh on no environmental benefit. The EU technocrats have buried their head in the sand about this and all ‘solutions’ have been minor and tokenistic. As far as they are concerned, to admit the scheme is flawed is to admit they are wrong. This is not something they wish to advertise. Overall, the ETS has been hijacked and become a route to extract money out of good intentions, and this goes for the UK Government as well, which will receive £4-8 billion from it per annum from 2013 but refuses to earmark it to spend on energy-related issues or alleviating fuel poverty. As a consequence, it would be hard to defend it against accusations of being a stealth tax.

the faults of the Emissions Trading Scheme @ConHome bit.ly/xt6SzI

[mogas-82]

I agree with all of you that this tax and especially its purpose is stupid and the only winner can be the 2-sector business model airlines (i.e. Emirates, Gulf Air & Co.). BUT the tax will come and everyone flying to EU airports will have to pay it. And if the companies won't pay directly, governments will mandate, that the airports are responsible for its collection. That's for the enforcement part of it.

Legally an emission tax for flight between EU and non-EU is IMO very problematic. Since due to ICAO agreement jet fuel is supposed to be tax free the EU move is a clear violation of this agreement. There can be no doubt that emissions are linked to the fuel consumption so this move is kind of like tax avoidance (just the other way round :O) which is not allowed. And if the ICAO explicitly confirms that such a taxation is not conform with its statutes the EU will have to comply or unsign the ICAO statues. However if the emission tax fails, the EU will find a new way to tax. E.g. mandating a levy paid at the airports depending on the weight of the aircraft.

[Algol]

The real joke is that - while applying this ridiculous TAX on aviation - the EU is simultaneously asking the Chinese to 'dig them out' by buying EU countries bonds!

Would you ask a neighbour for a helping hand while pissing in his back garden?
Duh.

[Avitor]

The European Union needs one figure to emerge. If that figure has the imagination and the ruthlessness of the last person to attempt to conquer the world, we are sunk. Would that the British government grew some balls before it is too late.

[SMT Member]

500 Above


This has been a long time coming...

China Blocks Airbus Order Over EU’s Emission Trading Scheme ‹ Aviation News – AviaTime.com (http://www.aviatime.com/china-blocks-airbus-order-over-eus-emission-trading-scheme.html)

And this...

China backs off Airbus order in favor of 747-8s - KCPQ (http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-china-backs-off-airbus-order-in-favor-of-7478s-20110624,0,3531786.story)

More...

China blocks billion-dollar Airbus order - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ce5aa0-9e4b-11e0-8e61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1idH3WBW6)

EU Emissions Policy Throws Spanner in Broughton Airbus works (http://johnbufton.eu/issues1/airbus-contract-blocked-by-china/)


As suspected it was nothing but the usual throwing toys out of cot; Hong Kong Airlines just ordered 10 x A380.

Airbus Wins Order for A380s From Hong Kong Airlines - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/airbus-wins-bulk-order-for-a380s-from-hong-kong-airlines.html)

[500 above]

China airlines won't pay EU carbon tax: industry body - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-airlines-carbon-tax-asiatre8030mc-20120104,0,1239269.story)

Let's see, shall we? I hope it goes through, for one, to help our economies. (the order, not the EU ETS)

Also let's not forget about the 38 Boeings they have ordered last march...

Hong Kong Airlines to Order Superjumbo Jets - Hong Kong - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/hong-kong/2011/06/14/hong-kong-airlines-to-order-superjumbo-jets/)

Don't forget their affiliation with mainland Hainan Airlines. That could be a game changer.

The Indians must also have some pull:

India to lead 12 country declaration against EU ETS aviation | climate-connect (http://www.climate-connect.co.uk/Home/?q=node/1242)

The world against us?

China, India Mount Opposition Against EU Aviation Carbon Curbs - BusinessWeek (http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LX9WVY07SXKX01-36BMN4PNMOQCTG7MCHBSN2B7UE)

And now our colonial brethren want ETS data from EU carriers... Where will it end?

Green Aviation | Turning Aviation Green (http://greenaviation.org/news)

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) issued an order on Monday 19th Dec to nine European carriers to submit ETS related information by 31 January 2012.* The orders do not specify what they will use the data for but it is believed by some observers that the data will help the DOT to potentially define retaliatory measures on EU airlines flying to the US. Others believe that this may be related to discussions concerning EU ETS equivalent measures.

The order was served upon Aer Lingus, Air France, Alitalia, British Airways, Deutsche Lufthansa, Iberia, KLM, SAS and Virgin Atlantic.*

The data that the DOT requires is –
DATA and REPORTING DATE:

1) Free 2012 allowances allocated
January 31, 2012

2) Free 2012 allowances received, if different from 1) (If not different, so advise.)
March 31, 2012

3) 2010 revenue tonne kilometers reported to administering state
January 31, 2012

4) 2010 revenue tonne kilometers operated on flights between U.S. points and points in the EU, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein
January 31, 2012

It should be noted that similar data has also been requested of seven US airlines, however financial data is additionally requested. The airlines affected are American Airlines, Continental, Delta, Fedex, United, UPS, and US Airways. The data that the DOT requires is –

DATA and REPORTING DATE

1) Free 2012 allowances allocated
January 31, 2012

2) Free 2012 allowances received, if different from 1) (If not different, so advise)
March 31, 2012

3) Estimate of allowances needed for 2012 operations covered by ETS April 15, 2012

4) 2012 CO2 emissions reported to administering state
March 31, 2013

5) Monetary amount paid to administering state in ETS allowance auctions
15 days after the close of each auction

6) Monetary amounts spent and/or received in ETS allowance markets
Within 15 days after each such event.

If I were an ETS Manager for an airline not currently impacted by this request I would nevertheless start working with my analyst, or IT department, or external supplier to be able to provide this kind of data accurately and quickly in case the US extends the requirement, or other Nations especially Canada, China and Russia decide to follow the US DOT example.

EU Carbon Price for 2012 in Record Jump as EU Parliament Supports Reducing Allowances
Posted by Oliver Heaton on 12/23 at 05:00 AM
After seeing carbon prices plunge this year due to investor worries about the Eurozone and the over-supply of carbon allowances into the ETS, and carbon prices which bottomed out at a low of EUR 6.30 last Wednesday, prices experience an unprecedented record jump this Tuesday after the EU parliament’s environment committee backed a proposal that would require the EU executive to cut the supply of allowances. Allowances for December 2012 closed 21 per cent higher on the day, but reached a peak at 32 per cent to EUR 9.75 during trading on the ICE Futures Exchange. In context, prices have now dropped approximately 39 percent year to date.

Then from the same website (a tree hugging, push bike riding North European (sorry SMT member, no offence) organisation)

Get this...

Posted by Green Aviation Communications on 10/12 at 10:45 PM

In a surprising move last week the European Low Fares Airline Association have publicly stated their support of the EU ETS. Secretary-General John Hanlon was speaking at the World Route Development Forum in Berlin and said the EU ETS was “not perfect” but that it is an environmentally effective mechanism to deal with aviation’s impact on climate change and better for airlines and consumers than government taxes. He made a point that everyone is keen on a global ETS solution under ICAO but that it is not yet available and threw ELFAAs support behind the EU ETS, “We totally support the EU’s conclusion that it is the most effective way of accounting for the cost to the environment with minimal cost to customers.” He believes that ETS is a better solution than taxes because the airline industry “can still grow by buying allowances” and “ETS has a cost but it is much better for the consumer”.

What BS!

IATA again rails against EU emissions trading system (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iata-again-rails-against-eu-emissions-trading-system-362588/)

[ZQA297/30]

Not so long ago airfares went mainly to the airlines. Now when I look at a return ticket from UK to USA only about 1/3 of the fare goes to the airline, the rest is taxes and charges.
I get the definite impression that Govenments have an unspoked disapproval of their citizens travelling abroad. Or is it those pesky foreigners coming in.
In any case they are down on aviation.
Increasing airline efficiency is rewarded by higher taxes and charges.
Unless salaries or disposable income start to increase, air travel is going to be slowly strangled.

[Kuchan]

China has a different mindset different from the western that if China determines not to pay, China will not pay regardless.

China will prefer to negotiate under the table than being forced openly to pay. That is losing face which is unbearable in Chinese society.

China has more financial capability to tip the balance on this.

China 1, EU 0

[racedo]

Good on China as stuff the tax.

[Uncle Fred]

I am not quite sure how heavily it would weigh into this situation but for those who are keenly watching the rise of China as a world power it makes one wonder if this is perhaps one of the many steps that it has made to string an arrow or two from its quiver of state elements of power. All nascent A-list nations have done it throughout history and we see it to a certain extent with the Chinese--military power, economic power, diplomatic etc. Not that it is bad--it is just what nation states do.

I am not saying that this specific incident is in any way a power play as I am not an Sinologist, but smart people are saying that China is starting to feel it oats and it some areas it will be quite deft, in others less polished. It goes to follow then that if it is flexing some economic muscle that it did so with diplomatic backing. Either that or else it acted without first considering that it was going to need some top cover from the striped pants set--something that I frankly doubt.

Either way, this one might just have a bit more shading to it than we think at first blush.

[haejangkuk]

In the course of this year, the Chinese are going to help the rest of the world curtail the excesses of the greedy first world cabal who have been sucking the life out the world economy. Sadly most of the planet's populations have blinkers on believing only what the mainstream media like CNN, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, BBV, DTV, Al Jazeera, etc dish out to them on the idiot boxes and the print. Over the past several centuries, the Europeans have come and pillaged, now they are trying a different tact. Even their former colonies like New Zealand are suffering with their exports curtailed by " carbon miles " threats, etc.

[lomapaseo]

Over the past several centuries, the Europeans have come and pillaged, now they are trying a different tact. Even their former colonies like New Zealand are suffering with their exports curtailed by " carbon miles " threats, etc.

It ain't a "them vs Us" fight, it's just the checks and balances of economics vs technology. Any one of us (nations) could be on any side.

I wouldn't ascribe this to the collective "europeans". It's just a system that is temporaily being challenged.

Hell even the Euro is being challenged internally.

[POWDERFINGER]

Beware of "wumao" on this forum, preaching how China will save the world from the dreaded Western nations. China simply wants things its way, in line with its philosophy of "development first, quality last." As polluted as the country is, so it is happy polluting the world.

Not that the Americans are much better, whatwith the Republicans' attacks on any rules limiting carbon emissions.

[TZ350]

[quote] mattman
SMT Member you sound like one of those Eurocrats.

What a load of :mad: you spout, fair enough this is the same crap the European Parliment produces.
Do you really think the more than 10% of this monies will benefit anybody but the pockets of said morons.
The fundamental flaw in the EU plan is the money for carbon produced outside of the EU goes to the EU and does not benefit anyone else.
A simple and effective plan would have been to add a levy to fuel but that would have mainly penalized the European operators and this is not allowed.

Having to deal personally with this stupid scheme is a burucratic nightmare and insanely expensive.

But apparently the unelected politicians in the EU are smarter than us.

We are in a toilet bowl slowly circling the drain. [quote]

Should any of this bull$$hit from Brussels be a surprise ?

After all, these were the ( elected :yuk: ?) :mad: that came up with this...............:ugh:

Get ready for a basketful of wonky veg as EU ban on odd shapes lifted | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195818/Get-ready-basketful-wonky-veg-EU-ban-odd-shapes-lifted.html)

Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them.............

[Auberon]

I'm not one to support new taxes generally, but I have to say currently flying is too cheap. Car fuel prices are taxed to hell, why should air travel - a fairly polluting business in its own right - be exempt?


Have you actually looked at the taxes on an airline ticket? For example, you can buy a JFK-LHR roundtrip on VS for US$701.70. $502 of that goes to VS and $199.70 goes to various US and UK taxes. That's a tax rate of 40%.

[mtwittm]

This is an excellent move by China, just like Malaysia told the the IMF/World Bank to stuff it during the Financial Crisis in Asia.

Carbon Tax, Carbon Credit, Carbon Trading or whatever they want to call it, is just another fraud perpetuated on the developing / third world to stifle development.

[M-ONGO]

I'm not one to support new taxes generally, but I have to say currently flying is too cheap. Car fuel prices are taxed to hell, why should air travel - a fairly polluting business in its own right - be exempt?

Your from Belgium. Enough said.

I see you've removed said post...

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Apart for the unkind general comment about a whole nation... are U really sure, M-ONGO?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/473401-china-vs-eu.html#post6937977

[green granite]

It has been said that the UN's IPCC's agenda on carbon trading and helping the 3rd world to cope with climate change is to take from the poor of the rich countries and give it to the rich of the poor countries. In this tax the EU is helping them achieve this aim.

[Kuchan]

This is China the country against the EU imposing carbon tax. China Airlines has no power, but China as a whole has.

If EU imposes carbon tax, China will retaliate the same but would give rebate only to third world contries.

There may be 200 aircraft from China to EU, but thousands more EU aircraft would have to pay tax to China.

This new year is the year of Water Dragon, presumably to be volitile.

[JCviggen]

Have you actually looked at the taxes on an airline ticket? For example, you can buy a JFK-LHR roundtrip on VS for US$701.70. $502 of that goes to VS and $199.70 goes to various US and UK taxes. That's a tax rate of 40%.

I've not flown to the US for several years so maybe i've missed something, I most often fly EU-Russia and taxes appear to be a bit lower there.

That said, 40% is still peanuts compared what it costs to travel by car. Fuel is taxed something like 200% -rough guess- and then you have road tax, registration tax, ... I don't find air fares particularly expensive in this day and age, and its usually cheaper than any other way of transport even if you're not necessarily causing less pollution (not that that is much of a concern for me personally)

@ Mongo, I feel dumber just replying to you, but 1) my post is still there and 2) I there's worse places to be from than Belgium though I don't actually live there anymore.

[M-ONGO]

JCViggen

Well, at least you now have a government... (The irony - Brussels controling Europe, and you with no Government yourself)

Brussels Eurocrats at their best...

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html)

You seem to want the public to pay more for air travel. I'm glad you don't find air travel expensive. Many do.

Out of interest, do you fly for a living, does your livelyhood depend upon aviation?

I've not flown to the US for several years so maybe i've missed something, I most often fly EU-Russia and taxes appear to be a bit lower there.

Not for long it would appear... I take it you will not be complaining when the fares go up?

Interesting Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

(strange things have been happening with pprune posts and numberings, after I posted above, your post had disappeared)

[6000PIC]

The ETS is flawed because ;

1) The European Commission is un-elected , therefore it has NO authority. ( ECJ who ???)

2) A unilateral tax imposed unfairly , without examining ALL macroeconomic ramifications and without agreement by all parties concerned is doomed.

3) The group that has the authority to create , monitor , and enforce such a scheme is ICAO. Their absence in the ETS is proof of their incompetence and lack of political will by ALL members. Just like it`s parent , the UN , it`s time has come and gone.

4) All concerned parties have different agendas. Some will cite historical precedents , others will claim scientific data , still others will decieve and lie. Saving face is just the tip of the iceberg.

5) Any more ??? I`m sure there`s lots.

Like the Euro area as a whole , without a believable , trustworthy and transparent policy and plan , this " project " will fail.

[lomapaseo]

(strange things have been happening with PPRuNe posts and numberings, after I posted above, your post had disappeared)

I think that some posts are set aside for tea and biscuits by the moderators, after which they are either eaten fully or returned to sender

[boogie-nicey]

Indeed this along with a plethora of other trumped up taxes will nothing to help but everything to hinder meaningful growth and flow of trade. However when the mere taxpares/populus of Europe echo such sentiments the EU wraps up into it's Marie Antoinette mentality. This is why I am happy for China (and hopefully the US ....) to stand up and say 'no thanks sunshine'.

[JCviggen]

Well, at least you now have a government... (The irony - Brussels controling Europe, and you with no Government yourself)Irrelevant as it is to the discussion or to my arguing credentials, Belgium had several governments at all time which were elected, and one caretaker federal one which carried on after its expiration date. But don't let that get in the way of a good story.

And people from Brussels don't control the EU, the EU leaders simply happen to meet in Brussels most of the time hence I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.

Brussels Eurocrats at their best... Of course it's ridiculous, but you can find this kind of stuff in nearly every government including the US and UK ones. It's easy to pick, choose and magnify these idiotic bureaucratic f-ups to make your point look stronger

You seem to want the public to pay more for air travel. I'm glad you don't find air travel expensive. Many do.I don't think its cheap in itself, but it appears to me that air travel as a way of transportation enjoys many privileges over other modes of transportation for no obvious reason. It has also been established that although the exact consequences are currently impossible to calculate, the high altitude emissions of aircraft are not particularly good for the environment. Whether this is a concern to you or not, until it is established with certainty that we don't need to worry about it - we probably should given the potential consequences.

Out of interest, do you fly for a living, does your livelyhood depend upon aviation?I do not -anymore- have anything to do with aviation but again I would argue this is irrelevant. Especially because those who DO have something to do with aviation are likely more focused on their own interests than those of everybody else.

I cant't believe I'm actually somewhat on the EU's side on this - I usually am not believe me. Perhaps the only reason I'm on this side of the argument is to try and balance it out a little with nearly every other poster here strongly opposed to this measure for clearly selfish or anti-EU (as is so popular in the UK these days) motives.
It cannot be denied that the EU has been trying for quite a while to get international agreement on this, and in the end appears to have gotten fed up with the lack of progress and introduced this "all on their own"

[M-ONGO]

the high altitude emissions of aircraft are not particularly good for the environment. Whether this is a concern to you or not, until it is established with certainty that we don't need to worry about it - we probably should given the potential consequences.

No, it's not a concern for me. Bring back Speys, JT8's et all. I'm off to fill up my 5.0l SUV now. ;)

Air travel enjoys many priveladges over other forms of transport? Do you work for a carbon offset company? Greenpeace?

those who DO have something to do with aviation are likely more focused on their own interests than those of everybody else.

Of course - we are on a pilots forum not a tree huggers one. But tell me, how will you travel on vacation this year? Or for business will you drive to Russia from the EU? Perhaps the train?

Train can be worse for climate than plane - environment - 08 June 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html)

Smarter Pollution measurement proves the train is the worst polluter - GreenPacks (http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/06/10/smarter-pollution-measurement-proves-the-train-is-the-worst-polluter/)

[MaxRange120]

The EU’s flagship environmental policy is a disaster on a titanic scale. Not only is it adding to energy bills, aggravating fuel poverty and leading to international trade wars, it has also had no real environmental benefit and is unlikely to provide any until 2016, over ten years since its inception. Indeed, the only beneficiaries of the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the jewel in the crown of European climate change legislation, are big banks and businesses making windfall profits.

The ETS has also been a paradise for criminals. Security in the entirely electronic system is so weak that phishing scams, the simple stealing of passwords to access accounts, shut down the ETS for two weeks. The European Law Agency has even estimated that 90% of all ETS market activity in 2009 was fraudulent. In cost terms, €5 billion has been lost so far from just one kind of VAT fraud. To counter crime, a common auction platform is being developed. However, given that countries are able to opt out of this (and the UK already has), the lax security is only likely to continue.



The Commentator - Environmentalists are undermining their cause by defending emissions trading (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/778/environmentalists_are_undermining_their_cause_by_defending_e missions_trading)

[clivewatson]

from the above article:

We should not forget that the British Government has rejected the idea of hypothecating ETS monies for energy investment. Instead, it goes into general funds, risking the idea of being seen as a stealth tax.

[panda-k-bear]

Oh what a tangled web we weave. This thing is not only unfair, it's a mess. The EU has created a rod for its own back that it is determined to proceed with at all costs, though with the price of carbon dropping through the floor they now have to engineer ways to make sure that they don't end up collecting the square root of FA.

And if the ICAO explicitly confirms that such a taxation is not conform with its statutes the EU will have to comply or unsign the ICAO statues.

The problem with this is that the EU, being a bunch of unelected eurocratic eejits, have no rights whatsoever in ICAO - they are merely observers. Only nation states have rights in UN organisations like ICAO. The EU mechanism is a bit difficult - the EU produces a directive. When that is done, each member state is obliged to enshrine the directive in their national law. So the problem is that nobody can actually take action against the EU itself in any way other than what the Chinese are actually doing, which is effectively direct action - trade war - and that the US has tried to do (through the ECJ - who may be a tad biased). But the EU numpties can't see this and we must all self-flagellate over our CO2 emissions sins.

Add to this that there's supposed to be a credit for flying with biofuel (what's the credit? Proportional to what is actually used? How do you prove what you actually used? How do you prove what % biofuel you actually have in your tanks at any one time); that carriers from other countries taking 'equivalent measures' may be exempted but nobody can define what an equivalent measure actually is; and that there is currently no mechanism for handling a 'new entrant' in the first trading period; and it's easy to see that this is not only stupid legislation but also very badly thought out.

ICAO needs to put it's dentures back in. When it has some teeth again maybe this idiocy can be controlled, if not stopped.

[lomapaseo]

ICAO needs to put it's dentures back in. When it has some teeth again maybe this idiocy can be controlled, if not stopped.

Last I knew that don't have a standing army or airforce

[panda-k-bear]

No, but they missed an opportunity in the closing months of last year when the US, supported by others, raised this issue to the ICAO Council. The Council could have issued a binding recommendation to not comply with the EU ETS. That would have given a real field day to the legal-eagles because each of the EU countries that had enshrined the application of the ETS into their national statutes would have been obliged to incorporate the ICAO recommendation into their national law as well. Each nation would have had two laws - one obliging them to comply and one obliging them not to. There would have been a stalemate with no easily definable way out and the whole aviation part of the ETS would have stalled.

But ICAO didn't have the teeth (I'm trying to avoid saying that it didn't have the gonads) to stand up and do that. More's the pity.

[Wefeedumall]

Reported on another forum-Air Asia cancels flights from LGW from March 31st 2012. One of the reasons given is the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme along with the high Air Passenger Duty tax in this country, how many more will follow? Well done EU :ugh:

[SMT Member]

Reported on another forum-Air Asia cancels flights from LGW from March 31st 2012. One of the reasons given is the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme along with the high Air Passenger Duty tax in this country, how many more will follow? Well done EUIt actually says Air Asia suspends all flights to London, Paris and India. You may wish to point out how the ETS will impact a KUL-DEL route, or how the UK APD impacts KUL-ORY. Just saying, that maybe airlines have spindoctors too, and that blaming APD or ETS sounds a hell of a lot better than saying "we've been idiots, thinking we could compete with the likes of Emirates or Singapore Airlines, offering a ow-quality product at not much less than a full-service fare".

But if any new tax did have a small influence, one wonders if it might have been the 2EUR ETS fee, or the 50/100UKP APD fee. Well done UK would, perhaps, have been a more fitting end to your rant?

[GrahamO]

Stop the Press.

Airline forum objects to being taxed and blames everyone else and self rationalisation runs amok :=

Get over it as China will eventually ......... :bored:

[The SSK]

...raised this issue to the ICAO Council. The Council could have issued a binding recommendation to not comply with the EU ETS. [snip] ...would have been obliged to incorporate the ICAO recommendation into their national law as well.

You reckon? On your planet, maybe.

[panda-k-bear]

That's what our Brussels-based lawyers believed, so yes, on planet panda, as on Earth, that could have created a very messy situation.

[The SSK]

Your lawyers are ill-informed. ICAO cannot impose anything on anybody. In certain fields, such as noise and NOx, it sets internationally-agreed standards which are non-negotiable (unless you opt out). But it is not a legislative body.

Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.

[mtwittm]

GrahamO - the Third World is still trying to get over it.

[Thomascl605]

Perhaps China's best bet if they file their lawsuit is to prove that this new tax is not actually being used to tackle the supposed climate change.

Airlines and Operators should start charging for all of this extra work created to supply their co2 figures.

[Kingfisher]

China's best bet is to ignore the tax and refuse to pay. What is the EU going to do declare war? France and Austria just got downgraded with Italy going down another notch Monday.
If the EU was a pet you would have taken to the vets ages ago, dragging it out this long would result in cruelty charges.

[Thomascl605]

Good points Kingfisher.

Perhaps if a few airlines got together, grew some b*lls and point blank refused to acknowledge the ETS, then maybe we would get somewhere.

I can't exactly see a fleet of airliners being impounded in the EU for non payment.

The people who run the scheme are the biggest bunch of numpties going anyway, maybe they will form a human barrier in their tree hugging t-shirts to stop aircraft that haven't purchased enough carbon credits.

[Kingfisher]

IMHO tough for airlines to do, aircraft cant be impounded but with a little computer magic no AOC, no insurance SEEMPLES. What it would take is a few governments grow some balls and cancel the payments to the EU. Good luck passing thousands of directives when the checks start bouncing.

[panda-k-bear]

Your lawyers are ill-informed.

No, they most certainly are not.

Your lawyers are ill-informed. ICAO cannot impose anything on anybody. In certain fields, such as noise and NOx, it sets internationally-agreed standards which are non-negotiable (unless you opt out). But it is not a legislative body.


Fully agree - it is not a legislative body. But under Doc.3700 and Resolution A37-19 as it pertains to Annex 16 - for which there will be a volume III relating to CO2 emissions - signatories are committed to import into their national law ICAO recommendations. HOW it is imported is up to the individual nation concerned. Working Paper C-WP/13790, submitted jointly by Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, the UAE and the United States attempted to force a recommendation in this direction - see actions d, e and f.

Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.

Please accept my apologies but I won't take you up on that offer. I'm sure your advice would be relatively cheap in comparison but, well, you get what you pay for.

[The SSK]

Please accept my apologies but I won't take you up on that offer. I'm sure your advice would be relatively cheap in comparison but, well, you get what you pay for.

Who said anything about paying? Still fair enough. If they think that there is no body in Brussels with more expertise in the field of EU ETS and the internal workings of ICAO than themselves. so be it. Such vanity I find quite amusing.

[GlueBall]

Environmentalist muppets have gone rabid about "global warming" and about "saving the planet" . . . and governments have wasted no time in adopting this phenomena into a new cash cow.

...As if this planet had not been around 4.5+ billion years, had not been through cataclysmic geophysical changes; had not been through multiple ice ages, volcanic eruptions, tectonic shifts, fires, floods, asteroid bombardments, magnetic reversals of the poles...

And we've been around just an infinitesimal moment in time, engaged in heavy industry only 150 years . . . . and suddenly our internal combustion engines and our gas turbines have become a threat to this planet? Hellooooo!

As the late George Carlin had said: "You have to be dreaming to believe it." :eek:

[panda-k-bear]

Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.

Such vanity I find quite amusing.

Quite so.

What makes you think that you are more of an 'expert' than 'they' are? Do you actually know who 'they' are? I can only assume that you, too, are an advisor to CAEP?

[2EggOmelette]

Ok, so I see why China and India have thrown a tantrum over this as both countries have not implemented an ETS strategy in their own countries. It appears that Air NZ are continuing as normal largely due to the fact that NZ has already set up a robust and totally flawed ETS of its own, And according to the unelected EU muppets, the cost will go directly to the NZ coffers. But what does this mean of the likes of Australia who are still debating the issue?
Also, what are they basing the carbon emissions off? Is it a number plucked from their bums? and whose bums? Since ICAO are still dragging their heels on the issue I cant see much in the way of hard unified data on this. Are the emissions based from the great big dirty JT3C turbines from a B707 or the new Trent 1000's? on the B787. Im searching but I aint finding squat. :ugh:

[Piltdown Man]

Yet more unelected numpties in Brussels/Strasbourg/Wherever decide, probably at the end of yet another lunch (with undoubtably excellent wine and after meal "entertainment") I've paid for, to unilaterally implement a new tax. Quite reasonably China, Russia and India tell them to stick their tax up these numptie's pleasure zones. The tax will neither save the planet nor make it a better place to live, just more expensive and a little more unstable. Short of scrapping the tax, there is no solution.

[akerosid]

China has banned its carriers from co-operating with the new EU tax. The move is certain to raise the tempo in this dispute. One can't help wondering if this was communicated to Chancellor Merkel during her recent visit to China.

The ball is in the EU's court on this; will they force the issue (resulting in suspensions of flights?) or back down. I predict the former, largely because the latter would be the intelligent move, given the EU's other, far more pressing problems.

China to defy EU emissions tax - World News, Breaking News - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/china-to-defy-eu-emissions-tax-3010753.html)

[2EggOmelette]

Excellent to see. There is always the possibility that it could end up in the WTO's lap for arbitration. This in itself could be an interesting move as the WTO interests lie in the global arena. Wether the EU would pay any notice to this, or for that mater ICAO (who are currently strangely silent on this matter) remains to be seen. The EU does have a habit of screwing up.:D

[lomapaseo]

ICAO (who are currently strangely silent on this matter)

I believe that ICAO has no power to over-rule laws of Nations, thus the silence. Instead it lets its individual members speak.

Its individual members however, may come together under ICAO and adopt any non-binding resolution that suits them and to then present it to their individual governments for rejection.

[2EggOmelette]

Understood Lomp, and I'm glad to hear it. Would be a major worry if they could over rule a sovereign nation. However, surely though they can rattle the sabres and create a hullabaloo? Or must this be requested by the member nations first?:confused:

[lomapaseo]

However, surely though they can rattle the sabres and create a hullabaloo? Or must this be requested by the member nations first?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Like anything to do with the UN it would probably take years to get it out of committee for presentation to those sovereign nations.

I'm reminded of the reverse of "speak softly and carry a big stick"

[2EggOmelette]

I have the feeling that this will drag out for quite some time..........

''Governments opposed to the EU climate levy on international aviation have agreed a limited package of counter-measures during a meeting in Moscow.''

BBC News - EU aviation climate charge faces limited opposition (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17143264)

:ok:

[gtf]

China has banned its carriers from co-operating with the new EU tax.
Not quite. China banned its carriers from paying for emission credits. Guess what? Credits for the first year are free and all Chinese airlines have already applied for theirs!

"Governments opposed to the EU climate levy on international aviation have agreed a limited package of counter-measures during a meeting in Moscow."
Limited because they couldn't agree on stronger sanction, the US said not worth a trade war. The EU opponents want this solved at the ICAO, what the EU asked for all along.

Me thinks lots of noise and quiet negotiations will solve this.

[fdr]

The arrogance of the EU commissioners is only matched by the irrelevance of the processes they produce.

Imposing unilateral decisions across borders is an affront to the sovereignty of the nations confronted by this action.

How does the ETS "tax" in any meaningful manner change the fundamental underlying issue of excessive population (with principal growth in 3rd world nations), excessive energy consumption by the 1st world nations, reliance on finite energy resources? It is assumed that the ETS evolves from the concern about the grand experiment that civilisation has elected to undertake; of unchecked pollutants being discharged into a closed system without consideration to their impact on the system behaviour.

The ETS has similarities with one certain fiddler in Rome.... it takes skill to be both arrogant and irrelevant concurrently. The problems of the rock are in need of rational and timely input, lest the outcome be allowed to continue the petrie dish experiment that is currently underway.

As instituted, the EU is way out of line imposing tax on activity outside of it's borders.
Tax is hardly an effective method to adjust the direction of the program in the time available.
ICAO's failure to develop any meaningful change to the aviation industry's component of energy consumption or pollution is in keeping with the UN's inability to achieve meaningful progress in general.

What we need is for Scotty to beam us up, as in general, as stewards of the planet, we have collectively failed miserably.

We are in deep doo doo.

Whoops, daydreaming again.... gotta go drive an imported SUV down to the corner store, buy some food that has been shipped around 1/2 the world from a 3rd world nation that employs child labor, fill up the truck with fuel imported from another nation that is actively engaged in destabilising it's part of the world, send some clothes made in a country with no labor laws, (and no rules on pollution) to a tailor to get adjusted to fit my 1st world body shape, and of course send alms to Greenpeace, WWF, CCF etc to ease my conscience. At the same time, I can at least use an 3G IPAD, (made in a shining example of free enterprise that is Foxconn) to watch the quality Murdoch drivel that passes for news and current affairs in this part of the world, while munching on a GM grain fed battery bred chicken part stuck between two slices of Monsanto's finest Frankenflour bread, while drinking some French red laced with CH3OH, off a paper plate infused with PCB's and sundry organochlorides. But then, just as you start to wonder if civilisation is a Scud missile, going somewhere unknown and usually ending with an untidy mess.... I am going to go crank up a little jet, and go burn up some fossil fuel and emit great belches of CO2 working on projects to improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. Self interest is alive and well, just ask the Concordia's Captain. Oh yes, the airport car parking price will also be somewhat more than the price of the air ticket I pay to get to the testing area....

China 1, EU 0, civilisation -1

PS: I'm voting for Cpt Schettino to be EU Commissioner, anyone with either the panache, calm (or lack of SA) to reportedly order room service while the Titanic is taking a decidedly undesirable reduction in metacentric height... should fit right in within Brussels (Washington, Moscow, Abuja, Manama, Canberra... etc).

[ExXB]

Not quite. China banned its carriers from paying for emission credits. Guess what? Credits for the first year are free and all Chinese airlines have already applied for theirs!

Not quite. In 2012 85% of the credits are free. 15% are to be paid for.


Limited because they couldn't agree on stronger sanction, the US said not worth a trade war. The EU opponents want this solved at the ICAO, what the EU asked for all along.

The EU has no standing with ICAO (or any UN organisation) other than 'observer status', they are not allowed to speak. Only the 27 MS are allowed to negotiate. At the last meeting the EU told the MS not to propose anything that differed from ETS and not to agree anything other than ETS. Some negotiation.

ETS is misguided. CO2 produced from aviation is a low percentage of the total and aviation fuel cannot be substituted by anything else. Offsets, which do have a positive effect, cannot be used. Work is in progress for a 'green' drop-in substitute, but we are a long way from there.

The objective of the EC Commissioner for Climate change is to have airlines reduce their burn in the only way possible, buy reducing the number of flights. As the 85% free credits will reduce over time it only means that aviation will become more expensive (with no positive return from the extra expense) and it will become less efficient. Any airline that wants to grow (like the Chinese attempting to compete with EU airlines) has another trade barrier to face.

[2EggOmelette]

Haha, this just get funnier.

China blocks Airbus deals over EU carbon tax, says EADS................

BBC News - China blocks Airbus deals over EU carbon tax, says EADS (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17298117)


:D

[panda-k-bear]

Hilarious, I'm sure :rolleyes:

BBC News - Aviation plea to leaders over EU price on carbon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17335616)

[2EggOmelette]

Ah good. I was wondering what the "sarcasm" icon was, i needed that for the last post.
However, it is depressingly hilarious, this is without doubt. It Affects many businesses, and therefore staff and passengers. Perhaps not so much for EU based operations (although many of them now disagree as Panda has shown us) but severely effects operations from further distant bases, especially those who operate from a hemisphere away.
The main points of argument against seem to be that 1). Why charge a company from point of departure regardless of whether if in the EU? What basis does the EU base this rationale? And 2). Why charge aviation so much when they are responsible for only 7% of carbon emissions in the UK let alone Europe when other commercial transport (excluding Aviation) is responsible for 25%! Residential emissions (that the every day person) are at 25% and business makes up the rest (42%).
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Q&A: Aviation emissions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6955009.stm)
The fact is that all this rubbish started in 1997 with the seriously flawed Kyoto protocol. This protocol is so flawed that many countries are finding what ever way they can to exit it.
Europe has not.
ICAO was asked to come up with some sort of solution. They cant, because many of the countries that are member states of ICAO know what a pile of rubbish the protocol happens to be. If the member states cant agree, then ICAO can not form a mandate that its member nations must import into national law.
In 2003, the EU approached ICAO and its member states in regard to "trade credits" which are simpily a :mad: joke. These are nothing more than a form of fictional currency, and in itself a whole story to be told elsewhere in the annals of ridiculous history. The problem being, that ICAO was still powerless as no one can agree as to what the hell reality really is in regards to climate change.
This problem is exasperated as none of the 27 ICAO nations can negotiate independently with the EU. Why is this? ICAO is obviously not working, so what's the harm in independent negotiations?
Oh that's right, I'm sorry, I forgot! We are dealing with the unelected EU cronies here. My bad.
I can only thankfully say that the EU only has observer status with ICAO.
Not so long ago, the US took this issue to the EU court.... Guess what happened!
So now the EU likes to remind us that in 2012, 85% of credits are free! wow. This is like going to Noel Leemings! Can I get Hire purchase with this? You bet. That's exactly what this is!
How many billions of Euros are to be made out of this in the following 3 years?
Someone, and for the life of me I cant remember who, mentioned the possible involvement of the WTO. This would be useful as it is utterly removed from most EU influence. However, I see no evidence that this has yet begun.
I guess that's why China has taken the course it has. That is, to stop all Chinese airlines from paying any form of tax/compensation in regard to this issue, And now it would seem, to prevent any purchases from European aeroplane manufacturing companies.
This sound suspiciously like the start of a Trade war.
It has European companies worried.
BA, Virgin, Lufthansa, AF, Iberia.
All have expressed their concern. And yet the unelected EU bureaucrats will not pull their heads out of their rectums.
This is a concern. For all of us.

[brakedwell]

And yet the unelected EU bureaucrats will not pull their heads out of their rectums.

That's because their empty heads are too far up their orifices :ugh:

[powerstall]

So i'm guessing now who bent over? :ugh:

[ironbutt57]

Sell you a 300 million dollar aircraft, then give you a bill when you pollute their skies with it...hmmmmm:=

Next up, "buy our Airbus for 300 million, and we give you 300 million ETS credits....

[mattman]

And so it Begins........................:mad:



Lufthansa CEO: A380 rights to Shanghai denied in ETS dispute


China’s opposition to the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), has prevented Lufthansa (LH) from obtaining rights to operate an Airbus A380 to Shanghai, LH chairman and CEO Christoph Franz said.

“The EU ETS is further increasing the already distorted level playing. We [the European airline industry] cannot accept retaliatory measures against the EU ETS in whatever form, landing rights or other. Some days ago, Lufthansa once again did not get the authorization to use an A380 to Shanghai,” Franz told the European Aviation Club in Brussels Tuesday.

“Listening and nodding is not enough,” he warned European regulators. “We are in favor of a global solution [under ICAO]; however, in the meantime there is distortion. This distortion has started for Lufthansa in the second half of 2011 when we started hedging and buying CO2 certificates. We are trapped in a corner,” he said.

LH has said it will have to buy at least 35% of the ETS certificates it needs this year and has estimated the ETS cost on group level this year at €130 million ($171.4 million). It decided to pass on this cost to the passenger and include it in the fuel surcharge.

Franz slammed regulators for not addressing other market distortions and for not creating the right regulatory framework for European network airlines to thrive. “There are some indications that [European Commission’s] DG Competition will analyze subsidies to low cost carriers. It is a scandal that Ryanair receives €18 support per passenger at Charleroi airport (CRL) while Brussels Airlines [in which LH holds 45%] has to pay €26 in passenger duties and taxes at Brussels airport, which is just 45 km away [from CRL].”

He also criticized the inability of European and national authorities to deal with the massive influx of capacity by airlines from the Arabian Gulf states. LH offers some 7,000 weekly seats from Germany, which has 82 million inhabitants, to the Gulf states, whereas the airlines from the Gulf states, which have 6 to 7 million inhabitants, offer 38,000 seats to Germany, Franz said. “This is real distorted market access, today. This is not a forecasted situation for tomorrow. This has to be addressed through bilateral agreements because air transport is not part of the WTO and thus the normal instruments of addressing such market distortions are not there.”

Lufthansa CEO: A380 rights to Shanghai denied in ETS dispute | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/lufthansa-ceo-a380-rights-shanghai-denied-ets-dispute-0320)

[500 above]

And so it continues....

[vinayak]

India will urge its airlines not to take part in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a senior official said. This is the latest salvo in an escalating row over an EU law requiring all flights in and out of Europe to pay for their emissions.

China, in February, said its airlines were barred from participating in the scheme unless they get government approval to do so. Beijing has also suspended the purchase of $14 billion worth of planes for Europe's Airbus due to the dispute.

India does not yet plan to ask airlines to cancel Airbus purchases, but that is a possibility if the dispute escalates, the Indian official said.

The official, with direct knowledge of talks between the EU and other countries on the issue, told Reuters that India would soon ask local airlines not to share emissions data with the bloc or buy any carbon credits.

If the European Commission retaliated by suspending Indian airlines from flying to Europe, India would make similar moves and consider charging an "unreasonable" amount for flying over India, the official said on Monday.

"We have lots of measures to take if the EU does not go back on its demands. We have the power of the economy; we are not bleeding as they are," the government official said, adding that Europe's position would harm its own economy and airlines.

RELATED STORIES
India to ask airlines to shun EU carbon scheme
Profit Top 10: Vodafone wins $ 2 bn tax case , Kingfisher on skeletal schedule
Virginia is bullish on doing business with India
India keen on expanding oil, gas explorations in Vietnam
Analysis: Yum eyes young India to help mirror China profits
The Indian government is awaiting formal approval from several ministries to implement the order to airlines, which it expects soon, the official said.

"The question is, 'Are you (the EU) provoking the world into a trade war?" the official said.

FAST-GROWING MARKET

Amber Dubey, director for aviation at global consultancy KPMG, said India was in the midst of a huge increase in the size of both its civilian and defence fleets, with a significant share of the orders coming from European suppliers.

"The EU-ETS issue is escalating fears of a trade war between the EU and the rest of the world. There is a chance that the government may decide to use these large aircraft orders as a negotiating tool," Dubey said.

European planemaker Airbus has a 73 per cent share of the commercial plane market in India. It has orders for more than 250 planes with IndiGo, Go Air and Kingfisher Airlines, making fast-growing India a crucial growth market.

Foreign governments say the EU is exceeding its legal jurisdiction by charging for an entire flight, as opposed to just the part covering European airspace.

But Europe's highest court ruled in December that the EU law did not breach international agreements.

The EU scheme has been widely criticized by the aviation industry, and on Tuesday Indonesia's state-owned airline Garuda said it might stop flying to Amsterdam in response.

"If (the regulation) is too costly, we could be forced to close our European routes," President Director Emirsyah Satar told Reuters.

Thai Airways President Piyasvasti Amranand said the state-controlled airline also opposed the EU law, but declined to comment on its impact on plane purchases.

"If nothing changes, this will cost us 200-300 million baht $6.5-$9.75 million) a year starting 2013," Piyasvasti said.

"I do agree with the idea of reducing carbon emissions but the way EU has come up with the calculation for making airlines pay is something we feel is unfair."

DISRUPTIVE DISPUTE

India this month inadvertently delayed approval of some European summer schedules by a day, which disrupted the flight schedules of many European airlines.

The official said India may use that example to show how disruptive a dispute with the country could be.

"If things continue like this, then European airlines will be forced to avoid flying over India and go over the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal," the official said. "That's not viable for them. They won't have fuel to do that."

The European Commission has said it introduced a carbon cost for all flights, because well over a decade of talks at the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had failed to agree on a way to curb the sector's rising emissions.

The escalation of international tension over the EU's scheme has accelerated efforts at the ICAO to come up with a global plan. At a meeting last week, it directed a working group to continue studying the options and report back in June.

The European Commission has said it will modify its law if the ICAO can deliver a convincing alternative and is doing its best to help.

"The EU is working hard to achieve a global agreement. The sooner the better. And it is really encouraging how strongly the ICAO Secretariat tries to move things forward," Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in an emailed comment.

[vinayak]

A newspaper article.


PS: Indian media is not known for responsible journalism.

[EW73]

For my benefit...the quote:
"I do agree with the idea of reducing carbon emissions but the way EU has come up..."

Help me here, how does forcing the airlines to pay multi-millions of dollars per year help in reducing carbon emissions?

Cheers...

[riverrock83]

For my benefit...the quote:
how does forcing the airlines to pay multi-millions of dollars per year help in reducing carbon emissions?


If generating emissions costs money, airlines, being businesses, will try to reduce that cost. In theory this could be by buying more efficient planes, or putting more effort into getting more efficient airspace & routes. However, I believe the scheme is based on "tonne-kilometres", there appears to be no advantages in investing in more efficient planes.

Also, it's trying to create a carbon economy. Take someone in a different industry saves carbon emissions. This means that they will be using up less than their quota, so they can sell their extra quota to airlines to use. This means they will be able to make money by reducing their own emissions. This all depends on how you calculate the "saving" and "quota" that they achieved.

[stuckgear]

"I do agree with the idea of reducing carbon emissions but the way EU has come up..."



Further to the point previously addressed, i would like to ask the *specific* question in relation the underlined (above)..

Why ?

[The SSK]

On the simplest level, ETS is just fuel rationing. Limit the amount of fuel an airline starts the year with and it has three choices - fly less, use more efficient aircraft, or buy someone else's allowance.

This particular ETS has a number of features that European airlines don't like and non-European airlines loathe. First, the total 'pot' of allowances is the 2005 level minus 3% so it's about 20% less than today's business as usual - there's no way that carriers can avoid the 'buy' option.

Secondly, 15% of the allowances must be bought anyway, from the countries in the scheme. This money just goes straight into treasuries and exchequers and the non-EU countries see this as just a cash grab to prop up wonky economies and wonky currencies.

stuckgear: there are two kinds of people in the world – those who believe that CO2 influenced climate change may be happening and those who do not. In the context of this thread it matters not at all which side you are on, because we are discussing the consequences of policy decisions already taken.

The Delhi Declaration, in which 24 countries – including China, India, Russia, USA and Japan – condemned EU ETS, contained the following words:
Recognising that international aviation’s growth makes it necessary to address the long-term growth of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) enissions that contribute to global climate change
But hey, maybe they are all wrong.

[Intruder]

there are two kinds of people in the world – those who believe that CO2 influenced climate change may be happening and those who do not.
Not quite...

There is AT LEAST a third type who DO believe that CO2 affects climate change, but that the population is TOTALLY unwilling and unable to make enough change to make a difference in our lifetime or the foreseeable future after that. The ONLY way to reduce CO2 emissions enough to have ANY discernible effect on the climate is to STOP MAKING ALL THOSE CARBON- AND SULFUR-BELCHING BABIES!

With the current type of world economy (based on CONSUMPTION and EXPANSION), there is NO WAY to make a difference in our "carbon" output significant enough to affect any climate change it may be causing. We are polluting the world in more ways than one. Only reduction of consumption and waste via reduction in consumer population can make a difference.

All these other measures are ONLY guvvamint-induced "feel-good" measures and taxes.

[TZ350]

[quote] Intruder

Not quite...

There is AT LEAST a third type who DO believe that CO2 affects climate change, but that the population is TOTALLY unwilling and unable to make enough change to make a difference in our lifetime or the foreseeable future after that. The ONLY way to reduce CO2 emissions enough to have ANY discernible effect on the climate is to STOP MAKING ALL THOSE CARBON- AND SULFUR-BELCHING BABIES!

With the current type of world economy (based on CONSUMPTION and EXPANSION), there is NO WAY to make a difference in our "carbon" output significant enough to affect any climate change it may be causing. We are polluting the world in more ways than one. Only reduction of consumption and waste via reduction in consumer population can make a difference. [quote]

:D:D:D

Unfortunately, that is the one fact no one wants to acknowledge. And is the root cause of so many other problems.

[LindbergB767]

Yes Sir
Overpopulation and religion
cut both and we will live in a peaceful and cleaner world

[aadil]

India joined the party with their airlines today.

[Carlosdw]

Corporate aviators are also hit hard by the ETS scheme. Operators are finding out that they are only receiving around 5% free allowances and are having to buy the other 95% for next April. The cost depending on the tonne price will run into tens of thousands of euros for some. Also, to receive the rubbish amount of allowances it is expected that Operators have to pay for two crb checks to gain access to the ETS trading system. How long will this madness continue ?

[BobnSpike]

It will last until everyone contributes everything to the State based on their ability and the State distributes everything to everyone based on their need.

[2EggOmelette]

Sorry Bobnspike, can you clarify that statement please:confused:

[BobnSpike]

I admit to a degree of hyperbole in that post. This one, too.

I do not have sufficient scientific background to comment on the validity of climate change.

I do have sufficient powers of observation to see the State(s) using climate change as a pretext to suck revenue from the private sector into the hands of the State, which, with its demonstrably impeccable decision making ability and altruistic motivation, alone is able to determine its proper distribution, or, more accurately: redistribution.

[ironbutt57]

In simple terms it's an EU boondoggle.....

[Heathrow Harry]

The problem with the current dispute is that the Chinese are hyper-sensitive about being "dictated to" by western countries

given their history you can see their point sometimes - Opium anyone?

[fireflybob]

Improve the health of nations and population growth will decrease massively within one generation. In 1971 women in Morroco had an average circa 8 children. Now that figure is about 2.5.

[keel beam]

A business opportunity for Boeing to sell their fuel efficient aircraft and improve USoA's exports. Perhaps Airbus should do the same and for Europe!

[koi]

Perhaps try and reduce journeys by air. Reduce the new business growth, get rid of the low cost operators who have introduced lower socio economic group travellers into the equation and return flying to what it was in the past. Restrain the business psychopaths-dominant males who lead us and wreak havoc. Control pilot entry levels and qualifications to a ' Royal College of Airline Pilots 'with peer group vetting. Flatten the 11 year cycle. Alas, all30 years too late. Good luck Koi

[ironbutt57]

The Indians figured it out.....:ok:

India bans its airlines from paying EU carbon tax - Yahoo!7 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/13249552/india-bans-its-airlines-from-paying-eu-carbon-tax/)

[BedakSrewet]

Not very smart to bite the hand that feeds you......:ugh:

[hillberg]

Any Tax is just another way to Screw things up . Carbon tax? Another rip off-It will never fix anything only harm everyone.

[LHLisa]

Fireflybob is correct that improving the health of poorer nations will have a positive impact, but improving the education available to girls in poorer nations is also very important. Of course health before education on the heirachy of needs. Education offering choices, and thereby empowering young girls is so important in all matters relating the health of the planet, and all of us on it. If women are unequal then their only role is to be mothers. Equality means better outcomes for men and women.

[porch monkey]

You're missing the essential point though. Most people don't mind paying taxes, as long as they perceive there is a value in it. If the amount raised went to dealing with so called climate change, it wouldn't be that much of an issue. But it won't be, it will be used for every other purpose but that. Just like most other taxes. Wealth redistribution by stealth. Nothing more.

[BobnSpike]

Porch Monkey's post is precisely correct, with the possible exception of the words "by stealth."

[LHLisa]

Well there is a lot of hoo ha over a tax that has not begun yet. I do know that the Scandinavian countries where taxes are very high have the lowest discrepency between the rich and poor, positive health outcomes for more people, better access to higher education etc. I also know that to a large extent most of our governments are run by big business behind the scenes. The miners, pharamaceuticals, transport. Can I ask people here to read Wayne Swans "manifesto" published in the monthly. I found it quite thought provoking. And for humour on world events but educational as well watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and the Colbert report. Big business usually seems to get what they want, but less so with the labour party than the libs. And certainly not with the greens.

[The SSK]

In Europe, as far as aviation is concerned, the Greens get just what they want - no new runways, more passenger taxes, an ETS so burdensome that the rest of the world can't stomach it.

[porch monkey]

You almost had me till you mentioned Wayne Swan, manifesto, and the workers friend, the Labour Party! Whatever you're smoking, I'll have some. Please refer back to my previous post, re wealth redistribution. You may not like it, but I work hard to make the money that I get. The fact that others make more, or they make less is of little concern to me. I do what I can to assist those less fortunate than myself. But I will choose who that is, not some filthy, lying, trough swilling politician. Regardless of the party they represent!

So, pray tell Lisa, how you rationalize the fact that this tax is applied to an aircraft, even though part or nearly all of it's journey doesn't even take place in the airspace of the EU?

Wealth redistribution by (not so) stealth, nothing more or less.

[The SSK]

Plenty of countries charge a sales tax on the price of a ticket from A to B, not on the price from A to a point where the flight crosses the border. That's pretty disgusting too, I guess.

[porch monkey]

True, but you can argue that it should be based in the country that the transaction takes place in. At least that is the general consensus. This isn't the same tho, is it........

[Hunter58]

@SSK

I am sure you can name a few such countries?

[caber]

If they want to call it a sales tax though, just call it a sales tax. Tell the traveling public "look, we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a debt jam, we're going to tax everything we can think of. This is even better because foreigners have to pay too!"

Just tell me that, don't hide behind some environmental nonsense when none of the money collected is earmarked for any environmental purpose.:rolleyes:

[2EggOmelette]

Seems like this nonsense will continue for some time. Mind you, it could be interesting to see the result of the EU China summit.

BBC News - UN body at centre of Emissions Trading Scheme storm (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17002462)