US shuts down EU Carbon Tax for US Airlines

[racedo]

Senate votes to shield U.S. airlines from EU's carbon scheme | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/22/us-usa-carbon-airlines-idUSBRE88L06C20120922)

(Reuters) - The Senate unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights, pressuring the European Union to back down from applying its emissions law to foreign carriers.
The European Commission has been enforcing its law since January to make all airlines take part in its Emissions Trading Scheme to combat global warming, prompting threats of a trade fight.



This should get interesting as China is playing exactly same ball game. EU will be forced to examine whether it wants to saddle EU airlines with billions in taxes when competition refuse to pay for these Voodoo taxes.


Sanity at last.

[Lyman]

Sanity at last.

We'll see, the US Senate? Democrats making sense? Pinch me, Ophelia, I am hallucinating.

[thepotato232]

It's a little early to declare a victory for sanity, I'm afraid. It's still got to get through the House of Representatives. Given that this is damn near the only bill in recent history with such strong bipartisan support, expect to see all manner of maddening riders and pet projects stapled onto it before it makes it's way to the president's desk.

[lomapaseo]

When will it reach Congress? before or after the election?

No matter when, if it becomes apparant that it is being ridden to destruction with riders etc. Than I have a long enough memory to make sure I vote against the rep sponsoring the rider.

I realize that we have voices in Wash pushing such riders for and against but if it is going to hurt avaition, I at least can cast my single vote when the time comes as long as I stay informed.

[Lyman]

Believe it or not, it is far more likely the Democrat Senate passed it knowing full well it will not survive the House, and conference committee report.

Obama will not sign, he has too much skin in the Carbon game. Europe is his "Base", not any American interest in Carbon relief.

Now if Romney wins, and the House stays Republican, the Senate Democrats are screwed; they have a minimum of two years to rehabilitate their reputation prior to the earliest re-election campaign.

[Earl]

As bad as both our economies are would it not be better to put this hug a tree effort on the back burner until things improve?
In reality who really cares how much emissions the planes put out.
It wont put food on your table or feed your family.
Now is not the time to be adding cost to anything.

[jcjeant]

As bad as both our economies are would it not be better to put this hug a tree effort on the back burner until things improve?
In reality who really cares how much emissions the planes put out.
It wont put food on your table or feed your family.
Now is not the time to be adding cost to anything. You do not understand
The important thing is not that your family can eat
The important thing is to save the planet ... no matter if your family starves
It is what thought the green commandos and other ecologist sects :ugh:

[Denti]

Carbon Emission certificates are traded like stocks. So just learn to read the market and of course they can put food on your table, and get you said table plus the villa which houses the dining room if you trade high volumes of those certificates.

Anyway, although that trading scheme is nonsense as long as it isn't done worldwide, the Europeans are hell bent on expanding it into aviation. In the end it will depend only on them chaining down planes of those airlines that do not participate. If they don't it will fall apart, if they do they can recover the costs that way. Personally I doubt it will happen, there are too many limp handshake persons in Europe.

[dusk2dawn]

So FedEx and UPS will be shutting down in Europa? :hmm:

[Lyman]

lomapaseo

"No matter when, if it becomes apparant that it is being ridden to destruction with riders etc. Than I have a long enough memory to make sure I vote against the rep sponsoring the rider."

I have been flooded with email from DC, they are terrified you might not vote for these politicians. Please reconsider...

[Keylime]

Carbon Emission certificates are traded like stocks. So just learn to read the market and of course they can put food on your table, and get you said table plus the villa which houses the dining room if you trade high volumes of those certificates.

Anyway, although that trading scheme is nonsense as long as it isn't done worldwide, the Europeans are hell bent on expanding it into aviation. In the end it will depend only on them chaining down planes of those airlines that do not participate. If they don't it will fall apart, if they do they can recover the costs that way. Personally I doubt it will happen, there are too many limp handshake persons in Europe.

One of the players in the carbon credits scheme is the "Inventor of the Internet", Al Gore. He is one of the principles in some carbon trading companies. There are some big players in this game.

[2EggOmelette]

Yep, some very big players involved in the carbon credit game.
And they are only getting richer.

[hetfield]

Well, a country which accepts massacres of innocent people year by year done by own citizens due to lax gun control will certainly not contribute to save our planet.

Lobbyism may be the answer.....

[Lyman]

Gratuitous. Gun Control? Tyrants fear weapons, as do those who are not tyrants.

You may want to trade one fear for another, but a tyrant without fear will scare the liver outof you, then he will put you in chains.

Maybe you can apply for the chains lined with upholstery....Since you obviously would help the tyrant remove weapons, you may get dispensation. Certainly at least leniency...

[tbaylx]

Well, a country which accepts massacres of innocent people year by year done by own citizens due to lax gun control will certainly not contribute to save our planet.

Lobbyism may be the answer.....

What does Syria have to do with any of this?? :hmm:

[Magh3]

Dont know about fedex but didnt ups bought tnt or dhl lately and wasnt fedex intersted in one of these outfits:confused:

anyhow the eu is putting its own carriers under pressure when the us india china etc dont play along is what my common sense tells me :rolleyes:

[Avitor]

The European Union aka the den of thieves in Brussels are a parasitic outfit. Never, under any circumstances, give them money. It's a pity the cowering suits in the British government do not implement that policy. :=

[jumbojet]

I guess if India, China & now the US are saying "No" to this scheme then ultimately it is dead in the water. It not logical when you only end up having an emission scheme for only your own carriers. But where is logic & the EU? Ref the Euro situation. Its a political project so they wont loose face over it. Not only in Asia is there a "face" issue. Its very strong in Brussels!!!

[Dannyboy39]

Avitor - A UKIP supporter by any chance? 2 million jobs in the UK would go overnight if we left the EU. And because we told the rest of the Commonwealth to sod off when we joined under Maggie, olive branches may not be forthcoming.

Europe and the US are too different markets. In Europe, aviation is perceived (wrongly) to be the single worst polluter, and the industry in general is tarnished because of it. Continual rises in APD; albeit this tax is just a money making scheme rather than environmentally motivated. My recent plane ticket to the US cost £250 outbound and only $25 inbound in taxes alone!

In the US, there is still deep mistrust and suspicion over climate change. With respect, the American people, in my opinion, don't realise how much damage 4x4s and antiquated aircraft, flying pointless routes are doing to the environment.

The aviation industry must embrace and admit climate change - for the sake of the worldwide industry. Fortunately Boeing, Airbus et al are developing technologies to vastly reduce their carbon footprint as well as investing in alternative energies. One of the few industries that will meet its carbon targets.

In my opinion, the EU ETS was doomed to failure from the beginning, as it just gave non-EU airlines a huge advantage. Doesn't mean regulators should give up completely on something like this - their intentions were good.

[Avitor]

Avitor - A UKIP supporter by any chance? 2 million jobs in the UK would go overnight if we left the EU. And because we told the rest of the Commonwealth to sod off when we joined under Maggie, olive branches may not be forthcoming.

Europe and the US are too different markets. In Europe, aviation is perceived (wrongly) to be the single worst polluter, and the industry in general is tarnished because of it. Continual rises in APD; albeit this tax is just a money making scheme rather than environmentally motivated. My recent plane ticket to the US cost £250 outbound and only $25 inbound in taxes alone!

In the US, there is still deep mistrust and suspicion over climate change. With respect, the American people, in my opinion, don't realise how much damage 4x4s and antiquated aircraft, flying pointless routes are doing to the environment.

The aviation industry must embrace and admit climate change - for the sake of the worldwide industry. Fortunately Boeing, Airbus et al are developing technologies to vastly reduce their carbon footprint as well as investing in alternative energies. One of the few industries that will meet its carbon targets.

In my opinion, the EU ETS was doomed to failure from the beginning, as it just gave non-EU airlines a huge advantage. Doesn't mean regulators should give up completely on something like this - their intentions were good.

Dream on, Danny Boy. :=

[Lyman]

"In the US, there is still deep mistrust and suspicion over climate change."

NO, there is not. Climate would not be climate if it was forever stable, we live in a dynamic system.

There is rejection of the usual suspects attempts to link it to Transportation, and a fat payday for criminals who are out on bail.

That is for another thread. To hobble a struggling industry with a skim off the top for well clad thieves is insane.

Though entirely predictable given the morality of the usual suspects.

[FERetd]

Ahh, Dannyboy, an EU scaremongerer!

Justify your statement "2 million jobs in the UK would go overnight if we left the EU."

If the U.K left the EU, I believe that trade agreements would be left in place, as a condition of becoming a member of the EU in the first place.

On the other hand the U.K. would save +/- £35 million (net) per day and we would be governed by our own elected representatives.

Then OUR government would decide on any ETS scheme.

Anyone for a "British Spring"?

[Lyman]

Whether in government or business, it is the rare case where consolidation and absorption benefit the client.

Eliminating one's own power over the immediate territory enriches the receiver, and ultimately bankrupts the donor.

The EU, if it were an honest endeavour, had a shot at some benefits for the citizens, though at great cost to their respective and local freedoms.

But the EU is corrupt, rotting from the inside. Good luck with that....

[GlueBall]

You do not understand
The important thing is not that your family can eat
The important thing is to save the planet ... no matter if your family starves

...the late George Carlin reflected that our planet has been around 4.5 billion years; been through multiple ice ages, climate changes, bombarded with asteroids, subjected to cataclysmic volcanoes, tectonic shifts, floods, fires, earthquakes, reversal of the poles; ...and you think that our internal combustion engines and gas turbines are a threat to this planet?

Did you know that when Mount St. Helen's had blown its top in 1980, that it had spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than that of all the world's automobiles from day one?

To be sure, the planet doesn't need us to "save itself." :ooh:

[retrosgone]

I am sorry - I am no tree hugger, but when total nonsense is spouted it sometimes has to be challenged. It is certainly true that volcanoes emit Co2, but all the world's volcanoes put together emit fewer "greenhouse" gases anually than does cement production - never mind other human activities including vehicle emissions.

Conservative estimates, based on real science (not wishful thinking) put mankind's Co2 emissions at over 100 times that from all geological events combined on an annual basis. I have no idea whether this is having a marked effect on our climate, but lets stick to facts please.

[2EggOmelette]

Whole heartedly agreed! Well said Sir. Then there Mount Pinatubo, and its 1991 eruption. More sulphur dioxide in one day than we as humans have released in the last 200 years. Can someone remind me when the Industrial revolution began?
Retrosgone, Dude, you went to school yes? Get your facts straight mate.

[Tom!]

Facts eh,
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)
While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. For example, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. While it has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions, this is a topic of scientific debate at present.

[2EggOmelette]

Yeah, debate because anyone with a geology degree will tell you that it is not Carbon Dioxide that is the danger, it is Sulphur Dioxide. Unfortunately, the truth as so often is pulled over our eyes in the quest for power and financial gain.

[Sciolistes]

We shouldn't get too hot under the collar on this one as it seems that the estimates come from papers that make gross assumptions about specific volcanic emissions from a very limited sample source. That being so, then as far as volcanic emission estimates are concerned, facts are arguably very thin on the ground. Unverified estimates aplenty though. :8

[le Pingouin]

Did you know that when Mount St. Helen's had blown its top in 1980, that it had spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than that of all the world's automobiles from day one?
Utter :mad:

St Helens contributed 0.1Gt in 1980. In 1980 the US alone contributed 4.7Gt total CO2 from burning fossil fuel and making cement.

20.8t per capita x 226.5million = 4.7Gt CO2

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | Data | Table (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?page=6)

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1981-02.pdf

Can't find figures for 1980, but for 1990 the US emitted 0.97Gt CO2 from "motor gasoline". Ten times the amount emitted by St Helens.

Table 10: EIA - Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U.S. 2008-Carbon Dioxide Emissions (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html)


To be sure, the planet doesn't need us to "save itself." :ooh:Absolutely. Just that your descendants likely won't enjoy the pleasant climate you do. The planet doesn't give a toss and can do very well without us.

The sad thing is that even though I've clearly demonstrated he is so very, very wrong he'll keep quoting such bull**** without questioning. That, my friends, is faith without reason.

[2EggOmelette]

As are human CO2 & SO2 estimates. Simple truth is, we have gone through many many changes in our atmosphere, and we will continue to do so. I am without doubt an advocate for change on our behalf. But to blame ourselves is foolhardy to the maximum. BBC just said that the northern Ice limit is the lowest since record. Records started 200 years ago. Yet we know that the north passage was open some 1500 years ago. What caused that? CO2 levels are known to have been toxic to humans during the Jurassic period. What caused that. I live near a mountain, it has sea bed fossils, excluding uplift - which we know the amount - was still several hundred feet higher that we are now. How high was the water level then?

[green granite]

Conservative estimates, based on real science (not wishful thinking) put mankind's Co2 emissions at over 100 times that from all geological events combined on an annual basis. I have no idea whether this is having a marked effect on our climate, but lets stick to facts please.

If we want facts, then according to the IPCC

"Humans produce about 6% of all CO2 emissions and just under 0.3% of all green house gas emissions"

[le Pingouin]

green granite, you need to look a little deeper than that. The 6% is annual and roughly 60% of that 6% stays in the atmosphere. Add that up year on year.....

H20 is the major greenhouse gas but it isn't a driver - the amount is dependent on atmospheric conditions driven by other greenhouse gases. It is removed from the atmosphere too rapidly to be a driver. Throw a lot more water in the atmosphere and it precipitates out rapidly. Throw more CO2 in the atmosphere and it takes on the order of 100 years to be removed.

More CO2 means more H2O means more warming. H2O amplifies the effect of other greenhouse gases, but doesn't drive things.

[racedo]

This thread was about US Govt refusing to allow EU carbon tax on US airlines.
The debate is now about climate change which is not related.

Think this needs to be JBed

[2EggOmelette]

Quite right. Back on subject. Will this affect Airbus's move to construct A320 in the USA?

[Luke SkyToddler]

I dont pretend to know enough about the science to argue on the internet about it, but I know with absolute certainty that if we're all going to burn then there's nothing the EU or anybody else can do about it. China, India, rest of the developing world don't even pretend to care. Arabs wish to encourage fossil fuels for obvious reasons. Americans say they care, but have no political will to change (and they still think a 3 litre V6 is a small car).

The only ones who are interested in change are the Europeans and some of their former colonies ie Australia and NZ, and even if they turned the lights out completely tomorrow in all those countries it would barely even slow down let alone stop the climate change apocalypse thing.

[Lyman]

It int about Carbon. It is about the fear of Carbon. Without Carbon, life stops, everywhere.

Not even the Carbon brokers spend their time propping up the 'science' any longer. This is about how the small circle of friends gets over on the rest of us.

And Chicken Little, or naked emperors, whatever fairy tale floats your boat.

Gore's ability to keep a straight face is un-matched. Anywhere.

This is getting embarrassing...

[GlueBall]

George Carlin - Saving the Planet - YouTube

[Sciolistes]

Pprune's Climate change debate is here (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/471031-climate-change-debate.html) (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/471031-climate-change-debate.html).

Believers be warned, best be prepared to be turned in to sceptics in pretty short order :E

[ECAM_Actions]

When will people realize that oil is a finite resource, and that "climate change" is a code word for "use less oil"?????

I hope the USA, China and India do boycott the ETS!!! It's a total scam! OK... so we pay billions in green taxes..... how the hell does that "save the planet"?

The 6% is annual
* yawn * 6% is 6%, whether it is anually or over 100 years. I see the dumbing down of the education system is working.

[cactusbusdrvr]

All this is about is another way for financial markets to make money for themselves. Golden Sacks and all the other players (Barclays) are just salivating at the prospect of running up artificial profits on the commodity of - thin air. Talk about money growing on trees, this is money floating through the atmosphere.

[le Pingouin]

* yawn * 6% is 6%, whether it is anually or over 100 years. I see the dumbing down of the education system is working.I take it you've never heard of compound interest? Don't they teach the 3Rs in Arizona?

[ECAM_Actions]

You quoted me, and I'm from the UK actually.

The quote was that we are responsible for 6% of the total release annually. There is no discussion of whether the total annual release or our 6% of that total annual release is changing or static, so your comment is inaccurate in the absence of additional information.

I suggest you forget the 3R's, and study mathematics/statistics instead.

[le Pingouin]

Apologies to Arizonans.

You selectively quoted me. The additional information was included - some 60% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere long term. You chose to ignore it.

[Throb@30wCPDLC]

I do hope that the US does stick 2 fingers up at Brussels and the leeches contained therein.I would like to think that the UK govt might just grow a pair and join in............oh my....was that a flight of 6 pigs I just saw fly by????:):)

[ECAM_Actions]

The additional information was included - some 60% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere long term. You chose to ignore it.The 6% figure was in relation to our little bit of the total *emitted* to the atmosphere every year from all sources. That some gets re-absorbed is irrelevant to the fact. All of it could be re-absorbed - it does not affect the fact that we are still only 6% of what is emitted on an annual basis.

Besides - the 6% shows what a load of baloney it is anyway. Then they worry about the 2% of 6% of some other figure causing "catastrophic climate change". I think what is really going on is a catastrophic failure by the general population of the planet to recognize the manipulation that is being perpetrated against them. :ugh:

If you want to really worry about the planet, go visit Fukushima and the North Pacific. I'm sure as hell not eating tuna from there! In case people forgot already, that is where no less than 4 nuclear reactors exploded, spewing radiation all over the planet, but largely into the Pacific Ocean. Interesting they didn't introduce an anti- radiation tax yet.... I can't imagine why not! :}

[FERetd]

Throb@30wCPDLC Quotes:-" I would like to think that the UK govt might just grow a pair and join in."

Can't see that happening, apart from the women the rest appear to be eunochs.


"...........oh my....was that a flight of 6 pigs I just saw fly by????http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif"

I'm afraid so and in tighter formation than the Red Arrows.

[Throb@30wCPDLC]

Sadly I think you are right....handwringing seems to be the preferred default position.....:ugh:

[Lyman]

Let me post again a poser from the past re: simple maths.

CO2 is expressed, for convenience' sake, as Parts per Million of mixed atmosphere.

That value is currently at around 380 ppm. This portion of the total atmosphere is rising, at 2ppm/year, or so it is said.

Once again, since the proportion of CO2 is increasing, what are some other components doing? Either the atmosphere can be measured that finely, or it cannot.

What other gas is losing ground? If that cannot be answered, then no attention can be wasted on CO2 alone. Is it Oxygen? Water? Nitrogen? Unimportant?

Once known, I would lke to see that poor gas get some attention, perhaps some massive grants, or at least a heads up to AlGore, Junior.

CO2, not only a pollutant, but a rude one, at that.

[Landroger]

As far as I am concerned, the whole question of global warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change - or whatever the current phrase to scare the troops is - is more or less a complete waste of media space. Until the elephant in the room is acknowledged. By someone, anyone.

The elephant is, of course, the uncontrolled, unregulated and virtually un-noticed rise in global population. The seven billionth person was born this year and we will make another billion in a handful of years. How much CO2 do a billion people expire every year?

Another billion people is an arrogance the planet simply cannot afford, a fact of which many, even most of our political and religious leaders are aware, but who refuse to even acknowledge the elephant. Let alone do something about it. Indeed, we have come so far that it may be beyond not only our Leaders political and spiritual, it may be beyond humanity itself.

I have been saying, for more than thirty years, that there is not a country, nor any nation in it, that would not ultimately benefit by having thirty percent fewer people. Actually the global number for sustainability is about two billion I believe so, we need to get rid of five billion people in the next few hundred years.

The answer is not, as some invariably suggest in these arguments, 'Logan's Run.' You simply cannot kill enough people for long enough. The only way is to reduce the number of new people. I am no mathematician so I cannot figure out if one child per couple or two children per couple is the right way to go, but unless and until we make a very big hole - right across all races and all religions - in the birthrate, then we are right royally skrewed.

The amount of CO2 my Land Rover produces is completely irrelevant.:ugh:

Roger. And I don't have a Trabant, check my user name for a good guess.

[FERetd]

Landroger Quote "The elephant is, of course, the uncontrolled, unregulated and virtually un-noticed rise in global population."

You are, of course, absolutely correct. But when is the elephant going to be tamed.

Nightly on our television screens are to be seen appeals from various aid organisations for money to provide clean water, mosquito nets, food, shelter etc. etc.

When did you ever see an appeal for a family planning or birth control scheme - never?

We are informed that 20,000 children die needlessly every day.

But how many are born needlessly every day?

The solution is simple, but who will act?

Standing by for the inevitable incoming human rights/PC response - which is also part of the problem.

[hetfield]

Every single hour, 24hrs a day, people (mostly US citizens) are shot (mostly by US Citizens) in their own country , due to strange gun control law.

Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?

Their lobbyism is, IMHO, without limits.

[FERetd]

Hetfield, you ask "Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?

The opening post of this thread stated that:-

"Senate votes to shield U.S. airlines from EU's carbon scheme | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/22/us-usa-carbon-airlines-idUSBRE88L06C20120922)"

So it would seem that regardless of who is shooting whom and where, the U.S. actually do care quite strongly about the scheme and are rejecting it (at the moment).

[gtf]

Arguing over whether the Senate made the right call based on the soundness of the science behind ETS denotes a complete misunderstanding of the politics behind the vote...
One of the two main sponsors hasn't met a tax he likes, let alone a foreign tax!
The other is a Democrat, until recently in a losing battle to win re-election next month against a very conservative Republican. What better way to enhance your patriotic standing against a Republican than to sponsor a law opposing something foreign?

As for the rest of the Senators, pick your poison:
-Some are up for re-election. Who in their right mind would take that opportunity to support a tax that doesn't even benefit a campaign donor or two?
-We're God's gift to man-kind (the white Christian God of course), the world's super power, we're better than everyone else, we give orders, we don't take lessons from foreigners. USA #1. Europe? Bunch of lazy welfare-addicted do-nothing tax-and-spend Communists, sorry Socialists. Best to oppose anything they come up with to reinforce our sense of superiority, even if it is the best thing since sliced bread. After all, no one's ever won an election by saying someone else might have a better idea...
-The ETS has no valuable constituency in the US (green-minded voters will vote for the Democrats no matter what because, seriously, what's the alternative). So why go on a limb and stand in favor? Taking a risk for nothing? What politician does that?

And science in all of this? Please! Where do you think you are? Europe?!? Since when do scientists have a say?

[stuckgear]

Every single hour, 24hrs a day, people (mostly US citizens) are shot (mostly by US Citizens) in their own country , due to strange gun control law.

Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?



WTF ??


Back to the thread..


Can anyone, anyone at all provide any empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change ?

No ?

Then why is this industry (and others) being damaged by punitive actions over a falsehood.

I support the US 100% in this.

[Road_Hog]

"Can anyone, anyone at all provide any empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change?" Nope, and one of the main places over here (England) that is over the voice of global warming, the University of East Anglia, has been caught out lying and falsifying the data. Carbon credits are just a way of transferring the wealth from the public to the elites and corporations, under the guise of saving the planet.

[hetfield]

@stuckgear

I feel sorry, if US Citizens kill eachother day by day.
But that's not my business.

Global warming affects me and my children and the US are, like others, responsible.

IT'S NOT YOUR PLANET!

[con-pilot]

IT'S NOT YOUR PLANET!


Neither is it yours.

[hetfield]

@con-pilot

With that kind of attitude/arrogance this global problem will definitlely not be solved.

Take a look who, behind China, is the worst air poluter!!!

Like I said, feel free to kill yourself, but not me.

[Lyman]

Be wary of "global problems" hetfield. Especially the passionate ones. These are generally the class of "issue" that has an agenda behind it that does not serve the people.

Something that gets my attention is the struggle with hunger, disease, and oppression, not to mention political tyranny and genocide.

If one thinks for a simple minute, and takes an objective and longish view, there are things we should be doing that we are not.

The Planet is warming? Worth a look? Certainly, but realize that we have disaster in our laps, and should be addressing these, prior to increasing harvests, improved comfort in the upper latitudes, etyc, if these even arrive in the next hundred years.

Hysteria is an unacceptable replacement for resolve.

Be Well.

[con-pilot]

hetfield, you are aware of course that there are many European manufactured vehicles that can be bought and used in the UK and Europe, that are not allowed to be sold in the US, because they cannot met the US's emission standards.

Germany is building more coal fired power plants, in the US we are shutting coal fired power plants down.

AGW is a complete fraud. If the climate is warming, man has sod all to do with it. Even so, the so-called pollutants from aircraft is minuscule.

This carbon tax is just an excuse for demanding tax monies for the EU, has nothing to do with saving the planet.

Besides that, the EU has no right what so ever to demand a tax for anything outside its airspace. If they want to tax me for flying in EU airspace, nothing I can do about that. But don't charge me a tax when I'm not in EU airspace.

[Lyman]

I take issue with EU claiming money anywhere. It is an alliance, and as such has no mercantile rights of its own. If some countries want to affiliate, that is fine, but to arrogate a legal authority to play highwayman to the world's economy is odious.

I do not wish ill for anyone, but I would like to point out that some "constructions" do not serve those they rule.

[Dannyboy39]

Anyone who believes the planet isn't warming are sticking their heads in the sand.

And almost all the time, the people that don't believe it, it won't affect directly. Anyone seen a significant increase in natural hazards/disasters in recent years? Flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, snowfall etc.

Oh no, its in poorer nations people don't care about! The Maldives for example will not exist in a few decades time because they'll be under water. Why? Because of climate change!

[con-pilot]

Because of climate change!

The climate is changing, the climate has always changed and always will. When it is time to worry about the climate, is when it stops changing.

But the EU charging a so-called carbon tax on aircraft flying to and from Europe, for the entire route incluidng outside of the EU's airspace, is just a scam for money.

Nothing more and nothing less. As I posted before, it has sod all to do with climate change.

[stuckgear]

I feel sorry, if US Citizens kill eachother day by day.


as do citizens of every nation on this planet.

But that's not my business.


so why then are you making it your business and trying to make an agenda out of it, which is completely disconnected from the thread subject ?

Global warming affects me and my children and the US are, like others, responsible.


For millenia, the planet has continually warmed and cooled. a couple of thousand years ago (30ish) there was an ice sheet over a kilometer deep that spread from the northern pole to southern midwest of the USA. it's retreat was toss all to do with aircraft.

the US is not responsible for trajectory of the planet though space, or perhaps you would feel more comfortable blaming GWB for that?

I offered the opportunity to provide empirical evidence for CO2 causing global warming and you respond with hysterics.

so,

Show empircal evidence that CO2 causes global warming.

i will give you a heads up here.. there is none.

There is factored and manipulated data to support a theory that CO2 causes global warming, but there is no evidence.

anyone could cite a theory that your backside emits watermelons and provide factored and manipulted data to support that theory, but it does not make it fact.

then,

provide evidence that global warming in fact exists and is human driven.. again see above, there is no data to support this, there is factored and manipulated data to support the theory that it happens but there is no evidence. and historically, we know that the climate has gone through huge changes, both warmer and colder, before mankind existed, so explain that.


IT'S NOT YOUR PLANET!

neither is it yours, but it my tax money that is being spent on unicorns.

let me give you this little quote to digest:

The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

Edenhofer, by the way, when that statement was made, was the Co-Chair of the IPCC Working Group.

[Lyman]

Precisely so, stuckgear. The entire kerfuffel is a device. The goal is primacy in the governance of the Planet. "Redistribution".

Resources are always distributed, that is the nature of humankind. Controlling the means of distribution is also part of the psyche of man...

There has not been a category three or higher Hurricane to hit the US landmass since 2005, a time period unique in the historical record.

As the Planet is currently losing (shedding) energy, the cooling that is measurable lessens these energetic events.

A cold Planet is quiet, weatherwise. There is nothing more quiet (save the wind) than Drought...

Look for "Climate Change" to shift to "Cooling" in a short calculated time.

This will require an about face in the handling of Carbon credits, of course.

Possible? Inevitable.

Whether the Planet warms, or cools, the Carbonistas cannot lose, they collect the handle, the vigorish, either way.

Bookies never lose, ever.

If only Gore can be patient, he will have a big pay day, WARM, or COLD.

That is the goal, to monetize CARBON.

I think Gore et al are working on AIR.

[Dannyboy39]

But the EU charging a so-called carbon tax on aircraft flying to and from Europe, for the entire route incluidng outside of the EU's airspace, is just a scam for money.
How is flying to/from Europe, the entire route outside the EU?

[Lyman]

Dannyboy...

Did you check your logic at the door?

[stuckgear]

Anyone who believes the planet isn't warming are sticking their heads in the sand.

And almost all the time, the people that don't believe it, it won't affect directly. Anyone seen a significant increase in natural hazards/disasters in recent years? Flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, snowfall etc.

Oh no, its in poorer nations people don't care about! The Maldives for example will not exist in a few decades time because they'll be under water. Why? Because of climate change!


well, hang on.. is it warming or cooling ?


And if it is warming or cooling, why is that human activity and not the natural climate cycles of this planet ?

There is NO, Zero, Zip, Zilch emperical evidence that the planet is indeed warming or that it is driven by human activity.

If *YOU* want to be concerned about environment, rather than running around in hysteria shouting about global warming, why not actually stand up for the decimation of rainforest and the loss of Orangutan habitat, which are being cleared on a huge industrial scale to provide.... errm... eco-friendly [sic] bio-fuel plantations for EU destined bio-fuels which are mandated by EU law to be used incrementally over the coming years.

Or is that little fact too much for a brain to get around ?


No, there has not been a huge increase in natural hazards / disasters over recent years. There has only been an increase of the ability of news outlets to present the events to the public. Not even a couple of decades ago, a natural disaster could have taken days to be in the media, today it can be shown live.


as posted by Green Granite elsewhere:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.png

As you can see, the temperature variation anomolies were greater in 1850 than today.

Besides, the EU-ETS will not change one bloody thing in terms of climate and temperature.

Ands as for your hissy fit about the Maldives:

It's B/S about rising tide, if anything, it's geological movement that is the biggest threat to the Maldives.

So here. fill yer boots... or waders...

Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/)

The Maldives are sinking – and we aren’t talking about sea level | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/the-maldives-is-sinking-and-we-arent-talking-about-sea-level/)

The Maldives Emily Littella sea level moment – never mind… | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/the-maldives-emily-littella-moment-never-mind/)

And yet again, the EU-ETS is not only punitive to the industry, it will have no effect on climate, and as posted previously the EU policies on climate is actually damaging to the environment. (see growth of biofuel plantations and damage to the environment.)

EU biofuel mandates could cost every adult about €30 each year by 2020. In 2008, about €3 billion were spent in tax exemptions yes, that's tax exemptions..

European biofuel mandates are unlikely to deliver a significant reduction and could even increase greenhouse gas emissions

The EU has approved a binding biofuels mandate of 10% by 2020

It has calculated that the land required to meet these mandates for biofuels for European cars for one year could feed 127 million people


Orang-utans home destroyed for bio-diesel - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3303280/Orang-utans-home-destroyed-for-bio-diesel.html)

Biofuel boom endangers orangutan habitat (http://www.orangutans.com.au/Orangutans-Survival-Information/Biofuel-boom-endangers-orangutan-habitat.aspx)
So please don't give me all this AGW save the planet garbage, all you are doing is toeing the line of the vested interests with their own agendas that serve to sacrifice this industry on the altar of climate change while ignoring that the very policies its spouts are damaging to environment directly and not by any factored or manipulted data to support an unproven theory but by FACT.

AGW is bunkum and belongs with Chemtrails and the EU-ETS is a fraud.

[uffington sb]

Dannyboy.

Just to make it simple for you.
If say I'm flying from LAX to CDG, I'm flying to Europe, but if I'm flying
from CDG to LAX, I'm flying from Europe.
Simples

[hellsbrink]

@con-pilot

With that kind of attitude/arrogance this global problem will definitlely not be solved.

Take a look who, behind China, is the worst air poluter!!!

Like I said, feel free to kill yourself, but not me.

More absolute pig ignorance from someone who has no idea.

I suggest you look at the stats for "carbon dioxide pollution" PER CAPITA and realise how low the US really is. Yes, Australia is actually worse than the US, and huggy-fluff "look at all our wonderful wind power" Denmark is FAR worse than China. When we move to "greenhouse gases" as a whole, the situation is the same, Australia is a worse polluter than the USA and huggy-fluff Denmark is FAR worse than China.

So look at who is actually polluting the most before you spout off more nonsense, look at which population is burning the most fuel per capita, then come back to us in the thread for this subject in JB. And expect your anti-american wittering to be treated with the "respect" it deserves if you do find the nerve to join the discussion there.

[con-pilot]

How is flying to/from Europe, the entire route outside the EU?

If I leave OKC in my Falcon 900EX and go non-stop to London, I would be charged for the entire route, not just the small portion of the route I would be in EU airspace.

That is complete nonsense, to be charged for the entire route, not just the time I spent in EU airspace. Shouldn't really be charged at all for this carbon fraud, in or out of EU airspace.

Fortunately now, it looks like Congress agrees. If President Obama will sign the bill, I don't know. But at least it is a step in the right direction, as not to be held hostage by the EU.

[hetfield]

And expect your anti-american wittering to be treated with the "respect" it deserves if you do find the nerve to join the discussion there. It's completely up to you, to reflect what the US left behind in Vietnam, Korea, Irak, not to mention Afghanistan and not to forget, in your own country (Gun control).

Take a look to your Citizens, US Victims of mentioned threads. Take a look to all the post Vietnam victims, all the suicides within your glorios armed forces.

Relax, think about it and try to be honest....

[ShedsRus]

As has been said carbon credits are traded like stocks - in other words they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

The way this is set up it is just a revenue stream burdening everybody with a tax which once in the <exchange> generates profits for the few and misery for the rest.

Pyramid selling and Ponsi schemes are illegal yet here comes another <legitimate?> scheme from those non elected gravy train riders in Europe.

The farce continues while, as usual, the supine Brits lie there and think of England while being shafted yet again.

More power to the US, China, and any one else with the balls to stick two fingers to these people.

[stuckgear]

so hetfield, you are basing your anti-US rhetoric on EU-ETS not by dint of climatology but on:

Vietnam, Korea, Irak, not to mention Afghanistan and not to forget, in your own country (Gun control).

open forum question:
there's a word i am thinking of.. can anyone help me out with that ?

[hetfield]

More power to the US, China,Oh yeah, they will, for sure, save our planet:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

But interesting, to see the US along with China......

[stuckgear]

The farce continues while, as usual, the supine Brits lie there and think of England while being shafted yet again.

More power to the US, China, and any one else with the balls to stick two fingers to these people.

i take issue with that, rather lie back and think of england, it's more a case of face down, biting the pillow.

though i do agree with the US, China, Russia, India, Brasil, most of the S. and C. American states, as well as other challenging this farce.

[stuckgear]

Oh yeah, they will, for sure, save our planet:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:



yet, you succinctly ignore the facts.

one would consider that as much ':ugh:' you do, it wont knock any sense in, or drive out those murrican deamons.

[con-pilot]

Oh yeah, they will, for sure, save our planet



These carbon taxes have nothing to do with saving a planet, especially one that needs not saving from CO2.

So, let me ask you a couple or so questions.

Just how is the EU going to use this ransom money to "save" the planet?

What are they going to use it for except to line the EU's pockets?

Is there a machine that the EU can buy with this money to "save the planet"?

So tell us just what for this money will be used?

Take your time, I'll wait.

[hetfield]

@con-pilot

Please tell me what the US are doing about climate change, except to point their fingers on the rest of the world.

It's all about money. People who are much more clever than I am, and maybe more than you, know about it. Don't step into the Lobbyism trap.

I hope, you, your belovest, your kids will never ever become a victim of US Lobbyism.

[stuckgear]

Don't step into the Lobbyism trap.



says the Ponzi scheme lobbyist.

i asked you to provide empirical evidence of global warming.

and for empirical evidence that it is driven by CO2.

and for empirical evidence that it is human driven.

pick one, more than one, or all three.



if you cannot, then you are spouting nothing more than, well, hot air, along with your anti-US rhetoric.

[hetfield]

anti-US rhetoric. If you have the chance, e.g. if you fly long range (outside US) , switch on the local TV , open your ears, open your eyes and you will learn a lot.

If you want to.....

[stuckgear]

If you have the chance, e.g. if you fly long range (outside US) , switch on the local TV , open your ears, open your eyes and you will learn a lot.

If you want to.....

ahhh so in a few short posts we can determine that the font of all knowledge, the oracle, has nothing to support his lobbyist agenda...

The EU-ETS is a unicorn tax.

[hetfield]

I'm afraid your gear is stucked.

[stuckgear]

oh brilliant !

an alias lame.. that's about a half a step up from yo' momma...


shame you cant provide empirical evidence of global warming.

or empirical evidence that it is driven by CO2.

or empirical evidence that it is human driven.



anything... something.... to support your unicorn tax..

No?


oh come on, you're so fervent in your 'beliefs', you must have something credible ?


No ?

[Solar]

Don't know if your gear is stuck but seems to be stuck in the right place.
Con I doubt you have enough time for a sensible response from that source.

[con-pilot]

Con I doubt you have enough time for a sensible response from that source.

Yes, I've written him/her off. Anytime someone like that refuses to answer questions, but only asks questions in return, no sense wasting time on them.

This says it all.

switch on the local TV

:rolleyes:

[Landroger]

Guys, guys - play nice. You've all forgotten again. It's all about the people - too many bleedin' people. Billions and billions of the blighters, all breeding at just about maximum smoke and no-one - not the greens, not the economists, not the politicians, not the clergy, certainly not the clergy, of any water - none of em', want to breathe a word about there being too many people.

Fix that and you fix AGW - and a lot of other ills too.

[Nemrytter]

Christ, this is even worse than the thread in jet blast. Congrats!:D

[Earl]

Yep. lets all pay this tax,Europe economy is not getting better nor here in the USA.
Give the stock market more money on this trading one, what a joke.
Just Changed the oil in both Harleys today, the old thinking about putting it where i dont want the grass to grow. like we did years ago and the economy was good and no problems then.
Sorry I wont be hugging a tree just to make some rich.
But I do save money on roundup grass killer by doing it this way.

[Stick35]

:( i'm ashamed to be a european citizen. Wondering what the effect will be of this tax. Embargo against europe?? I advice all non european companies: do not bend and do not pay!!

[stuckgear]

the danger is stick35 is that the EUrocrats will, under their hubris, start a trade war between the EU and pretty much the rest of the world, a trade war it simply cannot win and even entering will be far more damaging to not only this industry, but to every single person in the EU, that it will be for anyone else outside the EU. Under the currect EU debt crisis much less than a trade war, but a trade vibration could cause significant problems.

the EU-ETS is stupidity and hubris on a grand scale.

[hetfield]

China and the US, ehrrrm...

Countries with the highest CO2 emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions per year (10.000.000 Tons, 2006), Percentage of global total Avg. emission per Km2 of its land (Tons)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) 6,103 21.5% 636
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) 5,752 20.2% 597
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) 1,564 5.5% 91
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg/22px-Flag_of_India.svg.png India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) 1,510 5.3% 459
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) 1,293 4.6% 3421
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg/22px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) 805 2.8% 2254
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) 568 2.0% 2338
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Canada.svg.png Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) 544 1.9% 54
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea) 475 1.7% 4758
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/22px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) 474 1.7% 1573

Air pollution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#Carbon_dioxide_emissions)

[stuckgear]

And despite repeated requests to support your hysteria you still cannot provide:

empirical evidence of global warming.

or empirical evidence that it is driven by CO2.

or empirical evidence that it is human driven.


i'll tell you why hetfield, because there is NONE.


So you shriek and get all hysterical, citing even the US actions in Vietnam and Korea as some kind of justification for the EU-ETS.


It really is telling when those who rail against 'big business', 'the 1%' and other conspiro-whacko themes cannot provide any one single piece of evidence to support a huge ponzi scheme of nothing but 'trading paper'.


so are you going to put up or shut up ?

Provide some empircal evidence......




just one piece..


go on..



just one little piece...



No ?

[hetfield]

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:


"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unequivocal)."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#cite_note-8)
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment) greenhouse gas concentrations."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#cite_note-9)

Very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment" are over 90% and over 66%, respectivelyIPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Working_Group_I:_The_Physical_ Science_Basis)

[Lyman]

Now show the exact rise in that period, insert the six percent quantity involved, and explain why IPCC don't...

[FERetd]

Hetfield.

FYI

Wikipedia (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wikipedia&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.org%2F&ei=QqNtUNfBM4nM0QX7toDwCA&usg=AFQjCNFuj8ugo50KqSwBLuIaoXbjnnIuiw)

www.wikipedia.org/ (http://www.wikipedia.org/)
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Note:- "that anyone can edit"

[Lyman]

4IPCC was a fairy tale prior to exposure on Wiki....

Hetfield, do you even know the actual number?

[hetfield]

I know, the US have a problem when it comes to wiki....

[green granite]

I know, the US have a problem when it comes to wiki....

With good reason hetfield

The RealClimate.org team consisted of Schmidt, Mike Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Ray Bradley, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad and Caspar Ammann.

Solomon revealed that Connolley, one man in the nine-member team who is a U.K. scientist, a software engineer and Green Party activist, took control of Wikipedia’s entries to see that any trace of the true climate history would be erased.

Beginning in February 2003, Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart.

“He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band,” Solomon explains. “Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.”

Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.

“When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand,” Solomon wrote. “When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.”

[stuckgear]

hetfield

i sincerely appreciate your attempt.

however,

1. Re: the IPCC fourth assessment which you state as unequivocal.

Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html) of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all.

* my bold and underline
and

2. You cite a wiki statement that says 'very likely'. very likely is not unequivocal, nor is emprical.


All you have done is quote Wikipedia.

AGW is a theory. It is not proven as fact, there is no unmolested data to support that theory. it is simply that, a theory.


There is NO data produced that demonstrates that CO2 is a driver of climate change, it is a theory and there is NO uolested data to support that theory.


Again, the EU-ETS is paper trading based on a theory that there is no data to support. You want to see what EU wide theories result in, against professional advice ? Look at the Eurozone situation and the EUrozone debt, that was a result of trading paper based on theory.

So, what data is there to support the EU-ETS in any basis ?

[Lyman]

I think Connelly was banned temporarily from Wiki?

Soon/Ballunas' work got me interested in the entire discussion. I got banned from RealClimate, my claim to credibility, eh?

[hetfield]

@green granite

Well, for sure the truth lies solely with the US weapon industry (gun control), Boeing and the US airlines, as well as other polluters, and the defense departement with their "friend" Assange. No lobbyism at all.....

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Please, kill yourself (if you want to), pollute yourself, but stay away from the rest of the world.

[Lyman]

hetfield....

The Global Mean differential? Have you forgotten? Because the IPCC uses

"scenarios" that START with a figure three times that of the actual GMT.

Are you done? Sad......

Because the IPCC, in using "scenarios" are "extrapolating".

Extrapolation, thy name is Hockey Stick.

No tax, please.

[stuckgear]

So again, hetfield, when your cites are shown to be fooey, you resort back to anti-US rhetoric.

:confused:

WTF does the weapons industry, assange, or the USDoD have to do with the EU-ETS trading paper scheme ?

:confused:

Nothing, you are trying to throw a diversion into some anti US belch fest because you have, well, nothing...

:suspect:

[hetfield]

@stuckgear

Lobbyism

[Lyman]

Yes, no doubt, IPCC.

[stuckgear]

hetfield..

what are you smoking ?

Anyone who meets with their MP as a constituent is lobbying.

in the US, industry lobby both state and federal government, as in the EU industry lobbies both local government, national government and the EU.

lobbying itself is part of democracy. you have a company that is being damaged by a peice of ill thought out policy, you lobby for changes and provide supporting data for the basis of your cause.

you cite lobbying, for some unknown reason, yet the IPCC lobbies hard, very hard, for industry that sucks on the taxpayers teat, which without state funding would not be economically viable.

yet there is succinct difference, there is no data to support the cause that is being lobbied for, and so they lobby for funding to find cause for their lobbying and create and manipulate data to support the lobbying for funding for more lobbying...

the whole multi billion dollar industry of climate is the result on one single factor... lobbying.

the EU-ETS itself is the result of lobbying.

oh i get it..youre a conspiro-whacko ! that's wandered away from the chemtrail forums, perhaps looking for some aviation based evidence.

[green granite]

hetfield the use of the 'at sign' is both unnecessary and pretentious.

However moving on from that, what on earth has posting an article about the abuse of wiki by one of it's editors got to do with:

Well, for sure the truth lies solely with the US weapon industry (gun control), Boeing and the US airlines, as well as other polluters, and the defense departement with their "friend" Assange. No lobbyism at all.

Or is it your way of dealing with being wrong?

[hetfield]

hetfield..

what are you smoking ?Nothing. I never did and I never will..

oh i get it..youre a conspiro-whacko ! that's wandered away from the chemtrail forums, perhaps looking for some aviation based evidence. Sorry, you are wrong:).

I used to fly for a major EU carrier for over 30 years. Half of the time as commander. And yes, maybe I didn't have the guts to speak out like now.

But now I have children, grandchildren and I'm retired. Along with the day by day duties of my job I always had a look to the social and ecological aspects of it. This will not come to an end, I hope:).

We ALL have social and ecological responsibility 'cause we will leave somewhat behind, soon.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune." Is IMHO the wrong approach....

[stuckgear]

maybe I didn't have the guts to speak out like now

sorry ? speak out against what ? so because you have some form of guilt complex you channel that into anti-us rhetoric and support for a ponzi scheme of trading paper at a billion dollar level?

i fail to see the relevence


We ALL have social and ecological responsibility

yes, we do. yet the EU policies (see my previous postings) are detrimental to ecology and ecological responsibility.

Again the EU-ETS is nothing to do with ecology but a fallacy of trading paper at the expense of the industry and to the detriment of economics.

But now I have children, grandchildren and I'm retired.

Bully for you.

I'm not retired, i have a number of working years left, despite the years i have in this industry. my wife and I would like to start a family and i'd like to see my future family have some basis of an economic future, rather than experience the punitive actions taken against this industry under falsehoods, lies and deceit that only damage the economic viability of this industry.

EU economic policies have proved disasterous and such ponzi schemes as the EU-ETS will only further compound that damage and cause detriment to not only the avaition industry but other industries too, making financial futures for all look completely untenable.


While you may have some guilt issues about your past, that's for you to deal with, get therapy, dont try for absolution of your personal guilt by supporting the destruction of others peoples futures.

The EU-ETS is NOTHING to do with ecology, it is a financial instrument of trading nothing for billions at the cost to industry.

[hetfield]

@stuck

I feel sorry you got so personally...

One day you will understand, I'm 100% sure.

Good luck:ok:

-no more comments from my side-

[green granite]

hetfield, I'm still waiting an explanation for your extraordinary attack on me.

[ECAM_Actions]

Forget for a moment the fradulent science thrown around by the IPCC saying we're doomed - how does paying a carbon tax REVERSE the apparent problem?

A poster on page 3 stated that CO2 is a pollutant. INCORRECT. CO2 is a BASIC REQUIREMENT OF LIFE.

In enough concentration, O2 will kill you. It is not considered a pollutant, but a requirement for life.

Also, it has been more than adequately demonstrated that with increases in CO2, there is a WIDER DIVERSITY OF LIFE. THE BIOSPHERE BENEFITS FROM IT.

Did you know that with the predicted future warming, they predict an INCREASE IN FOOD OUTPUT OF 20%???? All this at a time when they claim we have insufficient food for the planet, it is kindly giving us a 1/5 TH INCREASE. Farm land that is currently unusable for farming will be warm enough to grow MORE FOOD.

Those that defend MMGW are either fools, or in it for the money (Al Gore).

On a final note, staunch defenders of the MMGW religion should read this: Dihydrogen monoxide hoax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax) :}

[Intruder]

Or we can look at it another way...

IF the greenhouse theorists are correct, then I would ask how much reduction of CO2 output is required to reverse global warming? My gut feel is that the amount of reduction required by their theory is well above any threshold we as a civilization are willing to accept.

The reasons are simple: The amount of CO2 reduction to satisfy the greenhouse theorists is significant enough to require a decrease in the world population -- NOT simply a decrease in the rate of growth. This is unacceptable economically, as the world economy is currently reliant on continuing growth to survive.

So, any CO2 tax or carbon offset scheme is ONLY another government-imposed revenue stream that will ONLY temporarily benefit government treasuries and/or a relatively few investors who already have too much money to throw around.

So, I suppose, the only remaining question is which will come first: the collapse of the world economy or the collapse of our ecosystem. I suspect the former, and by a significant margin...

[stuckgear]

just as aside to that ECAM actions, those tomato growing 'sheds' that many people will see climbing into and out of airports around the globe, use, to promote the growth of the plants..... CO2 generators.

oh and by the way CO2 generators, used in industrial scale agriculture are not subject to tax carbon tax as polluters.

[shamrock83]

So airlines are fighting for there lives and are being made to pay extra for
carbon taxes.

But for what it does not seem to make a blind bit of difference. have a read

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

[stuckgear]

yep, been through it here:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/496193-us-shuts-down-eu-carbon-tax-us-airlines.html

and a few other threads too..

[Airstripflyer]

The author of the Mail online article,David Rose, obviously knows nothing about power stations since the caption to the picture of the cooling towers states "smoke billowing out of a power station"! More misinformation on the subject.

[green granite]

The author of the Mail online article,David Rose, obviously knows nothing about power stations since the caption to the picture of the cooling towers states "smoke billowing out of a power station"! More misinformation on the subject

Airstripflyer, if you study the picture carefully you can just see the plumes of smoke from the two chimneys, so technically he's right. The fact that most people know that it's steam coming from the cooling towers is a lack of education. But I know what you're saying.

[AviatorDave]

Those whole green, carbon, environment blah taxes and deductions are just nonsense.
It's entirely driven by ideology and by governments wanting to draw even more money from people for the sake of allegedly saving the world.

Most "scientific" reports and statistics concerning global warming and the impact of carbon dioxide are highly biased and usually compiled by a certain bunch of scientists which are known to ideologically support the politically desired outcome of climatological investigations.

Businesses are trying to jump onto the climate bandwaggon and make money from it.

It's all about money and forcing a certain way of thinking upon people.

[Lyman]

The Gold/Carbon standards.

Gold is rare. Carbon is plentiful. How do we monetize a sooty dirty life supporting and ubiquitous Element? By artificially controlling its uses.

People everywhere utilize Carbon, from wood fireplaces, to jet travel.

If one could only capture and control the use of such ubiquitous matter?

By pretending that it is harmful. If I can convince you that air is life shortening (people have), I can sell you your air. If I can convince you that water is rare, I can sell it to you at enormous profit.

And sit back in the leather recliner, and count my homes, while planning a trip to a conference where my fellow thieves congregate, to swap jokes and stories about the stupid sheep who have signed up for my products.

"Hey you, I think you are using too much air, you owe me taxes for your wasteful breathing....."

My name is Al, and I did not approve this message....

[Dannyboy39]

I would definitely take anything published by the Daily Hate Mail with a pinch of salt.

[stuckgear]

I would definitely take anything published by the Daily Hate Mail with a pinch of salt.


indeed the the Daily Fail reporting is a tad 'lacking' however the mail didn't create the data, they are reporting on the data which is:

"... regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit."

[green granite]

I would definitely take anything published by the Daily Hate Mail with a pinch of salt.

Then why not go off and check whether the data is correct or not, or is that too difficult? Or are you worried that you might find it's true thus destroying cherished beliefs?

[lomapaseo]

Then why not go off and check whether the data is correct or not, or is that too difficult? Or are you worried that you might find it's true thus destroying cherished beliefs?

a trifle harsh

he didn't say they lied, all he said was he didn't trust them based on his past experiences.

I'm happy to read both positive experiences as well as negative before my judgements in this case. :)

[green granite]

a trifle harsh

True, but it's apathy like that which has got us into this state of affairs, it's not until you start digging into things that you realise what a mess climate science has got itself into and how politicised it's become.

[green granite]

At last sense has prevailed well sort of.

From the BBC:

EU suspends aircraft emissions trading rules

The European Union has agreed to suspend its rules that require airlines flying to and from airports in the EU to pay for their carbon emissions.

The rules had been unpopular with countries outside Europe such as the US, China and India.

Climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said she had proposed "stopping the clock for one year".

She said the suspension was due to progress being made in negotiations on a global emissions deal.

But she added that if the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) did not make progress towards a global deal by this time next year the European tax would be reintroduced.


BBC News - EU suspends aircraft emissions trading rules (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20299388)