CO2 hysteria to raise airfare costs to Europe
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF 3000
I haven't looked much at the issue and this is just pure speculation but I would except should our tax get through I imagine that the EU tax would still stand unless there was a treaty signed with Australia by the EU countries. After all they are not getting their money.
I haven't looked much at the issue and this is just pure speculation but I would except should our tax get through I imagine that the EU tax would still stand unless there was a treaty signed with Australia by the EU countries. After all they are not getting their money.
Thread Starter
It gets worse...
"Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young floated a $100 tax..."
Looking again at the Financial Review figures -
Qantas’s total carbon emissions in financial 2010 were 11.7 million tonnes.
At a carbon price of between $20 and $25 a tonne...is likely this equates to an annual hit to profit before tax in the range of $100 million.
Hmmm.... If Sarah Hansen-Young had her way Qantas would be up fer somewhere around $500 million ....Half a billion dollars !..
Lets not ferget though - "THE Gillard Government has confirmed there will be a "steady increase" in its carbon tax every year..."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/carbon-tax-to-increase-every-year-gillard-government-confirms/story-e6frf7jo-1226057839496
Edit to add - The above news paper report title has been changed since i put the link - interesting..
.
"Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young floated a $100 tax..."
Looking again at the Financial Review figures -
Qantas’s total carbon emissions in financial 2010 were 11.7 million tonnes.
At a carbon price of between $20 and $25 a tonne...is likely this equates to an annual hit to profit before tax in the range of $100 million.
Hmmm.... If Sarah Hansen-Young had her way Qantas would be up fer somewhere around $500 million ....Half a billion dollars !..
Lets not ferget though - "THE Gillard Government has confirmed there will be a "steady increase" in its carbon tax every year..."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/carbon-tax-to-increase-every-year-gillard-government-confirms/story-e6frf7jo-1226057839496
Edit to add - The above news paper report title has been changed since i put the link - interesting..
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 18th May 2011 at 01:31.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is more CO2 produced than fuel burnt. That's because it picks up oxygen from the air - one of carbon from the fuel (the hydrogen bits are very light-weight) plus two of oxygen to make CO2
However, in the original creation of fuel (a hydrocarbon) oxygen is created or released into the atmosphere then at a later stage CO2, a gas necessary to sustain life, regenerates oxygen again?
Thread Starter
From an interview with one of the key Australians pushing the CO2 hysteria -
(extract)
CHRIS UHLMANN: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?
BOB BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...
CHRIS UHLMANN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating jobs, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.
BOB BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...
CHRIS UHLMANN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.
BOB BROWN: Treasury...
CHRIS UHLMANN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...
BOB BROWN: I'm sorry....
7.30 - ABC
.
(extract)
CHRIS UHLMANN: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?
BOB BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...
CHRIS UHLMANN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating jobs, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.
BOB BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...
CHRIS UHLMANN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.
BOB BROWN: Treasury...
CHRIS UHLMANN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...
BOB BROWN: I'm sorry....
7.30 - ABC
.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEN MYTHS of Global WarmingMYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything.Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
Source: Friends of Science website.
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
The Sun Causes Climate Change
Northern Hemisphere Temperature vs Solar Irradiance 400 years
The graph shows a correlation between the solar irradiance and the Northern Hemisphere temperatures since 1600. The temperatures to 1850 were derived from proxy records. The temperature curve is from surface temperature record from 1850 to 1980, and from satellite lower troposphere record from 1980. The surface temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development. Black soot aerosols have contributed to a portion of the recent warming. Two solar irradiance proxy reconstructions are shown.
Note the low solar activity periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715, the Little Ice Age) and during the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825).
The graph shows that changes in solar activity are the primary cause of climate change.
Blow.N.Gasket now joins the misinformation conga line. Looks impressive to copy a spiel from a discredited web site. 'Friend of Science' are yet another oil industry funded bunch of ideologues. There are many of these web sites masqueading under scientific sounding names. (Some of them even share the same office and telephone.) You can Google this particular one as an example. Enter the murkey world of propoganda sites following the old tobacco industry 'standard ploy' of creating confusion in the mind of Joe public by issuing contradictory reports. Plimer, Monkton et al! All are there worrying that any government regulation is the first step towards the fall of democracy, the oil industry, the status quo or whatever. If you have any interest in science, visit NASA, CSIRO and any of the many reliable scientific organisations around the world which are slowly and independently building a knowledge base of what is happening on this fragile planet. If the name of an organisation sounds a bit suspicious... it probably is. Check its' credentials before you swallow the hooks completely. Glib arguments to the contrary of weighty scientific evidence are easy to sell to the superficially informed. Example: CO2 is indeed a minor atmospheric gas by volume and weight. So are most catalysts in relation to larger chemical reactions. Size does matter... for a nano partical or a whale. CO2 has well known properties when mixed with other gasses or disolved in liquids. CO2 issues in relation to atmosphere, ocean, biology and the complex systems like our biosphere is much more profound as the behaviours change in complexity. Still the evidence is mounting. You can't just see the system wide changes by wandering around with your eyes open in the hope they will appear. Hard painstaking slog by many scientists and their organisations has already built the main body of evidence. The debate in science has moved on now from 'is there a problem' to 'how big and what are the consequences'. Forget the politics of Australia or the Qantas fuel bill. They are not the big issues of our time or the 'elephant in the room'. This subject is critical to our future and not just an attack on our lifestyles. Solving problems is a human forte.... but only once the problem is known!
If one passenger flew from Europe with Qantas via Singapore and another with a middle east operator via Dubai - both going to Sydney, then the Qantas passenger pays almost twice the amount of tax as the first port of call ouside Europe is further but they would both be accountable for producing the same CO2 over the entire journey.
LHR - ZRH - SIN or SIN - ZRH - LHR.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingfox, it is very easy to simply label all Global warming sceptic websites as discredited. The 10 points are very well put and make clear sense. Instead of trying to claim the site or points as discredited, why not counter the points.
Sorry to disappoint you flyingfish, but the tide is turning. The world is waking up to the lies of Global warming alarmism. The biggest con job and worst example of group think in human history is being exposed and the alarmists are becoming more desperate.
Sceptics are lining up to publicly debate the likes of Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut in a one on one forum/debate, but they won't engage. Why? They know they don't have a case anymore. People are now aware of the lies, fear, and rhetoric.
Sorry to disappoint you flyingfish, but the tide is turning. The world is waking up to the lies of Global warming alarmism. The biggest con job and worst example of group think in human history is being exposed and the alarmists are becoming more desperate.
Sceptics are lining up to publicly debate the likes of Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut in a one on one forum/debate, but they won't engage. Why? They know they don't have a case anymore. People are now aware of the lies, fear, and rhetoric.
Thread Starter
...The debate in science has moved on now from 'is there a problem' to 'how big and what are the consequences...
...many scientists and their organisations has already built the main body of evidence...
Land at an intermediate landing point outside the UC but close to the UC, like ZRH and you only pay to/from that landing point.
"THE Australian Federal Police could be required to investigate new climate change offences under Julia Gillard's carbon tax...
... AFP officers as climate inspectors... "
Australian Federal Police could become carbon cops | The Australian
.
OL9876.... First post ehh!? You joined this web site just to push your 'climate change skeptic' views? Admirable!!! I suggest to you that by inference, using your logic, as a skeptic you are dismissing the web sites and research of national organisations such as NASA (amongst many others), in favour of 'Friends of Science'. With a total membership of 6 members they are certainly a scientific force to be reckoned with. Not because of their cogent arguments, but because of the confusion and 'group think' they can inspire through misinformation. Scientists by training are analytical in their reasoning. What this means is, that politically they are poor performers. They don't get lies, misinformation and denial as tools of trade to promote a contrary view. Your suggestion that I commence a scientific debate on this website to counter the 'ten point' posted earlier on this thread is absurd. You just don't get it do you! Those ten points are typical headline grabbers specifically designed to create confusion and doubt. They are not dismissable, but the depth of discussion required to refute or explain these queries is immense and complex. Most listeners will be long gone before the discussion ended. It certainly couldn't be conducted in depth here due to this being an aviation site, not a scientific forum.
By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Hopefully you will live long enough to acknowledge your present obtuse and misguided views. Best wishes.
By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Hopefully you will live long enough to acknowledge your present obtuse and misguided views. Best wishes.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW! Flying fox I really did touch a raw nerve. Especially with that very childish comment about my wife.
Anyway, about those scientists , even the NASA ones. They may not be that politically bright , but they sure know where the funding is coming from. With millions to be made from trading carbon credits and governments that love an excuse to tax people , lots of funding available for those who can come up with a particular finding.
Anyway, about those scientists , even the NASA ones. They may not be that politically bright , but they sure know where the funding is coming from. With millions to be made from trading carbon credits and governments that love an excuse to tax people , lots of funding available for those who can come up with a particular finding.
Thread Starter
Maui and Flying Binghi. You are obviously pushing a line here of the global warming deniers. If science isn't your forte, keep to the soap operas of life. You have managed to ferret out the views of a a tiny percentage of the scientific community and adopted it as your view. The world will move towards controlling CO2 emmissions and aviation will have to share the pain. Even the Chinese Government has acknowledged the issue of CO2 in Global Warming as fact. They have declared any alternative view as 'unscientific and dangerous'. Keep reading Plimer and bury your heads deep.
flyingfox, IMO by using the term "global warming deniers" you show a basic lack of understanding of the 'climate' debate.
...the depth of discussion required to refute or explain these queries is immense and complex. Most listeners will be long gone before the discussion ended. It certainly couldn't be conducted in depth here due to this being an aviation site, not a scientific forum...
"...It certainly couldn't be conducted in depth here due to this being an aviation site..."
flyingfox, methinks yer being a bit contradictory there. For one you point out that aviation will be affected by CO2 emmission controls, and yet, it appears to me you dont think us pilots should be allowed to discus the subject..
Where is the debate ? ....better yet, where is the proof ?
As has been shown by the thread starter news paper reference the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hysteria will cost Australian aviation dearly and IMO needs a full discusion of the issue. I wonder about the attempts by some to stop any debate of the subject.
.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have been duped
In 1967 the report of the special study group called, "The Report From Iron Mountain" was published. Some say it was a hoax or spoof but others say it provides the foundation for government policy over the last 40 years, and it is spot on. Carbon tax is just another well co-ordinated government rort and scare tactic designed to extract even more money from human beings. Those who believe in and fall for the scam hook, line and sinker need their heads read….
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW! Flying fox I really did touch a raw nerve. Especially with that very childish comment about my wife.
Anyway, about those scientists , even the NASA ones. They may not be that politically bright , but they sure know where the funding is coming from. With millions to be made from trading carbon credits and governments that love an excuse to tax people , lots of funding available for those who can come up with a particular finding.
Anyway, about those scientists , even the NASA ones. They may not be that politically bright , but they sure know where the funding is coming from. With millions to be made from trading carbon credits and governments that love an excuse to tax people , lots of funding available for those who can come up with a particular finding.
My wife and I enjoy a healthy Dom/Sub relationship
Flat Earth.
OL9876. Two posts now! I'm overwhelmed. You will be an 'old hand' before we know it... if you stick around that is! I don't have raw nerves, but now that you've said it, there will probably be some 'believers' out there who will think it is so. That is exactly the game played by the climate change deniers. The childish remark about 'beating your wife' is a classic and often used example of how by saying something wrong you can sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of some. (You obviously have not heard it before.) There could now be some reader of this thread who earnestly believes that you beat your wife and will be wondering who the heck you are. That is the whole point of misinformation. It clouds the real issues with irrelevant garbage which draws attention away from the main game. Your assertion that scientist are in fact concocting the evidence for the effects CO2 are having on the biosphere in order to pull billions of funding dollars into their Universities, research organisations and laboratories is conspiratorial beyond belief. Such international collusion and cunning on the part of the scientists of this world is breath taking! I suggest you contact ASIO, MI5, The FBI, SVR and MPS without delay. They will want to know about this! Then again; here's some doubt. They will probably be part of the scam, receiving a percentage of all that filthy lucre from carbon credits trading and new wonderful taxes brought about in the name of CO2 hysteria. I'm on the edge of my seat in expectation of your next spray!
Flying Binghi. I personally prefer the term 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. IYHO this makes me lack a basic understanding of the climate debate. You can never be denied the right to hold an opinion! However the pedantics of the debate over which term should be used is of no concern to me. Neither of them is adequate or exclusive of the other. As for your reference to the fact that the earth has been warming since the last ice-age, I commend you for your knowledge. The science of 'climate change / global warming' (take your pick) is about the size of the acceleration and overshoot of this phenomonen beyond the normal 'peak', due to human activities. Right now we are approaching the time of the cycles anticipated peak but no slowing is evident. Some models suggest the overshoot may be irreversible and catastrophic. I am not being contradictory or trying to stop any debate in this thread. Without new technologies aviation will suffer greatly from restrictions brought about by world governments and their decisions about these issues. My objection is to the notion, as the thread title suggests, that this science is purely 'CO2 hysteria' without good and quantitative evidence supporting it.
Gobledock. Atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 was first suggested in 1939 by G.S.Callandar. (Weren't you awake?) You say that 'Carbon tax is just another well co-ordinated government rort and scare tactic designed to extract even more money from human beings' So we can assume that for the first time in history, all the governments of the world are cooperating in this operation, so as to level new taxes and charges on a hapless world poulation, in the name of Climate Change. Remarkable. I'm gob-smacked at this revelation!
The following is an excerpt from a published document, followed by its link.
By the 1950s, as temperatures around the Northern Hemisphere reached early-twentieth-century peaks, global warming first found its way onto the public agenda. Concerns were expressed in both the scientific and popular press about rising sea levels, loss of habitat, and shifting agricultural zones. Amid the myriad mechanisms that could possibly account for climatic changes, several scientists, notably G. S. Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Hans Suess, and Roger Revelle, focused on possible links between anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the geochemical carbon cycle, and climate warming.
http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy...historical.pdf
Flying Binghi. I personally prefer the term 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. IYHO this makes me lack a basic understanding of the climate debate. You can never be denied the right to hold an opinion! However the pedantics of the debate over which term should be used is of no concern to me. Neither of them is adequate or exclusive of the other. As for your reference to the fact that the earth has been warming since the last ice-age, I commend you for your knowledge. The science of 'climate change / global warming' (take your pick) is about the size of the acceleration and overshoot of this phenomonen beyond the normal 'peak', due to human activities. Right now we are approaching the time of the cycles anticipated peak but no slowing is evident. Some models suggest the overshoot may be irreversible and catastrophic. I am not being contradictory or trying to stop any debate in this thread. Without new technologies aviation will suffer greatly from restrictions brought about by world governments and their decisions about these issues. My objection is to the notion, as the thread title suggests, that this science is purely 'CO2 hysteria' without good and quantitative evidence supporting it.
Gobledock. Atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 was first suggested in 1939 by G.S.Callandar. (Weren't you awake?) You say that 'Carbon tax is just another well co-ordinated government rort and scare tactic designed to extract even more money from human beings' So we can assume that for the first time in history, all the governments of the world are cooperating in this operation, so as to level new taxes and charges on a hapless world poulation, in the name of Climate Change. Remarkable. I'm gob-smacked at this revelation!
The following is an excerpt from a published document, followed by its link.
By the 1950s, as temperatures around the Northern Hemisphere reached early-twentieth-century peaks, global warming first found its way onto the public agenda. Concerns were expressed in both the scientific and popular press about rising sea levels, loss of habitat, and shifting agricultural zones. Amid the myriad mechanisms that could possibly account for climatic changes, several scientists, notably G. S. Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Hans Suess, and Roger Revelle, focused on possible links between anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the geochemical carbon cycle, and climate warming.
http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy...historical.pdf
Last edited by flyingfox; 21st May 2011 at 17:14. Reason: spelling, ommissions, link.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole premise of this thread seems to be incorrect - QF discriminated against becaue of no OZ ETS/carbon tax.
The EU will tax all airlines EU or not, ETS or not.
If you can stand the Euro babble here it is: Reducing emissions from the aviation sector - Policies - Climate Action - European Commission
So regardless of climate change converts/deniers it has nothing to do with Australia's climate policy.
BTW guess where the money is going - green programs? no - EU treasuries yes. They will spend it really well: as we can see they are great financial managers.
Mud Skipper is right (post#19) this will advantage ME carriers as they have a shorter inbound last leg to the EU tax zone than Asia/Oceania carriers. The irony, giving advantage to oil shieks in a greenhouse program!
Standby for QF to move its intermediate stopping point from SIN/BKK/HKG to the closest airport to the EU that is in year round range from SYD/MEL. In other words instead of an 8 hr leg SYD to SIN then 14 hrs to LHR we'll see 14 hrs SYD-to "X" then 8hrs or less to the EU.
The EU will tax all airlines EU or not, ETS or not.
If you can stand the Euro babble here it is: Reducing emissions from the aviation sector - Policies - Climate Action - European Commission
So regardless of climate change converts/deniers it has nothing to do with Australia's climate policy.
BTW guess where the money is going - green programs? no - EU treasuries yes. They will spend it really well: as we can see they are great financial managers.
Mud Skipper is right (post#19) this will advantage ME carriers as they have a shorter inbound last leg to the EU tax zone than Asia/Oceania carriers. The irony, giving advantage to oil shieks in a greenhouse program!
Standby for QF to move its intermediate stopping point from SIN/BKK/HKG to the closest airport to the EU that is in year round range from SYD/MEL. In other words instead of an 8 hr leg SYD to SIN then 14 hrs to LHR we'll see 14 hrs SYD-to "X" then 8hrs or less to the EU.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the mods should move this thread.
As soon as Binghi posted it, I knew it was an attempt to hijack a board topic. He has extremely narrow political views and not much of a clue about science, as do a couple of others here who regurgitate internet mythology. He has previous form on this issue.
I could post a response to blow.n.gaskets nonsense which is cut & pasted and repeated ad nauseum around the web, but I won't bother here on the D&G Reporting Points forum.
OL9876 - so cancer research gets millions of dollars of government funding. Do you think that cancer researchers are hiding the discovery of the real cause/cure for the last few decades so they can continue to get this funding? How far do your scientific research conspiracy theories go exactly?
As soon as Binghi posted it, I knew it was an attempt to hijack a board topic. He has extremely narrow political views and not much of a clue about science, as do a couple of others here who regurgitate internet mythology. He has previous form on this issue.
I could post a response to blow.n.gaskets nonsense which is cut & pasted and repeated ad nauseum around the web, but I won't bother here on the D&G Reporting Points forum.
OL9876 - so cancer research gets millions of dollars of government funding. Do you think that cancer researchers are hiding the discovery of the real cause/cure for the last few decades so they can continue to get this funding? How far do your scientific research conspiracy theories go exactly?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Government has committed to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal capable of delivering our 450 ppm or lower goal.
If global ambition is insufficient to achieve stabilisation at 450 ppm, Australia will reduce its emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.
The Government has also committed to a long-term emissions reduction target of at least 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. The Government has previously stated it is prepared to seek a new election mandate for a stronger target for 2050 if this is warranted by an ambitious international agreement.
It is widely accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that aviation accounts for around 2 per cent of CO2 emissions, which may rise to 3 per cent by 2050.
In comparison, road transport contributes 18 per cent of all CO2 emissions, with industry accounting for 23 per cent and power generation at 35 per cent.
In 1985, the average aircraft fleet consumed eight litres per passenger per 100 kilometres – today it is less than five litres, with an anticipated drop to three litres in 15-20 years: i.e. a 60% reduction.
"In the last 40 years, the aviation industry has cut fuel burn and CO2 emissions by70%, NOx emissions by 90% and noise by 75%."
The aviation industry has already met and surpassed any targets; why then is the aviation industry to be TAXED out of existence???
If global ambition is insufficient to achieve stabilisation at 450 ppm, Australia will reduce its emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.
The Government has also committed to a long-term emissions reduction target of at least 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. The Government has previously stated it is prepared to seek a new election mandate for a stronger target for 2050 if this is warranted by an ambitious international agreement.
It is widely accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that aviation accounts for around 2 per cent of CO2 emissions, which may rise to 3 per cent by 2050.
In comparison, road transport contributes 18 per cent of all CO2 emissions, with industry accounting for 23 per cent and power generation at 35 per cent.
In 1985, the average aircraft fleet consumed eight litres per passenger per 100 kilometres – today it is less than five litres, with an anticipated drop to three litres in 15-20 years: i.e. a 60% reduction.
"In the last 40 years, the aviation industry has cut fuel burn and CO2 emissions by70%, NOx emissions by 90% and noise by 75%."
The aviation industry has already met and surpassed any targets; why then is the aviation industry to be TAXED out of existence???