CO2 hysteria to raise airfare costs to Europe

[Flying Binghi]

CO2 hysteria to raise QANTAS airfare costs to Europe

...

European Union tax on carbon to push up airfares

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

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

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

Government sources believe US airlines, which will also face the EU carbon impost, are likely to challenge its validity in the World Trade Organisation... continues - European Union tax on carbon to push up airfares | The Australian











.

[601]

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

[Ndicho Moja]

Just out of interest;

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

Have a good day.

[Short_Circuit]

QANTAS will be forced to lift international airfares to Europe from next January after being slapped with a penalty by the European Union

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

[Flying Binghi]

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

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





.

[Dark Knight]

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

Ndicho Moja are you suggesting the amount of Carbon (Carbon Dioxide??) `produced' is greater than the amount of fuel carried or burnt?

[Wunwing]

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

Wunwing

[Short_Circuit]

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

[Teal]

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

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

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

[halas]

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

halas

[flyingfox]

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

[maui]

FF

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

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

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

M

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm..

Snipets via the Fin Review...

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

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

Qantas chief backs Labor carbon tax

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

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



The Greens say the carbon tax will need to be far above $40 a tonne | The Australian






.

[Flying Binghi]

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

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








.

[Groaner]

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

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

[Flying Binghi]

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

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






.

[Teal]

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

Economics guru Terry McCrann had an article recently published on this point. Worth reading:

Carbon not the same thing as CO2

• Terry McCrann
• March 08, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mud Skipper]

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

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

Go figure

[HF3000]

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

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

[flyingfox]

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