European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allow me to confuse the issue even more by quoting my point-of-contact within the Environment Agency:
This in response to my initial application 
I'm as confused as Punch - you may not nominate PAGODA (because it's "not allowed") but you can nominate a "commission approved tool" (of which there currently are none) and that'll be fine.
The use of PAGODA is not allowed, if you just refer to the fact that you are going to be using a commission approved tool then this will suffice.
I'm as confused as Punch - you may not nominate PAGODA (because it's "not allowed") but you can nominate a "commission approved tool" (of which there currently are none) and that'll be fine.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto
Been there and had the same answer. Also confusedbut this is becoming a permanent state. Still not sure how to write procedures using "tools" that don't exist.
M.E.
Been there and had the same answer. Also confused
but this is becoming a permanent state. Still not sure how to write procedures using "tools" that don't exist. M.E.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got the feedback from the ETS on my submission. I would of been better writing "cock" in each of the required answers rather than trying to tie in what they want with our operation. I now have to make up more non existing departments and post holders in our two man operation to get the form approved.
Has anyone got through this yet?
Has anyone got through this yet?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what's supposed to happen next, they went all quiet after my third submission. Possibly still laughing. I presume everybody is the same but my EU-ETS file is now just about equal in thickness to the Flight Manual.
M.E
M.E
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is non-aviation related but directly related to these blood-suckers:
Think the same is going to happen in aviation? You bet your sweet @rse it is!
EU's 'carbon fat cats' get rich off trading scheme
Europe's system for industrial carbon quotas has enriched the continent's biggest polluters, with ten firms together reaping permits for 2008 alone worth 500 million euros, a new report revealed. Dominated by steel and cement makers, the same "carbon fat cats" stand to collect surplus CO2 permits that -- at current market rates -- could be worth 3.2 billion euros (4.3 billion dollars) by 2012, it said. This is roughly equivalent to the entire EU investment in renewable energy and clean technology under its economic recovery plan, according to Sandbag, a non-profit group in Britain that analyses carbon market policy. "Emissions trading is meant to be the central policy for cutting CO2 levels," said Anna Pearson, Sandbag's top policy analyst. "The fact that companies are able to make large sums of money for doing nothing highlights that the trading scheme must be reformed and EU climate change target strengthened."
Under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the European Union allocates carbon polluting allowances to member states to meet obligations laid out in the UN's Kyoto Protocol, for which the first commitment period runs through 2012. The states then assign quotas to the industries that belch the most CO2 into the atmosphere. Companies that emit less than their allowance can sell the difference on the market to companies that exceed their limits, thus providing -- in theory -- a financial carrot to everyone to become greener. But the energy, steel and cement sectors that dominate the system, hit by the global crunch, are emitting less CO2 than forecast, which means surplus carbon permits are flooding the market. Among the top ten beneficiaries, steelmaker ArcelorMittal collected more than 40 percent of the 2008 excess permits, reported Sandbag. French cement giant Lafarge got about 12 percent, with Tata steel group subsidiary Corus and Swedish steel maker SSAB-Svenskt Stal each claiming about 10 percent. Even if the permits are not directly resold for profit, the value will still remain on the companies' books, rising or falling with the market. Most of the permits were generated simply because the companies were allocated more free permits than they wound up using, according to the report. "Little or no actual 'effort' toward emissions reductions need have taken place, yet these companies will be able to literally bank the profits," it said. The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent has fallen sharply over the last 18 months. After peaking at nearly 30 euros (38 dollars) in mid-2008, CO2 is currently trading at about 13 euros, according to BlueNext, one of several European carbon exchanges. Viewed narrowly, the recession-driven drop in CO2 emissions helps the environment. But low carbon prices give businesses little incentive to develop and install new technologies to slash future emissions.
Europe's system for industrial carbon quotas has enriched the continent's biggest polluters, with ten firms together reaping permits for 2008 alone worth 500 million euros, a new report revealed. Dominated by steel and cement makers, the same "carbon fat cats" stand to collect surplus CO2 permits that -- at current market rates -- could be worth 3.2 billion euros (4.3 billion dollars) by 2012, it said. This is roughly equivalent to the entire EU investment in renewable energy and clean technology under its economic recovery plan, according to Sandbag, a non-profit group in Britain that analyses carbon market policy. "Emissions trading is meant to be the central policy for cutting CO2 levels," said Anna Pearson, Sandbag's top policy analyst. "The fact that companies are able to make large sums of money for doing nothing highlights that the trading scheme must be reformed and EU climate change target strengthened."
Under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the European Union allocates carbon polluting allowances to member states to meet obligations laid out in the UN's Kyoto Protocol, for which the first commitment period runs through 2012. The states then assign quotas to the industries that belch the most CO2 into the atmosphere. Companies that emit less than their allowance can sell the difference on the market to companies that exceed their limits, thus providing -- in theory -- a financial carrot to everyone to become greener. But the energy, steel and cement sectors that dominate the system, hit by the global crunch, are emitting less CO2 than forecast, which means surplus carbon permits are flooding the market. Among the top ten beneficiaries, steelmaker ArcelorMittal collected more than 40 percent of the 2008 excess permits, reported Sandbag. French cement giant Lafarge got about 12 percent, with Tata steel group subsidiary Corus and Swedish steel maker SSAB-Svenskt Stal each claiming about 10 percent. Even if the permits are not directly resold for profit, the value will still remain on the companies' books, rising or falling with the market. Most of the permits were generated simply because the companies were allocated more free permits than they wound up using, according to the report. "Little or no actual 'effort' toward emissions reductions need have taken place, yet these companies will be able to literally bank the profits," it said. The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent has fallen sharply over the last 18 months. After peaking at nearly 30 euros (38 dollars) in mid-2008, CO2 is currently trading at about 13 euros, according to BlueNext, one of several European carbon exchanges. Viewed narrowly, the recession-driven drop in CO2 emissions helps the environment. But low carbon prices give businesses little incentive to develop and install new technologies to slash future emissions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for those who might not have seen it I was at a meeting on the 19th February where the DFT were discussing penalties and charges. In spite of the Government making money out of this scheme during the Auctions they are also going to charge a "Subsistance" amount to cover administration costs. But don't worry!!! most biz jets aircraft will fall into the 1st charging band so they will "only" charge you £2,550 each year. Our single company aircraft will produce around 300 tonnes of CO2 a year incuring a Tax (they don't like the word Tax so I tend to use it) of around £8,000 depending on Carbon values. So including the annual verification charge say £1,000 (I don't know what this will be) we could end up paying £3,550 for the honour of paying £8.000 TAX. This seems slightly ridiculous to me but not to the Emissions people
Whilst at the meeting the BBGA produced some interesting numbers that from a total UK list of 894 Operators 269 Operators have their plans approved with another 100 in work. 174 have been exempted with 10 in work This leaves 341 (38%) unaccounted for.
Also the Pagoda repacement system for small Operators seems to have a problem and is still delayed.
Rant over for the moment
M.E.
Whilst at the meeting the BBGA produced some interesting numbers that from a total UK list of 894 Operators 269 Operators have their plans approved with another 100 in work. 174 have been exempted with 10 in work This leaves 341 (38%) unaccounted for.
Also the Pagoda repacement system for small Operators seems to have a problem and is still delayed.
Rant over for the moment
M.E.
The Ego
Has Landed
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere not too far from the airplane...
Age: 66
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of us "small" operators should get together...
and have a meeting to see where each of us stands in the whole process (I have my AEM plan approved and working), and see if we can improve or refine what each of us has or is doing to comply with the requirements (forms, procedures, etc.). Possibly there may be a benefit to pooling resources in some way. I do have some ideas...
Keith McLellan
CL-604, M-JSTA
EGGW
Keith McLellan
CL-604, M-JSTA
EGGW
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think the same is going to happen in aviation? You bet your sweet @rse it is!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU ETS Aviation emissions
Has anyone actually been served with a "civil penalty" yet for refusing/failing to file their application for an emissions plan?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I've heard of, but they are still trying (and not succeeding yet) to compile complete, and accurate lists.
At the risk of sounding sarcastic
the main culprits for being late seem to be the various Government departments, EU Commission, and the Environment Agency. As for a "Pagoda" replacement who knows. I just can't think of a way we could fine them as it's not built into the legislation for some reason.
I'm just collecting data and writing procedures where I can.
Mike Echo
At the risk of sounding sarcastic
the main culprits for being late seem to be the various Government departments, EU Commission, and the Environment Agency. As for a "Pagoda" replacement who knows. I just can't think of a way we could fine them as it's not built into the legislation for some reason.I'm just collecting data and writing procedures where I can.
Mike Echo
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for a "Pagoda" replacement who knows. I just can't think of a way we could fine them as it's not built into the legislation for some reason."
Sorry Mike, what do you mean here?
I'm trying to find out whether anyone has actually been served with a "civil penalty" (whatever one of those is ?!) for failing to pay their £750 to have their plan "accepted".
Sorry Mike, what do you mean here?
I'm trying to find out whether anyone has actually been served with a "civil penalty" (whatever one of those is ?!) for failing to pay their £750 to have their plan "accepted".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Jungle or Sand!!!!!!
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the most useless thing ever to come out of Europe and we are going to pay for it.
The EBAA has said it will tell there members to stop complying if they do not introduce the small emitters tool.
We have all put our Pargoda or other tool in our application for the monitoring but nobody knows when this will be implemented.
And the multitude of leaches that have climbed onto the band wagon. This has created a whole new sector in the aviation industry and they are capitalising on this for every cent. The first couple of years will cost you not only your emissions but to support this sector, and will probably double your emissions costs.
One is so cheap that they will not phone you unless you have skype, but you have to phone them.
And to let the fun really begin, wait until we have to start to buy and trade the emissions
I heard there are some international airlines that are taking them to the Eu court to drop this with them.
It threatens our flight departments and our jobs, and to really cap it off the muppets that are running it are not aviation agencies but environmental agencies, so no clue......
My rant is over now going to the boss to explain the next costs to flying his aircraft......
P.S.
Sorry to answer your question, nobody has been fined that I know of, and if they did they would have a really tough time as was said there has not been a final list, these idiots have not included just European aviation but the entire world, how would they fine you when "Sahid" in Sri Lanka has not even bothered to even open the letter. They will have to prosecute everybody then
The EBAA has said it will tell there members to stop complying if they do not introduce the small emitters tool.
We have all put our Pargoda or other tool in our application for the monitoring but nobody knows when this will be implemented.
And the multitude of leaches that have climbed onto the band wagon. This has created a whole new sector in the aviation industry and they are capitalising on this for every cent. The first couple of years will cost you not only your emissions but to support this sector, and will probably double your emissions costs.
One is so cheap that they will not phone you unless you have skype, but you have to phone them.
And to let the fun really begin, wait until we have to start to buy and trade the emissions
I heard there are some international airlines that are taking them to the Eu court to drop this with them.
It threatens our flight departments and our jobs, and to really cap it off the muppets that are running it are not aviation agencies but environmental agencies, so no clue......
My rant is over now going to the boss to explain the next costs to flying his aircraft......
P.S.
Sorry to answer your question, nobody has been fined that I know of, and if they did they would have a really tough time as was said there has not been a final list, these idiots have not included just European aviation but the entire world, how would they fine you when "Sahid" in Sri Lanka has not even bothered to even open the letter. They will have to prosecute everybody then
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cambioso
"As for a "Pagoda" replacement who knows. I just can't think of a way we could fine them as it's not built into the legislation for some reason."
I didn't phrase that very well. I was just wishing we could fine the Government for their delays as they seem very keen to threaten Operators with penalties.
M.E.
"As for a "Pagoda" replacement who knows. I just can't think of a way we could fine them as it's not built into the legislation for some reason."
I didn't phrase that very well. I was just wishing we could fine the Government for their delays as they seem very keen to threaten Operators with penalties.
M.E.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks M.E. good point!
It seems that these people are threatening people (like me!) with these "civil penalties" if we don't pay the £750 tax to have our (painfully completed) plan accepted.
Has anyone been served with such a penalty yet?
We had our plan accepted online back in November (we have the email saying so), but we forgot to pay the £750 tax.............. ;-)
I said I would pay the money IF the system went live in 2011, and IF we still had our aircraft. I said I would pay the tax, but I asked them to confirm that if we sold our aircraft, or put it on an AOC before 2011 they would refund me our £750............they didn't like that and kept saying over and over again "Resistance is futile"!!
It comes down to whether these penalties actually exist or are they just some nasty threat?
Anyway guys, let's hang on in there.........I'll bet this poxy department will disapear soon with the new government cuts?!
It seems that these people are threatening people (like me!) with these "civil penalties" if we don't pay the £750 tax to have our (painfully completed) plan accepted.
Has anyone been served with such a penalty yet?
We had our plan accepted online back in November (we have the email saying so), but we forgot to pay the £750 tax.............. ;-)
I said I would pay the money IF the system went live in 2011, and IF we still had our aircraft. I said I would pay the tax, but I asked them to confirm that if we sold our aircraft, or put it on an AOC before 2011 they would refund me our £750............they didn't like that and kept saying over and over again "Resistance is futile"!!
It comes down to whether these penalties actually exist or are they just some nasty threat?
Anyway guys, let's hang on in there.........I'll bet this poxy department will disapear soon with the new government cuts?!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know just what exactly is to be done with all this money. Are they going to plant trees? If any commercial organisation attempted to extract money from legitimate entities with menacing behaviour, as they are doing, it would be addressed as extortion. Another example of an unelected body imposing regulation on an industry already on its knee's, god know's how many job's this has cost, now and in the future.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can work out the Government have no intention of using any of the raised cash for "planting trees" It will just go into the Treasury coffers, after all no matter how fancy the wording "Emission Trading Scheme" it is still just a tax
M.E.
M.E.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you all know that the environment agency have given all our details to third parties under a freedom of information request?, got my first mail yesterday trying to sell me an E.T.S package, so much for security.
Commission approved tool = Neil Kinnock
Commission approved tool = Neil Kinnock
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU-ETS exemptions....
Sepp,
This may or may not be of help but..... If your flight department/office/ownership etc has a viable AOC....and flies into EU airspace less than the minimum specified in the verbage......and you operate under the name of the AOC.....you are exempt.
You must provide them with the AOC copied, perhaps the declaration of your Insurance certification showing "commercial" liability minimums.
Their response to my response......admitting stupidity and letting the deadline come/go was....."show us your commercial operation details".
Since they cannot tax the cows farting in the pastures.....they will get it somehow. Usually from those who HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD how to qualify for an exemption. This info may help a few. We are exempt now as a commercial operator....this applies to non-scheduled pax/cargo.
Regards, NAFOD
This may or may not be of help but..... If your flight department/office/ownership etc has a viable AOC....and flies into EU airspace less than the minimum specified in the verbage......and you operate under the name of the AOC.....you are exempt.
You must provide them with the AOC copied, perhaps the declaration of your Insurance certification showing "commercial" liability minimums.
Their response to my response......admitting stupidity and letting the deadline come/go was....."show us your commercial operation details".
Since they cannot tax the cows farting in the pastures.....they will get it somehow. Usually from those who HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD how to qualify for an exemption. This info may help a few. We are exempt now as a commercial operator....this applies to non-scheduled pax/cargo.
Regards, NAFOD
nafod Cheers, mate - our outfit is indeed an AOC operator. I'm aware of the "cut-off" point and the attendant niceties, but hopefully your contribution to the discussion will help others 
Fortunately (hooray!) we currently operate under the prescribed limit.
Sadly (boo!!) we are EU-based and expanding so we won't escape for much longer, however, I'm (completely and selfishly) delighted that it will only be my problem for the next eight days; then some other poor sod gets to deal with it.
All I need is another job, now...
Fortunately (hooray!) we currently operate under the prescribed limit.
Sadly (boo!!) we are EU-based and expanding so we won't escape for much longer, however, I'm (completely and selfishly) delighted that it will only be my problem for the next eight days; then some other poor sod gets to deal with it.
All I need is another job, now...