Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

China Vs EU

Old 6th Jan 2012, 03:31
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tashkent
Posts: 3
How about getting the EU to pay restitution to all the people in Central Asia and Eastern Europe for the years of environmental and health damage done due to emission and pollution as a result of the European Industrial revolution? The emissions from the US during the early 20th century which circled the globe many times were pretty damaging too, according to some Russian researchers whilst not forgetting the damage the old Soviet industries did too. So the first world nations must pay the poorer nations now if they want to enjoy less carbon emissions as our developing economies play catch up.
yelena is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 06:04
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
I am curious to know when the first payment is due from the airlines that are playing along with the EU-ETS aka EU-REP*? Will said fees be refunded if the EU backs down?

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

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

*revenue enhancement programme
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 06:58
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 593
I am curious to know when the first payment is due from the airlines that are playing along with the EU-ETS aka EU-REP*? Will said fees be refunded if the EU backs down?
Payment is not due until 2013. On the second part of your question, only speculation can be offered at this point in time.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 08:31
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 268
I'm not one to support new taxes generally, but I have to say currently flying is too cheap. Car fuel prices are taxed to hell, why should air travel - a fairly polluting business in its own right - be exempt?

IMO flying is currently too cheap if you take everything into account, sorry for everyone whose job is involved. Since a tax should apply to all airlines equally it should simply raise ticket prices a little. And it'd still be cheap if you look at the amt of fuel burned.
Do you realise how much Airlines actually contribute to the worlds Carbon Emissions on a yearly basis? Its a massive 2%, yes 2% so why the hell tax the backside out of an industy with such low emissions when quite clearly there are obviously other polluters that need tackling first?
Chidken Sangwich is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 08:55
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 209
Are the U.S still going to pay it then?
turbine100 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 08:56
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 54
Posts: 2,366
Finally, is it possible the un-elected gang of 27 aka the European Commission is so far out of touch with reality that they will refuse to back down? At what point do their home governments pull the plug on their profound arrogance?
Yes they are. They think they are sacrosankt, which thery really are cause as you mentioned, they are not democratically elected and the Governments like to have the opportunity to blame the bullshit they want onto the Commission.

Easy way out for them if the shit really hits the fan.
His dudeness is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 09:24
  #47 (permalink)  

A Runyonesque Character
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 70
Posts: 1,209
Or, if you knew a bit more about the subject, you might say that much of this mess was due to the tireless work in the European Parliament (which for all its faults is a democratically elected institution) of people like Peter Liese and Caroline Lucas (now a democratically-elected UK MP).

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

That said, this issue is the territory of one particular Commissionrer (from Denmark) who is probably more pig-headed than all the rest put together.
The SSK is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 11:47
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: France
Posts: 90
Even as a pilot i'm not really against the ETS since i think aviation is indeed partly responsible for the emission of carbondioxide. And yes if you are partly responsible you can not ignore your responsability.

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

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

Why not making financial efforts of airliners to reduce CO2,making tax deductible?
Brie is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 12:09
  #49 (permalink)  

A Runyonesque Character
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 70
Posts: 1,209
The cost to airlines of ETS will come from the purchase of credits over and above their free allowances. They can either buy them on the open market (from other airlines, other firms in ETS-governed sectors, or brokers) or from Governments who will have held back 15% of the available aviation allocation when giving out the free credits. The money will not go to the EU.

‘Earmarking’ of revenues for environmental projects would be nice, but not necessary from an economist’s point of view – he would say simply that what is important is that the price of the product reflects its external costs (environmental damage etc) as well as its production cost, thereby allowing the customer to make a rational decision whether or not to purchase. In this Utopia, revenues could just as easily be spent on healthcare or education.
The SSK is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 12:13
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 854
Brie wrote... "Even as a pilot i'm not really against the ETS since i think aviation is indeed partly responsible for the emission of carbondioxide. And yes if you are partly responsible you can not ignore your responsability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just imagine if all countries decided to jump at the occasion of taxing all airliners when they overflew their airspace... What a nightmare!
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 12:37
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: manchester
Posts: 21
"The tax is stupid. Global warming is reality. What do you think happened to all the glaciers? I'll give you a hint...they m*****."

Apart from all the glaciers that have increased in size due to global cooling.
boeingairbus1981 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 13:54
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 37
EU bureaucracy

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

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

Come on China, buy the EU greedy out
wassupman is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 15:16
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 151
Other beneficiaries of the EU ETS include extra-EU companies deliberately producing emissions to take advantage of the scheme. ETS installations are able to buy up to half their allowance in the form of the cheaper credits available through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism and these credits, called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), are worth the same as EU ETS credits. These are generated by reducing emissions in developing nations and were designed to incentivise green investment there. However, entire companies have developed to manipulate this. In China especially, firms produce the gas HFC-23, which is 11,700 times more potent than CO2 so it generates 11,700 credits for each tonne destroyed. With a profit margin of 7,000%, it is little wonder the World Bank has invested in some of these firms (and lobbied to delay the EU from banning them) and the Chinese Government even taxes the firms’ profits at 65%. The only other winners are the big financial firms that assess the worthiness of these projects on behalf of the UN and are paid on the number of CERs they can generate for their clients: a gross conflict of interest. A study of the top five UN-accredited validatory bodies found that on a scale from ‘A’ (very good) to ‘F’ (very poor), none scored higher than ‘D’.

The EU ETS is not fit for purpose and there is little reason to foresee the scheme getting better. Indeed, as auctioning grows and prices of energy and goods are forced higher, the average consumer will be made worse off and for nigh on no environmental benefit. The EU technocrats have buried their head in the sand about this and all ‘solutions’ have been minor and tokenistic. As far as they are concerned, to admit the scheme is flawed is to admit they are wrong. This is not something they wish to advertise. Overall, the ETS has been hijacked and become a route to extract money out of good intentions, and this goes for the UK Government as well, which will receive £4-8 billion from it per annum from 2013 but refuses to earmark it to spend on energy-related issues or alleviating fuel poverty. As a consequence, it would be hard to defend it against accusations of being a stealth tax.
the faults of the Emissions Trading Scheme @ConHome bit.ly/xt6SzI
MaxRange120 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 16:15
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: some rock
Posts: 21
I agree with all of you that this tax and especially its purpose is stupid and the only winner can be the 2-sector business model airlines (i.e. Emirates, Gulf Air & Co.). BUT the tax will come and everyone flying to EU airports will have to pay it. And if the companies won't pay directly, governments will mandate, that the airports are responsible for its collection. That's for the enforcement part of it.

Legally an emission tax for flight between EU and non-EU is IMO very problematic. Since due to ICAO agreement jet fuel is supposed to be tax free the EU move is a clear violation of this agreement. There can be no doubt that emissions are linked to the fuel consumption so this move is kind of like tax avoidance (just the other way round ) which is not allowed. And if the ICAO explicitly confirms that such a taxation is not conform with its statutes the EU will have to comply or unsign the ICAO statues. However if the emission tax fails, the EU will find a new way to tax. E.g. mandating a levy paid at the airports depending on the weight of the aircraft.
mogas-82 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 17:22
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
The real joke is that - while applying this ridiculous TAX on aviation - the EU is simultaneously asking the Chinese to 'dig them out' by buying EU countries bonds!

Would you ask a neighbour for a helping hand while pissing in his back garden?
Duh.
Algol is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 17:34
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
The European Union needs one figure to emerge. If that figure has the imagination and the ruthlessness of the last person to attempt to conquer the world, we are sunk. Would that the British government grew some balls before it is too late.
Avitor is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 17:40
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 593
500 Above

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

Airbus Wins Order for A380s From Hong Kong Airlines - Bloomberg
SMT Member is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 18:43
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Delsey
Posts: 745
SMT

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

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

Hong Kong Airlines to Order Superjumbo Jets - Hong Kong - WSJ

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

The Indians must also have some pull:

India to lead 12 country declaration against EU ETS aviation | climate-connect

The world against us?

China, India Mount Opposition Against EU Aviation Carbon Curbs - BusinessWeek

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

Green Aviation | Turning Aviation Green

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

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

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

1) Free 2012 allowances allocated
January 31, 2012

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

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

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

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

DATA and REPORTING DATE

1) Free 2012 allowances allocated
January 31, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get this...

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

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

What BS!

IATA again rails against EU emissions trading system

Last edited by 500 above; 7th Jan 2012 at 06:16.
500 above is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 19:51
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Not so long ago airfares went mainly to the airlines. Now when I look at a return ticket from UK to USA only about 1/3 of the fare goes to the airline, the rest is taxes and charges.
I get the definite impression that Govenments have an unspoked disapproval of their citizens travelling abroad. Or is it those pesky foreigners coming in.
In any case they are down on aviation.
Increasing airline efficiency is rewarded by higher taxes and charges.
Unless salaries or disposable income start to increase, air travel is going to be slowly strangled.
ZQA297/30 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 21:48
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
China has a different mindset different from the western that if China determines not to pay, China will not pay regardless.

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

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

China 1, EU 0
Kuchan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.