China Vs EU
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the above article:
We should not forget that the British Government has rejected the idea of hypothecating ETS monies for energy investment. Instead, it goes into general funds, risking the idea of being seen as a stealth tax.
Bear Behind
Oh what a tangled web we weave. This thing is not only unfair, it's a mess. The EU has created a rod for its own back that it is determined to proceed with at all costs, though with the price of carbon dropping through the floor they now have to engineer ways to make sure that they don't end up collecting the square root of FA.
The problem with this is that the EU, being a bunch of unelected eurocratic eejits, have no rights whatsoever in ICAO - they are merely observers. Only nation states have rights in UN organisations like ICAO. The EU mechanism is a bit difficult - the EU produces a directive. When that is done, each member state is obliged to enshrine the directive in their national law. So the problem is that nobody can actually take action against the EU itself in any way other than what the Chinese are actually doing, which is effectively direct action - trade war - and that the US has tried to do (through the ECJ - who may be a tad biased). But the EU numpties can't see this and we must all self-flagellate over our CO2 emissions sins.
Add to this that there's supposed to be a credit for flying with biofuel (what's the credit? Proportional to what is actually used? How do you prove what you actually used? How do you prove what % biofuel you actually have in your tanks at any one time); that carriers from other countries taking 'equivalent measures' may be exempted but nobody can define what an equivalent measure actually is; and that there is currently no mechanism for handling a 'new entrant' in the first trading period; and it's easy to see that this is not only stupid legislation but also very badly thought out.
ICAO needs to put it's dentures back in. When it has some teeth again maybe this idiocy can be controlled, if not stopped.
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.
Add to this that there's supposed to be a credit for flying with biofuel (what's the credit? Proportional to what is actually used? How do you prove what you actually used? How do you prove what % biofuel you actually have in your tanks at any one time); that carriers from other countries taking 'equivalent measures' may be exempted but nobody can define what an equivalent measure actually is; and that there is currently no mechanism for handling a 'new entrant' in the first trading period; and it's easy to see that this is not only stupid legislation but also very badly thought out.
ICAO needs to put it's dentures back in. When it has some teeth again maybe this idiocy can be controlled, if not stopped.
ICAO needs to put it's dentures back in. When it has some teeth again maybe this idiocy can be controlled, if not stopped.
Bear Behind
No, but they missed an opportunity in the closing months of last year when the US, supported by others, raised this issue to the ICAO Council. The Council could have issued a binding recommendation to not comply with the EU ETS. That would have given a real field day to the legal-eagles because each of the EU countries that had enshrined the application of the ETS into their national statutes would have been obliged to incorporate the ICAO recommendation into their national law as well. Each nation would have had two laws - one obliging them to comply and one obliging them not to. There would have been a stalemate with no easily definable way out and the whole aviation part of the ETS would have stalled.
But ICAO didn't have the teeth (I'm trying to avoid saying that it didn't have the gonads) to stand up and do that. More's the pity.
But ICAO didn't have the teeth (I'm trying to avoid saying that it didn't have the gonads) to stand up and do that. More's the pity.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reported on another forum-Air Asia cancels flights from LGW from March 31st 2012. One of the reasons given is the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme along with the high Air Passenger Duty tax in this country, how many more will follow? Well done EU 
Reported on another forum-Air Asia cancels flights from LGW from March 31st 2012. One of the reasons given is the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme along with the high Air Passenger Duty tax in this country, how many more will follow? Well done EU
But if any new tax did have a small influence, one wonders if it might have been the 2EUR ETS fee, or the 50/100UKP APD fee. Well done UK would, perhaps, have been a more fitting end to your rant?
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
...raised this issue to the ICAO Council. The Council could have issued a binding recommendation to not comply with the EU ETS. [snip] ...would have been obliged to incorporate the ICAO recommendation into their national law as well.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Your lawyers are ill-informed. ICAO cannot impose anything on anybody. In certain fields, such as noise and NOx, it sets internationally-agreed standards which are non-negotiable (unless you opt out). But it is not a legislative body.
Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.
Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETS tax not being used to 'save the planet'
Perhaps China's best bet if they file their lawsuit is to prove that this new tax is not actually being used to tackle the supposed climate change.
Airlines and Operators should start charging for all of this extra work created to supply their co2 figures.
Airlines and Operators should start charging for all of this extra work created to supply their co2 figures.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China's best bet is to ignore the tax and refuse to pay. What is the EU going to do declare war? France and Austria just got downgraded with Italy going down another notch Monday.
If the EU was a pet you would have taken to the vets ages ago, dragging it out this long would result in cruelty charges.
If the EU was a pet you would have taken to the vets ages ago, dragging it out this long would result in cruelty charges.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Kingfisher.
Perhaps if a few airlines got together, grew some b*lls and point blank refused to acknowledge the ETS, then maybe we would get somewhere.
I can't exactly see a fleet of airliners being impounded in the EU for non payment.
The people who run the scheme are the biggest bunch of numpties going anyway, maybe they will form a human barrier in their tree hugging t-shirts to stop aircraft that haven't purchased enough carbon credits.
Perhaps if a few airlines got together, grew some b*lls and point blank refused to acknowledge the ETS, then maybe we would get somewhere.
I can't exactly see a fleet of airliners being impounded in the EU for non payment.
The people who run the scheme are the biggest bunch of numpties going anyway, maybe they will form a human barrier in their tree hugging t-shirts to stop aircraft that haven't purchased enough carbon credits.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO tough for airlines to do, aircraft cant be impounded but with a little computer magic no AOC, no insurance SEEMPLES. What it would take is a few governments grow some balls and cancel the payments to the EU. Good luck passing thousands of directives when the checks start bouncing.
Bear Behind
Your lawyers are ill-informed.
Your lawyers are ill-informed. ICAO cannot impose anything on anybody. In certain fields, such as noise and NOx, it sets internationally-agreed standards which are non-negotiable (unless you opt out). But it is not a legislative body.
Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Please accept my apologies but I won't take you up on that offer. I'm sure your advice would be relatively cheap in comparison but, well, you get what you pay for.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A New Religion: Carbon Emissions Cash Cow
Environmentalist muppets have gone rabid about "global warming" and about "saving the planet" . . . and governments have wasted no time in adopting this phenomena into a new cash cow.
...As if this planet had not been around 4.5+ billion years, had not been through cataclysmic geophysical changes; had not been through multiple ice ages, volcanic eruptions, tectonic shifts, fires, floods, asteroid bombardments, magnetic reversals of the poles...
And we've been around just an infinitesimal moment in time, engaged in heavy industry only 150 years . . . . and suddenly our internal combustion engines and our gas turbines have become a threat to this planet? Hellooooo!
As the late George Carlin had said: "You have to be dreaming to believe it."
...As if this planet had not been around 4.5+ billion years, had not been through cataclysmic geophysical changes; had not been through multiple ice ages, volcanic eruptions, tectonic shifts, fires, floods, asteroid bombardments, magnetic reversals of the poles...
And we've been around just an infinitesimal moment in time, engaged in heavy industry only 150 years . . . . and suddenly our internal combustion engines and our gas turbines have become a threat to this planet? Hellooooo!
As the late George Carlin had said: "You have to be dreaming to believe it."
Bear Behind
Let me have their name and I’ll invite them round for an expert briefing to put them straight on ETS, ICAO and whatever else they might be a bit shaky on.
Such vanity I find quite amusing.
What makes you think that you are more of an 'expert' than 'they' are? Do you actually know who 'they' are? I can only assume that you, too, are an advisor to CAEP?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Aggregating some marginal gains.
Age: 45
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so I see why China and India have thrown a tantrum over this as both countries have not implemented an ETS strategy in their own countries. It appears that Air NZ are continuing as normal largely due to the fact that NZ has already set up a robust and totally flawed ETS of its own, And according to the unelected EU muppets, the cost will go directly to the NZ coffers. But what does this mean of the likes of Australia who are still debating the issue?
Also, what are they basing the carbon emissions off? Is it a number plucked from their bums? and whose bums? Since ICAO are still dragging their heels on the issue I cant see much in the way of hard unified data on this. Are the emissions based from the great big dirty JT3C turbines from a B707 or the new Trent 1000's? on the B787. Im searching but I aint finding squat.
Also, what are they basing the carbon emissions off? Is it a number plucked from their bums? and whose bums? Since ICAO are still dragging their heels on the issue I cant see much in the way of hard unified data on this. Are the emissions based from the great big dirty JT3C turbines from a B707 or the new Trent 1000's? on the B787. Im searching but I aint finding squat.