As a owner of a medium sized ranch I can tell you the calls to tax my cattles "emissions" has already started. Luckily hasn't gained much traction yet but I digress.

 

Of course. And the EU likes to spend the money gained on 'helping the environment'. ^_^ No offence, Matthew.

 

 

None taken of course.....Each region on this planet does have a different approach to Environmental Protection....thus the reason why Kyoto didn't work. This is just another area where regions don't see eye to eye.

For generations of aviation rule making, it has been a collaborative effort. Sometimes bumpy, sometimes down right bloody, but in the end, compromises were made and nations generally agreed to rules, codes and policies that all could live with and as history has shown, prosper and grow. The institution that allowed that to happen? The ICAO.

 

The EU has unilaterally created a "law" that did not collaborate or work with the ICAO. Instead, a "law" was created that attempts to regulate national industries outside the borders of the EU. Every country (or nearly every) country outside the EU refuses to pay a "tax" that the EU has no authority outside the EU to promulgate. Imagine the uproar if the US attempted to put a tax on gas consumption by businesses in the US with car fleets in the EU? What arrogance that the EU thinks they can be the sole arbiter of global Eco governance.

 

At a time when aviation is really only just starting to recover from the 2008 economic down turn (and earlier), this additional "tax" is burdensome and is not something that the companies want to add to their fares. The US Government is joining with Russia, China and others to send a larger message - you are exceeding your reach and your loss of tourism and trade will far outweigh any benefit you might have gained with this tax. I suggest that with this effort underway in the US and elsewhere, that the boys and girls in Brussels might want to check the depth of their humility and reconsider the alternatives, like collaborating with the ICAO and getting a grip on the real threats to the environment, as someone pointed out earlier.

 

I haven't done enough reading on the issue to decide whether I support this new tax or not, though I'm tending to no (as if airlines need any incentive other than the current oil prices to reduce emissions).

I agree that ICAO is the appropriate venue for sorting things like this out, however the EU's position is that they've tried to arrange matters through ICAO to no avail. Since ICAO wasn't doing anything about the matter they decided to act unilaterally to move things forward. Again, don't know enough about the history of this issue to comment on whether this position is reasonable, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

The main point I want to comment on is this though: "Instead, a "law" was created that attempts to regulate national industries outside the borders of the EU."

 

The EU is not trying to do that. They are imposing a tax on flights within or into EU airspace, which is very much inside the EU's borders. If the US decided to impose a tax on car emissions within the US I wouldn't expect a Dutch company that happens to operate a fleet of cars in the US to be exempt from paying that tax, and I'd find it very iffy if the Dutch government would ban them from paying it.

 

Again this is not some worldwide law, it is a tax that will be imposed on flights that operate (at least partially) within the EU's jurisdiction.

What arrogance that the EU thinks they can be the sole arbiter of global Eco governance.

 

Hi Tom,

While you are certainly right regarding ICAO, I think you missed the point regarding the EU as the proposed regulation only concerns flights inside, arriving to and departing from the EU (as was correctly stated above in this thread).

 

Lots of people blame the EU commission for arrogance (even within Europe) but on the other hand, you have to recognize that EVERY attempt to deal seriously with global warming issues has been stalled by big business. And the US has a very poor record in this domain (and most of the other major powers too by the way).

 

Maybe the EU anticipated that ICAO, as an international organization dominated by the major industrial powers, would be helpless?

 

Don't know how all this will end but at least the EU got the world's attention (not convinced this is the most productive way, especially if there's a showdown and they loose but we'll see...)

 

Bruno

 

PS : this was posted simultaneously with japascoe

I have nothing to gain from this, in fact it will almost certainly cost me money but i have to agree with the policy. Global warming is real and it will be very dangerous in future; ironically Europe will probably not notice the effect as much as places like India, China and certain parts of Russia. It's easy to turn around and say, what can we do, Airlines are only 3%, that's nothing...tax this instead, so what would that be, Power plants? Great so no power for anybody, certainly in the overpopulated Asian countries like...you know India and China, personal transportation, so like cars, see that going down well in America and again emerging economies. Animals...how do you all fancy being Veggies?

 

Europe cannot and should not impose it's will on the entire world, but they aren't trying to do that, Airlines that fly into Europe, or in European airspace should abide by the law; they could of course (and probably will) inpose taxes that are similar.

 

My only concern, mentioned above as well, is that Europe will 'urinate' it away on more Eurocrats and keeping the Euro afloat at the cost of everybody else.

So, the EU has become the worlds foremost experts on the cause of global warming and it is AIRPLANES? So they collect a tax that will go to the local aircraft manufactures in the way of subsidies? Nah, Homey don't play that game. Or are they going to use the tax revenues to convert the Dutch windmills into great big carbon air scrubbers? AND I'm a Liberal :)

I have nothing to gain from this, in fact it will almost certainly cost me money but i have to agree with the policy. Global warming is real and it will be very dangerous in future; ironically Europe will probably not notice the effect as much as places like India, China and certain parts of Russia. It's easy to turn around and say, what can we do, Airlines are only 3%, that's nothing...tax this instead, so what would that be, Power plants? Great so no power for anybody, certainly in the overpopulated Asian countries like...you know India and China, personal transportation, so like cars, see that going down well in America and again emerging economies. Animals...how do you all fancy being Veggies?

 

Europe cannot and should not impose it's will on the entire world, but they aren't trying to do that, Airlines that fly into Europe, or in European airspace should abide by the law; they could of course (and probably will) inpose taxes that are similar.

 

My only concern, mentioned above as well, is that Europe will 'urinate' it away on more Eurocrats and keeping the Euro afloat at the cost of everybody else.

 

 

Who is it ultimately going to hurt the most if the rest of the world refuses to pay it? It's going to hurt Europe's tourism, that their economy needs, add to that the extra fuel that will be wasted since their airlines will no longer be able to fly over Russia/India airspace to get to the far east destinations. They're only hurting themselves if they go through with this.

I don't think politicians think that far in advance unfortunately Tom.

The other thing not mentioned is if the EU does go through with this then you bet it will lead to Russia/China/USA adding tariffs to EU products to make up for the economic losses. The USA wouldn't end up paying an EU tax without any action. They would definetely impose a tax (tariff) on the EU for products imported from the EU into the USA, like say German Cars for example.

 

They would look for ways of getting this money back and boosting domestic products over EU products in the process. The effects of this can go far beyond a loss in tourism.

So, the EU has become the worlds foremost experts on the cause of global warming and it is AIRPLANES? So they collect a tax that will go to the local aircraft manufactures in the way of subsidies? Nah, Homey don't play that game. Or are they going to use the tax revenues to convert the Dutch windmills into great big carbon air scrubbers? AND I'm a Liberal :)

 

Sigh...Nobody has said or implied that Airlines are the biggest source of greenhouse gases, please re-read at least my post, but the other ones above it too. They are simply the easiest thing to start taxing.

We all need power, in Europe we 'enjoy' taxes on power generation and in the UK at least pay a large amount of money for green energy generation; do we mind paying this, yes of course we do, is it required, probably, but i really doubt that my money gets spend on renewable energy, most likely spent on shareholders dinner meetings!

Personal transportation (i.e. cars) heavy taxation would be a real vote winner, again in the UK the majority of the "cost at the pump" is tax from the government. I would say...again...that this is not spend on renewable fuels or replacements, probably on propping up failed banks and shady trans-national companies.

 

I'll say it again, the UK and most of Europe will not really suffer in the event of a temp increase of 4c, we'll cope, i fear that people in Bangladesh, India, China, and numerous other countries will really struggle.

 

Who is it ultimately going to hurt the most if the rest of the world refuses to pay it? It's going to hurt Europe's tourism, that their economy needs, add to that the extra fuel that will be wasted since their airlines will no longer be able to fly over Russia/India airspace to get to the far east destinations. They're only hurting themselves if they go through with this.

 

Nobody will refuse to pay it if Europe insists, they'll simply impose there own tax on European flights. The price will increase for people and Tourism will suffer, doesn't really matter, a large amount of tourism in Europe is from other European nations

Nobody will refuse to pay it if Europe insists, they'll simply impose there own tax on European flights. The price will increase for people and Tourism will suffer, doesn't really matter, a large amount of tourism in Europe is from other European nations

 

What do you think this bill in the US Senate does? It bars airlines from paying it, even if they want too!

What do you think this bill in the US Senate does? It bars airlines from paying it, even if they want too!

 

Well i find that even more frightning than the mad Eurocrats, effectively the US Senate is now telling the Europeans what they can and cannot do? How does that work, can the UK government tell UK citizens or firms that it will not pay US taxes?

Well i find that even more frightning than the mad Eurocrats, effectively the US Senate is now telling the Europeans what they can and cannot do? How does that work, can the UK government tell UK citizens or firms that it will not pay US taxes?

 

No their telling them not to pay the tax, which means if Europe Chooses to ban them from European airspace, they will comply with that order. Their not telling them to violate airspace if Europe so chooses to ban them. It's like I said, they are playing chicken, It's just a matter who will flinch first. Right now Europe is being put in a box, if they follow through with this, it's going to isolate them to the rest of the world. Right now I think they know this, but needs to find a graceful way out. They can't afford the loss of tourism, and more importantly the loss of aircraft sales to Airbus, that this will cause. It could destroy an economy, that is fragile to begin with.

 

 

No their telling them not to pay the tax, which means if Europe Chooses to ban them from European airspace, they will comply with that order. Their not telling them to violate airspace if Europe so chooses to ban them. It's like I said, they are playing chicken, It's just a matter who will flinch first. Right now Europe is being put in a box, if they follow through with this, it's going to isolate them to the rest of the world. Right now I think they know this, but needs to find a graceful way out. They can't afford the loss of tourism, and more importantly the loss of aircraft sales to Airbus, that this will cause. It could destroy an economy, that is fragile to begin with.

 

This is exactly how I see it as well. See what Greece thinks about a decline in their tourism revenue at the moment.

 

The USA has the right approach by passing a law banning companies from paying.

If you could physically see the gas that comes out of a Cow's @ss then I know exactly where this tax would be going....

 

Ró.

Well of course the emanations from cows' backsides are methane which, although a greenhouse gas, breaks down far more quickly in the atmosphere than CO2. Also, the cows aren't burning fossil fuel, but renewables (i.e.grass). But in general I agree about the excessive attention to planes as opposed to other fossil CO2 generators.