THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 3(merged)

[Tanada]

International airlines lost a fight against the European Union’s (EU) planned expansion of its carbon cap-and-trade system, to which Europe’s highest court gave unreserved backing on Wednesday.

The court’s ruling came after United Continental Holdings, American Airlines, and the Air Transport Association of America challenged the EU’s attempt to extend the world’s largest cap-and-trade program beyond its borders. At a hearing in July, the airlines said the plan to extend the EU carbon market to flights that depart from or arrive at an airport in the region was unlawful.

Despite their efforts, the EU Court of Justice “confirms the validity of the directive that includes aviation” in the emissions-trading program, the Luxembourg court ruled today.

“Application of the emissions trading scheme to aviation infringes neither the principles of customary international law at issue, nor the open-skies agreement,” the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said.

EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who has used the carbon trading scheme is one of her “main weapons to combat climate change,” gleefully welcomed the decision.

“After a crystal-clear ruling today, the EU now expects U.S. airlines to respect EU law as the EU respects U.S. law,” she said in a Twitter posting.

“We reaffirm our wish to engage constructively with everyone during the implementation of our legislation,” she added in a statement.

So what does this mean?

It means that the EU law will now charge airlines for carbon emissions on flights to and from Europe. Beginning January 1, all airlines flying into or out of European Union airports will have to buy permits under the EU’s emissions trading scheme, the court ruled.

from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/goodbye ... -airlines/

My prediction, Morocco or Libya or someplace similar will see an upswing in flights from the USA. Why? Easy, make Casablanca the hub for your flights from the USA to Europe and you only pay carbon tax for the flight too and from Casablanca, not across the entire Atlantic.

[davep]

This is good. Why should international flight be untaxed?

[cephalotus]

My prediction, Morocco or Libya or someplace similar will see an upswing in flights from the USA. Why? Easy, make Casablanca the hub for your flights from the USA to Europe and you only pay carbon tax for the flight too and from Casablanca, not across the entire Atlantic.

The airlines have to buy emission certificates for only 15% of their emissions and a signifcant amount of that will be given for free. Only those airlines with planes that emit more than average will have additional costs (around 10 US$/flight), those with less than average CO2 emissions could even make money with that law when selling CO2 certificates that are not needed.

If you prefer to fly via Lybia to save maybe 5 US$ on your ticket feel free to do so....

But, it's just the beginning. I hope for a cap on 100% of CO2 emissions from air travel, so airlines are forced to make their planes more efficient and those that don't will be unable to compete.
Flying for just 20€ from Berlin to London for a shopping day is common practise but pure insanity in my opinion.

[Tanada]

This is good. Why should international flight be untaxed?

Instead of this cumbersome system the EU has developed why not have a 1% fuel surcharge on all aircraft fuel sold in the EU and make it illegal for individual member countries to subsidize their national carriers?

If everyone is paying the fuel tax there is nothing to object too, if everyone plays on a level field. If the EU airlines keep getting subsidies from their individual governments while at the same time setting up a carbon trading scheme that outside airlines without subsidies also have to pay for then there is no fairness. Tax avoidance is one of the oldest human endeavors ever invented, anyone who glibly dismisses the idea that non EU airlines will do what they can to avoid EU airline taxes doesn't understand human nature very well.

[AgentR11]

This is good. Why should international flight be untaxed?

While in one sense, i don't really care that much, as I'd like to see all the airlines go out of business, forever.... I think the imbalance of it will force other governments to apply counter taxes in the name of carbon. No idea what they'll do specifically, but as long as it helps wreck the business of air travel, it'll definitely be a great thing.

I suspect China will react more strongly than the US though.

[argyle]

This is good. Why should international flight be untaxed?

Instead of this cumbersome system the EU has developed why not have a 1% fuel surcharge on all aircraft fuel sold in the EU and make it illegal for individual member countries to subsidize their national carriers?

If everyone is paying the fuel tax there is nothing to object too, if everyone plays on a level field. If the EU airlines keep getting subsidies from their individual governments while at the same time setting up a carbon trading scheme that outside airlines without subsidies also have to pay for then there is no fairness. Tax avoidance is one of the oldest human endeavors ever invented, anyone who glibly dismisses the idea that non EU airlines will do what they can to avoid EU airline taxes doesn't understand human nature very well.

Tax on fuel is national, the carbon tax is EU jurisdiction.

All flights (from EU and Non-EU companies going in and out, or internal EU airspace) will have to pay this, with the same conditions, so there is no unfair competition.
What the other international (non-eu) airline companies tried to obtain was a competitive advantage but failed. I don't know where you get the impression that EU-carriers are getting subsidies from their national governments?

I don't think China will be hugely against it, as they don't have a large amount of carriers that fly to EU. (as far as I know).

It does fit in with the EU view of reducing carbon emissions, as it's the idea that carriers in the long run will be more inclined to use more energy efficient planes. At least the EU has a policy and is applying it on multiple fields, so it's not "just" (as some ppl might claim) to give EU carriers a competitive advantage, so it's believable, ans justifiable. This carbon tax (trading) is already in effect in many industries within the EU.

I'm all for it.. even if you doubt GW, then atleast it will promote more efficient use of a finite resource (although I personally think flying should be way more expensive). Other benefit (only within EU), is that it might promote High Speed Rail transportation, which I also applaud.

In general I think (convinced really) that all the goods we consume are way to cheap if you would factor in the real costs (environmental, resource, labour (not some cheap "slave-labour"),.. ) but we (rich) are living at the poor nations/ppl (africa, asia,..) expense.

[dohboi]

Indeed, it is the US airlines that get subsidies right and left from various levels of government.

And, iirc, no fuel tax is paid for jet fuel anywhere--another huge back-door subsidy that mostly benefits those already wealthy enough to afford to fly.

Here as elsewhere, the economic signals have been totally out of whack from the signals that are needed for a viable planet. I applaud the EU for taking this step.

But they might be about to experience some...turbulence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/china-threatens-trade-war-over-eu-jet-emissions-tax-6280813.html

China threatens trade war over EU jet emissions tax

The "environmental squeeze" that helped prompt British Airways owner IAG's takeover of BMI is set to ignite a trade war between China and Europe after the EU's top court upheld a move to charge airlines using the Continent's airspace for their greenhouse gas emissions.

Beijing yesterday threatened disruptions to trade with the EU after the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday that the emissions tax would go ahead as planned on 1 January. The move added China's voice to that of America, which last week warned that it would take "appropriate action" if the proposed charges were not amended or delayed.

[Timo]

The bad thing about the announcment of new technologies is that the development of those technologies for any significant benefit is usually years away, if at all. This new material may or may not fit into this category, but the advancement is certainly noteworthy. An inexpensive, mass-produceable, recyclable, reuseable material to physically remove CO2 from the atmosphere....... On the one hand, it (theoretically) wouldn't have been announced if it wasn't true, at least via reputable sources. No E-Cat theories, here, please. On the other hand, the degree that this announcement is true is probably subject to variation. Time will tell, i guess. In any case, read. If it makes you happy, have a drink and raise a toast. If not, well, go bury your head in the sand.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120104115100.htm

The issues that govern/influence the doom mentality are certainly all valid, and should not be ingnored. That said, i'm increasingly starting to think that being a "doomer" is voluntary, to no small degree. It's all a matter of perspective. i guess.

[clif]

Here is the abstract for the paper;

http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/pre ... /ja2100005

[careinke]

Interesting. My solution is probably simpler.........plants. Grow plants, turn them into biochar, till them into the soil. Rinse and repeat. Self sustaining, carbon negative, and a host of additional benefits. Might I suggest using the hemp plant. Gives you food, oil, medicine, fiber, building material, recreational drug, and biochar from one easy to grow plant.

[Pops]

In the article sidebar is a 4 year old story about

Researchers report development of a low-cost carbon filter that can remove 90 percent of carbon dioxide gas from the smokestacks of electric power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels.

I suppose that product is well on the way to eliminating the problem of CO2 from coal so along with the the new stuff we'll be carbon negative in no time! Add in the CO2 eating microbes in the next article and we're gonna have to be careful not to remove too much, not good for the pot, ya know.

All stories from the American Chemical Society btw.

[Graeme]

Timo, Excellent thread. Thanks for posting it. I wonder though just how much CO2 can be removed from atmosphere using this technique alone.

[Timo]

Pops, are you an unemployed philosopher?

Here's looking at Euclid!

Sorry, Off topic joke regarding philosophers - Rene Descartes walked into a bar and began ordering one Vodka Martini after another. (Shaken, not stirred) He'd had about a dozen of these drinks and shortly after he'd sipped the last one, the bartender asked him if he'd like another. He thought for a moment, and replied, "I think not." And suddenly, he disappeared.

[Tanada]

This is good. Why should international flight be untaxed?

While in one sense, i don't really care that much, as I'd like to see all the airlines go out of business, forever.... I think the imbalance of it will force other governments to apply counter taxes in the name of carbon. No idea what they'll do specifically, but as long as it helps wreck the business of air travel, it'll definitely be a great thing.

I suspect China will react more strongly than the US though.

Turns out you hit a bull's eye Agent!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-surp ... de-scheme/

“China has ‘banned’ all airlines in the country from joining the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) aimed at cutting carbon emissions,” the BBC reports. “The authorities have also barred the airlines from increasing their fares or adding new charges for the scheme.”

No compromise.

“China objects to the EU’s decision to impose the scheme on non-EU airlines,” Xinhua quoted a statement by the Civil Aviation Administration of China as saying.

[kiwichick]

and yet china is introducing it's own co2 tax

[Cog]

But the money will go to them and not somewhere else.

[kiwichick]

cog


so where do you think the eu tax will go?

[Vogelzang]

I just farted. Pardon me while I see what the federal agents at the door want.

[Vogelzang]

OK, I'm back. They ordered me to wear a fart catcher and if I don't I will be fined a million dollars a day. I have to dispose of the fart gas at a government location a couple miles away from my house when the fart catcher is full. If the fart catcher gets damaged in any way, I have to call the fart police and get a new fart catcher. Fart catcher fees are tax deductable, BTW.

[Tanada]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Airbus and a group of European airlines issued another warning that the European Commission faces sparking a trade war after extending its emission trading scheme to the global industry.

The plane maker had said that China has frozen some jet deals because of the scheme, and spearheaded a new warning to political leaders that more retaliation is imminent unless the European Union backs down and pursues a compromise.

http://media.ft.com/cms/55057582-6b9b-1 ... eab49a.pdf

However, for several months now, we have been drawing the attention of your government,
the European Commission and the European Parliament, to the growing threat of potential
action against European aviation-related businesses as a reaction to European ETS. In
February 26 nations signed the Moscow Declaration, in which they threaten numerous
retaliation measures.
These threats are now real and being translated into concrete action. This is starting to have
serious consequences on the European aviation business and could proliferate at any moment.
In many of the countries opposed to ETS, countermeasures and restrictions on European
airlines are in preparation. In China, US$12 billion worth of Airbus orders have been
suspended. Airbus estimates that this will jeopardise more than 1,000 Airbus jobs in Europe
and at least another 1,000 in the supply chain. India has let EU airlines know that certain
traffic rights / overflights will be suspended or not extended. Russia has threatened additional
overflight charges. This hits EU airlines that struggle from many burdens and will cost
numerous jobs in the aviation industry.

Looks like things are heating up and a trade war is looming.