From the BBC comes this bit of good news:
EU suspends aircraft emissions trading rules
The European Union has agreed to suspend its rules that require airlines flying to and from airports in the EU to pay for their carbon emissions.
The rules had been unpopular with countries outside Europe such as the US, China and India.
Climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said she had proposed “stopping the clock for one year”.
She said the suspension was due to progress being made in negotiations on a global emissions deal.
But she added that if the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) did not make progress towards a global deal by this time next year the European tax would be reintroduced.
The EU brought in the Emissions Trading Scheme on 1 January.
India and China have been among the most vocal opponents of the ETS, with India banning its airlines from complying with it in April.
The European Commission’s recommendation came after last Friday’s general meeting of the ICAO, which agreed to move towards a market-based mechanism for emissions trading.
The commission said it had only introduced its own trading scheme because it had “waited for many years for ICAO to progress”.
“Nobody wants an international framework framework tackling CO2-emissions from aviation more than we do,” Ms Hedegaard said.
“Nobody wants an international framework framework tackling CO2-emissions from aviation more than we do,” Ms Hedegaard said.
I wonder if she realizes that she accidentally stated the absolute, literal truth of the matter. That’s right, NOBODY.
The Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head, again. They never learn, do they?
I bet the BBC had to report that through gritted teeth.
It does not approve of mere mortals like us going on holiday or doing business overseas.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Sounds like a real good reason to let the EU crash and burn aka going Galt.
“Nobody wants an international framework tackling CO2-emissions from aviation more than we do,” Ms Hedegaard said.
What she didn’t say is, how many people/organizations want the agreement less than she does or the groups who want it not at all…
I can’t write – I’m too damned angry……..one day all the EU politicians will be against the wall I hope – as I am sure there will be many millions of ordinary EU citizens lining up to ‘pay’ their respects!
I still await the airline trade war that will ensue on this if the EU reinstates. Perhaps China will charge European airlines landing in China a hefty Carbon balancing tax to feed back into their state airlines to counteract the idiocy or increase landing fees dramatically for EU origin airlines. Or maybe they will simply stop issuing travel visas to EU citizens, thus killing any European leverage into Chinese markets. Only bad things can come from unilateral diktats on foreign controlled entities.
The failure of this tax is a case study in why China and OPEC wants the USA to unilaterally impose a carbon tax on itself, thus destroying its energy production and moving all of its industry overseas. Many do not realize that OPEC, particularly our friends the Saudis, contribute a great deal of money to American ‘environmental’ groups.
Ms Hedegaard is full of ‘threats’. They are empty and shallow as she has no power whatsoever to impose taxes on other nation states. It will never happen. What we need now though is the public and permanent abandonment of the scheme to restore confidence in the airline industry, both manufacturing and passenger.
The thing that needs to crash & burn is her job, the complete EU environmental department, in fact the whole EU. It’s a huge waste of MY money, and was a huge threat itself to my son’s future job prospects – he’s at uni studying Aerospace Engineering, an industry severely threatened by her mad ETS scheme.
oh what delicious, simply delicious irony.
When will people see that a carbon tax doesn’t reduce carbon emissions. A tax would work if there really were alternative energy sources with the same energy return on energy invested. With airlines there is no alternative at all, so they just pay the tax and burn the carbon. Taxes just add a distortion to the market. If taxes could save the planet and create utopia for the human race we would already be there. If you reduce the demand for carbon it gets even cheaper. China will buy it, burn it and sell us the products our taxes wouldn’t allow us to make. It’s silly. Even worst when you consider that the effect of CO2 on the climate is mostly exaggerated.
It is also two fingers up to BBC’s Richard Black, who’s more biased towards climate change than Dracula in a blood bank. Sorry Richard old boy, you’ve lost this one, and it won’t be the last, the beginning of the end of your alamism and unprofessional advocacy has begun.
The mess at the BBC is no doubt going to shed some unfavourable light on its and his activities relating to global warming reporting, and I re-use Judith Curry’s phrase in relation to Mike Mann’s latest ‘baby cry’ libel case, “that I fear the outcome will not bode well for him”. I would suggest he follows the course of action that several have made already, to jump before being pushed (or is that lynched?).
“Nobody wants an international framework framework tackling CO2-emissions from aviation more than we do,” Ms Hedegaard said.
No, Connie, nobody wants an international framework framework tackling CO2-emissions period.
Must book a ticket to visit Europe one last time before I expire before it all looks like the Coliseum in Rome. Sad when people stand smiling with their backs to a cliff and don’t realize what one step backwards will do.
There is almost nothing as heart warming as seeing an EU commissioner having to eat humble pie.
Dogma, not pragmatism, is the usual stance of these unelected super-bureaucrats.
The EU has a history of trying things again and again until they get the result they want. It’s a post-democratic bureaucracy.
@ilma630
I agree with your sentiments 100%, but I it was noted at Bishops Hill that Black left the beeb a couple of months ago
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1944083
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19422041
I have worked and traveled to Europe many times both by ship and airplane. I always have enjoyed my trips because I like museums and I realize that Europe is a gigantic museum from the Baltic to Sicily. The carbon tax was just another attempt to increase the price of the museum entrance ticket.
But she added that if the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) did not make progress towards a global deal by this time next year the European tax would be reintroduced.
Why does she not say that the tax will be reintroduced if HadCRUT3 looks like it will finally break the 1998 record? Is it not global warming that this is all about?
ilma630 says:
November 12, 2012 at 9:57 am
What? The BBC isn’t the impartial pedastal of broadcasting it was supposed to be! How dare you suggest such things, Sir! /seriously serious sarc!
On a more recent note of BBC paucity of skill – they have just announced that the recent journalist reports over the child abuse scandal didn’t undertake basic journalistic checks. How surprised are we at that then? /even more sarc!,
Great! It is nice to get a bit of good news on this front for a change.
What is that cracking sound I hear?
Let them demand their tax, but have the governments order the airlines to to pay. Then if EU bans those airlines treat it as an antitrust issue to impose huge penalties on flights by european airlines and disallow EU airlines on domestic flights.
Tourism will plummet, hitting the worst off EU states (Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc.), which depend the most on tourism, hardest.
Of course the EU knows this can happen, that is why this is all political theatre to be endlessly delayed for one reason or another.
Dear Moderators:
“Nobody wants an international framework framework tackling CO2-emissions from aviation more than we do,” Ms Hedegaard said.
Can you add a note that the doubled word comes from the BBC piece? It’s not in the linked EU press release, and it should be made clear it’s a BBC error, not a WUWT error.
Thanks.
[Reply: You just made it clear for everyone. Thanks. — mod.]
Article 50 application to withdraw & negotiate a trade agreement & we become the European gateway. 🙂
DaveE.