Via the GWPF, the great war of flying carbon credits appears to be massing on the border.
China has warned the European Union to abandon its controversial carbon tax on airlines or risk provoking a global trade war.
Adding weight to the warning, an industry insider told the Financial Times that the Chinese government was seriously considering measures to hit back at the EU if it insists on charging international airlines for their carbon emissions.
In a case initiated by US airlines, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday that the EU’s carbon emissions trading scheme did not infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, and that it was compatible with international law. The change is set to go into effect from January 1.
Chinese airlines have also been preparing an legal challenge in Europe and they still plan to proceed with it, but Chai Haibo, deputy secretary general of the China Air Transport Association, conceded that the European ruling complicated matters as it means they will need to find an alternative reason to challenge the law.
Even if court action fails, Mr Chai was optimistic that concerted global pressure could yet persuade the EU to repeal its law. In the short term, he called on Brussels to delay implementation in light of the intense international outcry that it has provoked.
“Except for the EU, no countries support this,” he said.
He added that several Chinese government departments in Beijing were in the midst of researching possible counter-measures. Chinese airline officials have said before that they might refuse to pay the carbon tax, raising the prospect of a drawn-out legal fight.
The Chinese government has largely stayed on the sidelines of the spat, letting the airlines speak for themselves. In a sign that the industry dispute is escalating to a diplomatic concern, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman on Thursday called the EU plan “unilateral” and said it should be consulting other countries including China.
Xinhua, the state-owned news agency often used by the government to deliver blunter messages, was more direct.
“This is a trade barrier in the name of environmental protection, and it constitutes an attack on the interests of travellers and the international aviation industry,” it said in an editorial. “It will be difficult to avoid a trade war focused on a ‘carbon tax’ for airlines.”
Hello,
this is a member of the EU writing – I’m from Germany. I agree with all your comments and the article – but please have in mind that Europe is not the speaker for the European nations. We did not elect the people in Brussels, we have no right whatsoever to say something there. The sooner this nonsense stops, the better for all of us – if the Chinese show the way, let it be.
And you should have another thing in mind: All this happening is based on e gigantic fraud! CO2 has no measurable influence on our climate.
WHO’S GOING TO TELL BRUSSELS?! THE CHINESE?
Chris Frey – nonsense-scared inhabitant of the so called EU
davidmhoffer says:
December 23, 2011 at 10:14 am
Nice description of the nearby future, which has already started: The Chinese airlines calculated that the new regulations would cost them 125 million euro’s per year now, up to 500 million in 2020. According to the BBC, the Chinese government has blocked the purchase of Airbus planes by Hong Kong airlines worth several billion euro’s… Or how a few European bureaucrats and politicians are killing the European industry to keep the near bankrupt CO2 trading scheme alive…
And now you see both why the EU was formed and why it is so dangerous. It is big enough now to implement stuff like this which could never have been done with nation states with governments answerable to their electorates. I was happy to see the sceptics win the argument on CAGW but it doesn’t matter. That argument has long gone, this tax is for the billions that the EU needs to redistribute to climate victims. They really do not care about destroying Europe. Every self respecting Brit should vote UKIP as they are our only hope.
Its bad enough flying from the UK now, without adding more EU taxes on top.
The UK has already confirmed it will be increasing the PAX TAX again soon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/air-passenger-duty/8923504/Autumn-Statement-2011-Air-Passenger-Duty-rise-confirmed.html
did I read somewhere NOT new news tho but still applicable, that private airplanes / jets were exempt from some of these taxes in the UK … so the rich don’t pay! sounds about right huh…… bleed the poorer classes and exempt the wealthier ones! Merry Christmas Scrooge
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/data/121148-investigation-reveals-private-jets-are-exempt-from-carbon-passenger-tax.html
Thomas U. says:
December 23, 2011 at 7:48 am
“Witness the howling in my country, Germany, when the Brits pulled out of some of the futile €uro rescue schemes.”
Thomas, I’m German as well. The media howled, sure. Everybody on the streets sympathizes with the Brits, on the other hand. Stop paying attention to the useless Quislings in our media.
Pretty darned sad when we support China over our own governments.
Are there any adults left in the west?
Peter Miller says:
December 22, 2011 at 11:41 pm
“Eurosclerosis” is just about the right description of it. I hope the Chinese stop buying those European government bonds being sold by ECB and other governments in Europe, and impose whatever trade retaliation they can on the EU, for they are idiots. Charging a tax that cannot meaningfully solve any particular CO2 problem (other than, yes, trying to stabilize their failing welfare states without taxing their own people right now) will only result in more financial instability for Europe.
I’m not sure I understand the point of view. Though i’m not convinced by the global warming stuff, I think incitatives for a better use of fossil fuels are not that stupid. In europe, we have had pretty high taxes on gasoline since the 70’s. The result is that we have now economic cars, that the European car industry has much better resisted than the American.
Oil is a fantastic product. I think there are more interesting uses for it than burning it in aircraft engines.
If this blog wants to convince people whatever their political side, it should refrain from consistently taking anti-regulation, anti-leftist positions. It lets think that the anti-AGW position is based on politics rather than on science (which I think it is not – I mean the scientific arguments are meaningful, but they sometimes lose credibility because of political declaration such as this article).
Zo6;
The result is that we have now economic cars, that the European car industry has much better resisted than the American.>>>
Japan’s car industry was producing more economic cars than America even earlier, and without the pressure of high taxes to prompt them. More economical is more economical, and the major cost factor is oil, with or without high taxes.
Zo6;
Oil is a fantastic product. I think there are more interesting uses for it than burning it in aircraft engines.>>>
OK fine. As soon as you come up with an alternative, let us know.
The old prepetual question: What is resp. who makes public opinion. I am very far from believing the Quislings in the media, but I had to realize that ordinary people (and not the lemming variety) fell in line with the quislings. This is also very obvious in the handling of the debt crisis: Once again “The Greek”, “The Italians”, etc. are criticised (and worse) while rationlaity is suspended for nationalist emotions. In Greece they depict Mrs. Merkel with the swastika, some argue that the “rescue” plans (i.e. fiscal union) are equal to Germany finally winning WW 2. All this is nonsense, of course, but it gains traction. My point here is, that the €Urocrats do not at all mind the very real risk of a re-ignition of old european prejudices. They follow their agenda, at all costs. I would not be too surprised, if the outcome of this latest folly was a compensation for the airlines and taxation/costs for the citizens. Germany for example has declared the biggest consumers of electricity to be excempt from the renewables fee. This results in higher costs for the ordinary citizen and business as usual for the industry. Which is good in a way, because it helps keeping the industry afloat (and in the country). On the other hand it shows clearly that “arguments” along the line “higher costs will result in more efficient production and thus we all will benefit” often are nothing but wishful thinking. It does not work this way!
Merry christmas to all of you! Enjoy a happy and peaceful holiday season!
Thomas from Franken, Germany
[snip . . OT . . kbmod]
Larry’s modest proposal for responding to the new EU carbon tax on air travel
An economically rational response from the USA would be an equal and opposite tax on air travel to and from the EU countries. The revenues from our new tax would provide subsidies for trans-PACIFIC flights. Our new tax would be automatically pegged to the EU tax. If they cut theirs in half, then we’d instantaneously follow suit.
Of course, increased cost would cause a small decrease in air traffic between the US and the EU countries. That would have a small impact on carbon emissions that stem from trans-Atlantic flights. However that small decrease would be offset by an increase in carbon emissions from trans-Pacific flights, which would become somewhat cheaper and more frequent in comparison. I’ve been meaning to check out beautiful Australia one of these days.
Our airline and tourist industries would just about break even with the new American tax. With a carefully crafted American response, whatever CO2 emissions reductions the EU hopes to accomplish by their new tax will be completely canceled out by American tax and subsidy. Taken together, both air travel taxes would be essentially carbon-neutral.
Even for Europeans who believed in CAGW, their new tax would be pointless, in light of the American counter-tax. Moreover their airline and tourist industries would take a double-whammy from both new taxes.
On the other hand, the EU countries have demonstrated a consistent and uncanny proclivity for shooting themselves in the foot. Even with the new American tax, they may continue to do so, as a matter of principle!
And since Obama has no grasp of basic science or of basic economics, my modest proposal will probably never gain traction. But it’s fun to think about.
David,
You are wrong. Japan, like European countries, heavily taxes gasoline, less than Europe, but much more than in the US.
– $2.30/l in France
– $1.92/l in Japan
” Since fuels are traded worldwide the trade prices are similar, the price paid by consumers largely reflects national pricing policy: some regions, such as Europe and Japan, impose high taxes on gasoline” (wikipedia)”
Energy consumption per capita is more than 60% higher in the US than in France. In my opinion, there’s no other reason for that than tax incitatives (French don’t have a low standard of living)
Of course, there is no alternative for feeding aircrafts. The question is more about the utility of many flights. Do we need actually just in time trading ? Do we really need our goods to be manufactured in low cost emerging countries? Do we need roses or beef from South America?
If I have to choose between going on driving my car in 20 years for a reasonable price and getting those products which I don’t really need, I don’t care about taxes on kerosene.
What “International Law”? There is no big book of international law. “International Law” is a huge web of sometimes contradictory and overlapping treaties between two or more countries including various UN treaties. When people start blathering about international law ask them to point to the page or code under “International Law” that says an act was either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. You want to tick off a Liberal? … tell them you’ll wait while they go look that up.
Zo6 says:
December 25, 2011 at 2:55 am
Zo6, when you say “I dont need” and “I dont care”, who do you think should decide what you need, and what you should care about? A government commitee? Just like when the central comittee in Moscow were discussing the price of eggs?
It might make just as much scientific sense, if the US and China were to charge EU aircraft so much for each cubic meter of water vapor released at flight level over their countries, as a recent study correlated a decline in stratospheric water vapor since 2000 with reduced surface temperatures.
Science News
Stratospheric Water Vapor Is a Global Warming Wild Card
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm
Well, looks to me like airport expansion is on the cards for which ever nearby country bows out of the latest EuroNuttyness. Iceland has a shot at it (some many year ago my Mum made a stop there on her first return home to England in 18 years… nice ‘gas station’…)
Looks like ALL of North Africa is well positioned. From the other direction, I can see Ukraine and Belarus (and some others) as nice “stop and gas up, reset tax ticker” points…
Strait in to Switzerland is nice, too.
Were I running a foreign airline, I think I’d be looking at the economics of a ‘gas stop’ just outside the tax wall…