UN Brokers New Global Green Tax on Air Travel

London City Airport
London City Airport. By Frans Zwart (http://www.airliners.net/photo//1776564/L/) [GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The United Nations has brokered a new international agreement which forces airlines to pay for “green” projects. By 2035, the UN expects the deal will siphon $24 billion / annum from the pockets of air travellers.

Aviation pact on global warming wins go-ahead

Airlines back UN accord to offset emissions growth by funding green projects.

Delegates from nearly 200 nations approved the accord at the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal in a step the agency’s head, Fang Liu, described as a “historic first”.

One of the countries that helped push the Paris deal over the line was Canada, where the centre-left government of prime minister Justin Trudeau announced a carbon-pricing plan on Monday that could lead to a tax of C$50 a tonne by 2022.

Instead of facing a patchwork of measures worldwide, airlines have backed a plan that will see them offset their emissions growth by funding projects that cut carbon pollution, such as wind farms or solar-power plants.

The scheme will be phased in over several years from the early 2020s and cost the aviation industry as much as $24bn by 2035, according to estimates from the UN agency.

Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/2a9c7f14-8bd7-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731

The FT article makes a big deal of how airlines supported the new scheme. It might seem counterintuitive that airlines would support a new tax on their operations, but in the wake of the botched European attempt in 2012 to unilaterally introduce an aviation carbon trading scheme, the mishandling of which saw some airlines operating at a cost disadvantage against their competitors, it is understandable that airlines would support a level playing field, and a measure of protection against some of the more unpredictable green world leaders.

In any case, airlines won’t lose much if any money because of this new tax – they will simply pass the extra cost on to their customers.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
148 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus
October 8, 2016 8:01 am

“One of the countries that helped push the Paris deal over the line was Canada, where the centre-left government of prime minister Justin Trudeau “…..
Center-left government ??….Umm, no…How about extreme left !

Andrew
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 10:39 am

No, the MSM will never refer to any political figure as “far left” not Obama, not Sanders, not Vladimir Ilych Trudeau, not Lee Rhiannon. At best they may get the description “progressive.”
Conversely anyone who doesn’t believe in even one tenet of progressivism is “far right.”

Richard
Reply to  Andrew
October 8, 2016 10:47 am

Yup. That’s the way it works.

Marcus
Reply to  Andrew
October 8, 2016 11:09 am

..499 Gold Stars…Well said Andrew..

Santa Baby
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 1:17 pm

Well in a PC Society we have to adjust to what other people feel they are and not what our lying eyes are telling us they are?

Moa
Reply to  Santa Baby
October 8, 2016 3:52 pm

Note: “PC” is a euphemism for its true name, “Cultural Marxist Political Correctness”. I don’t use the abbreviation, I always use the full name – because it shows us how we got here and where we are being taken.
No Taxation without ***Elected*** Representation !

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Santa Baby
October 8, 2016 7:01 pm

Read my lips… NO NEW TAXES.
Heh… stole that line from a traditional Republican.

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 1:49 pm

Well California will be free of those airline taxes.
California Government is committed; bound and determined to make California :
100 % Renewable energy; no Fossils, no Nukes, no Tree burning. Mostly PV and wind, which are both renewable solar energies.
Wind is also 100% completely uncontrollable. Well you have your choice to run with the wind you have, in the narrow design range of wind speed; or you can shut it down, so it doesn’t wear out the bearings etc, idling at low wind speeds, or shaking itself to pieces at over range high wind speeds.
California Government is also committed to make California 100% ALL ELECTRIC.
New Housing construction permits will require ALL ELECTRIC. NO natural gas for cooking or heating or hot water.
In my view, it should be a felony to use Electricity to make heat for warmth or cooking.
There are industrial processes like semi-conductors, where ultra-controllable electric heating is mandatory. Anything else is criminal.
EM radiation is the premiere energy source. It is essentially 100% convertible to heat.
Heat is the ultimate in waste products. It is the garbage of the energy domain.
Heat can never be 100% converted into ANYTHING that is useful.
In the case of the solar heating used to power the gas turbine engines that are known as wind turbines, the Carnot efficiency of the turbine is pitiful. Most of the heat is lost before the warmed air ever gets to the intake duct of the turbine rotor, and a lot more is lost in the exhaust duct. Both air ducts consume square miles of area getting the warm air in and out of the turbine impellor.
G

auto
Reply to  george e. smith
October 9, 2016 11:05 am

BallBounces
You have reminded me of a broadcast by the BBC, from South Africa, before Mandela had been freed (that was early 1990, so this was 1988/9 I guess; there was an election occurring, with a very-largely white franchise [then].
The BBC reporter, for his audience in the UK, ran through the competing parties: –
“There is the Liberal party, which is to the right of centre.
“There is the National party, which is right-wing.
“There is the Conservative party, which is extreme right wing. [I don’t think the word ‘Hitler’ was used, in fairness].
“And then there is the AWB . . . . . . .”
Auto,
Well aware that anyone to the right of, say, Gordon Brown, or the US’s own Bernie Sanders, is looked on (and spat on?), by the BBC, as a frothing-mouth rightist.

BallBounces
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 3:15 pm

Canada is left-wing progressive. The Liberals are left of that. The NDP are left of the Liberals, and the Greens are left of the NDP. Conservatives? Left-overs.

auto
Reply to  BallBounces
October 9, 2016 11:09 am

The H term sent it to moderation.
Auto – no, not ‘hydrogen’.
It’ll appear.

MarkG
Reply to  BallBounces
October 11, 2016 4:54 pm

“Canada is left-wing progressive.”
Most of Canada is right-wing. It’s just ruled over by lefties in Ontario.
This is why the country is going to break apart, probably well before 2035.

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
October 9, 2016 10:47 am

Well now that we have solar powered aero-planes, we should require all airliners for air travel to be solar powered.
g

auto
Reply to  george e. smith
October 9, 2016 11:18 am

Certainly for politicians.
Or, perhaps, methane powered. Ten tonnes of pig 5h1T in the cabin, and the gas powers the engines. Half our politicians would be able to keep it aloft – if not doing an useful work – for months!
Auto, glad to have serendipitously stumbled on the nearest we have yet come to a perpetual motion [motions!] machine!

Catcracking
Reply to  george e. smith
October 9, 2016 1:30 pm

I agree but also for the elites with their private planes like DeCapprio, Let the believers go first to demonstrate the viability.

Marcus
October 8, 2016 8:02 am

..Hmmm, I notice they did not include Private Jets of the rich and famous elites in their tax plan…

Phil B
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 4:08 pm

I came here just to say this. It’s one more way the “elites” get to keep their luxuries for themselves. After all, it’s not a luxury if everyone can afford it.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 7:31 pm

If they tax the fuel and airport usage fees, the elite will pay their share also. Let’s just hope they don’t get a chance to impose this tyranny and cripple the average guy’s once-in-a-lifetime vacation plans.

JohnB
Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 9, 2016 6:48 am

Guaranteed it will be tax paid on air fares, the tickets themselves. The elite will be exempt.

October 8, 2016 8:06 am

Business never paid a tax………. it is always passed on

Reply to  William E Heritage
October 8, 2016 9:40 am

Of course, the economics of such a tax is not that clear cut. In theory, the airlines will pass on the tax, but the demand for air travel should also drop, putting them at a slight net loss.
The practical reality is that, since there is no alternative to flying, most of this tax will get passed on. If the tax does not apply to private jets, then that is one alternative which would increase with such a tax.

Marcus
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 10:34 am

..You are missing the point, they want all Humans in 2016, to live like it is 1799….Wooden ships, Little Ice Age…Plague ( Prince Charles),Pestilence, famine..etc…The only good thing is there were no liberal Eco-Terrorists at that time…So, we can fix that part now.. !! LOL

Janice Moore
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 10:39 am

Marcus! I think you are now “live!” Congrats! 🙂

Marcus
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 10:41 am

..Thank you Janice…What ever you did ! LOL

Bryan A
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 10:52 am

Well we already have the Prince Charles

Marcus
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 11:02 am

..Dear Janice, you will now, and forever more, be a blessing to this dark world we live in…Funny thing is, I am not religious in any way, shape or form….but you just bring out the best in people..( and tell them to shut up when required) !! The world needs many more of you….

Marcus
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 11:07 am

..Bryan, the only good thing that can be said about “Prince Charles” is….”What a moron” ! If i said what I REALLY felt about such stupid comments from a person who holds sway over so many people, I would be banned from here for ever !! Cheers….

John Harmsworth
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 11:49 am

This is how anti-CO2 nonsense destroys the scope of human experience. Eventually we are back in huts and wondering what is over the hill in the distance while government empressarios still fly overhead

Santa Baby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 8, 2016 11:18 pm

They want all people of the World to be serfs under international socialism.

Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2016 8:08 am

Which airlines backed it? That could be bad for them, and an advantage to those who didn’t.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2016 11:36 am

Bruce, it was unilateral, all of them are signing on and we will pay for it.

mike
Reply to  asybot
October 8, 2016 4:15 pm

The little asian tigers airlines too ?!?

Samuel C Cogar
October 8, 2016 8:14 am

Like Ronald Reagan’s “winning” quote, ….. “Corporations don’t pay taxes, ….. people pay taxes.

emsnews
October 8, 2016 8:21 am

And…they are not going to tax private planes? And what about taxing yachts heavily?

ClimateOtter
Reply to  emsnews
October 8, 2016 8:24 am

I think clintoon did that in the early 90s? And the yacht business started going down the tubes.

highflight56433
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 8, 2016 9:03 am

…I recall the “luxury” tax killing auto sales, boat sales, aircraft sales, etc. Another fail by politicians…always ripping off the public. When will man ever learn.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 8, 2016 12:34 pm

“Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.”

Catcracking
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 8, 2016 1:07 pm

harkin.
I remember the folly of the yacht tax well. Ultimately the State of NJ had to offer a subsidy to the boat business to create jobs since boat building was a big provider of jobs in the State.
The other [part of] the bill levied a federal use tax on boat use every year requiring me and others to buy a sticker for the boat. The folly was that the coast Guard had no mechanism to collect the tax and arranged for a private company to collect the taxes who took such a big bite, the administrative collection system consumed most of the collection.
Sanity set in after a while, and the taxes were repealed.

george e. smith
Reply to  emsnews
October 8, 2016 2:07 pm

One man’s luxury yacht is another man’s commercial fishing boat, is another man’s swimming pool inflatable mattress.
Everything that is made or manufactured is largely un-necessary in the view of others who never had a use for most of those things.
So when YOU mention luxury, in relation to somebody else’s STUFF, that same person sees what is indispensable to YOU as a superfluous luxury.
The general idea of freedom, is that everybody gets to buy whatever it is that they see as adding to their enjoyment.
Get gummint out of the business of curbing freedoms with taxes on “luxuries.”
In my view; Hollywood actors are superfluous. Digital computers can now make totally lifelike (or not) movie actors or actresses out on ones and zeros, so there is NO need for Hollywood or actors. But I wouldn’t say to tax them out of existence.
I just wouldn’t hire them to weed my back garden, or star in a movie. They would in time find something to do to justify the space they take up. Same gose for football players. If they want to sit down during the game; that’s fine with me. I can always watch WWF or UFC, or even bowling or Professional poker players. They are as interesting as any movie actress.
g

Gary Pearse
October 8, 2016 8:22 am

The UN is long overdue for retirement. Apparently, the US is the biggest funder of this, the most anti-American organization ever created.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/us-should-challenge-huge-un-funding-disparities

J McClure
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 8, 2016 10:01 am

The UN charter is the issue. It’s far to general.
UNFCCC needs to be restricted to specific objectives and its authority needs proper oversight.

Th3o Moore
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 12:01 pm

Not sure that would work. US constitution is fairly specific and detailed. Balance of authority didn’t last all that long either.

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 12:48 pm

The UN, though first proposed/created by the US, is defined by its charter. US constitution is irrelevant IMHO.

JohnKnight
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 7:40 pm

” US constitution is irrelevant IMHO.”
What the hell do you think is standing in the way of your virtual enslavement, J? Fear of your outrage? . . . talk about wishful thinking . .

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 8:29 pm

JohnKnight,
The Republic for which we stand ensures allodial rights, no one else enjoys.
Sadly, instead of world embrace, all seek to kill the one “thing” they seek to control.

JohnKnight
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 8:48 pm

I doubt the tens of thousands of extremely well trained special forces folks, current and retired, who swore solemn oaths to uphold and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, give any more of a rat’s ass what you make of it, than I do, J.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 9:16 pm

“The UN, though first proposed/created by the US, is defined by its charter.”
The UN Charter was largely written by General Jan Smuts of South Africa. He devoted so much time to it he lost the election in 1948 and the Nationalists came power and started imposing grand apartheid.
It the US had joined the League of nations it would have prevented WW II. Having failed us all, they proposed a new council with the power to override the powerful. The UN is an undemocratic club of unequals and cannot prevent war. It’s mission is doomed. It will not be saved by taxing CO2. It will be saved by a thoroughgoing revision of its charter and the cancellation of the veto.

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 10:01 pm

JohnKnight,
The USA Repubic and its Constitution in all 50 States are not at risk. The world envies our nation states as they are the only Repubic left ….
: )

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 10:07 pm

Seriously Crispin? – are you on drugs this eve?

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
October 9, 2016 10:01 am

Crispin,
I apologize for the last comment. You’re correct, the League of Nations predates the UN and it was disbanded when it failed to prevent WWII.
It was also foolish when I said the US created the UN.
Link to Charter History and declaration of the UN:
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/charter/history/declaration.shtml

J McClure
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 8, 2016 10:23 am

Thanks for the link, the article was great.
Related to travel, why not use video conferences for as many meetings as possible?

Gerry, England
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 10:40 am

A lot of business relationships are founded on personal relationships built up through socialising. Video conferencing doesn’t help forge these relationships.

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 12:55 pm

Gerry,
The key phrase was “as many meetings as possible”. As most the the meetings are largely minor issues, it’s a solid idea. The UN was created to prevent another World War not to whine and intrude on nation state business.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 8, 2016 10:35 am

Something President Donald will have to look at and sort out. Don’t forget that US funding of the UNFCCC has been illegal since it recognised the Palestinian state.

J McClure
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 8, 2016 1:53 pm

Gerry,
The President of the USA doesn’t fund much of anything. Congess controls the purse.
Recognizing the Palestinian state has nothing to do with the UNFCCC.
Yet, the 1st IPCC report was used to create the UNFCCC without proper oversight and proper due diligence.
Fix these mistakes, fix the UN policy Decisionmakers methodology, and ensure unaltered Scientific results…. This neuters alarmists and greed thus eliminating the Cash Cow and the Stooges.

Reply to  Gerry, England
October 8, 2016 3:06 pm

“The President of the USA doesn’t fund much of anything. Congess controls the purse.”
Hah. You’re dreaming and/or haven’t been paying attention to the last 8 years. Republicans in Congress says “We refuse to pass a budget that authorizes X.” Democrats say, “Republicans want to shut down government”, repeated by the news shows, etc. Democrats refuse to allow the spending bill to move forward, government shuts down, and everyone has a field day at those horrible Republicans who don’t want to pay civil servents or allow Granny her social security check. Eventually, Republicans cave and the money gets allocated.
In the rare instance where something really IS not funded, then the President pulls the money out of a slush fund or other creative shell games to pay for it.
Congress is basically pointless if it is nothing but a water bearer for the president. There is no balance of power.

J McClure
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 8, 2016 5:17 pm

Kcrucible,
Presidential slush funds are very limited by design. This is why he chose to corrupt the EPA and DOE pitching solutions the DOE didn’t support.
The sequester was the only way to try to limit the idiotically driven dem foolishness.
Harry Reid was the moron who left nearly all legislation on his desk.
Congress is The People and never pointless unless controlled by fools and not Statesmen and Stateswoman.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 8, 2016 8:20 pm

“Fix these mistakes, fix the UN policy Decisionmakers methodology, and ensure unaltered Scientific results…. ”
Oh sure, not at all suspicious person, we’ll just beg the UN to fix that boo boo they made . . ’cause now they are our real Government, right not at all suspicious person who figures national Constitutions are irrelevant?

J McClure
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 8, 2016 8:38 pm

JohnKnight,
The notion “international” is sadly just a muse. The UN is little more than a crowd of hope filled with individuals who have no skill and ability to define “change” insightfully.

markl
Reply to  J McClure
October 8, 2016 9:22 pm

J McClure commented: “…The UN is little more than a crowd of hope filled with individuals who have no skill and ability to define “change” insightfully….”
Perhaps but they do have the political power to shape laws internationally through the member countries and they are doing it. AGW anyone? Agenda 21 is the grand plan and it surreptitiously puts the UN in the world driver’s seat. They are hoping everyone is naive to their true desires and counter with “conspiracy theory” whenever called on it but Agenda 21 spells it out.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 8, 2016 8:57 pm

So, the big banksters are your lords, J?

Reply to  Gerry, England
October 10, 2016 3:11 am

“Congress is The People and never pointless unless controlled by fools and not Statesmen and Stateswoman.”
Ah, but you see, that is exactly the case. Roughly 50% of the senate will be controlled by the party in power, and history has proven to us that they care more about making sure their party “wins” than about actually upholding the law and removing the implimentors of the out-of-control executive branch from office.
At best they’ll muster a “rebuke.” Did Holder care about a rebuke? Of course not. It means nothing. The EPA? The IRS? The State Department? Nope… Congress is missing half its teeth, so it has no power.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 8, 2016 3:54 pm

United Nations is far out of line, with its charter
«The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.»
— Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
United Nations has become a mingling place for megalomaniacal bureaucrats.
No wonder – United Nations has the best-paid bureaucrats in the world and the majority number of the voting countries are receiving funding – not paying:
http://www.franceonu.org/IMG/jpg/budget.jpg
A fundamentally flawed organisation with tremendous power – it is freaking dangerous.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Science or Fiction
October 8, 2016 4:09 pm

I realise that the source of the figure I found by Google was a bit unfortunate. Here is a figure from a presumably more decent source:comment image

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 9, 2016 4:06 am

It wants to make itself a world government, a la EEC. How’s that going for you Europeans?

emsnews
October 8, 2016 8:23 am

We should be taxing something to balance the budget! This is the #1 problem our nation faces as our debts climb higher than Mt. Everest.

TonyL
Reply to  emsnews
October 8, 2016 8:33 am

How would increasing taxes help the budget?

Peter Morris
Reply to  emsnews
October 8, 2016 9:35 am

Can’t tell if sarcastic or delusional…

Gerry, England
Reply to  emsnews
October 8, 2016 10:36 am

Er…spend less would be the answer.

Mark - Helsinki
October 8, 2016 8:28 am

Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxides are the pollution from planes not CO2. This makes no sense at all!!

SMC
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 8, 2016 8:32 am

Oh, there’s CO2 also. Besides, SOx and NOx aren’t in fashion anymore.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  SMC
October 8, 2016 8:57 am

I did say pollutants 😀

stevekeohane
Reply to  SMC
October 8, 2016 9:32 am

Mark, I don’t know about the rest of the world, but our leader blathers on about ‘carbon pollution’. As a carbon-based life form, I resent that perspective.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 8, 2016 11:52 am

Biggest pollutants I see coming from planes is politicians.

SMC
Reply to  John Harmsworth
October 8, 2016 7:00 pm

Well, there’s always the occasional blue bomb. 🙂

TomRude
October 8, 2016 8:28 am

Green world government totalitarian state.

AlexS
Reply to  TomRude
October 8, 2016 9:30 am

Precisely.

Resourceguy
October 8, 2016 8:29 am

How much is the offset to favored country airlines? You don’t really think it will be equal for long do you?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 8, 2016 9:11 am

Oh, they’ll still be equal. Just some will be more equal than others.

Marcus
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2016 9:25 am

…Hmmm, that sounds familiar…?

SMC
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2016 7:01 pm

I think I remember something about pigs and houses…

Mark from the Midwest
October 8, 2016 8:31 am

Sounds ominous at first until you look at the details, because there are no details, no criteria for setting fees, no mechanism to collect fees, no methods of enforcement, that’s all to be worked out at a later date. It really sounds to me like the airlines just tricked-out the U.N. in order to forestall the potential for patchwork regulation by individual nations.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 8, 2016 9:40 am

The airlines are just using delaying tactics in order to move any ill effects out into the future in case ‘Climate Change’, ‘Global Warming’ or what ever the government freeloaders decide to call it is no longer the cause celebre of the environmentalist wacko or is proven wrong by Mother Nature. In this I think they are being smart.

commieBob
October 8, 2016 8:31 am

By 2035, the UN expects the deal will siphon $24 billion / annum from the pockets of air travellers.

By 2035 it should be obvious that CAGW isn’t going to happen. In fact, by then it should be obvious that the globe has cooled significantly … enough so that there will be crop failures and resultant famine. I hope some alarmists are still alive so they can be held to account. Yes, I am hoping Al Gore lives a long time.

AlexS
Reply to  commieBob
October 8, 2016 9:35 am

Does not matter. A Religion can continue for a thousand years.
CAGW changed to Climate Change because the last it can not be proved neither disproved.
That is the “beauty” of the scam, so has long that Marxist journalists to propel politics at expense of everything else starting with Freedom, it it will live and be the law of the land.

commieBob
Reply to  AlexS
October 8, 2016 11:47 am

When people are starving and freezing to death they start getting really grouchy. Bad things happen. They might quit believing …

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  commieBob
October 8, 2016 2:35 pm

They will blame the coming cooling on CO2 and on “warming”

Reply to  commieBob
October 8, 2016 3:10 pm

“By 2035 it should be obvious that CAGW isn’t going to happen. In fact, by then it should be obvious that the globe has cooled significantly … enough so that there will be crop failures and resultant famine. I hope some alarmists are still alive so they can be held to account.”
But it won’t matter, because the UN will have been heavily funded for 20 years, and the world said, “yes, the UN may leavy taxes.” Once they have that, you think they’re ever letting it go? Hah. This is GOAL. “Climate Change” is just a method/excuse.

Resourceguy
October 8, 2016 8:33 am

Okay, how much do Russian airlines pay?

Resourceguy
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 8, 2016 8:33 am

…and North Korean?

SMC
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 8, 2016 8:38 am

Don’t forget the Chinese.

RichDo
October 8, 2016 8:34 am

In the US wouldn’t this be in violation of the Sherman anti trust laws? (Of course you’d need a Justice Dept willing to prosecute.)

Mark T
Reply to  RichDo
October 8, 2016 10:03 am

I can’t see how a foreign entity can impose a tax on US businesses and their consumers taking part in commerce within the US. Even if the Justice Dept. chose not to do anything they could all sue.

October 8, 2016 8:37 am

Crude calculation : There are about 40 million flights per year . So 24.e9 means about $600 tax per flight , $400 assuming a 2% growth in number of flights . Divide that by number of passengers and you come out with several dollars added to each ticket for more environmentally destructive “green” pork .

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 8, 2016 10:04 am

Don’t forget that the money is to be spent on wind and solar farms to destabilize electricity grids.

TonyL
October 8, 2016 8:54 am

The latest models from Boeing Aerospace are marvels of efficiency and economy. They are vastly more fuel efficient than earlier models. You can bet that the research and R+D needed to develop these aircraft cost a bundle. These costs are ultimately borne by the airlines looking for better ways to do things.
I fail to see how sucking 24 bn/year out of the industry, vampire style, would help anything. Seems to me, all it would do is slow or halt the development of improved aircraft.

Marcus
Reply to  TonyL
October 8, 2016 9:07 am

..The “intention” is to slow down Human development…and Human life in general !…IMHO…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Marcus
October 9, 2016 11:31 am

Certainly solar powering runway lights and other essential equipment used at airports for the safe landings of aircraft would probably cause many disasters in which many will die….. a good start in the progressive playbook.

October 8, 2016 8:58 am

This is bad. Precedent setting. The camel’s nose well under the tent.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 8, 2016 8:01 pm

I thought it was a camel toe that was under the tent when I looked.

Walter Sobchak
October 8, 2016 9:08 am

So how much is Leonard DiCaprio, and his fellow private jet owning climate crusaders, going to pay?

Analitik
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 8, 2016 4:22 pm

My first thought was that ll these jet setting “concerned” celebrities get off scott free from the new tax. Only those poor plebs who have to buy tickets will get slugged.
What would the ecoloons say if the same principle was applied to public transport?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 8, 2016 8:04 pm

That’s DiCrapio, isn’t it?

Marcus
October 8, 2016 9:13 am

…On a side note..Mathew’s eye seems to have collapsed over Georgetown…Highest “gusts” of wind..36mph…

Oldseadog
October 8, 2016 9:23 am

” …. projects that cut carbon pollution ….. .”
Carbon is a pollutant?????
Oh, I forgot, the warmists say so.
Silly me.
On another note, looking at the picture of London City Airport, if you look to the right of the runway there is a break in the buildings on the right hand dock side with a yellow house with a red roof. I remember joining a ship tied up just there there when I was an Apprentice.

Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2016 9:43 am

When the pork turns Green, you know it’s ripe for plundering.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2016 8:11 pm

Sounds like it could be one of the vultures’ lines in “The Lion King”. Or something from a possum primer.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 8, 2016 8:23 pm

I do know that’s when the worms flourish, though.

nc
October 8, 2016 9:54 am

“One of the countries that helped push the Paris deal over the line was Canada, where the centre-left government of prime minister Justin Trudeau announced a carbon-pricing plan on Monday that could lead to a tax of C$50 a tonne by 2022”
Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau the spawn of Pierre Trudeau, Pierre by the way put Canada into debt so far it took thirty years to get out. His spawn is putting us right back in. I refer to Justin as Dear Leader because of his irrational following. Dear Leader has threatened the provinces with forcing the carbon tax he proposes if they oppose. Dear leader has stated he admires the Chinese government because they get things done. That communist dictatorship. That is the threat we are under in Canada, a dictatorship.

Marcus
Reply to  nc
October 8, 2016 10:54 am

..Personally, as a Canadian/American living in Ontario, Canada….I cannot, for the life of me, figure out WHY anyone living in the North would not love 2 degrees of warming in the winter !! As an Iron Worker putting up cold steel, sometimes in a blizzard, -38c and -36c didn’t help a whole lot to convince me of GloBull Warming ! As a side note, I was raised from the age of 18 to 28 in Daytona Beach, Fla..That is a whopping change of temperature when I returned to Canada…And somehow….I am still here !! Cold right now, but I am still here ! 2 degrees ? Pah ! I increase my temp by that much every time I […] under the blankets….( but it does get rid of the cat for a few hours)

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 11:25 am

[snip – we don’t care about your disgusting habits, take it elsewhere |mod]

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 3:31 pm

..Seriously ? A 100% naturally occurring bodily function to release excess gas from the Human body is a “disgusting habit” ??

nigelf
Reply to  Marcus
October 8, 2016 5:31 pm

That’s something I could never figure out either…how the brainwashed here in Canada could be convinced that slightly warmer would be a terrible thing.
One of my longstanding dreams is to have the power to force these warmists to both of the poles for the rest of their lives to live in cold misery. To the south pole in the NH summer and up to the north pole during the NH winter. Just a shack to live in with intermittent heat.
Like the people of North Korea if they are ever able to see freedom, the lies that they believe will take at least a generation to overcome. AGW needs to be purged from the educational system, the media and politics. Disbanding the UN would be a good start.

October 8, 2016 10:01 am

I’m starting to Elon Musk has the right idea.
Move to Mars !

Reply to  richardbriscoe
October 8, 2016 10:21 am

His mother is currently big hit overhere (UK)

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  richardbriscoe
October 8, 2016 11:07 am

MARS?Waste of money, Nostradamus predicting the first, second, and third world wars, said that the third ( and last ) would be a Muslim war !
Looks to me like Russia has bolted from the starting gate. Where is the Donald when you need him ?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
October 9, 2016 11:33 am

He has been out chasing p*ssy like every other red blooded American man.

Janus100
October 8, 2016 10:23 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/10/08/germanys-bundesrat-resolves-end-of-internal-combustion-engine/?
_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
Germany bans internal combustion engine for passenger cars
Starting 2030…

TonyL
Reply to  Janus100
October 8, 2016 10:41 am

Try this link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/10/08/germanys-bundesrat-resolves-end-of-internal-combustion-engine/#16a9404831d9
Germany is still working out of the hole they dug for themselves by shutting down their nukes and the disaster caused by their love affair with windmills. Now they want to mandate electric cars.
They must just love to suffer.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
October 8, 2016 10:53 am

Thanks for sharing that disgusting article, Tony. Not only do they apparently love to suffer, they are flaunting their own ignorance:
from linked Forbes article

… the resolution, as quoted by der Spiegel, calls on the EU Commission to { } stimulat{e} emission-free mobility.”

— How do they think those cars are made?
— How do they think those cars’ electric “fuel” is generated??
Answer: The stork brings the cars and the fuel is the lightning bolts of Thor (gratuitously hurled at convenient moments).
*************************
Truly, though, it is not ALL Germans who are behind this — it is the Envirostalinists (and the ubiquitous duped sheep, too, of course). Germans are not dumbkopfs. They are, however, easily led. “One must lead,” apparently is STILL deeply ingrained into their psyche (Note: this is not a N@hzzee idea, the N’s just used what was already there).
So happy for the British that they got — OUT!

SMC
Reply to  TonyL
October 8, 2016 7:04 pm

I thought it was Zeus that hurled lightning bolts.

Titan 28
October 8, 2016 10:23 am

This is appalling. The UN doesn’t have any authority to levy taxes. A bunch of rich, connected, meddlesome, mindless, herd-instinct bureaucrats telling us what to do. Arrrgh.

Reply to  Titan 28
October 8, 2016 12:28 pm

What makes this insidious is that it isn’t a tax. The money is paid voluntarily by the airlines to avoid being taxed instead. But worse, what they have to “pay” is actually an “investment” in Big Wind and Big Solar. Not hydro or nuclear which are arguably just as emission free as wind and solar and actually work, nor in any other technology which might emerge in the future which makes sense to adopt.
But the worst part is that this scheme opens the door for immense corruption. Who will broker the investment deals between airlines and Big Wind/Solar? The UN? Any chance that someone will game the system like the old “Oil for Food Program”? Of course when caught, the UN will investigate itself and absolve itself of any responsibility.
Or, even worse, the airlines could be left free to cut their own deals with Big Wind/Solar. The airlines are run by astute business people, they’ll look for opportunities to recoup their investments. Rebate schemes and other back door transactions will abound.
I’m kind of in favour of this. The corruption will run wide and deep and the public scandals as a consequence will not be far behind.

TA
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 8, 2016 3:20 pm

“What makes this insidious is that it isn’t a tax. The money is paid voluntarily by the airlines to avoid being taxed instead.”
In other words: Extortion.

Andrew
Reply to  Titan 28
October 8, 2016 1:13 pm

Exactly. $600 for a full A320 isn’t going to kill me at perhaps $4 a ticket. But it’s the precedent. If a smallish carbon tax sticks, why not then tax my electricity? Then why not my income – the UNSSR has no shortage of “worthy causes” besides saving the planet.

H.R.
October 8, 2016 12:13 pm

And they call this The Age of Reason. Yeah… uh-huh…
So long as they use the proceeds of the tax for bread and circuses, it should all end well, right?
/bitter sarc

David
Reply to  H.R.
October 8, 2016 12:54 pm

Nope, they call this the post modern Progressive era. The Age of Reason was the 1700’s.

H.R.
Reply to  David
October 9, 2016 10:43 am

Ahhh… that explains why none of our politicos are reasonable any more. Thanks, David.

markl
October 8, 2016 1:19 pm

Won’t happen. At least not in the US anyway where it would take an act of Congress to start taxing anything. The UN has no authority over any governments or citizens of any country. Besides….the affect on travel would devastate the travel industry that many countries depend on and the results would be felt immediately. More wishful thinking by the Marx Brothers at the UN….throw it up on the wall and see if it sticks.

October 8, 2016 2:24 pm

I don’t see how the UN can make us pay a tax. Seems to me we should be able to block it and then give a big ‘eff you’ to the UN, leftists, and globalists (is there any difference?).
The author is correct that they will pass on the tax to us. Same with a general carbon tax on everything. What a carbon tax does is get the rich off the hook from paying taxes because so much money will be coming in, there will be no need to tax them.
As a life-long conservative who has nothing against rich people, I think it’s time we eff them with higher taxes. Why? Because they are effing the middle class with taxes so they can preserve their wealth.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  kramer
October 8, 2016 2:41 pm

“I don’t see how the UN can make us pay a tax. ”
It is not really the UN. ICAO is a worldwide organization which decides how aviation is run – rules on flying, airports, meteorology, etc.

markl
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
October 8, 2016 2:55 pm

Gerald Machnee commented: “…It is not really the UN. ICAO is a worldwide organization which decides how aviation is run – rules on flying, airports, meteorology, etc….”
It is a “specialized agency” of the UN. And like the UN it is an NGO. It basically coordinates aviation rules between countries. It has no governmental, law, or taxing authority. People need to understand what the UN is up to and what their charter really is. They’ve morphed….. by design I believe …. into a quasi government organization with designs on ruling the world. Read Agenda 21 (if you can stomach the verbiage, repetition, and arrogance) and you’ll get the picture. Bit by bit (a la the EU) they are gaining control with the help of operatives in every country. How do you think AGW got as far as it did today?

October 8, 2016 2:29 pm

I’m also wondering what happens when Canada’s mandatory carbon tax meets the airlines’ UN deal. Will the airlines insist that they get an exemption because they are part of the UN deal? Will Canada then say OK, provided that you only “invest” in Canadian Big Wind/Solar? Will power utilities like the one in Ontario then argue that their province should be exempted from the exemption because they’ve already got so much Wind that at peak they have to pay power utilities in the US to take their power? Or will they instead plow money into Solar despite being in a geo where Solar is useless? Oh, the deal just says the airlines have to invest, it doesn’t say anything about actual production?
A tangled web of deception so entrenched it will take generations to unravel it.

clipe
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 8, 2016 4:43 pm

Let’s not forget that Kathleen Wynne’s massive tax hike expected to cost Air Canada alone more than $50-million next year
Of course, sales tax will be piled on tax upon tax.

Rob
Reply to  clipe
October 9, 2016 4:59 am
MarkG
Reply to  clipe
October 11, 2016 5:21 pm

The sooner Ontario goes bust, the better for the rest of us. We just need to ensure we build the wall first, so the liberals can’t just flee West and destroy us, too.

Steve Fraser
October 8, 2016 2:37 pm

I’m be interested to see how the management of publicly owned companies pitch this to their stockholders. If it is not a ‘tax’ per se ( enforced by law) then it is a donation to some organization or a payment. We will see how this plays out.

Jjs
October 8, 2016 6:06 pm

And now that they will have a chance to control the internet they will tax that also. By 2035 it will be the largest taxing organization in the world and will be an unelected and unaccountable “world government”. It won’t need to get funding from anyone and there will be no way to shut the scam down. It will be corrupt because most of it’s members are corrupt and it’s programs are even more corrupt. The world will then be completely controlled by dictators and its elites. America and it’s symbol of freedom will long be forgotten. check mate

October 8, 2016 8:13 pm

UN just wants revenue streams.

Ian W
October 9, 2016 1:20 am

The ignorance of reality exists just as much with the posters to this site. Take the per passenger fuel consumption of aircraft for example an Airbus 350 or a Boeing 787 and there is no other form of transport that is as frugal on fuel and none that are as safe. Not only that but there is no huge road or rail infrastructure to be maintained just airports at start and end of journey. The fuel wasting plane myth is just as unreal as the increase in droughts and wildfires myths – or the myth of a perfect 1750AD climate. But the myth of extreme CO2 ‘pollution’ from aircraft is unfortunately pushed here too allowing the ‘greens’ a simple win.

dennisambler
October 9, 2016 2:52 am

Al Gore must be delighted http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
“The United Nations’ aviation arm overwhelmingly ratified an agreement Thursday to control global warming emissions from international airline flights, the first climate-change pact to set worldwide limits on a single industry.
The agreement, adopted overwhelmingly by the 191-nation International Civil Aviation Organization at a meeting in Montreal, sets airlines’ carbon emissions in the year 2020 as the upper limit of what carriers are allowed to discharge.
Airlines that exceed that limit in future years, as most are expected to do, will have to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is a clear effort to underwrite a failing market:
These were the early scrambles:
JP Morgan:
2008- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/mar/27/jpmorgan.greenbusiness
Goldman Sachs:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-offsets/comment-page-1/
Barclays:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-offers-16398m-to-buy-swedish-carbon-specialist-1989900.html
Bank of America-Merrill Lynch:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/10/11/bofa-merrill-enters-california-carbon-market/
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/painting-the-town-redd-merrill-lynch-inks-massive-voluntary-forest-deal/
2013
“Dream turning sour – Carbon desk closures” http://www.fern.org/book/trading-carbon/carbon-desk-closures
“There is increasing scepticism from within the market that carbon holds any trading future. Follow the latest carbon desk closures here. News like this are symptomatic of serious problems within the carbon market. In the article, independent analysts and carbon traders themselves recognize these evident problems. When large investment banks, formerly major owners and supporters of carbon offsets, start to abandon carbon trading, some reflection is due.”
Whilst a Global Carbon Price is the ultimate objective, they are not there yet:
“Global carbon price would have been a Paris dealbreaker” – Figueres http://carbon-pulse.com/14405/
“The UN Paris Agreement on climate change failed to include setting a global carbon price because it did not attract unanimous country support deemed necessary, according to the UN’s [former] climate chief Christiana Figueres.
Rather than impose a single global carbon price, the Agreement, which will take effect from 2020, included provisions for countries to meet their emission-curbing pledges via emissions trading and established a new market-based mechanism.”

Rob
October 9, 2016 5:02 am

I think there are going to be an increasing number of mostly empty planes flying around.

MarkG
Reply to  Rob
October 11, 2016 5:23 pm

By 2035, there will be very few planes flying around. If you want to ‘go’ somewhere in twenty years, you’ll just log in to VR and rent a drone where you want to go.
This is why the whole ‘carbon tax’ thing is so silly. Fossil fuel use is about to implode, and it’s nothing to do with governments and taxes. Technology is making travel obsolete.

October 9, 2016 7:25 am
hunter
October 9, 2016 9:09 am

The corporate world is giving the climatocracy the knife they are being murdered with

Uncle Gus
October 9, 2016 11:52 am

It beats me why they always pick on air travel – a minority means of transport, and therefore the *least* important in terms of CO2 emission!
(The argument seems to go; if everyone does as they’re supposed to and sticks to their climate agreements, the internal combustion engine and fossil fueled power stations will become a thing of the past. Then air travel will be the *majority* CO2 emitter…)

tadchem
October 11, 2016 11:47 am

The UN itself has no authority to levy taxes on sovereign nations.
The question arises, “Who will be responsible for collecting / redirecting / misdirecting these billions?”

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 15, 2016 6:50 am

Just imagine the litigation when the whole global warming scam is finally busted.

%d bloggers like this: