Posted on 07/05/2006 5:32:41 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.
MEPs voted in favour of the “immediate introduction” of a tax on jet fuel for flights within the 25 member states of the EU. The charge would double the cost of millions of budget airline flights.
They also accepted a recommendation for a special emissions trading scheme for the aviation industry, which would see airlines buying permits to cover their output of carbon dioxide.
Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, and flights within Europe are on course to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.
British Airways and other European airlines have been lobbying for a more lenient scheme that would compensate for only a small portion of their emissions and cost the average passenger less than £1.50 per flight.
But the parliament rejected BA’s argument that the impact of aviation on the environment was not sufficiently understood and, therefore, the scheme should be limited.
MEPs voted by 439 to 74 to adopt proposals drafted by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MEP for southeast England. There were 102 abstentions.
The main proposal was for airlines to be forced to buy emissions permits within a separate trading scheme dedicated to aviation, with a specific cap on the amount of CO2.
BA had wanted to be allowed virtually unlimited growth by being able to buy cheap surplus permits from other industries.
The parliament also dismissed BA’s proposal for airlines to be allocated free permits to cover their existing level of emissions. BA wanted the scheme to focus on additional flights.
The MEPs said that the scheme should cover all flights arriving at or departing from EU airports rather than just intra-EU flights, as had been proposed by BA. But the scheme is likely to be limited to flights within Europe in the early years to avoid legal challenges from the United States and other countries. MEPs also accepted the proposal for a separate environmental tax to cover the impact of nitrogen oxides and condensation trails emitted by aircraft.
When emitted at altitude, these emissions trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. The parliament accepted that aviation’s total contribution to global warming was two to four times greater than the impact of CO2 alone, and that airlines should be forced to pay for this.
The GreenSkies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups that opposes the growth of aviation, said passengers would have to pay up to £20 per flight, or £40 return, to cover the cost of purchasing just the CO2 permits for flights within Europe. A jet fuel tax and an environmental tax would push ticket prices up even further but the costs are harder to quantify.
Jeff Gazzard, of the alliance, said: “The huge European Parliament majority shows that MEPs overwhelmingly recognise that air transport’s greenhouse gas emissions are out of control and urgent action to control them is long overdue.”
The parliament’s vote will strongly influence legislation being drafted by the European Commission and due to be debated later this year. The emissions trading scheme is due to be introduced in 2008 but commission officials admit it could be delayed until 2010.
Andrew Sentance, BA’s head of environmental affairs, admitted that aviation could account for almost half of Britain’s total CO2 emissions by 2050, compared with 6 per cent today.
Even assuming a fast introduction of fuel-efficient technology and a reduction in the rate of growth of flights, aviation’s share of total emissions would still triple.
He said that imposing a cap on aviation emissions would “deny society the right to make choices” about how to tackle climate change. He said society might prefer to continue to allow flights to grow but to reduce emissions elsewhere to compensate, such as in power generation or road transport.
SOARING FIGURES
The Government estimates that 470 million passenger journeys will be made per year by 2030
It wants to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050
Domestic aviation accounted for 0.5 per cent of emissions in 2003, international aviation for 5 per cent
Air travel in Europe is set to double to 2 billion passengers a year by 2020
The number of passengers passing through British airports has increased from 2.13 million in 1950 to 216 million in 2004
Said exactly what was on my mind. Great way to kill airlines in Europe and those potential customers for new Airburst products.
Totally and completely over the dam and lost in the backwash.
HAAAAAA! Thanks for the good news.
Guess I'll be taking the train. Suckers.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
I didn't know there was that much incountry air traffic.
Must be friends with Corzine. Business off? Raise the cost of tickets! Idiots. Let's just all quit our jobs and let the government take care of us. Bleed it, kill it and start all over.
Buahahahahahaha
By reducing the number of flights by 60%? Interesting.
The only thing Europe has going for it now is that France is in the World Cup Championship.
What was it Hilary said: We must take something from you for the greater good? Yeah your damned money. Suckers.
There is a tremendous amount of international connecting air traffic that goes through London Heathrow (LHR) and London Gatwick (LGW) airports. LHR is has lots of passengers who fly there just to connect to a flight to another country.
The EU may be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It isn't necessary to have international hubs at any particular location. Switzerland is not in the EU and is not subject to this EU aviation tax. Airlines could move operations there to avoid excessive taxation. Also for passengers currently just going through the EU, there would be the option of flying directly to a destination without going throu an EU hub airport.
Currently lots of passengers going to eastern Europe fly through LHR, LGW, CDG, or FRA for connections, passengers destined for destinations in Africa often go through LGW or CDG. People traveling from North America could fly through hubs in the US that go directly to their destination. Instead petroleum industry workers flying through London to get to various remote places, they could fly through Dubai or other hubs outside the EU.
I wonder how Mother Earth will use the money?
LOL! That's called an economically efficient tax, because the tax revenues will go right back into Airbus's pocket to help defray the costs of the A380.
AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.
MEPs voted in favour of the “immediate introduction” of a tax on jet fuel for flights
________________________________________________________
Do you think the Euroweenies want their masses working on garden patches as serfs?
Has Airbus ever made a profit on any of its lines of aircraft? I heard that they will finally be shutting down the A300 line after 34 years when the A330 freighter production starts. One of the WTO issues is how to handle the subsidies it has recieved that have not been paid back
The EU may be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It isn't necessary to have international hubs at any particular location. Switzerland is not in the EU and is not subject to this EU aviation tax.
Does anyone know why Switzerland did not joint the EU?
I dont know whether it is wise to put hub airports in a country made of mountains.
Someone said their accounting system is different than ours (due to socialism and subsidies, etc) and it is difficult to tell if they actually make a profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.