Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/09/2008 2:10:42 PM PST by thetru
U.S. airlines cry foul over new EU rule Regulation that places tough pollution standards on air carriers may spur legal action against the European Union. By Shelley Emling
Cox International Correspondent
Saturday, November 08, 2008
London —- A new European Union rule imposing tougher pollution limits on U.S. airlines violates international law and will likely result in a legal challenge, U.S. government officials say.
All airlines flying in or out of the EU will have to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas considered a major contributor to global warming, by 3 percent in 2012 and by 5 percent starting the next year. They can exceed those limits, but they would have to pay for permits to do so.
U.S. airlines are outraged, saying that complying with the rule will raise costs for their passengers and threaten their survival during a severe recession.
“The whole thing is about punishing anybody who dares to use any form of fossil fuel to travel, do business, or just live,” said Mike Boyd, an aviation industry consultant with the Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo. “In this matter, the EU is nothing more than a PTA on steroids. Airlines are in for tough times.”
The top three U.S. international carriers —- Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines and Texas-based American Airlines and Continental Airlines —- say they’ve asked the Air Transport Association to speak on their behalf in this matter.
“Masquerading under the banner of supposedly ‘protecting’ the environment, these measures threaten to stifle the growth of the industry, compromise our environmental progress and, ultimately, raise prices for consumers, leaving them to take alternative, less safe, higher-emitting modes of transportation,” ATA President James May said.
He said the EU action violates the Chicago Convention of 1944 under which nations agreed to work cooperatively on aviation.
In a phone interview, Carl Burleson, director of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Environment and Energy, said the EU rule violates international law and reverses the progress being made with ongoing fuel-efficiency and environmental innovations.
He said if the EU fails to respond to a recent letter outlining the U.S. government’s opposition to the new rule, the matter likely would be brought before a global governing body.
“The problem is that the EU wants to unilaterally compel the United States and others into their system,” he said.
Burleson noted that in the late 1990s, the EU banned aircraft fitted with noise-reducing devices called hush kits. The United States complained to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a group affiliated with the United Nations, and eventually the EU withdrew its ban.
“The only difference in the current case is that there is much broader opposition to what the EU is doing this time around,” Burleson said.
Critics claim it would cost upwards of $4.5 billion a year to bring airlines into what’s known as the European Emissions Trading Scheme, part of a broader EU scheme to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, from 1990 levels.
EU interior ministers who approved the measure last month say they are only looking out for the environment.
“The main objective of the new law is to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change, given the rapid growth of this sector,” they said in a statement.
Cait Weston, a spokesperson for the nonprofit Aviation Environment Federation in London, said in a statement that air travel is “a significant and rapidly growing source of dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.”
“With two-thirds of the emissions from flights that either take off from or land in Europe coming from intercontinental flights, it would have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the scheme if only European airlines had been covered,” Weston said.
Critics point out that aircraft currently produce only about 3 percent of all European greenhouse gas emissions, although the European Commission has said that rate could double by 2020.
“And while the EU has experienced rapid growth in emissions, the United States hasn’t,” Burleson said. “We don’t need any additional marketing incentives because we’re already done a pretty good job.”
Patrick Murphy, a principal of aviation consulting firm Gerchick Murphy Associates in Washington, also expects airlines to consider legal action.
“The problem is that the EU will apply environmental taxes to flight operations outside their territorial space,” he said. “For example, a flight from Los Angeles to London will be taxed for its entire trip length even though nearly all the flying is in U.S., Canadian, and international air space.”
dont fly there. Let’s fly someplace else
Boy, they can push Hussein around, cant they
Just as the Climate wackos destroyed the auto industry, so next is the aviation idustry.....can anyone say depression...
Don't be stupid, it's a watermelon environmentalist global redistribution of wealth plan, no more, no less.
“dont fly there. Let’s fly someplace else”
I was going to say that, but you beat me to it.
You got it!! Take the service out and the whole place will dry up overnight. It happens every day in America when an AIRLINE, for any reason, takes their business elsewhere and the town suffers in a lot of ways. Have lots of examples due to working with an airline for years.
Something that could significantly reduce emissions at airports would be to have tugs two aircraft between gates and runways. Taxiing is a big waster of fuel.
Don’t fly there. We’ve had teleconferencing for almost two decades now. And with services like Skype and Vonnage, it’s darn cheap.
Airlines are wasting their time. Obama has already proposed a cap and trade scheme as aggresive or more aggresive than any out there. Airlines flying domestic routes will soon be facing the same penalties.
Taxiing uses a very small percentage of the fuel an airliner will use in the course of a flight. This idea has popped up before and it’s impractical.
>>Obama has already proposed a cap and trade scheme as aggresive or more aggresive than any out there. Airlines flying domestic routes will soon be facing the same penalties.<<
But then after Obama does what he was going to do anyway, they can claim they made him do it.
Having the satisfaction of pointing the finger of blame at someone after he’s wrecked an entire industry is small compensation. As an airline pilot myself I’ve told my wife we need to prepare for my possible unemployment.
And there you have the real reason. Glo-bull warming is the convenient excuse for another money grab.
And when global warming is proven to be bunk, after another year of record cold, will the socialist EU apologize publicly?
>>Having the satisfaction of pointing the finger of blame at someone after he’s wrecked an entire industry is small compensation.<<
No, they are not blaming anyone for that. I meant they think that wrecking the airline industry is something to be proud of, and they would like to take credit for stopping the “evil polluters.”
Redistribution of wealth means the rick shaking down the middle class for the benefit of the poor. The rich put their money in tax shelters. The rich pay the middle class through reported income making it impossible to evade the tax man. The idle poor couldn't be happier complaining about economic injustice.
Who cares? Now if they would return the money they are stealing, that would count.
Looks more to me like they want "to unilaterally compel" us to buy their crappy airplanes.
High marginal rate income taxes are a tax on becoming rich, not on being rich. Those who have already made, or inherited, their money get to keep it. They also get to maintain their dominant position in society by making it much harder for others to move up and challenge them. This is the present situation in Europe, and it looks like we’re headed in the same direction.
Sad.
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.