AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: European 'Green' tax on airlines
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Looking in to my crystal ball, I see the future of transportation in Europe: Genetically-engineered low-methane-emitting (a greenhouse gas) horses pulling cellulose-fiber carriages made from recycled paper.

Quote:Air fares 'to double' as Europe votes for green tax
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

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.


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

Smooth move EU. This article focused on BA; however, won't it affect Airbus as well? If this is so, it would be great for the US. If you think about it, it is only fitting for Airbus. They have been propped up by government for so long. If you live by government, you die by government.

Neal Boortz has been saying for awhile that the anti-capitalists have hijacked the environmental movement and see that as their best way to take down free markets. I think this is a great insight.

Double the cost of tickets? The Euros have given all the power to the government, and now they can reap what they've sown.
What this is is quite simply tyranny in the guise of Regulation and Control. In other words, Fascism. Europe is quickly becoming the ultimate Friendly Fascist State. Bertram Gross was quick to condemn the US for it's Fascist growth, and he even blamed himself for it.

Quote:While writing his book, Gross dreamed that he was searching through a huge, empty house for "friendly fascists." He found one at last.

"I flung open one of the doors," Gross writes. "And there sitting at a typewriter and smiling back at me, I saw myself."

Over the years, Gross had helped draft such Big Government legislation as the full-employment bills of 1944 and 1945, and the Employment Act of 1946.

"I sought solutions for America's ills ... through more power in the hands of central government," Gross admits. "In this I was not alone. Almost all my fellow planners, reformers, social scientists, and urbanists presumed the benevolence of more concentrated government power."

Where Mr. Gross did not turn his attention, was to the most advanced Fascist state, albit 'friendly, and democratic'. It is entirely conceivable that the European community will actually instigate it's own total collapse quicker than I once thought.

And think of this. Here we see the likely passage of a law that will make it's own favorite business, Airbus, even less competitive. Currently Airbus is in terrible shape already. Can you imagine what this would do to a business that necessitates more sales, meaning more business travel? Yet, if less are flying to the European continent, then this automatically cuts down on it's sales revenue. Make no mistake, Airbus is quickly losing out on the world market, and Europe is it's best future, as it becomes even less competitive. With further Regulation of this type, Boeing will be able to easily forge ahead in business sales, and therefore profits.

This will automatically necessitate, guessed it: more Fascism. Because without further subsidies and movement of the taxpayer's monies to a floundering business, it will fail. And we cannot have that, now can we?

It's a Lose/Lose situation, and clearly highlights the abject stupitidy of Fascism. But Hey, Fascism is all the rage throughout the world. Only problem is that "None Dare Call It Fascism". That is why it is still growing and the 21st Century is likely to be even more successful, or shall I say, more catastropic than even the 20th.

Quote:Mussolini believed that Fascism was an international movement. He expected that both decadent bourgeois democracy and dogmatic Marxism-Leninism would everywhere give way to Fascism, that the twentieth century would be a century of Fascism. Like his leftist contemporaries, he underestimated the resilience of both democracy and free-market liberalism. But in substance Mussolini's prediction was fulfilled: most of the world's people in the second half of the twentieth century were ruled by governments which were closer in practice to Fascism than they were either to liberalism or to Marxism-Leninism.

The twentieth century was indeed the Fascist century.

PS: for all the regulars here, I apologize for constntly harping on to something that is a given: Fascism. However, because it is so misunderstood, I will be forced to hammer this home on a continual basis until ALL of us know just what our REAL Enemy happens to be. Sorry for the redundancy.
Though they seemed to have done a really nice job in the marketplace lately,EADS and Airbus may be in deadly serious trouble

Quote:Neal Boortz has been saying for awhile that the anti-capitalists have hijacked the environmental movement and see that as their best way to take down free markets.

If you have any links to such an article, I'd like to read them.

I dropped the moniker of 'environmentalist' when I was in college, although I am a person who thoroughly enjoys wilderness and the great outdoors. I wasn't able to give a well articulated reason at the time, but I noticed that the environmental movement went far beyond simply wanting to reduce terrible industrial pollution that I caught a glimpse of during my very youngest years.

At their very worst, environmentalists are anti-people, and would unleash a plague to depopulate the earth if it was within their power. But most of them are simply Marxists looking for any excuse to regulate industry and increasingly bring it under government control, who have found a way to appeal to most people's desire for fresh air.

The modern environmental movement is basically a bait-and-switch sales tactic.

This is one of the one's I found from Boortz. I just typed in "environment anti-capitalist" and you get a bunch of hits. (the bolding is mine)

I've been telling you for years that for much of the so-called environmental movement the concern isn't as much about the environment as it is about fighting capitalism and free enterprise.

With the fall of that great experiment in communism, the Soviet Union, anti-capitalists needed a new home. What could be better than to find a new base of operations where the anti-individualist, anti-free enterprise dogma could be cloaked in a cause shared by most well-meaning people. Anti-capitalists found that cause in the environment. Who, after all, doesn't want clean air to breath and water to drink? Who doesn't want to save beautiful mountain vistas and pristine seashores?

The environmental movement in America and around the world is now almost completely infiltrated by discredited fascists, communists, socialists and various other varieties of anti-capitalists. They oppose, for instance, exploration for new sources of oil not out of a true concern for the environment, but because they recognize that oil is one of the primary fuels for the engine of free commerce, and they want that engine shut down.

The Kyoto treaty was based on such flawed science that no rational conclusion can be drawn other than that the treaty was designed to choke the economic engine of most capitalist western nations while clearing the way for the state-owned industrial machines of the third world. The fact that the United States, the world's leader in capitalism, has rejected the treaty is a source of never-ending, teeth grinding dismay to the eco-communists.

In the past week or so we've had another series of arson fires for which a group called the Earth Liberation Front has claimed credit. These fires have targeted million-dollar homes in Michigan and SUV dealerships in California. If you go to the Earth Liberation Front website you'll see an article entitled "Setting Fires with Electrical Times – an Earth Liberation Front Guide" You will also find this statement: "The ELF realizes the profit motive caused and reinforced by the capitalist society is destroying all life on this planet." There you are, my friends. The admission that, at least for the ELF, their pseudo-environmentalism is merely cover for their left-wing anti-capitalist designs. Expensive homes and SUVs are targeted not because of any damage they may or may not do to our environment, but simply because they are conspicuous examples of capitalist consumption by the evil, hated "wealthy."

By hiding behind a faux concern for the environment these socialists and communists are damaging a cause that many American's truly believe in. Somehow the true environmental movement needs to find a way to shove these anti-capitalist frauds aside so that the cause of clean air and water and pristine vistas can find a spokesman untainted by class envy and anti-individualism.