Airlines decry EU carbon emissions scheme

Sep 27, 2011
Airlines denounced on Tuesday an EU plan to charge them for carbon emissions, warning it would cost the industry 17.5 billion euros ($23.8 billion) over eight years.

Airlines denounced on Tuesday an EU plan to charge them for carbon emissions, warning it would cost the industry 17.5 billion euros ($23.8 billion) over eight years.

Three major airline associations charged that the European Commission was "grossly misleading" by stating the scheme could actually translate into 20 billion euros in revenue over the next decade.

"It is high time that the Commission woke up to reality," said the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA).

"Saying airlines are the beneficiaries of a scheme that deprives them of revenues shows a blatant misunderstanding of economic reality," they said in a joint statement.

Airlines, which contribute to 3.0 percent of global , will be included in the EU's market on January 1.

But EU climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced Monday that airlines will receive 85 percent of their emissions allowances free of charge in 2012, meaning airlines would have to pay for 15 percent of their polluting rights. The figure will drop to 82 percent per year between 2013-2020.

She said the free allowances amount to 20 billion euros over the next decade, adding that airlines could use the funds to modernise their fleets, improve and use non-fossil .

"To refer to carbon permits as revenue is totally absurd," says AEA secretary general Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus.

"This is simply not true. The allocated certificates have to be surrendered; this is not money which airlines can re-invest," he said.

The airlines said the price of carbon permits would rise to 28 euros for one tonne of CO2 by 2020, for a total cost of 17.5 billion euros between 2012-2020.

European carriers, meanwhile, will post "a meagre 0.8 percent margin" in 2012," they said.

"Adding costs against a backdrop of will only hinder the recovery," said IACA director general Sylviane Lust.

US air carriers are challenging the EU Emissions Trading System in Europe's top court, arguing that it breaches international climate change agreements.

Explore further: UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EU sets new limits on CO2 emissions for vans

Feb 15, 2011

The European parliament signed off Tuesday on new carbon dioxide restrictions for commercial vans to cut fuel costs and limit emissions blamed for global warming.

New plan to reduce planes' CO2 emissions

Mar 31, 2009

(AP) -- Aviation groups in Europe announced a plan Tuesday to change the way commercial planes land in order to reduce their global-warming emissions of carbon dioxide.

Airlines wary of 2020 carbon-neutral target

Jun 09, 2009

Crisis-hit airlines said Tuesday that a plan to cap the growth of the industry's emissions by 2020 was ambitious and costly but agreed on the urgency of fighting climate change.

Recommended for you

UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

15 minutes ago

Concern was high at a perceived lack of urgency as UN climate negotiations shuffled towards a close in Bonn on Saturday with just 14 months left to finalise a new, global pact.

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

Oct 24, 2014

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
The airlines said the price of carbon permits would rise to 28 euros for one tonne of CO2 by 2020


Ok, that's completely insane. I don't know what the ratio is for jet fuel, (I think most airliners burn a kerosene mix, but I can't remember exactly,) but for gasoline it's like 19 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline you burn. Jet fuel is probably similar, but not excactly, don't need to look it up exactly anyway.

This would mean every 116 gallons of fuel would produce 1 metric ton of CO2, equaling 28 euros taxation, or $38.21 per ton CO2.

Which is $0.33 per gallon (using gasoline, which isn't exactly right, but close...)

This is equivalent to a roughly 10% tax on fuel, at least at present prices.

This is also going to create conflicts in international law for multi-national corporations and airlines, as different nations will have different laws...

It's as if they are trying to strangle economies and technology, instead of incentivizing new technologies...
Nanobanano
3.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
You can't promote new technology or new infrastructure by simply taxing the old technology or infrastructure into oblivion, because quite obviously, the new technologies are invented, built, and implemented on the backs of the old systems.

Ultimately, this will lead to increase in price for passengers, which means an increase in costs to businesses who have legitimate travel needs, and punishing low income individuals and small businesses who don't have extra money to spend.

This is ultimately a REGRESSIVE tax, because it is a consumption tax on basic infrastructure, therefore it mostly hurts the people who have the least income.

This is sort of like the 9% "VAT" sales tax, which the republicans want. Well, if you're a rich guy, a consumption tax on goods probably won't be noticed much anyway, particularly since they want to lower income tax on the insanely wealthy already. If you are a poor or average person, then losing 9% of your income to a consumption tax is a disaster.
Nanobanano
4.5 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
How much more taxation do governments want on the lower and middle class?

The lower 1/3rd of the world population and european and American populations are already virtual slaves anyway, with actual total tax rates, by the time you count income tax, sales tax, property tax, stamps, fees, licenses, etc, etc, being somewhere around 25 to 35% for mean income people, depending on credits and deductions...

How much more can normal people in the U.S. and Europe be taxed before the term "slave" is literally appropriate?

Whereas the wealthy people love flat taxes, because 10% of a million still leaves then with 900k, or about 20 times the mean income...what do they care about a 9% sales tax they are proposing when they also want to cut income tax to a flat 9%? This would crucify the lower and middle class, while making the wealthy something like 25% richer in net income...

I realize that's not directly related to the article, but it is somewhat. These policies are insane...
astro_optics
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
The "Greens" would like to kill us off if it was legal, in order to reduce the population levels. After all they are pushing hardest to legalising and relaxing EUTHANASIA laws! That should explain a few things.
Nanobanano
2.5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
The "Greens" would like to kill us off if it was legal, in order to reduce the population levels. After all they are pushing hardest to legalising and relaxing EUTHANASIA laws! That should explain a few things.


Well, I don't know what to say man.

The Republicans in the U.S., and especially the Tea Party sect, aren't any better than the death panel ultra-leftists of whom you speak.

As I said, they are proposing cuttin the income tax to a flat 9%, but raising a national sales tax to 9% also. As I said, this would completely impoverish everyone from about the existing mean income downward, while making the insanely wealthy even more wealthy than they already are.

What the Tea Party wants is quite literally personal Lordship and Tyranny for the wealthy over normal people.

Can you imagine how fast your spending money would disappear if there was an additional 9% federal sales tax on everything you purchase? continued...
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
If the Tea Party had their way, how on earth would ANYBODY from the mean income downward save ANY money for a "rainy day" or for theirs or their children's educations?

It's already getting to where today, the media and government leaders are literally telling 40 and 50 year olds they need to go back to college in order to get a job...

How the heck is anyone supposed to pay for this and their children's living and education, even without additional taxation? AS things are, college debts are already one of the biggest drivers of credit problems and divorce.

Nine percent more sales tax on normal people?

Carbon taxes on everything?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nanobanano
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
How little must a full time employee's net "after taxes" income be before they are considered a slave? After all, they actually fed, housed, and clothed slaves in 1860 as well, and probably even paid a doctor to treat some of them, unlike our existing medical system where you might not get treatment simply because you can't pay for it.

If all you have is minimum food, clothing, and shelter then you're not much more than a slave.

You might not consciously realize it due to modern technology and standard of living...

The higher consumption taxes, fees, and licenses, etc, becomes, the thinner the boundary between voluntary and "involuntary" servitude.

Does anyone realize that a parent ordering their child to do a chore is technically a violation of this law if the child doesn't want to do it? After all, even slaves got food, clothing, and shelter, so the parent's argument of "if you want to eat you'll do it" or something like that is no better than child slavery...
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
The Republicans in the U.S., and especially the Tea Party sect, aren't any better than the death panel ultra-leftists of whom you speak.


There seems have been little real difference between the policies of right-wing/left-wing, Republicans/Democrats, Communists/Capitalists for the past four decades.

Since ~1971 most political leaders have quietly cooperated with international agreements to avoid the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation by uniting nations against a "common enemy" - Global Climate Change [1,2].

1. "Deep roots of the climate scandal (1971-2011)"

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. "Video summary of research career (1961-2011)"

http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

rwinners
3 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
This isn't going to cost the airlines a cent. They will pass it along as an operating cost.
Now, fewer people may fly as a result of higher ticket prices, but airlines will adjust to that as well, by downsizing fleets and restructuring routes.
alq131
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
There is a good solution to these policies...go all out.
Just stop flying in these markets that cost too much. Or government could just ban the production of CO2. Voila, no more green house gasses...and i'm sure the world would be a better place...Sailing ships, horse-drawn...er sorry horses make greenhouse gasses, I guess we'd have to pull the carts...oh, wait, HUMANS emit green house gasses...maybe we could eliminate all humans?
Ethelred
2 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
This isn't going to cost the airlines a cent.

by downsizing fleets and restructuring routes.
Those two are contradictory. Downsizing WILL cost them money. Less total income equal less total profit AND they would sell the excess planes to who exactly? Each other? That doesn't work.

Do read what you write before you post. For those little self-contradictions. Are you trying to catch up with Oliver?

Ethelred
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
Ultimately, this will lead to increase in price for passengers, which means an increase in costs to businesses who have legitimate travel needs
Which is EXACTLY THE POINT. With fossil carbon emissions priced correctly, there comes a tipping point where based on simple price pressures more carbon-frugal and carbon-neutral technologies win. The consumer shifts demand to the cheaper alternatives, and thereby broad industrial change is achieved.

For instance, high-speed rail travel is far more fuel-efficient than airplanes: what hurts the airline industry, helps the rail industry. Businesses that think they "legitimately need to travel" may rediscover the benefits and cost savings of telepresence and teleconferencing -- thereby boosting those industries. Maybe there will be less shipping of parts halfway across the globe to be assembled together and then shipped back halfway across the globe into retail. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.