Back to Squawk list
  • 31

EU Suspends Aviation Emissions Rules

The European Commission's retreat from forcing airlines to pay for carbon emissions when flying in or out of the bloc puts huge faith in action by the U.N.'s International Civil Aviation Organisation... The Commission on Monday said it would put "on hold" plans to include international flights from outside the EU in its scheme, to give ICAO time to forge a proposal for a global deal in time for its congress next year. That leaves flights within the EU still covered by the… ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Finally!!!!! Victory over the nerds!!!!!
I am sure this little political adventure kept a few in cigars. Gotta keep people busy and happy!
Money talks and BS walks!!!!
Taxing anything cures nothing. Limiting flights would lessen emissions; but oh, that would be an inconvience. What will we do????
Agree with Roland......someone is getting something to back off.
The transit sytem of the entire globe runs on diesel and jet A. Besides being pc, what's the point of taxing it? Ever try to run a jet on solar panels?
So lets stop all flights to the EU. Lary seems like the only logic driven guy here. And of course in the news media we have people directly relating that Storm sandy is a direct result of global warming. Its nice they are so sure and exact in their opinion. THe world ends tommorrow crowd can go to their caves now. Seems like the emotion of proponents of Global Warming (I accept they may be right)takes over clear thinking. He is not alone. Madness of Crowds and all.
Commerce for Today wins over Children's Future once again. Top people just do not care if the citizens of Tomorrow will not be able to breathe clean air, as long as the pockets are gold lined today. All the best.
Commerce for today wins over left-wing non-scientific propaganda and will help provide our children a better future!
It is a well documented scientific fact that had laid out the rules of emissions in the first place, not some ham handed response by a amateur being issued for the sake of responding to a comment.
Your "well-documented" scientific facts are hotly debated by many respected scientists. It is also a fact that some of the science "documenting" global warming was false. And even if you agree there is global warming there is no "well-documented" evidence that it is man made. If you think my response is "ham handed" I could certainly say the same about yours. The truest thing to say might be that the jury is still out on the science and that it's a good thing that the EU has stopped its unfair taxing plan for international flights.
Yes I do say that your response is ham handed, you yourself point out that jury is still out , any yet try and convince yourself that global warming is not man made. It is a well known fact that commerce will never accept anything that goes against the principles of profit. Do not try and convince yourself that this is some left-wing doctorine, it is a known fact. If you do not accept this you are deluding your tomorrows for short gains of todays. The EU emissions was not for taxing unfairly, as it was for making sure that airlines were penalised for the unnecessary amount of flights made to evade even parking charges on many airports.
Well if my response if ham handed, your response if full of baloney. Just saying something is true doesn't make it true. I am a Ph.D scientist and if I had the time and space could cite numerous peer-reviewed articles supporting my position. By saying the jury is still out in no way concedes there is man-made global warming. If you think there is universal agreement among atmospheric scientists your are deluding yourself. I'm sure you will come up with a snippy name-calling reply, but my last response is here. I have better things to do.
Hahaha when all logic runs out they retreat within their shells. Ph.D well nice to have conversed with a fellow Doctorate. All the best.
Well, this really is my last reply. I'm not retreating within my shell. I actually work for a living and have research to do and can't spent all day on a blog site. If you really are a fellow Ph.D. then I would think you would have your job to do as well. Anyway, the conversation ended as amicably as I guess it could. Have a nice day.
Congrats on earning the PhD, Larry; now, would you please use it responsibly? Do your own research if you want and explain where all the CO2 ended up when we, as a species, extracted and consumed all of the oil and coal we could easily find and spent the last century on a consumption binge. Did it increase the CO2 in our atmosphere (see the Keeling Curve)? Did it increase ocean acidification? Did our Arctic ice melt off to a record low for modern history last summer?

Alternatively, if your area of expertise is in the humanities, are you prepared to deny that people have a potential and history to be greedy SOB's who will ignore others and the environment for personal material gain? Are you able to deny that aircraft do create CO2 and other pollutants, or that pilots/airlines do have unusual habits that cause excessive consumption?

So please, Larry, put that PhD to productive use informing us, not just trying to shut down the valuable commentary of good people like Manoj.
When Keeling started his measurements in 1958, CO2 levels were around 315 ppmv; by the year 2006 they had risen to about 385 ppmv, an absolute increase of 70 ppmv. This is an increase of 22.2 % in units of ppmv. However, the absolute magnitude of the increase (assuming it is accurate) is from 315 molecules of CO2 to 385 - an increase of 70 parts of CO2 to 1,000,000 parts of other gasses - an actual increase of only 0.007% (seven one-thousandths of one percent) over 50 years.

All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years. Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not at fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.” ((Hofmann GE, Smith JE, Johnson KS, Send U, Levin LA, et al. (2011) High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28983. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028983). So the supposed human-caused pH drop is within the seasonal pH variation of the most stable parts of the ocean.

I could start referencing the different scientific opinions regarding global temperature rise (vs. natural variation over centuries), but the post is already too long. I don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases global temperature. I don't disagree that certain glaciers are receding and that ocean levels are currently rising. I may disagree as to the degree of these changes, the rate of these changes, and causes of these changes. We of course need to be diligent and keep watch and take action when and if necessary. I am not a greedy SOB and care much more for the future of my children and grandchildren than I do for any personal economic gain. My job as a microbiologist leaves me nothing to gain one way or the other with this debate. But I have a right to my opinion and you have a right to yours.

So Jeff - and congrats on your Ph.D. too, I'm sure you have one - I'm not trying to shut down commentary from Manoj or anyone else. I'm just having a lively discourse and I don't see why having a different opinion is so threatening. I think calling people "greedy SOB's" possibly lowers the intellectual content of the exchange and may even detract from your side of the argument.
Your assessment of CO2 begins correctly, noting the figure of 315ppm in the late-1950's, which peaked last June at just shy of 397ppm. But, your wanderings seeking to minimize the significance of the CO2 increase are wrong and myopic. 315ppm to 397ppm is a 26% increase in just 54 years; absolutely astonishing rate of increase, in the atmosphere so critical for Earth lifeforms. And, remember, this increase in carbon was accomplished by tapping a major portion of the carbon naturally stored away during a HALF BILLION years.

Hey, this just in from FOX: the October reading is down to 391ppm ... so, climate change denialists will be correct, if this trend continues. Can you find one scientist in true denial of the Keeling Curve, who denies we will peak at 399ppm next summer, and 402 ppm the year after that? No. Which brings us more deeply to the Keeling Curve (easily found as a wiki article). Look at he exceptional regularity of this curve; the annual cycles, with peaks in May, valleys in October, and with a steady, relentless climb upward...and a climb that is actually accelerating. Now, also look at data showing fossil fuel consumption worldwide and it confirms the obvious; i.e., a population that burns gasoline to return a redbox DVD tends to consume more fuel per capita than a population that walks and hand-makes tortillas.

When Keeling developed the CO2 measurement protocol in 1955, a big surprise was that the evolving instrumentation was showing regular, daily cycles of CO2 concentration, driven by photosynthesis in healthy plant populations. Bear in mind, at the time Keeling was measuring 315ppm in the late-1950's, the consensus of world scientists was that the CO2 would rapidly exit the atmosphere and become benignly absorbed within the infinite oceans. It took a few years of scientific process, mostly funded by the government, to determine the fallacy of both of these assumptions.

We are discussing this on a forum for aviation, cognizant that this is a rapidly growing industry that produces a sizable fraction of our atmospheric carbon. We need to recognize that the future of aviation relies on managing this carbon pollution. If atmospheric CO2 continues on the Keeling Curve trend, and if climate change impacts conform to this trend as expected by the vast majority of scientists, we can expect airports like LGA to flood, Pacific islands to disappear, and intensified beach erosion. And if these happen, aviation will diminish.

So, again, management of carbon needs to become an imperative within the aviation profession. The logical solutions (at least for now) include carbon taxing, better engine efficiencies, biofuels, and the reduction of excessive air travel.
Jeff, let us grant that there are two sides to any discussion. We have our viewpoint, and they have theirs. Where it is a known fact that there is global warming, and any steps that are taken to reduce mass consumption are met with stiff resistance for the sake of commerce today, some folks will debate the facts and enjoy the today's unfortunately at the cost of tomorrows. If the taxation of Carbon emissions goes through, it will be a step to discourage the airlines to cut flights that are really not needed. Example: If you refer to the kgal aviation report for Berlin, you may mark that inspite of price of Oil/bbl going up from 132.8 to 138.6 over a period of one year the volume of parked aircraft has gone down from 1955 to 1886. Sourced from IATA this trend is increasing on all major airports, where parking prices & space constraints force the airlines to rotate the aircrafts to lesser prominent destinations and additional flights which have economic viability to park aircraft. Number of airlines for the sake of global presence image fly to destinations that could be pooled leading to lesser flights also.(Like the Star Alliance. Only if they are forced economically will the state of affairs come under control.
Jeff and Manoj, I appreciate the civil tone and factual arguments you put into the debate. I think we agree on many things and that that are indeed two sides to a debate. For anyone following this debate, a less technical article was in Forbes recently that covered this issue (see link below)-

Although reasonable scientists can disagree over the meaning of certain data measurements - I certainly don't think the data support the imminent disappearance of the Pacific Islands - but respect your belief that it does. At least we can all agree that reducing man-made pollution and our carbon footprint is a worthwhile goal to which we should all aspire. The only question is how aggressive these policies should be, since carbon taxes effect global economies and jobs of ordinary people - not just the wealthy people that you may think are exploiting our environment at the expense of our children's future.

Thanks again for a spirited discussion.
Jeff and Manof, you mock Larry's source and the Heartland Institute by saying they put up what in your opinion were silly billboards.

But did it ever occur to you that anthropogenic global warming proponents are just as mockable? I mean, you have a guy going around the world working everyone up into hysterics because of the science - but he himself is a POLITICIAN (who flies on private jets)!

And as a politician, he has promoted 'solutions' that the world governments have embraced, because they all give government more money and more power.

His solution to global warming is to raise taxes and increase regulations. You would think if he really believed all this, he might get off his private jet and join the rest of us, and promote regulations that actually forced us to stop using so much energy.

If man-made activity is really the problem, then higher taxes isn't the solution. The solution would be regulations that forced a stoppage of energy use.

They would probably claim that's unreasonable. But if they really believe what they're preaching, that we're headed for cataclysmic disaster, then wouldn't that be the solution we should all embrace?

Instead, their solution enriches and empowers THEM - at everyone else's expense. While they continue to fly around the world on private jets.

Just a few quick points...

1)Look at the copy of the Heartland billboard (I provided a link two days ago); there is nothing 'silly' about it, nor is the content a matter of mere 'opinion'.

2) This discussion is not about Al Gore, but about the EU delay in implementing their carbon tax, and how that relates to documented changes in our atmosphere (as well as other key elements of our living environment).

3) Although it may inconveniently clash with YOUR 'opinion', Al Gore did (and continues to do) some great work with his movie, which merely documented what he had learned and how he was sharing it ... seeking to illuminate and eventually solve the problem.

4) That said, I will concur I have had a bit of heartburn about politicians, CEO's, actors, etc. zipping about in their own private jets; the carbon produced to haul one butt for a quick lunch, golf date or other whimsical jaunt is disgusting.

5) A very easy solution to diminish this behavior would be a steep carbon tax, not just in Europe, but also in the USA. Can you imagine the reduction in carbon consumption if Jet-A carried a $4/gallon tax? The fuel sales at Thermal would be greatly reduced.

6) These days, most of us prefer a tax over a regulation. The tax allows the invisible hand to guide behavior. Related to this, George Shultz is confident that eventually conservatives will embrace a carbon tax. This is a guy deep in the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan administrations. Check out a recent interview:

Closing... this is not about government growth and empowerment (as you opine). This is about taking care of what he had and have already diminished, so that we do not completely destroy it. We need a system in which our atmosphere and oceans can sustain life. This is a far higher priority than transportation, and responsible aviation authorities need to embrace efficiency and environmental health.
Jeff: Unfortunately the additional tax of 4/gallon (if imposed) will only come out of honest hard working folks. The Jet set will continue their wastage of environment till they get hit personally. New York showed in recent times what could be done on a much smaller scale: To cross the bridge any car must have 3 pax minimum. Else the car was turned back. Only such regulations will force the Jet set to wake up and realize the folly of wasting natural limited resources.

Just to be clear, I am not (yet) advocating for a $4/gallon fuel tax. Inn fact, I cited that figure because it approximates the gap between EU fuel costs and US fuel costs, due to present higher EU taxes to discourage over-consumption of fuel (and excess carbon creation). I will say, too, having spent lots of time studying many of our modern problems (with CO2 considered among the most dangerous), I keep coming to the idea that a steep carbon tax would be the most effective way to resolve these problems.

Your concern about 'honest hard working folks' is easily erased. British Columbia uses a Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax, an idea supported by George Shultz. Copying their method, we would automatically credit all U.S. citizens filing income taxes with a $2,000/year carbon tax refund credit. Those of us with 30mpg vehicles would thus pay no carbon tax on the first 15,000 annual miles. We would all feel encouraged to buy 50mpg or better vehicles, or change our habits to travel less.

The reality is, those with lots of money will travel, even with enormous fuel taxes. But, that enormous fuel tax can discourage excessive trips for important business dates at golf, ski, and sunbathing venues. We may find far fewer deals being closed on the links at Palm Springs, and far fewer bizjets loading up on Jet-A at KTRM.

For what it is worth, I fear one of the key reasons we seem at impasse, making no progress toward the CO2 issue, is that those seeking to block change often sucker people into believing the poor folk will take the brunt of the change. This does not have to be the case, at all, and will not be if a steep carbon tax is properly implemented.

The NY bridge example you mentioned seems a bit draconian. I mean, the whole point of a transportation system is to help move goods and people from one point to another, with the greatest possible efficiency, and to turn someone back at a gate is hugely inefficient. Perhaps it would be better to collect a $10 penalty on the first offense, $100 on the second offense, THEN turn the idiot back if he tries it again.
In New York example I was referring to the Sandy effect. Draconian or not it worked, at times when chaos could have been easily descended to. (Mind the subways were closed too).

I accept that a well implemented legislation could well be the answer, but the catch phrase is well implemented, it would also have to apply to the very rich, the very high and mighty, and there should be no exceptions.

An unfortunate trend in today's world is waste today, do not think of want tomorrow.

Yes your studies of CO2 are reflected in your comments of the Keeling curve. And I for one thank you for the effort made after studies in improving all our tomorrows.
I do not think a tax fixes anything. Get the hell out of jets and into sailboats if you are truly concerned about the environment. Ride a bike instead of a 30 mpg auto. I'll stick to my 16 mpg pickup that does not pollute. Your fuel in EU is 4 dollars higher because your goverent uses it to make money. Besides, where you gonna drive to in England, it's like living in Hawaii, a half a tank of gas and half a day and you're out of real estate. You seem to have a thing about the rich and jets, but an airliner pollutes more regardless of the number aboard. This website is about aviation and I wish I had a jet. But I'll just putt putt along burning 100LL and be thankful, not envious. Just my opinion and the other side of the coin.

Thanks for sharing the link to the Forbes article from last May. You know well the 'rest of the story' behind the Forbes article.

Heartland has been a lead climate change denial organization, and hosted their annual conference this year in Chicago, on May 21-23. Their style of reasonableness and objectivity was to put up billboards in early May with mugshots of the Unabomber, Fidel Castro, Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden, each quoted as believing in climate change. (I am guessing Hitler and Stalin also believed in climate change?) I find it difficult to stomach the 'work' of

I have uploaded a copy of's Kaczyinski billboard at:
Jeff - thanks for the link to the billboards. While they are ridiculous and shouldn't sway anyone's opinion one way or the other, it doesn't change the fact that as Forbes points out there are many reasonable scientists who disagree with the imminent disaster (disapperance of the Pacific Islands, etc.) interpretation of the data. Also, your side has enough non-scientific attack points as well, generally attempting to portray anyone who disagrees with them as anywhere from woefully ignorant to greedy SOBs...
May I add that it is folly to think we are not going to burn fossil fuels wheather it contrubutes to warming or not. Tecdhnology in the automotive world has reduced emissions to such a low level it's even hard to measure them. That said it takes a super amount of fuel to propel a jetload of people at 450+kts. Taxing is not a solution. Technology and maybe even going to more efficent aircraft that aren't as fast are possible pieces of solutions.
I'll measure the carbon when I crank up my diesel...
I love the smell of 100LL in the morning. LOL
Nice one Jeff!

Pretty sure you will not get a reply from the oh so busy Phd!
Greetings. Hope you have a good day too.
IF all the global warming tripe is true-
Explain how a Lockheed P-38F-1-LO Lightning, 41-7630, belly landed on the Greenland Ice Sheet, 15 July 1942- and was finally found in 1992 UNDER 260 feet of ice.

Witness, Glacier Girl.

Just sayin...
Good - what a load of HORSE CRAP in the first place!!!!!

Next they will charge if a transmission penetrates their airspace when you transmit on your radio. WTF are they thinking? Greedy little bastards!

The world is supposed to better itself over time- not make it worse.. At this rate we will all be using square tires by the end of the decade.
Thank God if this plane went out to the highway to disaster
Adrian Rox -1
since there is no god this would seem a ridiculous thing to do. remember: nothing fails like prayer!
Adrian, proselytizing for your religion of Atheism has no place in this discussion.
Oh I see what you did there. That's almost clever of you!
Yeah, but, again, only almost!!
Brilliant comment.
Well since atheism is to religion what OFF is to television there is no place for words like 'religion' and 'proselytizing' except in respect of the very first post in this thread. And that was my point obviously.
You clearly didn't understand my point or else you need to take another course in logic. My premise was that Atheism IS a religion - one that is defended vehemently and angrily whenever a follower of said religion hears someone else use the word "prayer" in a public forum. Therefore from my point of view there is no analogy to "OFF" and TV. Here only the phrase "Thank God" was used, which for most people is just an expression and has no religious meaning anyway, similar to the word "holiday" not being religious (origin "Holy Day." But even if the poster did mean it in a religious sense, clearly the main meaning of the post was a commentary on the carbon tax - NOT religion. Get a life. No one cares whether or not you believe in a god; but you clearly care if other people do.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..