Posted by: Dr Churchill | March 4, 2012

Carbon War

There is a Carbon War going on.

A war that can’t be redeemed with bullets alone, but rather with simple carbon emmisions reductions and payments for polluting the earth.

As things turn out it is a trade war of the first magnitude…

The first International Carbon War has started in earnest between the European Union and the assorted polluters of the airline industry and the nations they have fooled into representing them…

China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, are the first fighters against the Carbon emiisions taxes imposed by the European Union. And as a first response all of Beijing’s domestic and international airlines have been banned from complying with the European Union’s scheme to impose charges on carbon emissions from flights to and from Europe, according to the civil aviation authority of the PRC.

These new and just airline surcharges are opposed of course by all the petrol-heads and by more than two dozen countries, including the United States, Russia and India, but China takes the foolish lead in this trade war.

The Civil Aviation Administration of China issued a directive, authorized by the State Council, to notify all domestic airlines of the ban.

“Without the approval of relevant government departments all airlines in China are prohibited from participating in the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS),” said a statement on the State Council website.

The statement also said that airlines were barred from using the ETS to increase fares or other passenger charges.

“China will consider adopting necessary measures to protect the interests of Chinese individuals and companies, pending developments,” the statement said.

Under the ETS, airlines must buy additional allowances for their emissions beyond a set level or face fines.

The ETS, which took effect on Jan 1, could see around 4,000 airlines paying the EU for their carbon emissions.

Chai Haibo, deputy secretary-general of the China Air Transport Association, said the EU’s decision has provoked wide opposition.

Earlier, the US industry group, the Air Transport Association of America, and the International Air Transport Association tried to challenge the move in EU courts, arguing that the ETS infringes on national sovereignty and violates international aviation treaties. But the EU Court of Justice dismissed the arguments in December.

Following the failure of the polluters, in the court of law, the US Congress is expected to pass a bill in the coming weeks to formally oppose the EU law on aircraft emissions.

Chai said he believed the directive issued by China’s civil aviation authority is similar to the bill to be passed by the US.

“Both are clear expressions of opposition to the EU law from the governments,” he said, adding that domestic airlines now must abide by the directive.

The directive came as some foreign airlines announced new ticket fees since the ETS came into force.

US carrier Delta, one of the world’s biggest airlines, added a $6 surcharge for return flights between the US and Europe.

Germany’s Lufthansa indicated it would raise its fuel surcharge, following Belgian carrier Brussels Airlines, which increased it by 10 euros ($13) to 135 euros for international flights and by 3 euros to 39 euros for EU routes, AFP reported.

No Chinese airlines have cited the EU tax to increase fares. Chinese carriers, including China Southern Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and Hainan Airlines, have said they will follow the ban.

Luo Zhuping, secretary of the board of China Eastern Airlines, said the order is good news for passengers because airlines are forbidden to raise prices for the carbon tax.

Chinese airlines are estimated to need to pay 800 million yuan ($125 million) this year as required by the EU scheme. The payout could be almost four times higher by 2020 as Chinese flights to and from Europe increase.

“We hope that the EU understands the global negative response to its scheme and cancels or revises its plan,” Chai said.

But the EU ambassador to China, Markus Ederer, said at a news conference on Monday that with free credits taken into account, the added cost per passenger on a flight from Beijing to Brussels would be only 17.5 yuan or 1.9 euros.

“I leave it to you to make a judgment on whether this is too much for saving the Earth, combating climate change and making headway together,” he said.

As for calls to solve the issue under a multilateral framework, such as the UN International Civil Aviation Organization, Ederer said that Europe is in ongoing discussions with related organizations to seek an international resolution before collecting money.

“We are ready to engage in a discussion on recognizing the equivalent measures which would then exempt airlines of those countries from the necessary dues that would have to be paid,” he said.

But if conflict over the charges finally happens, it may go to court, he said.

Zhang Min, an expert on European studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that if China and the EU fail to reach an agreement, China may adopt countermeasures against the EU.

Chai agreed. “China does not want this to end antagonistically. But if the EU sticks to its guns it is hard to predict what countermeasures the Chinese government will take.”

However, the Chinese airlines have to meet the EU’s demand unless they stop flights. As negotiations take time they might end up paying the tax during the negotiating period to keep their routes to and from Europe open.

Still the Chinese government is objecting only because of the airlines, but the final solution may be some sort of compliance with the ETS and small changes in time for the adoption of the scheme, because after all it is a law in Europe and visitors must comply same as we all comply with and respect the local laws when we go to Beijing….

 Yours,

Pano

PS:

Offseting emissions is a necessity.

 Clearly the CO2 released high up in the atmosphere can be thousands of times more harmful than carbon emissions released on the surface of the air because of dissipation…

You know it’s time for the airline industry to be more responsible and pay it’s costs because this will allow for a new era of travel to be born. An era that will be encouraging proud people acting responsibly to travel. An era of travel renaisance, because this is demanded by most travelers who are now afraid of their carbon footprint.

We know based on proper econometrics that this tax will be good for the economy and the airline industry over all because it allows for maturity and responsibility to reign and the carriers will benefit surely.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: