It's been obvious for some time now that the Obama administration's promises to fight global warming are in mothballs. But it's still shocking to see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attack the 27 European countries that are actually trying to do something about the greatest environmental challenge of our time.
The European Parliament in 2008 enacted a broadly popular law aimed at reducing Europe's carbon pollution. As of January 1, 2012, it will begin to apply to the aviation industry, one of the fastest-growing contributors to global warming. The law is essentially a cap-and-trade system, a scheme adopted by the Europeans in response to long-standing U.S. insistence that global warming should be tackled through this mechanism. While cap-and-trade is neither the only nor the best way to cut pollution, since its success can be undercut in a variety of ways from market manipulation to problematic "offset" programs, the EU law is so far the only law on the books to do something about the carbon pollution spewed high into the atmosphere by the thousands of planes that cross the sky each day.
Yet, earlier this month, Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood threatened to take "appropriate action" -- an ill-disguised threat of a trade war -- unless Europe exempts American airlines from the European carbon trading scheme. For the Obama administration to attack the European law, the system the U.S. has long insisted on, is the height of hypocrisy.
In their Dec. 16 letter to the European Union, Clinton and LaHood parroted spurious arguments cobbled together by three U.S. airlines, United/Continental and American, and their trade association made in a lawsuit they filed to defeat the European law. But on Dec. 21, the European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, flatly rejected those arguments and upheld the European Union's decision to hold all airlines, foreign and domestic, accountable for their carbon emissions while flying to, from, or within the EU. The high court's decision found the EU law in full compliance with international law, holding that it neither infringes on the sovereignty of other nations nor constitutes an impermissible tax.
Threatening trade warfare to shield U.S. aviation from any pollution limits disregards both the rules of international law and principles of comity between political allies -- never mind the fact that the law reflects the will of 27 European nations and their citizens. The financial impact will amount to, at most, some $16 for a transatlantic flight. That's less than a pittance to an industry that charges for checking a bag, a few inches of extra legroom and even a box of snacks. And amazingly, in the short term, the U.S. airlines may even profit from the trading scheme.
Secretary Clinton's stern admonition to Europe to abandon this extremely modest pollution-control measure, and instead work to reach an international standard at UN-sponsored talks on aviation, is an outright sham. Those international negotiations haven't produced a single result in the last 14 years -- not even agreement on the basic question of how to measure an emission standard -- in large part due to obstruction and interference by the U.S. In the international climate change negotiations in Durban just last month, the U.S. tried to justify delay through 2020 in reaching a binding international climate treaty by supposedly championing action at the local and national levels. That's a delay the world cannot afford. But worse yet, at the first opportunity to shore up precisely that kind of action, the U.S. is trying to sabotage it. The action rightly drew loud condemnation from environmental groups.
But, while Secretaries Clinton and LaHood do the petty bidding of the airline industry, the climate crises worsens and deepens: This year was one of the warmest on record, the loss of sea ice is pushing polar bears and other species toward extinction, extreme weather is wreaking havoc and climate-driven humanitarian crises are unfolding around the globe. Europe has taken an important step toward addressing global warming. If the Obama administration isn't going to lead on addressing this crisis, it should at least get out of the way. The current course of bullying and sabotage is simply indefensible.
India's civil aviation ministry has decided to summon country heads of all European carriers flying to India over a controversial European Union (EU) tax that would be imposed on Indian carriers from January 1.
It is feared that the EU-emissions trading system (ETS), which could cost domestic carriers billions of dollars in EU airspace emissions fees, would lead to an increase in global airfares to or via EU nations by as much as $50-250 (Rs 2,600-13,300).
“We have decided to talk directly to the airlines,” a senior aviation ministry official said. “If they tax our carriers, we will impose a similar tax on all EU carriers operating to and from India. As airlines would be the end sufferers, they should know the consequences of the EU’s action.”
“We hope better sense prevails and the EU withdraws the tax. The EU should work with the global community in developing a global approach for tackling emissions in the airline industry,” he said.-Hindustan Times.
Let's ask the scientists about ocean acidification:
Orr, J.C., et al., Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification over the Twenty First Century and
it’s Impact on Calcifying Organisms, Nature, vol. 437, pp. 681-686, 2005.
Pandolfi, John M., Connolly, Sean R., Marshall, Dustin J., Cohen, Anne L., Projecting
Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification, Science,
vol. 333, no. 6041, pp. 418-422, 7/22/2011. DOI: 10.1126/science.1204794
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. Greenfield,
E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton,
C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi and
M. E. Hatziolos, Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification,
Science, vol. 318, no. 5857, pp. 1737-1742, December 14 2007.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1152509 857 citations
Zeebe, Richard E., James C. Zachos, Ken Caldeira, and Toby Tyrrell, Carbon Emissions
and Acidification, Science, vol. 321, no. 5885, pp. 51-52, July 4, 2008.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1159124
Carpenter, Kent E., et al, (39 authors), One Third of Reef Building Corals Face Elevated
Extinction Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts, Science, vol. 321, no.5888, pp. 560-563, July 25 2008. 200 citations
DOI: 10.1126/science.1159196
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_acidocean_prt.htm
A good explanation of the pH level of the ocean is here:
http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/FAQacidity.html#AcidicOA
Note that experts are not certain if the ecology of the oceans can adapt to the changes we are creating by burning fossil fuels. From the same site:
"While these pH levels are not alarming in themselves, the rate of change is cause for concern. To the best of our knowledge, the ocean has never experienced such a rapid acidification. By the end of this century, if concentrations of CO2 continue to rise exponentially, we may expect to see changes in pH that are three times greater and 100 times faster than those experienced during the transitions from glacial to interglacial periods. Such large changes in ocean pH have probably not been experienced on the planet for the past 21 million years "
Your comments are cute but should not be taken seriously.
"In September the U.S. joined Brazil, India, China, Russia and 21 other governments in declaring that "the unilaterally imposed [European] measures were inconsistent with international legal regimes." The 1944 Chicago convention on aviation gives every signatory "complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory."
Brussels shrugged that off, and last week the European Court of Justice rejected a challenge brought by American and Canadian airlines. The ruling included the logical gem that while all EU nations ratified the 1944 convention, the EU itself did not exist at the time and thus cannot be bound by its provisions.
.....
Meanwhile, the EU's trading partners are threatening to retaliate. Beijing has floated a cut in Chinese airlines' Airbus orders, and Chinese carriers are launching their own lawsuit. New Delhi is mulling a payback tax, and Moscow hasn't ruled out increasing overflight fees on European carriers.
The U.S. has stated its "strong legal and policy objections" to the move, and this month Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned that Washington "will be compelled to take appropriate action" if the EU doesn't back down. The measures could include a tax on European airlines, judging by the request the U.S. made this month to nine European carriers for information on their 2012 carbon allowances and 2010 revenues."-Wall Street Journal
Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature data as flat? *
Isn't that like a global warming scam, a climate science hoax, an indefensible lie, etc?
If you disagree again please provide a valid scientific rational to support Bob Carter's deeply misleading misrepresentation of global warming temperature data over recent decades - thank you.
Please answer the question, Richard2, instead of continuing to run away from it.
-------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-08-08-contrails.htm
http://www.ecoseed.org/latest-news/article/102-/12120-
Do you have any data to support your claim that the aviation industry is "one of the fastest-growing contributors to global warming.", or did you just make that up?
There is also copious research indicating that CO2 increases occur after periods of warming, not prior to periods of warming. The warming causes the increase in CO2. That is what serious scientific research shows.
The idea of CO2 being the primary influence on climate is a political idea, not a scientific one. It is a tool to force governments to act against the best interests of their citizens. It is politics. This silly EU tax on airplane flights is a classic example.
Germany, a member of the EU, is currently building large numbers of new coal fired power plants, as is China. So it is OK for Germany and China to burn coal, but it is necessary to tax an individual tourist who wants to visit Europe. What if the tourist drinks a coca cola while flying over Los Angeles. Is the EU going to add a special tax for releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere? CO2 is good for all plant life, good for coral in the sea, and indirectly very good for people.
But that's how the alarmists work. Make up factoids and then claim doom MAY result. So predictable.
How convenient for a denier. Make sweeping assumptions about global warming based upon the lack of response by a forum member on a holiday. That's how Orkney works, make up stuff and spread disinformation. And always draw conclusions favorable to Big Energy. Right Orkney?
There is a way around this situation since carbon trading has proven to so ripe for abuses why not let the U.S. issue lots of fake carbon credits for U.S. Airlines. Ours like so many of the other Europeans carbon credits would of course be worthless or meaningless but it's their game we just need to play it like they do.
Brussels shrugged that off, and last week the European Court of Justice rejected a challenge brought by American and Canadian airlines. The ruling included the logical gem that while all EU nations ratified the 1944 convention, the EU itself did not exist at the time and thus cannot be bound by its provisions.-WSJ 12/30/11
The major problem of the world, according to a ScienceDaily article is overpopulation. It is of course the major reason for climate change, but it is also the reason for the lack of fresh water, the utilization of irreplaceable natural resources, and the increased problem with waste disposal.
I don't know if you have read the free e-book series 'In Search of Utopia' at http://andgulliverreturn.info to--it looks at the various problems that we now face and the ethical and psychological obstacles to solving these problems. Politicians are not about to tackle this fundamental problem. To suggest limiting population would be to lose a huge proportion of the religious vote as well as those with self-centered values who want children that they are not capable of supporting financially or emotionally. For a politician it would be a no-win situation. For a statesman who wanted to be remembered in history, it would be his or her paramount concern.
So if the tax stands, who represents the interests of those who are stuck paying the "tax." Certainly not the EU Commissioners.
It is extremely doubtful that this new major tax on airline travel will be "widely popular" with non-residents of the EU.
Perhaps the tourism industries in the EU nations will suffer from a lack of foreign visitors, due to the insulting and condescending way the EU is trying to collect taxes on people who aren't even traveling over EU airspace.
It is the proper role of the American Secretary of State to represent the American people in this matter.
Climate change is very serious. I'm not sure how anyone could deny the mountains of evidence that internationally renowned organizations (NASA, NOAA, IPCC, USGS, etc) have accumulated over decades of research. And if this is all just one big gimmick in an attempt to collect tax revenue, why is it that the governments themselves are spending billions on offsets, solutions and adaptation? This is money out of their pockets. They have even agreed on sending $100 billion to 3rd world countries to help them adapt to carbon-induce climate change, largely due to the West's industrial revolution. This is definitely money they will not be getting back.
In summary, this isn't about taxes. It's about science and the urgency of the situation.
The climate EU surcharge isn't just applied to airplanes as they fly over EU air space. No, it also applies to planes that are heading to the EU, as they fly over the individual states within the United States, and as they fly over the Atlantic Ocean, which is not territory claimed by the EU.
So if I buy a ticket in Southern California to fly to London, what is the legality of the EU charging me for flying over the continental United States, over Canada, and over the Atlantic Ocean, before arriving in EU airspace in Great Britain?
The EU is committing an illegal act, and is essentially stealing from residents of the world outside the boundaries of the EU. The EU has no sovereignty of its own. It isn't a nation, with a democratically elected government. Yet it ignores the sovereignty of great nations like the United States and Canada, as well as all other nations outside the EU.f
Hopefully American passengers will actively protest the illegal EU fees, and support the efforts of Hillary Clinton to have the fees based on air travel outside the EU removed from the backs of all Americans traveling to the EU.
So, if you buy a ticket in Southern California, you do not pay flying over the continental US, or over Canada, or over the Atlantic Ocean if your plane never lands in Europe. You pay only if it lands in Europe, which is controlled by the European people, not by Americans.
Who is acting the bully here? There are almost 200 nations in the world. How does the EU claim jurisdiction over all the airspace in the world?
As of January 1, the basic airfare from California to Italy on any airline will be less than half of the total cost of the flight. The rest will be government surcharges, landing fees and CO2 taxes, etc. This is going to discourage people from traveling, big time.