EU postpones airline emissions rule

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

A day before Congress is set to clear a bill to shield U.S. airlines from an EU emissions regulation, the Europeans blinked.

Monday, the European Commission recommended delaying for a year applying its emissions trading scheme to non-EU airlines. The idea is to give the ICAO, an international standard-setting body for aviation, time to come up with a global approach to aviation-derived climate change.

Whether that can be achieved remains to be seen. Much of the reason the European Union pushed its carbon mandate for airlines was because pursuit of a global solution at ICAO had dragged on for years without success.
Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s commissioner for climate action, echoed that idea in a statement and suggested that encouraging nations to deal inside an ICAO framework is a good outcome for the EU.

“Now, it seems that because of some countries’ dislike of our scheme, many countries are prepared to move in ICAO, and even to move toward a market-based mechanism at global level,” Hedegaard said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83731.html?hp=r8

[Lars77]

1. And people wonder why the rest of the world worry so much about US politics

This is a prime example. Congress decides to shield US airlines because climate change is a european socialist conspiracy. This would put EU airlines at a competitive disadvantage, and so they have to stop the whole sceme.

Awesome, together we can destroy this planet!

[marmar]

2. The Pathology of Commerce -- it's going to kill us all eventually.

nt

[GliderGuider]

8. Not so eventually...

From Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Climate change research center at the University of Manchester, UK:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/documents/anderson-ppt.pdf
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2012/11//502497.mp3

From the PDF, regarding the delusional nature of most of the current authoritative projections about carbon:

...with few exceptions, these include:

Recent historical emissions sometimes ‘mistaken’ or ‘massaged’
 Short-term emission growth seriously down played
 Peak year choice ‘Machiavellian’ & dangerously misleading
 Reduction rate universally dictated by economists
 Geoengineering widespread in low carbon scenarios
 Annex 1/non-Annex 1 emissions split neglected or hidden
 Assumptions about ‘Big’ technology naively optimistic
 (‘Net’ Costs meaningless with non-marginal mitigation & adaptation)

Collectively – they have a magician’s view of time & a linear view of problems ?

Again from Anderson's talk:

For 4°C global mean surface temperature
5°C - 6°C global land mean
… & increase °C on the hottest days of:
6°C - 8°C in China
8°C - 10°C in Central Europe
10°C -12°C in New York

In low latitudes 4°C gives
up to 40% reduction in maize & rice
as population heads towards 9 billion by 2050

And this is from Fatih Birol (chief economist of the IEA):

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

Read the Powerpoint, listen to the mp3, and then tell me we're going to make it...

[DemoTex]

3. Big mistake

[SoapBox]

4. The U.S. airlines are positively GLOWING about this...

Airlines, among the biggest polluters around the world...spewing out Jet-A Diesel smoke and super heating the upper ranges of the atmosphere...they really are bad for the world.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Can We Have our High Speed Rail Now?

Most of our flights are domestic, and of those a very large number are short hops,
the sort of thing that can better and more conveniently be done by high-speed rail.

If we're not supposed to fly, how do we get there? Driving isn't any better,
and even a short hop is gonna be too far to walk or bike.

[pampango]

6. Opposition to the EU's airline emissions rule was shared by the US and China, among others.

Thanks to the EU for trying. Thumbs down to the US and China for opposing this.

[mrf901]

7. only the non-EU airlines would be taxed

EU airlines get rebated.
it is just how things work

[Nihil]

9. Bull shit.

This was the first actual attempt to cut emissions from a direction that has *always* had
a well-funded "protected" status but thanks mainly to the US & China, the airlines have
wriggled their way yet again out of any penalty for the (largely unnecessary) pollution that
they cause.

Keep your anti-EU talking points out of this one and think of the planet for a change.