Today’s Wall Street Journal article Europe’s Green Airline War discussed a new carbon emissions tax:
The rule, which goes into effect January 1, will apply to all airlines regardless of nationality and to all flights to or from Europe. Airlines that refuse will be subject to fines of €100 per ton of CO2 that exceeds the EU’s limits, and they could be banned from operating in Europe.
I read through quickly and immediately wondered: Can this really apply to all Europe? Aren’t there a few European countries that never joined the EU? Can the EU impose a tax on flights between two countries that are not members of the EU?
I know am a bit fuzzy about precisely which countries are or are not members so I consulted Wikipedia. Here is the map from Wikipedia’s page discussing Member states of the European Union”:
If I understand the legend correctly, the white areas are countries not in the EU. Eyeballing, I see a long narrow white region up there to the northwest and a white blob right smack in the middle of what I believe to be Europe. My impression is these two are often called “Norway” and “Switzerland”. The Wikipedia article does mention “Norway, however, declined to accept the invitation to become a member” and also mentions “though Switzerland, which applied in 2002, froze its application due to opposition from voters[16] while Norway, which had applied once more, had its voters reject membership again”. This further supports my supposition that Norway and Switzerland may have never managed to join the EU.
So, out of curiosity: Does anyone know if the EU can impose a carbon tax on flights from NY to Oslo? How about Chicago to Zurich? I know that in the latter case, one will at least overfly EU nations. But it seems to me that one might not in the former case. Does anyone know?
Because it seems to me that if Norway-US (or anywhere in the Americas) is exempt, Oslo is going to see a big boost in airline traffic.
You are right, Norway and Switzerland are and never were member of the EU (or the EC before). Norway is just to rich, they would have to pay too much, while getting back little. Switss people are just to proud of their neutrality, they also fear the Brussels Bureaucracy.
There is no way, the EU can directly force this two state to impose the tax.
The EU might have some leverage to impose a tax on the “white” states at the Adriatic Sea, as they are trying to get full membership.
No. Norway is part of other European organizations, but none of them has legislative power like the EU does.
I suppose that depends on the level of the tax (I can’t access the article).
Also, Oslo is at the worst possible place to locate a European hub (on the northern edge, and Europe is already north of pretty much everything). OTOH Switzerland is pretty centrally located. So if the tax is really high you could see some transfer to Zurich or Geneva – but not to Basel, because the Basel airport is… in France!
If the countries, like Norway & Switzerland, had the sense to stay outside of the European Union (But both are members of the European Free Trade Area), then they aren’t subject to this tax.
Notice too, the little white blob between Poland & Lithuania.
That’s part of the Russian Federation.
toto–
The Wall Street Journal has a weird access issues. You can always access them by googling the title and going through google. (Maybe I should link that way!)
Try this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Europse+Green+Airline+War&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Api&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=RAv-Tu2HJ4GBgweU5dGWAg&ved=0CCwQvwUoAQ&q=Europe+Green+Airline+War&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=f257c16c7e24a9e0&biw=1311&bih=819
But I don’t think you’ll learn more from the article. It discusses trade wars etc. The issue of people deciding to fly through Oslo was something I wondered on my own.
toto–
On more substantive stuff–
I agree that Oslo is generally, not a convenient way to access, say, Italy. But if you are already flying from Chicago and planning a vacation, who knows? When I flew from Washington State to Switzerland, I think I once did Pasco-> Cincinnati->Gatwick->Zurich. Going to Florence, from Iowa I once had a layover in Germany.
So, for Americans I don’t see how Midwestern city -> Oslo->Florence would be either more or less convenient for passengers. It might take a while for airlines to reorganize and switch. But if the tax is put in place and remains permanent, I would think over the course of several years, they’d have an incentive to start reorganizing their flights.
Of course, this tax won’t change anyone’s flight plans if it’s low. But in that case, it won’t really reduce CO2 emissions either.
“I read through quickly and immediately wondered: Can this really apply to all Europe?”
No the WSJ were using “Europe” to mean the European Union. The change would only apply to flights landing in EU countries.
“Because it seems to me that if Norway-US (or anywhere in the Americas) is exempt, Oslo is going to see a big boost in airline traffic.”
That doesn’t seem very likely. Oslo has its charms but flying to Oslo is not a good substitute to flying to Paris, London or Frankfurt. Also the court ruling means that while Norway isn’t obligied to adopt this legislation, it establishes the legality of charing airlines for their carbon emissions. The EU won’t however be able to charge an airline for emissions they have already paid for (as I understand it) – so if they are charged some kind of carbon-tax/ETS at home they can’t be charged by the EU. The gives Norway some very good reasons for charging airlines also (so they get the money for flights to EU countries rather than the EU). Might be wrong about that bit though.
“The Wall Street Journal has a weird access issues.”
Here is a Guardian article that is easier to access: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/20/eu-charge-airlines-carbon-emissions?INTCMP=SRCH
The relationships between the various European entities are insanely complex: there’s a diagram at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA which covers most of the major organisations. This includes the main microstates such as San Marino and Monacco, but misses out Jersey, Guernsey etc.
Ah, one other thing – I think Norway may have voluntarily joined the EU’s emissions trading scheme anyway. Consequently the court ruling probably does include Norway as well (unless Norway drops out as a consequence)
http://www.eu-norway.org/Climate_change/eu_ets/
1) If non-European nations were to be required participate in a carbon market over which they have no administrative control or input, the EU should either be prepared to surrender control of their carbon “market” to a higher international authority or simply set objective emissions stds for outsiders.
Recall that the US effectively banned European-made SSTs based on noise standards that did not apply in Europe. So some discrete regulatory or fee-based controls are presumably permissible. But I see no good reason why non-Europeans can be compelled to enter some goofy exchange system in which it is an absolute certainty that favored (EU) manufacturers, nations, technologies etc will receive special treatment that will be unavailable to outsiders. All carbon “markets” are rigged by definition.
2) It would probably raise the same revenue if there were 100% tax on private jets, first class air fare, limos and luxury suites for attendance at climate change conferences.
3) With declining global support for climate alarmism and perilous economic weakness, it seems like a really stupid time to implement a bureaucratic international power grab in the name of planet-saving, risking a trade war or escalating costs for the airline industry.
London and Paris are close to the great circle route from Chicago (and lots of other Eastern/Mid-western cities) to most of Europe. Switzerland is also very close. The Swiss I know would snicker at the suggestion of kowtowing to Brussel’s demands. Oslo is way out of the way, and the weather very iffy in the colder months. I rather suspect the realpolitic of other countries diplomatically supporting carriers who refuse to pay the tax will soon bring this rather nutty episode to a conclusion. The last thing Europe needs (with a desperate requirement for international investor support for it’s bonds!) is frightening investors with the potential for lots of economic retaliation. Count on cooler heads (or maybe somewhat chastened heads) to soon prevail in Brussels.
Which mostly seem to exist to allow wealthy individuals to shelter their income from confiscatory tax rates. Ya just gotta love the moral/intellectual inconsistency of Europe; it sticks in my throat like a broken chicken bone.
JJ: ‘The relationships between the various European entities are insanely complex’.
Not ‘alf!. The new carbon tax on aviation is an EU thing but the EU has used its clout to impose it on non-EU members of the EEA/EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) and hopes that Switzerland will be bullied aboard soon. In typical EU fashion, there seems to be some ‘constructive ambiguity’ about the implications for flights between, say, the Faroe Islands and territories/nations that are part of the EU or EEA/EFTA. (The Faroes, though part of Denmark, are not part of the EU or EEA/EFTA.) But never mind – onwards and upwards!
Well, perhaps not upwards, not from Jan 1, anyway. Onwards!
“Ya just gotta love the moral/intellectual inconsistency of Europe; it sticks in my throat like a broken chicken bone.”
Yeah – fancy a whole bunch of different nations with different complex histories, languages and cultures thinking different things! How dare they! Why can’t they be boringly consistent like American individualists? [sure that was a chicken bone and not a beam in one’s eye?]
Nyq Only (Comment #88017),
Sarcasm seems your strong suit. Too bad there is not much else.
Rumour has it that the French government actually threatened Monaco with an invasion if they didn’t restrict tax residency rights for French citizens. Which they promptly did.
Unfortunately I can’t see anything like that happening with the Anglo-Norman islands, despite the proximity. Damn Philippe-Auguste for not finishing the job!
Actually, come to think of it, maybe a couple centuries of sea level rise could help there…
To be fair, we have all those Indian gambling casinos! 🙂
Ok… to be equally fair, those didn’t come into existence to shelter income from confiscatory tax rates nor even to permit gambling. But we do have these odd pockets of not-actually-the-US inside the US. The relationship between these pockets and the rest of the US is a bit complicated.
I don’t know the history of how Jersey and Guernsey came to not subsumed into France or England.
lucia (Comment #88020),
Or Switzerland for that matter, save for that subduing and subsuming them would endanger the numbered accounts of so very many European tax cheats.
SteveF–
Well… I’ve heard the whole William Tell story. From that we are all to infer that the Swiss are all valiant fighters who would repel any and all invaders from any direction.
The only image I have of Jersey and Guernsey is of cows.
“I don’t know the history of how Jersey and Guernsey came to not subsumed into France or England.”
A mix of being more trouble than they are worth and the make-it-up-as-you-go-along side of British constitutional history. The Isle-of-Man is another British island with an odd status but without having the same geographical issues as the Channel Islands.
Of course the biggest constitutional oddity of all is England itself. The legal state of England as an entity is itself very murky. Wikipedia has an uneasy truce in a protracted edit war on whether London is the capital city of England or not 🙂
Hours of fun for those who enjoy pointelss arguments.
“But we do have these odd pockets of not-actually-the-US inside the US.”
American-Samoa, Guam, Puerto-Rico all have interesting status. I’m not eager to pick at another political scab given the heat already being generated in this thread – but Guantanomo Bay is another interesting place when it comes to US/not-US status. Hopefully these won’t cause SteveF any more chicken bone related accidents.
“The only image I have of Jersey and Guernsey is of cows.”
And knit-wear surely!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_%28clothing%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_%28clothing%29
Nyq–
Yes. Funny– I forgot that!
I’ve purchased Jersey when sewing– though not often because when I sew, I usually like woven not knit fabric.
Also, we do call team shirts jerseys.
But, oddly the stitch this woman is working is called “Stockinette” in the US. (I think it’s “stocking stitch” in the UK.)
Jersey, Guernsey and Man are Crown Dependencies, which is indeed an unusual status (the other inhabited Channel Islands are legally part of Guernsey, though Alderney and Sark have considerable internal self government). Jersey and Guernsey are the last remnant of the Norman posessions, and are held by the Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy (as a reigning monarch the Queen is a Duke not a Duchess!). Man is even stranger.
Crown Dependencies should be distinguished from Overseas Dependencies, some of which are reasonably sensible (such as Bermuda) but others of which are tiny (such as Pitcairn). Within these the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia have an even more bizarre status.
Peculiar, but as Lucia points out, no stranger than, say, Guam, Puerto Rico, Midway, Jarvis Island, and the Guantanamo Naval Base.
China and India are objecting, perhaps because they see this as a first step to try and influence all policies. After all, Europe could also demand a carbon tax for all flights, not just the ones to Europe.
Then a carbon tariff on all goods imported.
Jonathan–
I don’t think of Puerto Rico as all that weird. It’s a territory. Illinois, Oklahoma, Florida…. most states were once territories. I know other countries don’t have this system where something might be a territory and then can latter request inclusion. But we’ve always had that.
Guantanamo… that is weird. Indian Reservations are somewhat mind bending. I remember trying to explain what little I know about treaties with tribes back when I was an exchange student in France. (The fact that I don’t know much made this a challenge. But it would be challenging anyway. It’s complicated!)
“Then a carbon tariff on all goods imported.”
I think Sarkosy proposed that for France at one point. It makes a lot of economic sense if you are having a carbon tax anyway. If you don’t then essentially imported goods get a tax-break.
I think the EU would be better phasing out the VAT and replacing it with a similar consumption tax but based on carbon. If it is going to tax consumption anyway it makes sense to do it on a basis that penalises something you want to penalise.
I should have added that the Chausey group of Channel Islands, although originally part of the Bailiwick of Jersey, were effectively ceded to France in 1499. There was some debate over the status of Les Minquiers and Les Écréhou as recently as 1953.
Stockinette is indeed stocking stitch in the UK. The word jersey is rarely used for the fabric, but frequently for the clothing, and occasionally for the type of cow.
“I know other countries don’t have this system where something might be a territory and then can latter request inclusion. But we’ve always had that.”
Not uncommon in newer states. Australia is another example. The Northern Territory (essentially the big middle to north block of mainland Australia ) is a territory rather than a state and hence has fewer devolved powers. However the inhabitants of the Northern Territory get a full say (in effect) in federal politics [i.e. NT is fully Australian but not fully a state]
Lucia, I think you also need to draw a distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories, though it’s not my field.
I see that the US has now given up all its overseas administrative areas with the exception of the extraterritorial jurisdiction areas (most notably Guantanamo, but also, for example, the US bases on Ascension and Diego Garcia, and arguably Bagram).
Nyq–
In our state, territories and inhabitants of territories don’t have equal say in federal politics. Puerto Rico has no representatives in the Electoral College and so is uninvolved in Presidential elections. Puerto Rico has no Senators. I just googled and discovered it does have a member in the house of representatives, but he has limited voting privileges. (I have no idea what he gets to vote on. Possibly non-binding resolutions? Beats me!)
That said: People living in Washington DC are in a somewhat similar boat as those living in Puerto Rico!
Puerto Rican’s do have American Citizenship.
Jonathan– It’s not my area either.
Ok… I googled Oklahoma_Territory
In contrast, Guam, Puerto Rico and The Phillipines were unincorporated (but organized) territories. So, there is a difference.
Lucia, the last incorporated territory left seems to be Palmyra Atoll, but as this is unorganized it seems to be under the direct rule (!) of the US president.
I think it is the case that natives of incorporated territories are US citizens automatically, whle natives of unicorporated territories are not. In the case of the four organized unincorporated territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands) there are specific Congressional bills defining their rights (which is what organized means in this context), and in all four cases this includes US citizenship and an (essentially) non-voting representative in Congress. Natives of the unorganized unincorpoarated territories are US nationals but NOT US citizens. Complicated!
Antarctica! And then, a carbon tax on flights to the Moon!!
(to and from the Moon!!)
Nonsensical carbon taxes or not, if there were any way for any geographical area of England (I’m not sure about the rest of the UK) to unilaterally secede from the EU by popular vote, we would be gone in a trice.
Btw, is there a way nowadays for a state to secede from the USA (peferably without starting a war, like last time!)?
“In our state, territories and inhabitants of territories don’t have equal say in federal politics. Puerto Rico has no representatives in the Electoral College and so is uninvolved in Presidential elections.”
I see – I guess that is has to be that way constitutionally as, in effect, all political involvement in the federal government is at least nominally via the US state that you are in (although in practice that isn’t the case). Australia consists of states but its federal government is not an alliance of states in the same way that the US is. Horses for courses I suppose.
“if there were any way for any geographical area of England (I’m not sure about the rest of the UK) to unilaterally secede from the EU by popular vote, we would be gone in a trice.”
Given the relentless and nonesensical anti-EU propaganda I don’t doubt that if a Daily Mail enclave could be created it would vote for independence and defiantly weigh its fruit and vegetables by the pound and ounce 🙂
Cui Bono–
As far as I am aware, the constitution does not and never has had a provision for a state to secede. Of course, at one time the South disagreed and various states decreed themselves out. The North disagreed. The South lost the war– but that wasn’t exactly decided following the normal constitutional channels.
I suppose US constitution could be amended to permit states to leave if they wished. But that hasn’t been done.
I think Richard Branson must have the same copy of the EU Map. Last summer, he moved the headquarters of Virgin Enterprises to Switzerland because of the tax advantages over the UK. It looks like a great place to have a hub for intercontinental airline travel.
According to a later Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/20/eu-charge-airlines-carbon-emissions
“Depending on decisions by airlines on how much to pass on to customers, the European commission has calculated that costs per passenger could rise between €2 and €12, much less than the €100 per allowance penalty it would impose on airlines that do not comply.
Many airlines have given much higher assessments of the cost…”
“I suppose US constitution could be amended to permit states to leave if they wished.”
As I understand it US citizenship isn’t by state – i.e. you aren’t a citizen of, say, Texas and therefore a citizen of the USA. Consequently it isn’t obvious how the population of a state could secede unless everybody agreed. Contrast with the EU – if the UK did leave then the same issue doesn’t apply. British citizens are citizens of the EU by virtue of being citizens of the UK – if the UK leaves then everybody in the UK loses their EU citizenship (aside from people with dual nationality of another EU nation).
lucia (Comment #88031)
December 30th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Guantanamo… that is weird. Indian Reservations are somewhat mind bending. I remember trying to explain what little I know about treaties with tribes back when I was an exchange student in France. (The fact that I don’t know much made this a challenge. But it would be challenging anyway. It’s complicated!)
I’m not an expert but actually made it to Guantanamo once. My understanding is that Guantanamo Bay is Cuban territory, but that the US is in Gitmo because of a long-term lease after the Spanish-American war. Although Castro’s revolution took over Cuba, they were never strong enough to kick the US out of Gitmo and the US stayed in Gitmo at least partly as thorn in Castro’s side, although it has seen a lot of activity in the last few years for other reasons.
Thanks for the clarification Lucia.
It’s just that the last time I visited there seemed to be a lot of people who seemed to wish that California would leave the Union. And some who thought it should leave the planet. And a few who thought it already had. 🙂
Cui Bono,
People wanting California to secede and the legalities of such a thing are two separate issues. 🙂
The problem as I see it with the European plan is that it attempts to tax all CO2 emissions over the entire route, not just the emissions that occur over Europe. So they are, in effect, taxing emissions that happen in the sovereign space of other nations. They seem to believe they have this right when an airliner lands or takes off from their soil. So an airliner taking off from or landing in the EU suddenly because subject to an EU tax over its entire flight path.
This won’t last very long. Airlines are operating on thin enough margins as it is. This will simply act to further reduce European economic activity, but that seems to be the goal of these people.
Flights specifically to Paris, could land in Switzerland, and then go from there to Paris as a separate leg. How much do landings and takeoffs cost?
Puerto Rico and other territories do vote in primaries and get delegates. Puerto Rico’s votes gave Hillary Clinton the majority of the popular vote by some measures.
“How much do landings and takeoffs cost?”
Takeoff and climb out to cruise altitude is the most expensive part of the flight. Also, takeoff and landing are the most dangerous part of the flight and cause the most wear and tear on the aircraft. Increasing the number of takeoffs/landings shortens aircraft life, increases inspection intervals, and adds potential accident risk.
Its is quite likely that the Euro will collapse this year. You could expect that Britain and other smarter countries will withdraw from the European Union. This will not be an issue in the next 2-3 years. Also there seems to be no warming occurring for the past 12 years so whats the problem
George,
Ah, err, …, maybe decreases inspection intervals? more cycles in less time?
Lucia
What this means is that the EU is imposing a unilateral carbon tax on the aviation industry. Legally, it would have a hard time imposing this on non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland, but that iusn not really the point.
The point is that in acting unilaterally -forget the de jure aspects for a moment as these could turn out to be very problematic for the folks in Brussels going forward- the EU is de facto entering into a trade war with some 40-45 countries around the world, including the BRICs, the USA, and Canada. It is doing so on the basis of the ideological, “besserwisser” [know-it-all] position it has taken all along on AGW mitigation and the application of the Kyoto Accord.
Reality is that in particular after the complete failure of the recent Durban talks, the EU is the odd man out, whether it appreciates that or likes it. From an economic point of view this is utter stupidy given the very dangerous financial and economic mess the EU finds itself in. It is certainly in no position to fight a global trade war, and doing this while at the same time asking the various countries involved to help bail it out, is certainly not very intelligent.
The discussion has shifted far from the question Lucia posed about Norway and Switzerland, but methinks she did this just to start the conversation. Any way it allows me to enter my, by now, predictable response to taxes.
I have not analyzed the proposed tax, but I think it would be important to determine to what the revenues will be applied. The ideal among Chicago school economists would be that the tax is revenue neutral and would be used to reduce debt or other taxes. A carbon tax ideally is applied to fully value the cost of using fossil fuel so that in competition with other energy sources the playing field is leveled. Of course governments making these decisions on discovering the proper tax and the “costs” of GHG emissions absent the market place is difficult to impossible at best and more likely arbitrary and political. The other problem with the tax is that other energy sources and even fossil fuels are often given subsidies or special considerations by these same governments.
The ideal amongst the Austrian school of economists would be to allow a “free” market to price the cost of using fossil fuels without subsidies clouding the issue. The consideration of damage done by fossil fuels would be a matter of protecting private property rights of the potential transgressed individuals as applied through tort law. That course of action is not going to happen anytime soon.
Given the probable and not ideal course of action in these matters what bothers me most is that people tend to want to view these government actions through rose colored glasses and their Civics 101 view of the world of politics as somehow making sense out of what can only be viewed as arbitrary political power and its applications.
All this leads me to consider, and admittedly lacking the details, that these taxes are imposed even in the light of a significantly depressed economy as a matter of raising revenues for increasing or at least maintaining government revenues. Long term effects be damned as governments look for any sources of revenues to maintain their size and influence. Let the writers of future Civics 101 books and lectures worry about how it will be rationalized.
Kenneth– You are correct that one of the purposes is to foster conversations. I was also curious about Norway and Switzerland.
“Ah, err, …, maybe decreases inspection intervals? more cycles in less time?”
Yes, I meant increases the number of times you hit each inspection interval over a given period of time. Some inspections are done per the number of landings. I think there are certain structural teardown inspections that have to be done when certain numbers of landings have been made in order to check for cracks and such. Hard landings can force an immediate inspection. Any time you increase the number of takeoffs/landings you make things generally more expensive for the operator.
“The consideration of damage done by fossil fuels would be a matter of protecting private property rights of the potential transgressed individuals as applied through tort law.”
I don’t see how tort law could be easily applied in this case. No particular CO2 emission will be the cause of any particular act. Wouldn’t somebody who sees themselves as a victim of CO2 emissions have to sue everybody who has burned fossil fuels?
After putting on my evil Capitalist Executive hat on I see a couple of options for the airlines.
1. Pass on the cost with a modest mark up to the customer.
2. Decrease the number of flights or stops. Not really likely for European carriers but possible for overseas ones.
3. Use your most efficient airframes for Europe. Most of the US carriers have a much older fleet (probably not as efficient) especially the large ones designed for Trans Atlantic flights.
4. Switch to Bio fuels for Europe. Cost and Supply are a big issue, not to mention the whole economic and environmental impact of the current technology.
Jeff Norris (Comment #88072),
After putting on MY evil capitalist hat, I can suggest another option: work with your national government to retaliate against European carriers. Take away landing slots, apply punitive landing charges (eg, 1.5 times the carbon tax value) for European carriers only, make sure that European carriers are pressed in every possible (legal) way WRT to regulations, inspections, customs, maintenance, etc. Have congress pass a law making it unlawful for US carriers to pay carbon taxes to any destination country/group of countries. If needed, ban European carriers from entering US airspace.
.
This issue can only be resolved via ‘diplomacy’, and I am quite sure that is what will happen. Diplomacy legitimately can involve economic sanctions against unacceptable behavior. As I and others have noted on this thread, the Europeans are in no economic position to start a trade war.
The EU is deploying some economic sticks to cut carbon emissions — good for them. I hope it goes smoothly.
This may point the way forward in the big fight for an international agreement — instead of something everybody agrees to (difficult to get a 175 countries to agree on much of anything) you could come to an agreements among a few major players like the US, EU, Japan, China and India. A part of the agreement is that everybody else joins the treaty, or those of the inside refuse to trade with them.
Even the possibility of a carrot-sticks arrangement like that on the horizon might help greatly in focusing minds on reaching a binding global agreement.
You might want to start with Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution by Murray Rothbard linked below. It covers more than pollution and tort law, but you get the picture that Austrians are not necessarily talking about tort law as we commonly and currently practiced it in the US but the common sense approach in which tort law is founded – and based on libertarian principles.
Of interest would be that a case for damage from GHGs would have to be made in a court of law and not come out of a legislative body, although the tendencies of the current judicial process to rule based on personal interpretations of the law and their views of justice – and even in common law – would result in some rulings that would go against libertarian principles.
http://mises.org/daily/2120
Robert–
I doubt China is going to agree to cut carbon emissions nor to agree not to sell stuff to people who won’t. For that matter, I’m doubt we would agree to not buy or sell stuff who people who don’t cut emissions.
Happy New Year to all… and especially our kind hostess.
Interesting that the EU would flex its international muscles when it is a position that evidently depends on the good will and cooperation of the US Federal Reserve. Members of the EU and Germany in particular feel that the their economies moving ahead depends greatly on the EU. Interesting that civilians in some of these countries appear not be as convinced of this as the politicians are.
It is rather obvious that having a common currency and more importantly depending on a central bank not of ones’ own country makes for problems when an individual nation spends too much and cannot have a central bank to help inflate or borrow its way out of trouble. Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal all were supposed to be required to have a debt limit criterion for entering the EU and once these nations became members maintain these limits. That these limits have not really been enforced is no big surprise – given governments propensity to lie. Now Germany and France in order to maintain trade advantages that they see in the existence of the EU for their nations are required to maintain “liquidity” for the less responsible nations in the EU or see sovereign bankruptcy. Are their plans sufficient to avoid defaults or a cascade of defaults? I do not think many agree and that includes the Federal Reserve which has pledged its ability to buy debt and provide liquidity. It would appear then that the EU like the US thinks that too big to fail prevails and that an over-indebted economy can be fixed by more debt – and more taxes if they can get away with it politically.
My best wishes to Lucia and all who come here, for a happy, healthy and rewarding New Year.
So far, much polite “conversation” but very little light
We need to know:
1) precisely what this tax is applied to
2) precisely who this tax is imposed on
3) precisely what the monetary level of tax is, and if it is to be ratcheted up in any clear timeframe at some defined rate
4) whether this tax is applicable to flights into the EU but taxed over the distance of these flights across non-EU countries including return flights
5) if the answer to 4) is yes, who gets this money (if it’s payed at all)
Please note that I live in the Southern Hemisphere, that half of the globe blithely ignored in all of the above comments. This is critical: calculate the tax on, say, a Sydney-Amsterdam-Sydney return flight, multiply that by the number of weekly passengers, and that by the number of weekly flights from other distant countries
Not insignificant. If this is actually correct, there are many valid objections to this impost – one of which is that other people strongly object to contributing forced bailouts to the debt mess the EU has lurched itself into
It is surprisingly hard to find real details of the scheme. There is some useful information at http://www.airlines.org/Pages/The-European-Union%E2%80%99s-Emissions-Trading-Scheme-A-Violation-of-International-Law.aspx
@Jonathan Jones #88081
Thank you for the link. I think the linked article was written before the EU Court decision opining that the proposed tax did not violate the sovereignty of other countries. If my point in #88080 is correct, then a great many countries disagree
As for your comment on the difficulty of finding reliable, factual information, I’m not surprised at all. I’ve asked these questions in various places a number of times and people are most unkeen to answer, especially those who support this as a “de-carbonisation” initiative. Naturally, this absolute reluctance to look at the detailed truth of it supports my suggestion that it is an unprincipled tax grab covered in a green cloak
The key problem remains that it is a unilateral action, strongly resisted by the EU’s main trading partners. By way of example, the Indian government has instructed it airline not to provide the EU with the required information/data. What is Brussels going to do? Block Air India from flying into EU airspace?
The absurdity of the legislation and the real risk of serious fall-out becomes clear when one thinks of the opposite scenario: e.g. the US, Canada, India and China -just for a couple of days ban Lufthansa, AirFrance/KLM and British Airways from flying into their respective airspaces. How long do the eurocrats in Brussels think that those companies are going to stand for that?
“I doubt China is going to agree to cut carbon emissions nor to agree not to sell stuff to people who won’t. For that matter, I’m doubt we would agree to not buy or sell stuff who people who don’t cut emissions.”
Politics are unpredictable. Is such an agreement likely in 2012? I would say no, but in a few years, who knows?
If the big powers decide it is in their interest to see emissions sharply decline, I think there is a good chance that they would not be content to wait for 175 countries to reach a consensus, nor would they drastically cut their own emissions while others free ride.
So I think it’s reasonable to suppose that in the future you might (perhaps) see a climate “core” reaching an agreement, with economic carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent.
Think less WTO, and more NNPT.
Robert–
You suggest something might happen. I suggest what you suggest is doubtful. You then point out politics are unpredictable. Of course politics are unpredictable. Duh.
So. IOTH: You stand by the notion that your prediction is sort of likely.
I continue to doubt.
In response to that, let me repeat
What is “IOTH”?
A typo….. New years morning. I wanted IOW: In other words.
Robert
“Politics are unpredictable. Is such an agreement likely in 2012? I would say no, but in a few years, who knows?”
unpredictable? hardly, one could have predicted that the effort to get a global treaty on emissions was going to be very difficult if not impossible, yet we’ve wasted years in denial over that.
We live in “interesting times”.
EU imposes carbon taxes on airlines
There have been many global treaties and health advances enacted over the years, some of them highly significant. To have one on CO2 emissions is hardly impossible.
What is the fuel efficiency of the Boeing (US) built versus Airbus (Europe) built airplanes? I thought the new Boeing planes were attempting to market their new plane as more fuel efficient than the competing Airbus plane.
Is the tax on departing as well as arriving planes and does it include all planes?
“As noted, the EU ETS imposes a cap on the total quantity of aviation emissions for flights to, from and within the EU.”
I would guess that answers the question. Also the taxed fuel is calculated for a plane originating its flight in, say, San Francisco all the way to Europe even if the flight makes stops in the US. The tax revenue evidently can be used for any purpose.
I can hear Bernanke now when he says we (the Federal Reserve) had to help bailout the EU but that he was particularly infuriated with the carbon tax. Remember how furious he now claims he was with AIG, but he bailed them out anyway.
I suspect that the carbon tax will be promoted just like other taxes are by governments. Here it will be the moral imperative to do something about global warming, just like the wealthy need to do more in paying taxes as it is only fair and the sinners need to pay the sin taxes because, well, they are sinners.
“unpredictable? hardly”
Add political predictions to the long list of things our favorite deconstructionist is a world-beater at.
That’s the wonderful thing about fake experts, as opposed to real ones; fake expertise works in every field and on every sort of problem.
“Of course politics are unpredictable. Duh.”
I’m sorry, I misinterpreted your comment as part of a dialogue. In the future, I won’t try to engage with your declarations of ignorance.
Robert, you are making the same mistake that Gavin made in his RealClimate post Tragedy of the Climate Commons.
China is the core, not the little fish. Europe is combined less emissions than China. Yes, they do talk about carbon tariffs or other measures to reduce Chinese emissions, but the internal Chinese economy, as well as trade with others ‘outside the tent’ is large enough that they can afford to ignore Europe.
Robert–
Alternatively, you could try to engage in a less bubble headed way. You could start by not trying to support your predictions of the future with little more than own declarations of your own ignorance.
To engage your “point”: Yes. Prediction is difficult. But that is hardly an argument to suggest your prediction is likely to come true. And you merely posting an obvious but utterly irrelevant truism is hardly constitutes evidence to convince anyone that the rather implausible prediction you just made is remotely likely.
If your counter argument to those who doubt that your prediction of the future is that predictions are difficult… well… the only proper response to that is “Duh”. You may not like this. But the fact is “duh” is the appropriate response to your vacuous attempt at discussion.
MikeN–
I think the issue of who might be the core and who might be the little fish is one of the key problems. That’s why, unlike Robert, I’m not going to discuss his notion with a hypothetical “core” and “little fish”. There are a number of big countries. China is one of them.
I don’t think it’s going to happen soon– I don’t think it’s going to happen in 10 years. I could be wrong– but not withstanding what Robert thinks might be in China’s interests, I don’t think they are going to decide to stop trading with the US, Australian, Canada, Europe, India or anyone else if those parties do not cut carbon. And I don’t think the US is going to stop buying inexpensive stuff from China if China doesn’t cut emissions.
China wants to develop. Chinese want decent houses, refrigerators, washing machines, transportation etc. While I am sure they will implement some green technologies, and plenty of nuclear, I don’t think they are going to pledge to cut carbon emissions nor to block trade with countries that don’t cut enough.
Assuming you are correct, I would have thought it was more of a reason for the rest of us to start doing something. And significant economies are doing just that right now.
Also, the more green technologies are that are developed and available, the more likely countries like China will use them. IIRC, it is China that is the largest manufacturer and exporter of solar panels in the world.
bug–
Interesting attempt at subject change. As it happens, I’m for doing something. I am a proponent of encouraging nuclear energy. But my favoring reducing carbon emissions by encouraging nuclear doesn’t translate into hallucinating about what China is or is not likely to do.
Returning from the subject change: I think the idea that China is likely to agree to cut carbon emissions or to enforce cuts by refusing to buy or sell by others is unlikely.
Let’s look at the possible scenarios that people want to implement for China to cut emissions.
1) A carbon tariff, since exports are a major part of the Chinese economy.
2) Similarly, a punitive tariff if China refuses to adopt an emissions reduction scheme.
Carbon tariff alone would not be enough to cut emissions in China, as the internal economy is growing as well.
Cutting off exports would do a great deal of damage to China, so this can’t be ruled out entirely. However, cutting off exports would probably do lots of damage to the importers as well. And there is the problem that China is buying all that debt from countries in deficit. Even without that, China could boost trade with other countries and leave Europe with getting imported goods secondhand. But suppose in IPCC dreamworld there were a unified front against China by the rest of the world?
“Returning from the subject change: I think the idea that China is likely to agree to cut carbon emissions or to enforce cuts by refusing to buy or sell by others is unlikely.”
True but the question is whether it can grow its economy with a lower carbon intensity per capita than, say, the USA.
Comment #88087
“carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent”
I shall treasure the metaphor.
Coming late to the party but actually living in the EU I thought I’d let you know what W-pedia has to say about Norway and CHocolate Land.
The article has a nice graphic that explains the rather complex organizational relationships between the various Euro clubs.
Prost neues Jahr!
bob
Nyq–
It may well be able to achieve a lower carbon intensity– particularly if they build lots of nuclear capacity. Our industry stopped dead. But at least for the foreseeable future, they still want trading partners both to sell to and buy from.