Thursday, January 05, 2012 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Chinese airlines refuse to pay EU climate change levy

Before the Christmas, I discussed the EU plan to introduce a climate protection racket on all airlines whose flights end on the EU territory. (You may decide whether the three-word term is derived from "climate protection" or from "protection racket".) The companies should pay money for every pound of CO2, including the CO2 emitted away from the European airspace.



We knew that it should have come into force since the beginning of 2012. The civilized world, the third world, as well as China and India protested against the EU intents as examples of organized crime that contradicts the international law.

Now it's 2012. What happened with this explosive global warming proposal?




Well, in the case of China, it's simple. The China Air Transport Association has assured the European bureaucrats that there's no way they will pay the climate protection racket. The Chinese comrades want the Europeans to negotiate.

So Chinese airlines won't pay the fee that the carbon criminals in the Brussels would love to call a "law". It remains to be seen whether others will pay it; Lufthansa and Delta Air Lines Inc. are already planning to comply and hike the prices. If these two companies and others will pay it, they may gradually run "out of business" while their Chinese counterparts may stay "in the pidgin". :-)

The Chinese comparative advantage may become sufficient for the Chinese airlines to supersede the airlines from all the weak countries that don't have the courage to tell them "Screw you, Eurotrash". So far, we're not there: Delta only added $6 per average round-trip flight (one percent of the price) which won't make a difference. But it won't make a difference with emissions, either. If the EU found Delta et al. to be obedient enough, they may raise the levy substantially so that it does make a difference.

I am no big fan of the rumors about the immensely growing Chinese economy. But if the relative strengthening of the Chinese airlines is what this misguided EU idea will lead to, then I will consider it a well-deserved outcome.

While I find it appropriate that the would-be "law" is going to be ignored, and it was inevitable that it would be ignored – and the European Union has no acceptable tools to enforce it – I am worried about the rule of law in the EU in a broader context. It's just very bad to have "laws" that are not being respected: the infection may easily spread to other sectors and an ordered Old Continent may gradually turn into anarchy.

To avoid this scenario, responsible judges should abolish the insane policy and declare that it had never been valid. In the future, the EU policymakers and lawmakers should avoid declarations of "laws" they have no power to enforce, such as laws that the weather isn't allow to change by 2 °C and similar pseudoscientific stuff that became so widespread in recent years.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (6) :


reader Brian G Valentine said...

Since Communism has demolished the ability of "Western" Europe to produce anything meaningful except solar and battery products that nobody wants to buy anyway, what else can they do to try to stay afloat and bail each other out for idiotic "renewable energy" mistakes by the dozens

- except resort to gangsterism and try to "shake down" anybody who looks like they might have some money in their pockets.

How many people have to be robbed to keep "Greece" afloat? I have no idea, I never would have imagined anything like this was remotely possible even twenty years ago


reader Gillian said...

You sound hysterical and ridiculous. The levy would would cost passengers between €2 and €12 per flight, depending on the distance and other factors.

That's not enough to make an airline uncompetitive.

And China doesn't object to reducing emissions, it just thinks that most of the burden should fall on OECD countries that caused the problem.

"China says it is unreasonable for Europe to apply its policies to developing nations, which are still at the rapid expansion stage of their airline industries and so find it difficult to cut emissions. It says the costs of reducing carbon should be passed on to aircraft manufacturers - most of which are in Europe or the US - as an incentive for them to produce more efficient planes."


reader Luboš Motl said...

Brian, one can't save a collapsing economy in this way. If the economy just harasses everyone else who comes into contact with it, but if it stops to produce things that others find valuable, then this pirate economy will either be treated in a military way, or just simply ignored and avoided. At any rate, it's not a recipe to keep the high living standards.

Gilian, your comment is completely insane. The estimate of the costs at this moment was USD 3 per flight. If it were USD 16 per flight, which is your upper bound, it would be a huge increase. Screw airlines - but it would surely be unacceptable to pay this money to the EU pirates. It would be much cheaper to send a couple of nuclear bombs to the Brussels and Strasbourg which is what China could somewhat wisely do to solve the problem.

"And China doesn't object to reducing emissions, it just thinks that most of the burden should fall on OECD countries that caused the problem."

The only true thing is that China doesn't object to comments that are designed to bring more money to the Asian country. But it surely does complain against things that are meant to rob China. It's that simple. As every sane person in China or anywhere else in the world knows, the only "climate problem" is the existence of deluded and brainwashed morons like you who are threatening our freedom and prosperity. And at this moment, the fanaticism of imbeciles like you is so immense that you are threatening peace in the world.


reader Rene said...

Gillian,

you say: "And China doesn't object to reducing emissions, it just thinks that most of the burden should fall on OECD countries that caused the problem".

What problem are you referring to? I don't see any (besides the fact that it is quite sleazy way to impose a new tax)


reader jastinkase said...

I don't even know why you are using that photos because they are CI's crew. CI (China Airline) is 100% Taiwanese company albeit the misleading name due to political reasons. They can't represent China at all.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry but Taiwan *is* called the Republic of China and the correct adjective associated with this country *is* "Chinese", both culturally and politically. This fact doesn't make any assumption about the timing in which mainland China will be reincorporated into the Republic of China. ;-)


At any rate, this pissing contest has absolutely no implications for the insane EU policies because they were meant to apply both to Taiwanese as well as mainland-now-communist-Chinese airlines.