The EU has proposed – no let’s try something stronger than that word – The European Union has decided to levy a Carbon Tax on all flights to from and within Europe. Even though this stance has been challenged, the European Court of Justice has upheld it.
If only the EU had correctly named this tax a POLLUTION TAX I think many people would have begrudgingly agreed with the proposal, grumbled but paid up and shut up accordingly. Instead they are doing their utmost to tie airline emissions into the false religion of global warming supposedly caused by human kind. (Also known as AGW OR CAGW where the C = catastrophic)
From 1 January, the EU will bring aviation into the Emissions Trading System, intended to help Europe to comply with its commitments on climate change. All airlines whose routes touch the EU will need carbon permits. Costs to carriers will rise steeply unless they cut flights or increase efficiency.
This will not only increase the cost of an average airline ticket it will increase the cost of all air cargo as well. Think of your letters and parcels, think of food and drink freighted by air, think of essential emergency medical supplies. This could be (according to WUWT) the Great War of Flying Carbon Credits.
Not to get side tracked here, but I think it is worth mentioning that agencies such as the United Nations, who pride and preen themselves – remember their very public righteous image, of wanting to save the world from catastrophic climate change, don’t give a rat’s ass about polluting the planet via air travel or any other way for that matter.
Take for example the last useless climate conference held in Durban, South Africa. Reading the Daily Caller, we discover:
Professor Karl Coplan questioned, on Pace University’s GreenLaw, the logic of working to reduce carbon emissions by incurring the very large carbon footprint associated with dozens of round-trip flights by students and professors from the United States to Durban.
How large? According to Coplan, round-trip travel for one individual from New York to Durban results in eight tons of CO2 equivalent emissions. That’s about the same, again according to Coplan, as the emissions from a year of travel (15,000 miles) in a Lincoln Navigator, “probably the ultimate American rugged-individualist anti-environmentalist status symbol.” And it’s about twice the average annual global per-capita carbon footprint, even including drivers of Lincoln Navigators.
What was mostly absent from the law profs’ exchange was any serious discussion of what might actually be accomplished in Durban — probably because, as much as they wish otherwise, most of the professoriate understood that nothing much would be accomplished. And nothing much was.
Despite valiant claims to the contrary, two weeks in Durban, with all expenses paid, only kicked the can down the road, thus assuring future annual meetings in far-flung locations with carbon footprints greater than all the Lincoln Navigators that Ford will ever produce. Even The New York Times accepted that the meeting was a flop by burying its brief story on page 7.
Now we all have been told that aviation fuel does cause pollution. There are even some petitions circulating to have all lead removed from aviation fuel. But lead is not the only dangerous pollutant in aviation fuel.
There are currently two (ordinary) aviation fuels on the market which are licensed for use.
AVGAS and JET FUEL are according to Wikipedia:
Aviation fuels consist(ing) of blends of over a thousand chemicals, primarily hydrocarbons (paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics), as well as additives, such as antioxidants and metal deactivators, and impurities. Principal components include n-heptane and isooctane. Like other fuels, blends of aviation fuel used in spark-ignited piston-engined aircraft are often described by their octane rating.
(I am deliberately refraining from including in this blog, any discussion of Chem trails)
I hope you can see from the above Wiki explanation, aviation fuels are full of what we should term harmful and dangerous chemicals. As such, when burnt (is that the correct term?) by aircraft engines, they spew out immense pollution into our skies.
Pollution (chemical) is the number one danger factor to be associated with aviation, not Carbon Pollution. Let Europe impose a POLLUTIUON TAX and even though you will get disagreements about the cost of global trade, you will get the ordinary man on the street to understand the argument.
There are many schemes and plans afoot to manufacture an affordable, non polluting Bio Fuel for use in aviation. But once again, like far too many green schemes this is proving illusive. See HERE and HERE. There have been others too!
But so far the promise of greener aviation remains elusive, and the industry concedes it is years away from making a significant dent in the billions of gallons airlines consume each year.
According to the Beginners Guide to BioFuels: bio-derived oil, commonly sourced from plants such as corn, soybeans, algae, jatropha, halophytes and camelina, is processed and can either be burned directly or converted by chemical processes to make high-quality jet and diesel fuels. These are known as second-generation biofuels and can be used for aviation.
So what will we have? More fields turned over to the growing of BioFuels and less crops available for the poor and hungry nations worldwide!
To say I am darned PEED off with the Carbon Tax Religion is an understatement.The EU is doing what it can to raise revenue. This has nothing to do with saving the planet from Global Warming, and much more to do with getting more money in their coffers. Blind Freddie is able to see, daily on the news how serious the financial situation is in Europe….. So you are about to be screwed yet again….. Follow the money trail folks!