MEP slams U.S. Congress on ETS: 'Arrogant and ignorant'

Thanks for the kind comments Mr Dramaliev. You make some good points regarding ETS & avaiation costs - the chap in the EC who was in charge of the dossier made similar comments to me late last year.

The "body politic" in the USA even at state level comes across and cretinous - it would seem that most American politicos hardly have one neuron to share between them.

Reuters today: California is facing a dual power crisis dues to cliamte change (= hotter/drier = less hydro) and hotter/drier = more use of air-conditioners.

Insolation levels in California are around 1900kwhrs/kW/year amongst the highest in the world. Thus PV (max power @ mid-day - nicely matching peak demand for A/C) would be a solution. Sadly, the Californians have been farting around for years trying to decide on the best way to support PV. This is typical of America in general, first they deny there is a problem, then they whine and at some point they do something (maybe). Same with avaiation. Your are correct about US arrogance - I'd add stupidity to that as well, stupid and arrogant.

Mr Latuske, I'm laughing as well - watching Americans suffer in the dorught & heat. It gives me huge pleasure - they (and perhaps you if you are American) may not believe in "climate change" but you know sweetie - it sure believes in you/Americans.

The EU has never claimed to be a "world power" we leave that to Uncle Sam. We do however have a consensus about doing something about climate change.

Anyway to mis-quote the brainless bugger that was McCains running mate "fry baby - fry" - ride em cowboy - snigger.

I disagree with the US trying to pressure the EU to revoke the law, as they have a right to implement it if they so choose, but anyone in the airline business knows that it is just another tax. It is not going to mitigate climate change. Natural pressures (high fuel and demand for low ticket prices) are already encouraging airline and airplanes to be highly efficient. In fact, if airlines are not efficient, they go bankrupt (as we have seen many times). If they want to push the boundaries further, another tax is not the way to do it.

The US politicians certainly come over as both arrogant and ignorant on climate change, but I suspect that many of them are at least somewhat less ignorant than they appear. But they have to get elected, quite a few this autumn, and their electorate is by and large hugely ignorant, and constantly misinformed. The only sources of relevant information for most are their TV and radio, which are paid for by vested interests that prefer nothing to be done to protect the planet if that has any upfront cost. Democracy requires not only free elections (are they even 'free' in the USA?) but an educated well-informed electorate, which the USA does not possess. We in the EU are faced with an intractable situation in the USA that we cannot change. We must therefore push on without the Americans if they will not come with us - they will doubtless see the error of their ways eventually but, probably and sadly, too late for the damage they cause meanwhile to be rectified.

I wonder if some of you think of this issue in a sort of holistic approach. First of all, the EU approach to the climate change policy is, to put it very mildly, unrealistic. It has all features of the socialistic planning concept disregarding any sort of science (except the IPCC panel), and no reality check has been done on the individual politics. The worst example: the EU ETS: hardly anybody is interested in deliverance capability of the politically declared emission mitigation. There are numbers of studies showing no result on emission reduction but extreme wasting of resources (€ 210 billion is a neat figure, is not it?).
If we are weeping on the EURO crisis, such massive wasting is a huge contribution, not speaking of the adverse business environment in the EU! The sooner we stop dreaming, the better. The EU ETS is nothing else than a re-dressed carbon tax, unpredictable, prone to fraud, etc., etc.! Where would the money from auctioning end? In the climate change mitigation measures? where? Try to wake up please - no miracle would ever happen. The entire EU climate change policy is a green eyewash (or smoke screen) for the politicians' hiding inaction. They have done their part and you, stupid boys and girls are supposed to meet their fancy, unsubstantiated targets. It is obviously silly and no doubt about the non EU airlines, they as well as nobody else should waste resources. And, it is not the ill will towards the EU climate change policy; they are doing quite a lot. However, they have the privilege to say openly that the EU is eyeing at the wrong ball in case of the EU ETS.

"disregarding any sort of science (except the IPCC panel)" this is statement is just great (extreme irony embedded). "socialistic planning concept" ask China about the socialist (scary word!) planning and if it works for them. Planning should be in the core of any policy, but when you put "socialist" in front it immediately becomes something that is flawed (so shallow). "Extreme waste of resources" and "210 billion" - big words. No definition of "wasting" is supplied by the author. The size of the market is actually not the same as waste. "Where would the money from auctioning end?" Well actually member-states are obliged to use "at least" 50% on specific climate-change related activities, mentioned in the ETS Directive. Prone to fraud...you mean like anything else?

I believe that BAU will not be stimulating enough for companies to do more about the environment. Businesses can continue to use shared resources (like the air, water and even climate) for as long as they like, unless they are faced with some pressure not to. What is the most effective way to make companies notice anything - price. Putting a price on carbon is essential for making them change their mindset and escape going into the almost non-existing domain of “corporate environmental responsibility.” The carbon price is supposed to introduce the idea of "environment" into a world where only profits matter. The carbon price is NOT a tax since it is governed by supply/demand and provides companies with the flexibility of buying and selling allowances, which means that emission cuts can be achieved at least cost. In theory government intervention into the price (very much UNLIKE a tax) should not be necessary. However, due to unforeseen economic events and huge amounts of whining about it by the business community in the EU, the rules of the ETS have been so devised as to currently produce an enormous surplus of allowances. This has driven the price so low (below 7 Euro / ton CO2) that the ETS is currently actually hardly functioning - companies are not taking decisions related to fuel switching or implementing more efficient technologies in the production process. So in other words due to its market-oriented nature (and NOT BEING A CONCRETE TAX, which in the current case would have been preferable, since the price wouldn't fall) the ETS is not functioning properly. So the EC is deliberating on ways of distributing the large surplus over the years in order to increase the price in the short-term, but again, without resorting to a clear-cut tax. So please, stop with this populist TAX b******t! And yes, when you want a cleaner environment...you will have to pay. You being cheap is the direct result of a flawed price signal, produced by companies who have not been charged for destroying the environment and climate. Emission trading is trying to change this unsustainable practice. You think this is not a good approach? Do you have anything besides shallow, populist rhetoric to support your alternative views?

Dear John,

I suppose you are not aware that the US (United, American Airlines, and their trade association, Airlines for America) was the country that started the opposition to the inclusion of the aviation sector in the EU ETS by lodging a case in the UK High Court in London, which was redirected to the ECJ. It then stared "explaining" to other states about the "infringement of national sovereignty" nature of the policy. That's how the "against" international lobby was formed. And I guess the decision of the ECJ from 21 December 2011 that clearly upholds the 2009 legislation (2009/29/EC), stating that the extension of the EU ETS to aviation infringes neither the principle of territoriality, nor the sovereignty of third countries does not matter...let's still spread the news that there is a breach of sovereignty laws...oh, yes...and it's a socialist tax...

Dear all,

Nobody in the EU questions the fact again that a price is put on carbon emissions from electricity production or other products (steel, cement, etc.). What is the difference with aviation?
To the best of my knowledge, there is no intention to put a price on carbon for flights that do not start or land in the EU, and all airlines (from inside and outside the EU) are treated equally. So there is no disadvantage to any airline from outside the EU, be it a Chinese or a US airline.
Is it really a matter or sovereignty? If so, why does the EU have to transmit all kind of passenger data to the US even for people who just have a stop-over but do not stay in the US? And why do we see American border police work outside of their national territory? That is accepted by the EU as well.
Would the reactions from the US and other countries (China, etc.) be the same if the subject was not linked to climate change? Or is this "aviation conflict" just another indicator of how far opinions on climate change are apart between the EU, the US, China and others?
It is really sad that we cannot just apply a little more common sense in all of this.

Dear Vladimír,
A few comments: have you got any personal, intimate experience with the socialistic planning? I have, unfortunately worked under such miraculous system 20+ years of my professional life, thus, let mě smell a rat! And this one is a pretty big. The wased resources come from the UBS study and obviously, it is not any annual trading volumes, just money diverted by banks and brokers with zero effect on emission reduction. You know, I have also a very detailed information basis on the ETS. Perhaps, to your surprise, the EU ETS had never been intended the instrument for emissions reduction. All such systems have been assumed to optimise costs and the EU ETS was promoted in this reduction role by a political decision in 2007 disregarding its real potential capabilities. Even for such optimista ion role two minimal prerequisites must be met: uniform economic environemnt and availability of mitigation technologies in sufficient scale. You would probably agree that both are non existent in this case. Unfortunately, it must fall into pieces itself because there is no political will for correcting the course and it doesnot mean any kind of arbitrary fixing prices in the course of the race. To me, ignorant and arogant is much more Mr. Leinen! Actually, have you seen any quality analysis of the system capability to deliver any reduction? Ellerman and Convery are not credible as fathers of the system in the EU. There are profound US, Swedish studies showing very clearly it cannot work and we are just wasting money and time instead of taking actions in technology. The EU ETS is just an excuse for politicians, thus, extension on airline Industries just multiplies the wastage. Take it, or leave it, it does not change the outlined reality.