Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Airline industry hijacked by UN climate accord

Airline industry hijacked by UN climate accord

Aviation climate deal redistributes $24 billion to the politically connected.

https://youtu.be/fRWFdLZFMfY

President Obama recently touted the “Paris Agreement” as a “turning point” in his misguided attempt to save the planet from climate change.

However, the rules, regulations, and fiscal schemes associated with the implementation mean that airlines are being hijacked into making the “first international aviation climate deal.”

In a nutshell, airlines will pay a tax to fund projects that cut carbon pollution, such as wind farms or solar-power plants. Ultimately, this means the UN will redistribute as much as $24 billion by 2035 from air travelers to the politically-connected environmental activists.

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions…. said was a practical framework for harnessing market forces to limit growth in airline emissions, which are expected to triple by 2050.

The International Air Transport Association (Iata) also welcomed the deal. It said: “The historic significance of this agreement cannot be overestimated. It is the first global scheme covering an entire industrial sector. The agreement has turned years of preparation into an effective solution for airlines to manage their carbon footprint.”

Boeing said it commended “the International Civil Aviation Organisation for adopting a carbon-offset system for international aviation that will help the industry achieve its goal of reducing emissions”.

Fabrice Brégier, chief executive of Airbus. said the plan was “another key milestone in supporting the aviation industry’s commitment in reducing CO2 emissions”.

Eric Worrall, guest essayist for the climate science site Watts Up With That, notes that the monies spent managing the carbon footprint will be passed on to airline customers. He also provides some context for the agreement.

…It might seem counterintuitive that airlines would support a new tax on their operations, but in the wake of the botched European attempt in 2012 to unilaterally introduce an aviation carbon trading scheme, the mishandling of which saw some airlines operating at a cost disadvantage against their competitors, it is understandable that airlines would support a level playing field, and a measure of protection against some of the more unpredictable green world leaders

Interestingly, from 2005 to 2015, air travel grew more than in any 10-year period since 1975 to 1985. Couple the increasing environmental restrictions on businesses with rising air travel costs, it is likely the airline industry is going to be in for a hard landing when its customers won’t be able to afford tickets.

This aviation climate deal is another legacy that Obama built, which Americans and the rest of the world will be dealing with for some time to come.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2nd Ammendment Mother | October 11, 2016 at 2:35 pm

Hmmm…. Why would you want to restrict the ability of people to travel where they will, when they will at a reasonable cost?

I’m pretty sure it’s the Congress, and not the Executive, who has the power to ratify treaties. The airlines should tell Obama to go suck one.

    MattMusson in reply to Paul. | October 11, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    That is a common misconception. 75% of treaties are completed without Congress. Everything from fishing rights to airplane routes are done without a vote in either side of the Congress. As soon as the Chief Executive signs on – it is law.

    But – without Congressional ratification – the next President can simply repudiate the law and it is no longer binding.

      Ragspierre in reply to MattMusson. | October 11, 2016 at 3:00 pm

      NO! It IS NOT “law”. It is an agreement often with the executive, but ONLY that, and it can readily be ignored by succeeding executives.

        MattMusson in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2016 at 4:50 pm

        LIke it or not – it is law. Because the USA signed the Geneva Accords – the agreements are legally binding until repudiated.

        It is important that people understand that the constitutional ratification process has been superseded by the Bureaucrats. Just because it is not what they taught us in Civics class does not mean it is not enforceable.

          MattMusson in reply to MattMusson. | October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

          My mistake it was the Vienna Conventions that make this deal legal.

          “in the absence of Senate disapproval or a renunciation by the president, the United States is bound by negotiated Treaties signed by the President – under the provisions of the Vienna Convention which we have both signed and ratified.”

          Which leads us all to wonder: “What are we going to do about it?”

          The Convention of States initiative recently held a mock convention, and they drafted some very interesting proposed Constitutional Amendments:

          1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
          2. Term limits on Congress
          3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
          4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
          5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
          6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.

      kevino in reply to MattMusson. | October 11, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      The Congress!? What a quaint idea. Dear Leader doesn’t need a stinkin’ Congress: he has a pen and a phone.

    Ragspierre in reply to Paul. | October 11, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    But, as is so often the case, it becomes very attractive for the “airlines” to simply capitulate to the regulatory state, and pass along the costs to consumers.

    It’s just another means of fleecing the wealthy nations (who earned their wealth) in order to shift it to “poorer” nations, with a VERY healthy slice of graft in between.

    And all for nothing, or to support a druidian myth.

The standard policy of the Left:

Companies in section A of the economy are making money.
Tax the heck out of them and send the results to favorite Leftist programs until section A of the economy dies.
Move on to the next letter.

    kevino in reply to georgfelis. | October 11, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    I agree with a minor change:
    Companies in section A of the economy are making money and not donating large sums to the Democratic Party.
    Tax them until they die …
    Move on …

    Nice little industry you’ve got there. Shame if something happened to it.

No surprise.
Leslie I’m wondering why you didn’t make a story out of “babyTrump”.
It deserves more than a comment.

2nd Ammendment Mother | October 11, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Anyone else wonder how quickly the US could get out of debt if someone were to put an end to all of the climate change associated payouts and regulatory monetary seizures by the treasury? At the very least, it seems like a good place to start.

Redistributive change. That is trickle-up poverty economics unless accompanied by a robust abortion protocol (e.g. selective-child, one-child), planned parenthood, and other dysfunctional orientations and behaviors.

Banana republic time, again. My understanding is that none of the provisions of this agreement are binding, therefor it is not considered an agreement.

The media reports that all of the US Airlines agreed to charge their customers to fund this fraud. I suspect that they would face difficulties serving foreign ports had they refused. Further, Obama would not support any airline should one choose not to pay this extortion.

Once again, crony capitalism and big government collude to steal from citizens.

This tax should be based upon waste of space per flight. A fully loaded commercial aircraft with cargo in the hold would not be wasting anything so little to no tax. Now a private plane ferrying a small number of people to lets say a climate change conference with only luggage in the hold would be a huge waste of space so the tax on that would be much larger to keep the waste down and lessen the impact on the planet.

I’m not for any of this but since it is the save the planet crew that feels the average person must pay then I think it’s only right they pay their fair share.

When the government created TSA, they convinced me to drive. The back roads are beautiful and the people are the best.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend