I’m working on a couple of things, one will be fun once I find the appropriate data, the other will just be fun. (Vicky, you’re answer is here. ) But, for now, …..
Vera P. Pardee, a Senior Attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, wrote a rather scathing attack on Secretaries Clinton and LaHood, for threatening to take “appropriate action” unless the EU exempts American airlines from the European carbon trading scheme. (Presumably, all airlines based in America and not just AA itself.) And, she managed to mislead her readers along the way. (Presumably, out of ignorance and not intentionally.)
Vera characterized this as a thinly veiled threat of a trade war. I guess she’s unaware of the economic situation of both the U.S. and the EU. Vera, dear, neither one is in a position to institute a trade war. Apparently, you’re the only one who doesn’t know this…… well, you and the readers at HuffPo.
Vera also characterized the EU’s money grab as a “law aimed at reducing Europe’s carbon pollution.” I’d really like to know what mechanism this law introduces that would reduce any carbon pollution. It doesn’t. It’s simply a cap-n-trade scheme which will ultimately be funded by the passengers. I suppose, taking a cue from the recent recession shows that impoverished people do indeed reduce carbon emissions. But, let’s hope that’s neither Vera’s or the EU’s intent. (Though we’d forgive those that see it that way.)
Then, laughably, she mischaracterizes the EU court’s decision about this scheme.
The high court’s decision found the EU law in full compliance with international law, holding that it neither infringes on the sovereignty of other nations nor constitutes an impermissible tax.
No, Vera, their courts stated it wasn’t a tax at all. And, technically, in respect to American interests, it isn’t. Normal people call it a tariff. It’s a tax on European airlines.
She goes on to state, …..
The financial impact will amount to, at most, some $16 for a transatlantic flight. That’s less than a pittance to an industry that charges for checking a bag, a few inches of extra legroom and even a box of snacks. And amazingly, in the short term, the U.S. airlines may even profit from the trading scheme.
Yes, Vera, they will. They will because they will raise the cost of flights for each person. Short term they will profit. But, what the airlines understand and you don’t, is that when the costs become prohibitive, people will quit flying. When people quit flying, people lose jobs. Not just the not so attractive stewardesses anymore. (Thanks to attorneys such as you.) But, also pilots, and mechanics and plane builders…..etc. But, most amazingly, Vera says at most the cost will be on $16 additional dollars. Vera, dear, the cost will depend on the value of the carbon the airlines will be forced to trade. (You silly twit.) If for some unforeseen event occurs, and our economies take off, the carbon traded will become in great demand.
Vera this is your advocacy, you and the EU advocate a limit on international commerce. The worst case scenario is that a few airlines go bankrupt. The best case scenario, it thwarts a recession recovery and harms both the U.S. and the EU economically in either scenario.