U.S. Attorney angry U.S. Cabinet Members Defend U.S. Transportation Industry

 

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. 

This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to U.S. Attorney angry U.S. Cabinet Members Defend U.S. Transportation Industry

  1. Latitude says:

    how the hell did she figure out cost? Last I heard carbon shares were less than 3 cents…..
    BTW our internet has been wonky for the past two weeks, it was out again this afternoon for 5 hours…..
    …..I’m not complaining! Two reports were supposed to be in today and I couldn’t send them…LOL

    • suyts says:

      She believed someone else’ bs. She didn’t bother to think about it or, she lacked the capacity to think about it. After all, she’s just an attorney. Those are the ones that are just barely more capable than our professors and teachers.

      It is interesting. Because of the wealth created by the people that do, the people that do allowed an entire sub-species to exist. Now, that same sub-species has convinced the ones who do are less than the ones we allowed to exist.

      Pathetic parasites running rampant.

      For those who may take offense, check out some classic economics…… well, start with some basics.

  2. Mike Davis says:

    This “Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute” says Shyster any way you look at it.
    The only purpose for being is to litigate anything and everything that could possibly affect BD. The coffee you drank this morning might be causing a reduction in “Biological Diversity” and she will come for you!
    Latitude probably walks on the beach and the BD people think he is causing problems for BD in the Keys. They are planning to sue Florida to depopulate the Keys and create a refuge for the threatened Hermit Crabs, that will soon be placed on the ESL.

    • suyts says:

      Yep. It is a profoundly stupefying perspective. But, there are people who believe we are an aberration of nature as opposed to being an integral part of nature. And, they walk among us!

  3. Mike Davis says:

    CBDCLI! Looks like a good spelling for SHYSTER!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s