Dal 2012 le compagnie aeree pagheranno per le emissioni di CO2


B

BRUFCO-AZ

Utente Registrato
9 Novembre 2005
864
0
Bruxelles, Estero.
Dalla sala stampa del Parlamento Europeo


Cambiamento climatico e trasporto aereo, accordo fatto?
Consumatori - 07-07-2008 - 20:33

Anche il trasporto aereo contribuirà alla lotta al cambiamento climatico
Dopo l'accordo raggiunto dai deputati della commissione parlamentare ambiente e i ministri dei paesi Ue sul sistema europeo di scambio delle quote di emissione dei gas a effetto serra, che includa il trasporto aereo dal 2012, si attende ora il benestare dell'intero Parlamento europeo.

Nel corso della mattinata di martedì 8 luglio gli eurodeputati voteranno infatti la proposta che si basa sul testo dell'eurodeputata irlandese Avril Doyle del gruppo del partito popolare europeo e democratici europei (PPE-DE), che chiede un ulteriore sforzo all'industria per convogliare i proventi delle aste di assegnazione delle quote di scambio.

Nel countdown contro gli effetti del cambiamento climatico, pur se il trasporto aereo rappresenta meno del 5% delle emissioni nocive che si riversano sul pianeta, l'Ue ritiene sia necessario agire in fretta in quanto gli effetti inquinanti di questo comparto stanno avanzando pericolosamente, dal 1990 ad oggi con un incremento dell'87%.

Il compromesso

Se il compromesso dovesse passare, il provvedimento riguarderebbe tutte le compagnie aeree in partenza o in arrivo in Europa. Come già avviene per altri settori dell'industria, sarà possibile "commerciare" quote in eccesso o difetto a seconda del livello di emissioni di ciascuna compagnia aerea.´

In una prima fase, entro il 2012, le compagnie dovranno ridurre le emissioni del 3%, per poi salire a quota 5% dal 2013, secondo un calcolo della media delle emissioni annue dell'intera flotta aerea di appartenenza. Per ora rimarranno fuori dall'accordo i voli di ricerca, i piccoli aeroplani, i tragitti militari e di polizia, così come quelli di emergenza e soccorso. Ma non quelli dei capi di Stato e governo.

Quanto ci costerà?

Il relativo incremento del biglietto aereo dovrebbe essere comunque contenuto, si calcola fra i 1,8 e i 9 euro per un volo europeo di andata e ritorno. E comunque di gran lunga inferiore all'aumento generato dal costo del petrolio.

Per saperne di più segui il dibattito martedì mattina in diretta web!
 
con la tanto rimpianta AF sarebbero rimasti fino al 2018

(3 aerei nuovi 1 di cui 1 LR per anno a partire dal 2012)

cn chi verrà avrà solo Airbus....e nn è detto che ne saranno aggiunti di nuovi... :-)
 
gjangj ha detto:
Bella idiozia... inutile; solo speculative e discriminante.
Clicca per espandere...

ma ...nooooo..... che dici??
con quei soldi assolderanno pattuglie di (ex) disoccupati che muniti di stracci e scope puliranno i cieli delle UE....

concordo, comunque...un modo come un altro per mungere...
Da qualunque parti ti giri...ne inventano una.
Manca il petrolio? passiamo ai bio-carburanti i quali provocano aumento del prezzo del pane e della pasta. ecc ecc nel frattempo il petrolio aumenta: il mercato bellezza!
Posso passare al gas ? fallo pure, ma il prezzo è legato al petrolio, che comunque poi influisce sul bio-carburante, coinvolgendo il prezzo del riso.
Riescono ad aumentare il prezzo dell'energia elettrica pur con l'arrivo di risorse come aria (novità) e acqua (già conosciuta da anni) per produrla
Sono risuciti quindi nell'intento di farti pagare che respiri ed anche quella che non respiri!
 
Ultima modifica:
Questa la risposta ufficiale di Ryanair sulla questione:

Ryanair Condemns European Parliament Decision
Source: Ryanair
08/07/2008​

Ryanair, Europe’s largest low fares airline (8th July) today condemned the European Parliaments decision to include aviation in EU emissions trading systems from 2012 onwards. This vote by the European Parliament (which does untold environmental damage by moving bi-weekly between Strasbourg and Brussels) could add up to €50 per flight to the cost of passenger tickets from 2012 onwards (although even these MEP’s don’t know how much the final figure will be), in a measure that will substantially increase taxation on Europe’s consumers, but will do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
Ryanair condemned this additional taxation on an industry which accounts for less than 2% of Europe’s Co2 emissions, as just another vacuous and useless gesture. Taxation does not reduce emissions and will not effect the environment. This extra taxation will be pocketed by every European Government and will reduce the competitiveness of Europe, at a time when no other country or trading block outside Europe is pursuing these environmentally ineffective and anti consumer measures.

Speaking today Ryanair’s Chief Executive Michael O’Leary said:

“It is extraordinary that a bunch of MEP’s who swan around between Strasbourg and Brussels, enjoy huge expenses and flight benefits, would vote to increase taxation on Europe’s consumers in a measure which won’t have any effect at all on the environment, but will further damage European airlines at a time when oil is already $140 a barrel.

“These clowns in the European Parliament seem determined to destroy the European airline industry with these discriminatory taxation penalties. When aviation accounts for less than 2% of Europe’s Co2 emissions, and when airlines like Ryanair have invested heavily in new aircraft to reduce our emissions per passenger by 50%, there is no justification for this tax theft by the European Union.

“Aviation is not the cause of, nor the solution to Co2 emissions or global warming. Increasing taxation on air travel will have no effect on either emissions or global warming, it will just raise the cost of air travel for ordinary European consumers and their families, at a time when the fat cat MEP’s will continue to have their flights paid for from their excessive and over generous expenses. Is it any wonder that European integration is in difficulty, when instead of improving the competitiveness of European air travel, the European Parliament is further raising the tax burden on Europe’s citizens with these totally ineffective but very expensive environmental tax scams.”
 
AZ Fanatic ha detto:
Questa la risposta ufficiale di Ryanair sulla questione:

Ryanair Condemns European Parliament Decision
Source: Ryanair
08/07/2008​
.”
Clicca per espandere...
Non gliele manda a dire!!
Va là che poi gli eurodeputati saranno i primi in fila per la J class non appena FR inizierà i LR transatlantici..:D:D:D

(OT: lessi tempo fà un articolo denuncia sui traslochi mensili tra Bruxelles e Strasburgo di camionate di archivi e documenti e di personale per permettere una seduta mensile di una settimana scarsa a Strasburgo. Semplicemente allucinante!)
 
Risposta dell'AEA sulla questione:​

AIRLINES COUNT THE COST OF PARLIAMENT VOTE ON EMISSIONS TRADING
Taxman will reap the benefits, not the environment, says AEA
“Today’s ruling of the European Parliament is one which could have consequences far
beyond the blinkered vision of the legislators”, said AEA Secretary General Ulrich
Schulte-Strathaus on the decision of the European Parliament to charge airlines for
the emissions permits they will need in order to carry out their business when aviation
is included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from 2012.
“ETS is supposed to be an environmental measure, by setting an upper limit to total
emissions”, said Mr Schulte-Strathaus; “instead it has been turned into a multi-billion
Euro cash dispenser for national exchequers. This comes on top of the proliferation of
so-called green levies and duties which common sense tells us should be dismantled
when ETS comes into force”.
According to the legislative package, an initial 15% of permits will have to be bought at
auction, a figure seemingly picked from the air in a haggling process between the
Parliament, the Commission and the Council that ended in a compromise thrashed out
at the end of July. AEA estimates that the potential cost to the European industry
would average out to an annual € 5.3 billion over the initial phase of the scheme.
“That includes a very nice windfall for the taxman”, said Mr Schulte-Strathaus, “but it’s
a figure that the European airlines, collectively, have not even approached in terms of
profit”.
European airlines are already facing a bleak outlook as the economy flounders,
disposable income is squeezed by inflation and the credit crunch, and fuel prices are
set to remain sky-high. “Adding many billions to the industry’s cost base at a single
stroke will not – as the legislators believe – cause the sector to contract in an orderly
fashion”, said Mr Schulte-Strathaus. “It will lead to bankruptcies and liquidations,
communities will lose air service and regional economies will be devastated as tens of
thousands of jobs are put at risk”.
Some passengers would be priced out of the market, said the Secretary General,
while some would find their regular connections were no longer operated. Some
would dig deep in their pockets and pay the higher fares that would invariably result.
- 2 -
And some, he said, would take their business to non-EU airlines who can partially or
entirely avoid the impact of the EU rules. “Their carbon footprints will not be erased,
they will make a detour, and sometimes a long detour, via a point beyond the EU’s
borders”, said Mr Schulte-Strathaus, “yet this is something the legislators have taken
into account”.
European airlines have consistently advocated a regime of concerted action within the
sector to contribute to the abatement of greenhouse-gas emissions on a global scale,
notwithstanding the fact that aviation generates just about 2% of man-made carbon
dioxide. Said the AEA Secretary General: “We have developed a comprehensive
strategy encompassing green technology, operational best practice, and the absolute
need to improve the emissions efficiency of Europe’s air traffic management through
the realisation of the Single European Sky process. These three pillars, we believe,
could stand alongside an appropriately designed ETS that could serve as a blueprint
for worldwide application”.
“This legislative package destroys the industry’s ability to invest, gives no incentive to
Europe’s governments to commit to airspace modernization and invites conflict rather
than collaboration with international partners. We looked for European leadership and
what we have got is political opportunism, which is hardly the template for a global​
approach to the challenge”.
Fonte: AEA
 
e quello della IATA:

European ETS Vote: The Wrong Answer

Geneva - The International Air Transport Association (IATA) severely criticised today’s European Parliament vote to bring aviation into the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
“It’s absolutely the wrong answer to the very serious issue of environment,” said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO. “We support emissions trading, but not this decision. Europe has taken the wrong approach, with the wrong conditions at the wrong time.”
The Wrong Approach: Europe’s unilateral and extra-territorial approach will apply ETS to all aircraft flying to or from Europe. Without international agreement this will only spark international legal battles. “What right does Europe have to impose ETS charges on, for example, an Australian carrier flying from Asia to Europe for emissions over the Middle East? Article 1 of the Chicago Convention prohibits this. And it goes against Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol. Fuelling legal battles and trade wars is no way to help the environment. Already over 130 states have vowed to oppose it. The only successful way forward for ETS is as the drafters of Kyoto envisaged and the G8 leaders - including Europe - today confirmed. That’s a global scheme brokered through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),” said Bisignani.
The Wrong Conditions: In its first year of operation, the ETS will add EUR3.5 billion to industry costs and this will rise year-on-year. There is no guarantee that any of the funds generated will be earmarked for environmental purposes. Today’s decision only indicates that revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances “should” be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “It’s the weakest possible language. The plain fact is that the only sure beneficiaries of the EUR 3.5 billion cost will be national government coffers. There is no assurance that any of the money will go to environmental programmes. It’s time for Europe’s politicians to be honest. This is a punitive tax put in place by politicians who want to paint themselves green. Worse, it’s not even part of a coordinated European policy. This tax will come on top of the UK’s Air Passenger Duty and the Dutch Air Passenger Tax. Rather than double or triple charging for emissions, governments should focus on solutions to improve environmental performance,” said Bisignani.
The Wrong Time: With oil trading above US$140 a barrel and jet fuel above US$170 per barrel, the industry fuel bill for 2008 will be at least US$190 billion. “Airlines are struggling to reduce fuel burn to survive. Adding an extra EUR 3.5 billion to industry costs will not produce any better results. If Europe is serious about environment, it would move forward quickly with the Single European Sky proposal. By the Commission’s own calculation, this would save up to 16 million tonnes of CO2, reduce delays and improve environmental performance,” said Bisignani.
Airlines are committed to effective measures to reduce the 2% of carbon emissions attributed to aviation. “Reducing fuel burn to improve environmental performance is a top priority. IATA’s four-pillar strategy to address climate change is now an industry commitment that does just that. Emissions trading is one small part of a comprehensive strategy that includes investing in technology, improving operations, building efficient infrastructure and using positive economic measures,” said Bisignani.
“Our focus is on results. Last year the strategy saved at least 10.5 million tonnes of CO2. Our target is a 25% improvement in fuel efficiency by 2020. And we are working towards carbon-neutral growth with a vision for a carbon-free future. Europe’s tunnel-vision focus on a unilateral, punitive and illegal ETS may help some government budgets, but it will do little if anything to improve environmental performance. It’s time for Europe to re-focus,” said Bisignani.
 
Devi accedere o registrarti per rispondere qui.


Top Bottom