All flights into, out of, and within the European Union will be included in the bloc's emissions-trading scheme as of 2012, the E.U. Parliament decided Thursday. If the plan is given final approval, airlines will have to cut emissions 3 percent in 2012 and 5 percent per year from 2013 on. Airlines would buy 15 percent of their emissions permits from the E.U.; the rest would be allocated for free. Big Air Travel strongly opposes the plan, saying it would be extra expense for an already struggling industry. The United States is also opposed, and insists that forcing non-European airlines to cap emissions would be illegal under international aviation rules. E.U. officials say the plan is legal, and hope that it's just a first step toward an eventual global agreement on aviation emissions.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:38 am
27 Jun 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:34 pm
27 Jun 2008
Try going to school and learning aeronautics and Forier transformations instead of lounging at the Sorborne....
Permalink
jbosborn Posted 11:24 pm
28 Jun 2008
Permalink
enki Posted 12:53 am
29 Jun 2008
Permalink
undyau Posted 9:44 am
29 Jun 2008
Fourier is also famous for his discovery of the greenhouse effect (in 1824).
Permalink
solarwind Posted 2:35 am
30 Jun 2008
jabailo - c'mon, man. that's such an ignorant comment.
and regardless of whether the airline business is struggling or not, we need to begin to cap their pollution emissions. If the coal industry were "struggling", should it mean that we should cut them slack? Airlines have become an integral part of the global economy and way of life, but does that not mean we can't adapt? How about more increased utilization of other communication technologies (see&share, teleconferences, etc.)???
And for the remaining travel, how about the respective governments subsidize the airline companies more than they do currently (idealy take some of the billions they give to the oil companies)? The current situation is ridiculous...The rising price of oil is hurting everyone but the companies responsible for it in the first place (windfall profits, yada yada)
Permalink
PVHoward Posted 3:24 pm
02 Jul 2008
Usually Grist is more careful to state more specifically "The Bush administration opposes ..." or "The State Department supports ..." etc., as there is seldom even unanimity in the Bush administration itself.
Permalink