U.S. airlines lost a critical fight this week to avoid paying the costs of pollution caused by their aircraft in Europe. Foreign airlines are required to pay for their carbon pollution by the European Union, but American airlines insisted that they should not be required to pay for their share of pollution. It is the type of argument that received rapturous applause in Congress and immediate waivers of liability. However, American executives were shocked when the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg actually ruled that the companies should pay their environmental tax. The Obama Administration has supported the companies in fighting the pollution tax.
The principle of forcing companies to internalize the cost of their pollution produces certain efficiencies. A rational actor seeking wealth maximization will try to externalize the costs of production to the greatest extent possible. Cost internalization gives the actor an incentive to reduce those costs by abating their pollution. Germany has been a leader in such policies, including implementing an internationalization of costs associated with packaging. Faced with costs of disposal of packaging, companies responded by reducing packaging.
United Continental and American Airlines have led the fight to avoid paying their costs of pollution. Yet, in her interim opinion, Juliane Kokott, the ECJ’s advocate-general, rejected claims that this tax impinged on American companies and America itself: “EU legislation does not infringe the sovereignty of other states or the freedom of the high seas guaranteed under international law, and is compatible with the relevant international agreements.”
In the meantime, the Obama Administration opposes the pollution tax being applied to U.S. companies. Obama Administration officials insist that U.S. airlines should be allowed to pollute in Europe as they do in the United States — without paying such costs.
Airlines account for about 3 per cent of global carbon emissions and that percentage is quickly rising. The tax will add between €6-€12 per ticket for a transatlantic flight.
33 thoughts on “U.S. Airlines Lose Effort To Avoid Paying European Pollution Tax”
Whats society’s income? Whats is society’s expenditures? Society doesnt make decisions, individuals do. Society doesnt have a bank account or assets. You can tell me the government has a revenue stream and spending but if you want to get into the logical fallacy of conflating government and society thats a whole different argument. ~Ekyrah
That is your weird ass thinkng.
Personally I think that ALL carbon and aerial toxins and waste should be the responsibility of Big Corporate Businesses. Because a cow may fart methane but Corporations make profits on barbecue sauce.
And just because there is no way to break down the exact amount of methane does not exclude the corporate profits from the byproduct of the existance of cows.
‘You ant anyway ‘ should be “You want anyway”
ekeyra1, October 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Whatever that link you posted on the pros and cons of carbon taxing is pure gibberish. Social cost? Thats as nebulous a concept as “general welfare”. Whats society’s income? Whats is society’s expenditures? Society doesnt make decisions, individuals do. Society doesnt have a bank account or assets.
Can you really not understand worth and asset if there is no $$$$$$ attached to it? Your arguments are….an exercise in ignoring the obvious. There’s enuff denial in the world. You see no value in clean air? really? What, do you have a gas mask factory in the pipeline or something?
You are as thick as they come. You won’t see the value of heathcare until your children are sick. You won’t see the value of clean air till you are choking out of breathlessness. You ant anyway as long as it gets payed for by the ‘other guy’.
and no, that site was not ‘gibberish’. Perhaps it ws hard for you to see the simplified equations because they were so simple….you couldn’t get away with wearing your ‘speck’tacles….
Oh, just thought of this too. Why is it that very organization that insists its citizens be groped and irradiated before they get on the plane, would care to protect them from a little carbon dioxide once its in the air? Seems like misplaced priorities.
O.S. did you notice Obama didn’t say anything about the death of Steve Jobs the other day?
Obama doesn’t like to talk about the loss of Jobs, which is too bad because this job is shovel ready. 🙂
How bout this one O.S.
Seems Just like yesterday we had Steve Jobs Bob Hope and Johnny Cash
now that Obama’s president we have no Jobs No Hope and no Cash 🙂
Did that quip come from the Rose family think tank or from the Koch group?
And has Frank Luntz formally tested it on a focus group for effectiveness, or did you just make it up yourself? You could get in trouble for that, you know. Dr. Luntz is supposed to market test just about everything before it is turned loose in the wild.
25 years ago, we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, NO Cash and NO HOPE
Whatever that link you posted on the pros and cons of carbon taxing is pure gibberish. Social cost? Thats as nebulous a concept as “general welfare”. Whats society’s income? Whats is society’s expenditures? Society doesnt make decisions, individuals do. Society doesnt have a bank account or assets. You can tell me the government has a revenue stream and spending but if you want to get into the logical fallacy of conflating government and society thats a whole different argument.
Again, you have absolutely no way of calculating the “costs” of pollution. Its all arbitrary without private property damage. As for where they are dumping, who claims ownership of those offshore areas? Private individuals or some federal bureuacracy?
All of this is as ridiculous as you can get anyway once you realize that everytime you exhale you emit carbon dioxide. Do you really want to hand them the power to regulate THAT?!
Seems some US companies, like wealthy Republicans and their elected lapdogs, want to enjoy the benefits of globalization, but are not willing to accept the responsibilities. Perhaps that’s what the GOP Court had in mind when conferring personhood on corporations.
why do we have to keep fighting the same things over and over and over…
Comments are closed.