Qantas announce Fuel and Carbon price increases

[Mal]

As Qantas is on the government's (500) Biggest Polluters list, they are liable to be charged $23 per tonne of carbon emitted.

Does Qantas expect us to believe that each pax results in almost 3 tonnes of carbon pollution for a flight SYD-SIN-LHR (@ $60 per pax, extra)? Or have I got something wrong here.

Did you factor in the eu charges as well?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

 

[DC3]

Did you factor in the eu charges as well?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

Plus or minus about $3.50?

 

[eastwest101]

Note that the EU Carbon Tax and then the general QF Fuel Surcharge rises are separate matters.

EU ETS: This page has an interesting summary of CO2e per passenger km emissions - note the 1992 "Climatic Forcing" IPCC graph on the right....

Environmental impact of aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without "Climatic Forcing" the numbers seem to be around

"Long distance flights: 113 g/km CO[SUB]2[/SUB] or 114 g/km (2.5 oz/mile) CO[SUB]2[/SUB]e"

And then:

" For perspective, per passenger a typical economy-class New York to Los Angeles round trip produces about 715 kg (1574 lb) of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], but is equivalent to 1,917 kg (4,230 lb) of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] when the high altitude “climatic forcing” effect is taken into account.[SUP][14][/SUP] Within the categories of flights above, emissions from scheduled jet flights are substantially higher than turboprop or chartered jet flights. The emissions above are similar to a four-seat car with one person on board;[SUP][15][/SUP] however, flying trips often cover longer distances than would be undertaken by car, so the total emissions are much higher. About 60% of aviation emissions arise from international flights "


But none of these numbers seem to address particular aircraft, fuel, altitudes or account for freight among other things. I suspect the EU ETS cost of $3.50 per pax per flight into Europe would be beacause the EU ETS has a lower carbon cost per tonne than the Australian Carbon Tax? Whatever the case, everyone's numbers are a bit confusing and opaque at this point.

 

[drron]

And just what is the future of the EU Carbon tax.
China has already banned it's airlines paying this tax-
China bans airlines from paying EU carbon tax
And now the pressure is being racheted up with Airbus the target-
Chinese may cancel Airbus orders : TTR Weekly

HONG KONG, 2 March 2012: Hong Kong Airlines may cancel an order for 10 Airbus superjumbo A380 jets, a report said Thursday, as Chinese opposition to the European Union’s airlines carbon emissions tax intensifies.
Beijing has banned its airlines from complying with the EU scheme, which was imposed from January 1 although no airline will face a bill until 2013.
Hong Kong Airlines, a subsidiary of Chinese carrier Hainan Airlines, said it was under pressure to cancel the acquisition — reportedly worth about $3.8 billion at list prices — following China’s decision.

What is next?Banning EU airlines using Chinese airspace?Of Course the EU is also counting on China to fund their bailout plans.Methinks China holds most of the aces.

 

[Deleted member]

And just what is the future of the EU Carbon tax.
China has already banned it's airlines paying this tax-
China bans airlines from paying EU carbon tax
And now the pressure is being racheted up with Airbus the target-
Chinese may cancel Airbus orders : TTR Weekly

What is next?Banning EU airlines using Chinese airspace?Of Course the EU is also counting on China to fund their bailout plans.Methinks China holds most of the aces.

Methinks there will be a lot of CR@P before this is sorted and the carbon tax will be seen for what it is.........a tax.

 

[Moody]

Methinks there will be a lot of CR@P before this is sorted and the carbon tax will be seen for what it is.........a tax.

Yep - it is a tax on pollution. It is designed to reverse a dangerous trend in emissions by using the only lever that business understands - putting a cost on it. In Oz the intention is to spend that income in two ways - compensating people who would be most impacted by the subsequent price rises and putting more bucks into low-emission strategies. Or is it really just a conspiracy for ..... I don't know ... lefty tree-huggers to deny our inaliable right for infinte status runs to keep us feeling good about how important we all are.

 

[drron]

Yep - it is a tax on pollution. It is designed to reverse a dangerous trend in emissions by using the only lever that business understands - putting a cost on it. In Oz the intention is to spend that income in two ways - compensating people who would be most impacted by the subsequent price rises and putting more bucks into low-emission strategies. Or is it really just a conspiracy for ..... I don't know ... lefty tree-huggers to deny our inaliable right for infinte status runs to keep us feeling good about how important we all are.

Hasn't worked in the EU according to UBS-
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billi

on for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU's carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the €210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU's dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent "instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading".

 

[dfcatch]

Yep - it is a tax on pollution. It is designed to reverse a dangerous trend in emissions by using the only lever that business understands - putting a cost on it. In Oz the intention is to spend that income in two ways - compensating people who would be most impacted by the subsequent price rises and putting more bucks into low-emission strategies. Or is it really just a conspiracy for ..... I don't know ... lefty tree-huggers to deny our inaliable right for infinte status runs to keep us feeling good about how important we all are.

Yes, it's government market intervention.

Leaving out the politics, the science, the effect on the economy, and the "costliness" of "low emission strategies"; it's still a tax.

And like all taxes - it produces unintended consequences (not just those market reactions which is was designed to affect).

It is these "other effects" that will be the interesting ones to watch.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Without China/USA onboard, a Aussie Carbon Tax will do nothing in the global scheme of things.


Terry McCrann
Herald Sun

As I've written before, you could close Australia down completely, presumably shipping most of us to some foreign 'home,' reducing our carbon dioxide emissions all the way to zero, and it would make not the slightest difference to the world's climate future.

Right now we emit around 600 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

Have a guess how much China increased its emissions in 2010?
Just under 700 million tonnes.

And almost certainly the same again this year. And it'll be the same next year.

Just let that sink in.

In just one year, China increased its CO2 emissions by more than our ENTIRE EMISSIONS.

And we of course are not intending to cut our emissions anywhere close to zero, or even significantly.