Emissions trading broken?

[Josquius]

The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy

The massed EU bureaucrats thing is a bit of a myth. The EU employs less people than can fill up a premiership football stadium. Only around 25,000 IIRC.

[Warspite]

The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy

The massed EU bureaucrats thing is a bit of a myth. The EU employs less people than can fill up a premiership football stadium. Only around 25,000 IIRC.

A large portion of the bEUreaucracy (see what I did there?) are translators, anyhow.

[Admiral Yi]

Collapse under the weight of bureacracy could refer to the volume and intrusiveness of rules and regulations as well as the number of staff.

[Tamas]

Collapse under the weight of bureacracy could refer to the volume and intrusiveness of rules and regulations as well as the number of staff.

Yeah I didn't mean the number of people, that's usually the lesser problem. Their influence on stuff they shouldn't have influence on is the problem.

[Zanza]

So the moral choice when facing irregularly high taxes on a sub-division of a sector, is to raise taxes on the rest of that sector, ha? 

It's a clear policy choice to make CO2 emissions more expensive. And when you make such a policy choice, it's both rational and moral to make the taxes as general as possible and not to have exceptions for special interests.

[Zanza]

I am pretty sure the Chinese airlines did not refuse to pay this because of bureaucracy, so I don't see how that is relevant.

[Neil]

China is right to resist European attempts at extraterritoriality.  They had enough of that a hundred years ago, and Europe doesn't really have any leverage to apply to China anyways.

[Tamas]

So the moral choice when facing irregularly high taxes on a sub-division of a sector, is to raise taxes on the rest of that sector, ha? 

It's a clear policy choice to make CO2 emissions more expensive. And when you make such a policy choice, it's both rational and moral to make the taxes as general as possible and not to have exceptions for special interests.

Yeah but how sensible a policy is that? I am happy to know that the central comittee knows whats best and manufactures a grand plan to get us there, history shows that central planning and governmental stearing of the economy has produced wonders, and free economies of history can not possibly stand up to the wonders of what happened when a few people set their mind to run the organic and complex subject of the economy.

That said, while I appreciate that alternate energy sources can compete better if CO2 is taxed to high heavens (in case of airplanes, I guess we are looking at solar sails, huge moving wings with feathers, and nuclear drives), I am not sure it is to Europe's competitive advantage, as a whole, to overtax the only economically viable source of transportation and industrial engergy.

Because, I would gess, all these efforts mean fuckall to Gaia if the US, China, and India, keep smoking CO2 like it's nobodies business.

[Ideologue]

and nuclear drives

Oh man.

Because such an aircraft's range would not have been limited by liquid jet fuel, it was theorized that nuclear-powered strategic bombers would be able to stay airborne for weeks at a time.

[Zanza]

Yeah but how sensible a policy is that? I am happy to know that the central comittee knows whats best and manufactures a grand plan to get us there, history shows that central planning and governmental stearing of the economy has produced wonders, and free economies of history can not possibly stand up to the wonders of what happened when a few people set their mind to run the organic and complex subject of the economy.

That said, while I appreciate that alternate energy sources can compete better if CO2 is taxed to high heavens (in case of airplanes, I guess we are looking at solar sails, huge moving wings with feathers, and nuclear drives), I am not sure it is to Europe's competitive advantage, as a whole, to overtax the only economically viable source of transportation and industrial engergy.

Because, I would gess, all these efforts mean fuckall to Gaia if the US, China, and India, keep smoking CO2 like it's nobodies business.

That tired argument again? Not everybody is participating so we should not do anything either? 

[Tamas]

It is the argument of potentially sacrificing strategical advantages for zero effect. Except for the dubious moral one. Where we limit our industry and economic growth, then, since limiting our consumption is just out of the question, buy consumer goods made in Asia using Gaia-killing procedures and technologies.

[Zanza]

What strategical advantage do we give up if we make Chinese aircraft pay a carbon tax? 

[Tamas]

I, as you well know, am talking in general.

But, according to the International Herald Tribune article I read, European airlines and trade treaties may very well suffer because of this one particular step.

[Neil]

What strategical advantage do we give up if we make Chinese aircraft pay a carbon tax? 

Well, if they don't pay it, then Europe is left looking feeble and helpless.

[DGuller]

Yeah but how sensible a policy is that? I am happy to know that the central comittee knows whats best and manufactures a grand plan to get us there, history shows that central planning and governmental stearing of the economy has produced wonders, and free economies of history can not possibly stand up to the wonders of what happened when a few people set their mind to run the organic and complex subject of the economy.

That said, while I appreciate that alternate energy sources can compete better if CO2 is taxed to high heavens (in case of airplanes, I guess we are looking at solar sails, huge moving wings with feathers, and nuclear drives), I am not sure it is to Europe's competitive advantage, as a whole, to overtax the only economically viable source of transportation and industrial engergy.

Because, I would gess, all these efforts mean fuckall to Gaia if the US, China, and India, keep smoking CO2 like it's nobodies business.

That tired argument again? Not everybody is participating so we should not do anything either? 

That's actually a pretty good argument, tired or not.  Carbon dioxide pollution is a pollution that affect the whole world, not just surrounding areas of the polluter.  Tackling that pollution alone is like unilateral disarmament:  the less enlightened side gets an advantage, and uses that advantage to expand and cancel out the gains.