Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

carbon related

Jan 24, 2013

Euro ETS fraud by airlines put at €1.36 billion last year

The only thing that will make fuel users choose non fossil carbon releasing products over those to which they are addicted could be to make them cheaper by virtue of innovation rather than state direction.

User login status :

Share

A report implying massive fraud by European airlines to rob consumers through fictitious claims about the costs of their obligations to the EU’s emission trading scheme needs to be read and understood by all parties to the carbon tax and trading debate in Australia.

Fraud is fraud no matter what position as to the reduction of carbon emissions is taken.

It is also a reminder of a scenario concerning reduced fossil sourced carbon emission by industrial and all transport processes, whether land, sea or air based.

And that is that while the US has avoided comprehensive regulatory intervention along the lines of a carbon tax or an ETS, it is in a race with China to devise and control the replacement energy technologies, which Australia will ultimately have to buy and use at whatever price the owners of the new technology decide to charge.

This combination of state and private capital funded energy innovation, whether in interim bio fuel blends, or a full suite of efficiency measures plus algal grown and refined fossil sourced fuel replacements is not being driven by regulation whether current or planned but potential rewards.

Maybe the alternative way ahead in this country is to make Australia an incredibly generous place to invest in research into and production of fossil carbon bypass technology.

The only thing that will make fuel users choose non fossil carbon releasing products over those to which they are addicted could be to make them cheaper by virtue of innovation rather than state direction.

While the pure intentions of Brussels toward driving the switch to alternative technology are accepted, a system that involves massive dishonesty and fraud is surely not the way forward.

Ben Sandilands — Editor of Plane Talking

Ben Sandilands

Editor of Plane Talking

Ben Sandilands has reported and analysed the mechanical mobility of humanity since late 1960 - the end of the age of great scheduled ocean liners and coastal steamers and the start of the jet age. He’s worked in newspapers, radio and TV in a wide range of roles as a journalist at home and abroad for 56 years, the last 18 freelance.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Ben Sandilands

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

4 comments

Leave a comment

4 thoughts on “Euro ETS fraud by airlines put at €1.36 billion last year

  1. That’s a fair observation. However after exploring the Euractiv site and re-reading its ETS story, I think the report reflected not only poorly on the airlines but the legislators.

    The EU’s fascination with administrative infrastructure is I think very short on the actions that will genuinely promote investment in innovation. The frustration felt across Europe with excessive administration unfortunately in my opinion also strengthens the lunar extremes of politics in various parts of the continent, and a collection of islands to the NW.

  2. CE Delft is a ‘not-for-profit’ environmental research and consultancy organisation that has an significant stake in ensuring that its key customer (the EU Commission)is not made to look bad. As the AEA pointed out, the airlines had to acquire carbon credits at the then-prevailing price, not to mention the significant costs sunk into getting reporting mechanisms put in place (more consultants) to provide the EU with the data it wanted. The real fraud was making people think this burden placed on airlines would somehow magically result in reduced emissions, in the continuing absence of the EU Commission doing anything about a unified European airspace, the single greatest cost in terms of fuel burn for many carriers in and flying to the EU.

  3. Well I do, but that’s not important.

    We will, at some stage in the nearer future, have no choice but to use the cheaper product, regardless as to where the other ferocious arguments about climate change go.

    (I agree with the science, for the record. I despair over the inability of the science to lucidly and convincingly make a case that isn’t diluted by side show issues, but that’s a hopefully civilised discussion that might eventually occur elsewhere.)

    Then again, I’m very much on the side of less public intervention and more risk capital coming into play than is currently the case.

    I respect and listen to and I hope learn from contrary nuances in such discussions.

  4. Ben,

    Do you really think that a Country which will suffer greatly from climate change but still has politicians, media and a vocal minority of the public decrying it’s very existence would invest (or permit favorable treatment of private investment) in the research and commercialisation of products to alleviate the effects of carbon emissions?

    Unfortunately I don’t.