NY Times Is Thrilled With Proposed UN Climate Change Rules For Airplanes

Do you fly for work or pleasure? Good news: a UN agency is looking to reduce the “carbon emissions” of airplanes, which will have the effect of making your flights more expensive. If you are a very rich person, this won’t bother your. If you’re a middle or lower class person, it will make the cost to go see your relatives or take the family on a nice vacation all that more expensive. The NY Times Editorial Board doesn’t care

Jets Will No Longer Get a Free Ride on Carbon Emissions

It has been almost 50 years since the federal government began setting standards for automobile emissions. It is also about a half-century since the introduction of wide-body jets set off a runaway expansion of the aviation industry. About 3.8 billion people are expected to fly this year, 50 times as many as 50 years ago — making planes the fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide emissions, although they have faced none of the limits set on cars or trucks. That is, until last week, when the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency, finally proposed the first binding limits on aircraft emissions.

Of course, those “binding limits” are not enforceable by law. Yet

This is a welcome development, even if it has left many environmental groups disappointed. They have argued, not unreasonably, that the agency set the bar far too low. Existing planes wouldn’t have to improve their efficiency, and aircraft under development would need do no more than meet the emissions goals set by manufacturers. Automakers in the United States, by contrast, must nearly double their fuel economy by 2025.

These limits are supposed to force airplanes to reduce fuel consumption by 4% from 2015 levels by 2038. It appears as if Warmists do not want to pay the price themselves by giving up their own fossil fueled air travel nor paying more for tickets in the short term.

For now, however, what is important is that an industry that accounts for almost 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — about the same as Germany — and that is projected to double the number of passengers and flights by 2030 will finally join other major sources of greenhouse gas pollution that are subject to international emissions controls.

Isn’t it interesting how Warmists always look to putting government/quasi-government controls in place? The next step will obviously be for the UN to call for a carbon tax on civil aviation. Which will probably exempt small private planes, as these Warmist big wigs love their small private jets.

But the international agreement took more than six years to negotiate, and it still needs approval from the group’s larger council and then its full assembly, followed by laws or regulations in each of the 36 member states. Mr. Obama has the authority to set the standards. That is about all he can hope to achieve on this front in his remaining months, and if it happens, it will be no mean feat.

More rules, more regs. Because Congress will not pass any laws, and Obama, as normal, will not even offer legislation for consideration. He’ll just bloviate about the Republican Congress. Here’s where it gets funny, if we look at the link in the first excerpt that goes to a NY Times article on this subject

But advocates of the deal, including the Obama administration, praised it, saying that it was an important first step and that it tackled one of the most intractable rifts over reducing carbon emissions.

“This is another example of the administration’s deep commitment to working with the international community on policies that will reduce harmful carbon pollution worldwide,” Michael Huerta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, said in a statement. (snip)

The Obama administration last year issued a legal finding that aviation emissions are a threat to human health because of their contribution to global warming. That finding initiated a requirement under the Clean Air Act that the government release new regulations to curb airplane emissions. (snip)

Limiting aviation emissions remains one of Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to combat global warming…

Let’s not forget the immense amount of fossil fueled air travel Obama takes, often nominally for an official government appearance, which is almost always followed by things like fundraisers and golf outings. His little speech in Illinois the other day was followed by a long fossil fueled plane ride, which included a backup jumbo jet following Air Force 1 just in case, as well as fighter jets, to San Jose, California. He then took a fossil fueled flight from San Jose after a bunch of fundraisers to Los Angeles, where he filmed a segment for Ellen Degeneres’ show, followed by more fundraisers. Then a flight to Palm Springs from L.A., where he played golf on Friday. And Saturday. And will probably play today. And then a plane trip back to Washington.

Yes, hypocrisy matters.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “NY Times Is Thrilled With Proposed UN Climate Change Rules For Airplanes”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The most important political figure on Earth flies in an airplane, therefore global warming is a hoax.

    You keep making the nonsensical claim that climate realists will not have to abide by the same restrictions (in this case a miniscule 4% decrease in airline carbon pollution over the next 2 decades) as everyone else. Very divisive typage. Almost as if you are creating “us vs them”.

    And my 3 year old grandson wanted Jo Nova to explain why all the science deniers are bloggers, radio hosts and Republicans who don’t know stuff and all the science supporters are scientists who know stuff.

    Maybe she can blog about it.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Almost as if you are creating “us vs them”.

    Yes, hypocrisy matters.

  3. gbear says:

    Congress should limit airfarce 1 to 12k miles per year.

  4. Jl says:

    And my 3 year old grandson wanted to know why the scientists who supposedly “know stuff” keep making spectacularly wrong predictions. Also wants to know why J desperately attacks “bloggers, radio hosts and Repeublicans” rather than the information they put out. Told him it was because they don’t know stuff.

  5. alanstorm says:

    “The Obama administration last year issued a legal finding that aviation emissions are a threat to human health because of their contribution to global warming. ”

    Anything the Obama administation says is odds-on to be absolute b$&@(*&t, and this one is no exception.

  6. alanstorm says:

    “…all the science supporters are scientists who know stuff. ”

    Did your gransson compose that sentence?

    The independent scientists are the ones that are skeptical. The ones getting grants from government to find certain results are indeed getting those results.

    How shocking.

  7. jay says:

    “The most important political figure on Earth flies in an airplane, therefore global warming is a hoax.”

    No, more like: Many people who speak out loudly about the dangers of global warming themselves use far more energy and produce more pollution than 95% of the people whom they lecture. People like Mr Gore and Mr Obama, for example. They are clearly hypocrites, the only question is their justification. Perhaps, (a) they don’t really believe what they are saying, (b) they don’t realize what they’re doing, i.e. they don’t know what they are talking about, or (c) they think others should make sacrifices to enable them to continue to live their oppulent lifestyles.

    I’m happy to hear an alternative explanation.

    Suppose someone is a well-known speaker who warns against the dangers of greed and materialism. Then you discover that he himself is living in a billion dollar mansion, has a chauffeur-driven limousine and a private jet. Does that prove that greed and materialism are good? Of course not. But it does prove that he is a hypocrite and a charlatan.

  8. jay says:

    “why all the science deniers are bloggers, radio hosts and Republicans who don’t know stuff and all the science supporters are scientists who know stuff.”

    I presume by “science deniers” you mean “global-warming deniers”. Which is a bit of a conundrum, as the people who question global warming almost always say, “show us the experimental evidence”, while the people who insist global warming is true always reply, “You must blindly accept whatever you are told by people from organizations that have the word ‘science’ in the name.”

    “Science” does not mean “blindy accepting what people in authority say”. That is called “dogmatism”. Science means performing experiments and observing the results. The actual scientific evidence is against global warming: world temperatures have not significantly changed for, what is it now, 15 years?

    Yes yes, I understand that you have theories about how climate works that say that global warming is inevitable. The key test of any scientific theory is its predictive power. A scientist says, “If my theory is true, than if we do X, Y will happen.” So for example, in 2006 Al Gore predicted that if we did not take certain steps to prevent global warming, in ten years civilization would be destroyed. We did not take the steps Gore called for, and here it is 2016 and the world is still here. The prediction based on the theory did not come true. The theory was proven false.

  9. Jeffery says:

    in 2006 Al Gore predicted that if we did not take certain steps to prevent global warming, in ten years civilization would be destroyed.

    Again, deniers are always compelled to lie since the truth does not support their cult.

    That’s not what Gore said, no matter how much you wish it were true. In addition, so what if he had? Al Gore is no arbiter of science. In what possible state of mind would you expect a former politician’s cherry-picked (and misinterpreted at that) comment to falsify a major scientific theory?? If Gore had made that prediction you could conclude that his statement was false. You can falsify the Theory of AGW by showing that CO2 doesn’t absorb electromagnetic radiation, or that the Earth isn’t warming, or that CO2 isn’t increasing. You could at least suggest a plausible alternative mechanism, such as JoNOva has – that the Sun is shooting out secret rays that can’t be measured, LOL.

    The evidence is clear. The basic hypothesis was that as CO2 increases, the Earth will warm. The Earth is warming (lots of evidence on that one). CO2 is increasing (lots of evidence). The increase in CO2 comes from humans burning fossil fuel (lots of evidence). The oceans are warming (yes, lots), the sea levels are rising (yes, lots), Arctic sea ice, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and most glaciers are melting (yes, lots of evidence there too), the oceans are absorbing CO2 (yes).

    Now deniers are reduced to lying about what Al Gore said 10 years ago and about how many petroleum company workers think that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.

    Two simple questions for deniers:

    What evidence are you looking for?

    What is your explanation for why the Earth has warmed so much in the past century?

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    The evidence is clear.

    But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.
    The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.

  11. Jeffery says:

    jay,

    Sort of like conservatives who complain about government spending yet collect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits or work indirectly for the feds by contracting to build roads or treat Medicaid or Medicare recipients? These same small government conservatives never complain about the interstate highways they drive on, the clean air and water they’re assured or the protections afforded by our military, FBI or Homeland Security.

    The fact is that conservatives may well have a valid argument, but it’s easy to smear them with irrelevancies labeled as “hypocrisy”. Is Rafael Cruz a hypocrite for being a small government conservative yet collecting $174,000 a year from us taxpayers?

    Another fact is that anyone who bases his or her understanding of a major scientific theory on the size of house of a supporter of that theory is, of course, a fool.

    The Theory of AGW stands on scientific merits, not on whether the most important political figure on Earth flies to foreign countries.

    It’s true that our leaders should lead by example, but how many politicians and conservabloggers led the way in Iraq? Did Bush go and fight? Conservatives tell us daily that ISIS is the biggest threat to our way of life, evuh. How many GOP candidates and conservabloggers have volunteered to fight them over there? Using your logic, we’d have to agree that ISIS isn’t much of a threat at all, but is mostly an election ploy.

  12. Jeffery says:

    But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.

    — Mike van Biezen

    Both statements are false.

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    The evidence is clear.

    The global temperatures are rising/falling/flat lining based on satellite/tropospheric/sea surface/land surface with or without UHI/TOB/homogenization/adjustments/bald faced lying…

    Yes/no/maybe, depends on who’s counting.

  14. drowningpuppies says:

    The evidence is clear.

    The sea ice/sheets/caps on Antarctica/the Arctic/Greenland/Iceland are shrinking/growing…

    Yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.

  15. drowningpuppies says:

    The evidence is clear.

    The sea levels are rising, land is subsiding…

    Yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.

  16. drowningpuppies says:

    The evidence is clear.

    If so, it begs the question of what does CO2 have to do with it?

    The warmunists’ dire predictions for the earth’s climate are based entirely on computer models, models which have yet to match reality.

    The projections began with a 4 C increase by 2100 which has since been adjusted down to 1.5 C, (uh… but the evidence is clear.)

    The models are driven by the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 and other GHGs.

    Even the IPCC AR5 TS.6 says that the magnitude of the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 “…remains uncertain “implying that IPCC was also uncertain in AR4, 3, 2, 1.

    So where is that clear evidence again, little one?

  17. Jeffery says:

    suckingpuppies,

    The evidence ain’t in your little dog’s crotch, so you should get your head out of there, little bit.

    What are you challenging? That the Earth isn’t warming (it’s not a model of warming, it’s actually warmer)? That CO2 from humans’ burning of fossil fuels isn’t occurring (it’s not a model of increased CO2, it’s real)? That the oceans aren’t warmer (again, you don’t need a model, you just need a thermometer!).

    Does honest scientific discourse, e.g., “magnitude of forcing/feedback” etc, invalidate the theory? Does warming of 2.5C instead of 4C from earlier predictions (taking your word for it) invalidate the theory?

    Of course, without actual citations we can’t trust a word you type. You’ve already proven that you steal the work of others, and lie, and exaggerate.

    (But kudos for actually making an attempt as something relevant, little bit! Of course, as always, you’ve failed.)

    Depends on who’s counting.

    True, young child. The scientists tell the truth. JonOva, William, Anthony Watts etc lie.

    Do you really not trust the satellite data showing the Arctic ice extent is steadily decreasing? How about the satellite data showing loss of the Greenland ice sheet volume? Do you have more reliable data, little baby?

    How can one have a scientific discussion if you don’t believe facts, little bit? Life is easy if you can just make stuff up to fit your ideology, isn’t it, little bit?

    Now, you can get back to your puppy sucking, little bit.

  18. Jeffery says:

    suckingpuppies,

    Forgot to ask. From whom did you steal your “Yes/no/maybe etc” line? He/she/it might want credit.

    Finally, have you ever had an original thought, besides puppysucking, in your entire life?

  19. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    So if all that is true, then why is the only solution to have global government, excessive taxes (hurting the middle class), destruction of our way of life and wealth and all this would do nothing to change CO2? And understand that your side is the one that has acknowledged that the effects on anything, except the increase in power to the communist, would do nothing.

  20. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Let’s see… there would be no global government, no destruction of our way of life and wealth, and it WOULD have an impact on CO2. There could be an increase in taxes, but that would only hurt the middle class if we decided to do that. So, you’re about 0.25 out of 4. Not a bad average for you. You got part of one right! But, we’ll have to take points away for invoking “communists”.

    You’re a smart man, an extremely wealthy doctor, superior to black people who are lazy and stupid, so can you think of a way to tax a commodity but have the impact more on wealthy doctors and drug developers rather than the poor and middle classes? I can, and I’m not very smart.

    Is a tax the only way to reduce CO2 emissions? Can you think of any other ways? I can, and I’m not very smart.

  21. drowningpuppies says:

    That clear evidence, little one, that you keep spouting about CO2 causing global warming.

    Even, the IPCC won’t go that far.

    Where is it?

    (I could make some snarky remark that it’s not hiding in your grandson’s ass but… )

  22. drowningpuppies says:

    Finally, have you ever had an original thought, besides puppysucking, in your entire life?

    The human mind can no more produce an original thought than a tree can produce an original fruit
    —Jerome K. Jerome

  23. Jeffery says:

    It is always the best policy to speak the truth, unless, of course, you are an exceptionally good liar. — Jerome K. Jerome

    You’re a persistent liar, but not an exceptionally good one.

    But it’s not your fault, really. Once an ideologue marries an ideology he defends her with his life, if not his honor.