PowerSwitch

HMG wrote:However, we believe that a global, sectoral approach is more appropriate for aviation. This would, in effect, make aircraft operators responsible for their emissions, rather than countries.

Now I don't think that's fair. After all, the steel industry (to take a random example that's been brought to mind recently) is also international: Steel is pretty fungible and might end up anywhere. But no-one's suggesting they should have their CO_2 emissions counted independently of their country of manufacture on the grounds that the steel is only being made because someone overseas wants to use it.

Also aviation is aided-and-abetted by its country of origin: airports get all sorts of grants and subsidies because governments like it when they are built (because they think that "jobs" will somehow fly in). So the country is just as responsible for its airports as it is for its steel foundries.

The "simples" answer would be to go halves on the CO_2 count for any given flight: e.g. Heathrow to Dallas, the UK takes half the responsibility, the USA (or the Texans by themselves if they've left it) takes the other 1/2.

RenewableCandy wrote:The "simples" answer would be to go halves on the CO_2 count for any given flight: e.g. Heathrow to Dallas, the UK takes half the responsibility, the USA (or the Texans by themselves if they've left it) takes the other 1/2.

This is the obvious, logical take on it but the sharing of emissions seems to create a mental block for pro-aviation people.

Obfuscation and diversion are their preferred solutions.

emordnilap wrote: Obfuscation and diversion are their preferred solutions.

Rubbish. They really hate having to divert their flights because of fog, because it costs them so much moolah...oh I see what you mean