Wikidebates - User contributions [en]

Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency

2025-04-14T06:30:20Z

LTE:

{{Argument
|displayed-title=Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency
|initialisation=Con argument@1614
|summary=As a substantial governmental programme that is expected to endure for the long term, Air Quotas commits a substantial portion of the carbon budget (if indeed there is now any carbon budget left) to the most excessive mode of travel. Society's overall carbon & GHG emissions must plummet, and as a largely unnecessary endeavor flying must plummet the most - much steeper than Air Quotas' 6% per year.
“As the scientists discussed several times during [Ireland’s Oireachtas] hearing, the governmental action they are calling for is ‘not easy’ and is ‘politically risky’, because ‘none of it is palatable’ to the public, at least at present. But the climate physics and the now all-too-apparent and rapidly escalating climate impacts show that the only ‘realistic’ course is for politicians, scientists and activists to strive – paraphrasing the words of the four – to make unthinkable policy thinkable, and the unpalatable palatable. There are no easy choices left; the [effective] easy choices evaporated years or decades ago.”
Prof. Barry McMullin said that “the scale and urgency of our predicament” requires consideration of policies “outside our previously self-imposed restrictions on what is thinkable”, because climate change physics “just doesn’t bend … just doesn’t care what we [otherwise] regard as realism.”
(https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-02-11/four-scientists-a-few-small-nations-and-making-unthinkable-climate-action-possible/)
|sections=Ecology, Ethics, Philosophy
}}

Air Quotas work better than the alternative solution of capping traffic (at EU, national or airport level)

2025-04-13T19:03:33Z

LTE: Added objection: The directness & certainty of caps is what is needed.

{{Argument
|displayed-title=The alternative solution to Air Quotas of capping traffic (at EU, national or airport level) has many cons
|summary=Capping individual flights works better than capping traffic, because restricted supply drives up prices and eventually leads to the same situation as taxes.

In the EU, aviation CO2 emissions are capped through the ETS (European Trading Scheme), a cap-and-trade system, and the number of movements is capped at some airports.
|justifications={{Justification
|page=Power to citizen
|displayed-title=Power to citizen
}}
|objections={{Objection
|page=The directness
|displayed-title=The directness
}}
|sections=Ecology, Economy
|keywords=aviation, climate
}}

The directness & certainty of caps is what is needed.

2025-04-13T19:03:27Z

LTE: Created page with "{{Argument |displayed-title=The directness & certainty of caps is what is needed. |initialisation=Objection@1627 }}"

{{Argument
|displayed-title=The directness & certainty of caps is what is needed.
|initialisation=Objection@1627
}}

The only sure way is to cap jet fuel availability and successively reduce the cap - how much emissions should aviation be allowed. Let the free market, with fairness/equity regulations added, determine how this is expressed.

2025-04-13T18:57:19Z

LTE: LTE moved page The only sure way is to cap jet fuel availability and successively reduce the cap - how much emissions should aviation be allowed. Let the free market, with fairness/equity regulations added, determine how this is expressed. to An annually falling jet fuel cap, applied with free market plus equity regulations, would directly limit emissions: The only sure way is to cap jet fuel availability and successively reduce the cap - how much emissions should aviation be allowed....

#REDIRECT [[An annually falling jet fuel cap, applied with free market plus equity regulations, would directly limit emissions]]

An annually falling jet fuel cap, applied with free market plus equity regulations, would directly limit emissions

2025-04-13T18:57:19Z

{{Argument
|displayed-title=The only sure way is to cap jet fuel availability and successively reduce the cap - how much emissions should aviation be allowed. Let the free market, with fairness/equity regulations added, determine how this is expressed.
|initialisation=Objection@1624
}}

An annually falling jet fuel cap, applied with free market plus equity regulations, would directly limit emissions

2025-04-13T18:49:50Z

LTE: Created page with "{{Argument |displayed-title=The only sure way is to cap jet fuel availability and successively reduce the cap - how much emissions should aviation be allowed. Let the free mar..."

The Air Quotas mechanism ensures that traffic cap targets are met

2025-04-13T18:42:14Z

LTE: Added objection: 30 years is too long.

{{Argument
|displayed-title=The Air Quotas mechanism ensures that traffic cap targets are met
|summary=Airlines can't sell more tickets than allowed by the amount of Air Quotas distributed.
|justifications={{Justification
|page=The 6% annual reduction in the carbon money distributed to Europeans ensures that airlines cannot exceed this constantly shrinking volume
|displayed-title=The 6% annual reduction in the carbon money distributed to Europeans ensures that airlines cannot exceed this constantly shrinking volume
}}{{Justification
|page=83% less in 30 years
|displayed-title=83% less in 30 years
}}
|objections={{Objection
|page=30 years is too long.
|displayed-title=30 years is too long.
}}
|sections=Ecology, Economy
|keywords=aviation, climate
}}

30 years is too long

2025-04-13T18:42:11Z

LTE: Created page with "{{Argument |displayed-title=30 years is too long. |initialisation=Objection@1620 }}"

{{Argument
|displayed-title=30 years is too long.
|initialisation=Objection@1620
}}

Are Air Quotas a good way to reduce air traffic?

2025-04-13T18:40:26Z

LTE: Added “con” argument: Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency

{{Debate
|type=pro/con
|topic=Air Quotas
|progress=Debate under construction
|introduction={{Introductory subsection
|title=Definition
|content=Air Quotas is a carbon rationing system relative to commercial aviation under which CO2 emissions allowances would be allocated to individuals on an equal per capita basis. Individuals then surrender these allowances when booking flights. Individuals wanting or needing to travel more than permitted by their initial allocation would be able to purchase additional allowances from those flying less or not at all, rewarding those individuals.
}}{{Introductory subsection
|title=Context
|content=Decarbonisation of aviation can't be achieved early enough to meet climate objectives without a reduction of air traffic. The Air Quotas mechanism guarantees the reduction of greenhouse gases by rationing the rich and rewarding the most modest.<br />It is designed as a test of a general individual carbon accounting system applicable to all products and services.
}}{{Introductory subsection
|title=System scope
|content=* The system would be applicable to all European citizens (but ideally, it should be global).
* The system would be applicable to all commercial flights departing from or arriving in an European country.
* People traveling for professional purposes would need to buy allowances.
* Non European citizens would have to purchase allowances when they fly to Europe when they buy the ticket in the EU.
}}{{Introductory subsection
|title=Details of the mechanism
|content=* For the first year, 500 Ͼ (aircraft carbon allowances) would be distributed to each European adult.
* Allowances would be valid for one year.
* Individuals willing to fly further than the distance allowed would be able to borrow allowances (spend their future allowances in advance).
* The number of allowances would be reduced every year by 6%.
* Minors would receive less allowances than adults.
* Offsets would not be counted as a CO2 reduction
* So called SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuels) would not be entitled to reduce the carbon footprint of a flight.
* There would be a market of unused allowances. Their price will vary according to supply and demand.
}}{{Introductory subsection
|title=System management
|content=The allowances would be administered by national independant carbon agencies.
}}{{Introductory subsection
|title=Promoters
|content=Air Quotas is promoted by a network of French associations, as an attempt to introduce a more [https://carbonAccount.eu comprehensive system] that would ration all carbon containing goods and services.
}}
|wikipedia-articles={{Wikipedia article
|page=Personal carbon trading
}}
|pro-arguments={{Pro argument
|page=The Air Quotas mechanism ensures that traffic cap targets are met
|displayed-title=Ensures that traffic cap targets are met
}}{{Pro argument
|page=The Air Quotas mechanism allows flexibility
|displayed-title=Allows flexibility to exceed allowances
}}{{Pro argument
|page=The Air Quotas mechanism rewards those who fly less than their quota
|displayed-title=Rewards those who fly less than their quota
}}{{Pro argument
|page=Air Quotas incentivise airlines to reduce their CO2 emissions
|displayed-title=Incentivises airlines to reduce their CO2 emissions
}}{{Pro argument
|page=Air Quotas develop environmental awareness
|displayed-title=Develops environmental awareness
}}{{Pro argument
|page=The Air Quotas system could be extended to all carbon products and services
|displayed-title=Could be extended to all carbon products and services
}}{{Pro argument
|page=The alternative solution ‘Control through prices’ (taxes) is not effective
|displayed-title=More effective than taxes
}}{{Pro argument
|page=The alternative solution to Air Quotas of capping traffic (at EU, national or airport level) has many cons
|displayed-title=Better than capping traffic
}}
|con-arguments={{Con argument
|page=Air Quotas restrict freedom to travel
|displayed-title=Restricts freedom to travel
}}{{Con argument
|page=Air Quotas allow wealthy frequent flyers to keep on flying
|displayed-title=Allows wealthy frequent flyers to keep on flying
}}{{Con argument
|page=Air Quotas may create a desire to fly
|displayed-title=May create a desire to fly
}}{{Con argument
|page=The Air Quotas system cannot account for all the flights of an individual unless it is global
|displayed-title=Cannot account for all the flights of an individual unless the system is global
}}{{Con argument
|page=The Air Quotas system is complex
|displayed-title=Complex
}}{{Con argument
|page=Prone to fraud
|displayed-title=Prone to fraud
}}{{Con argument
|page=The Air Quotas system requires collecting confidential personal data
|displayed-title=Requires collecting confidential personal data
}}{{Con argument
|page=Lawmakers may set poor "mechanism details" initially or later
|displayed-title=Lawmakers may set poor "mechanism details" initially or later
}}{{Con argument
|page=Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency
|displayed-title=Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency
}}
|pro-bibliography={{Pro bibliographical reference
|authors=Pierre-Henri Bono, Alain Trannoy
|article=Le Mécanisme Troc Carbone Avion (TCA)
|work=Revue d'économie politique
|volume=134
|number=2024/4
|link=https://doi.org/10.3917/redp.344.0553
}}{{Pro bibliographical reference
|authors=Christophe DEVAUX
|work=Le compte carbone
|publisher=BookEdition
|link=https://www.thebookedition.com/fr/le-compte-carbone-p-411029.html
}}
|pro-webliography={{Pro web reference
|link=https://air-quotas.eu/
|page=Official website
|site=Air Quotas
}}
|pro-videography={{Pro video reference
|title=From CarbonAccount.eu to Air-Quotas.eu, how to convince european Commission to act
|authors=Compte Carbone
|link=https://youtu.be/PBufJMD3bQU?si=DMxCw021Mk1rM_0P
}}
|sections=Ecology, Economy
|keywords=aviation, climate
}}

Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency

2025-04-13T17:16:20Z

LTE: Created page with "{{Argument |displayed-title=Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency |initialisation=Con argument@1614 |summary=As a substantial governmental progra..."

It is insufficient & outdated for the climate emergency

2025-04-09T19:09:08Z

LTE: Created page with "{{Argument |displayed-title=It is insufficient & outdated for the climate emergency |initialisation=Con argument@1614 }}"

{{Argument
|displayed-title=It is insufficient & outdated for the climate emergency
|initialisation=Con argument@1614
}}

Lawmakers may set poor "mechanism details" initially or later

2025-04-09T18:54:44Z

LTE: Created page with "{{Argument |displayed-title=Lawmakers may set poor "mechanism details" initially or later |initialisation=Con argument@1614 |summary=Proponents of the mechanism propos..."

{{Argument
|displayed-title=Lawmakers may set poor "mechanism details" initially or later
|initialisation=Con argument@1614
|summary=Proponents of the mechanism propose what they consider to be an ideal initial carbon allowance and ideal annual percentage rate of reduction for the allowance. Adverse changes to those numbers may be made by lawmakers in establishing the law. In subsequent years, lawmakers may relax the requirements to accommodate backlash from flyers and the industry. A hollow mechanism could be the outcome, due to the nature of the mechanism and political opportunity to manipulate it.
}}