Yachts to Be Exempt from EU's Carbon Pricing Plan(zerohedge.com)
zerohedge.com
Yachts to Be Exempt from EU's Carbon Pricing Plan
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/yachts-be-exempt-eus-carbon-pricing-plan
14 comments
John Kerry, the Climate Specialist, must be jubilant with joy.
Now he can ditch his zeal for a 230’ and get a bigger yacht.
Or is that a bigger LearJet? Who can tell nowadays.
Now he can ditch his zeal for a 230’ and get a bigger yacht.
Or is that a bigger LearJet? Who can tell nowadays.
Can anyone confirm this? I don't want to spread fake news.
I took a quick look, but can't really conclude anything.
This is the relevant document, published in July 2021 like the article refers to: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/fueleu_maritim...
> In order to limit the administrative burden, in particular that of smaller operators, this Regulation should not apply to wooden ships of a primitive build and ships not propelled by mechanical means and focus on ships with a gross tonnage above 5 000. Even though these latter ships represent only approximately 55% of all ships calling at ports under the Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council, they are responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the maritime sector.
> This approach strikes a balance between environmental effectiveness and the administrative burden. Broadening the scope to ships above 400 GT (which is the minimum size applicable in international conventions) would bring minimal benefits in terms of emission reductions but would significantly increase the number of regulated entities.
There's no explicit mention of yachts, though I'm not qualified to judge how they might be referred to more formally. There are some explicit exclusions:
> This Regulation does not apply to warships, naval auxiliaries, fish-catching or fish-processing ships, wooden ships of a primitive build, ships not propelled by mechanical means, or government ships used for non-commercial purposes
The Transport & Environment report linked in the article seems to disagree with the 5,000 gross tonnage limit:
> As a bare minimum, policy-makers should reduce the threshold to 400 GT and include offshore vessels in the shipping proposals
They also say that there are 26 yachts over 5,000 GT that are exempted (compared to 1,459 yachts under 5,000 GT). If that's the case that would mean there's an exclusion applied to "yachts" other than the gross tonnage one.
---
The MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) regulation from 2015 mentions this: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/757/oj
> However, since this Regulation focuses on maritime transport, it should not establish monitoring, reporting and verification requirements for ship movements and activities not serving the purpose of transporting cargo or passengers for commercial purposes, such as dredging, ice-breaking, pipe laying or offshore installation activities.
So maybe that will apply for the ETS (Emission Trading System) changes as well.
This is the relevant document, published in July 2021 like the article refers to: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/fueleu_maritim...
> In order to limit the administrative burden, in particular that of smaller operators, this Regulation should not apply to wooden ships of a primitive build and ships not propelled by mechanical means and focus on ships with a gross tonnage above 5 000. Even though these latter ships represent only approximately 55% of all ships calling at ports under the Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council, they are responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the maritime sector.
> This approach strikes a balance between environmental effectiveness and the administrative burden. Broadening the scope to ships above 400 GT (which is the minimum size applicable in international conventions) would bring minimal benefits in terms of emission reductions but would significantly increase the number of regulated entities.
There's no explicit mention of yachts, though I'm not qualified to judge how they might be referred to more formally. There are some explicit exclusions:
> This Regulation does not apply to warships, naval auxiliaries, fish-catching or fish-processing ships, wooden ships of a primitive build, ships not propelled by mechanical means, or government ships used for non-commercial purposes
The Transport & Environment report linked in the article seems to disagree with the 5,000 gross tonnage limit:
> As a bare minimum, policy-makers should reduce the threshold to 400 GT and include offshore vessels in the shipping proposals
They also say that there are 26 yachts over 5,000 GT that are exempted (compared to 1,459 yachts under 5,000 GT). If that's the case that would mean there's an exclusion applied to "yachts" other than the gross tonnage one.
---
The MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) regulation from 2015 mentions this: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/757/oj
> However, since this Regulation focuses on maritime transport, it should not establish monitoring, reporting and verification requirements for ship movements and activities not serving the purpose of transporting cargo or passengers for commercial purposes, such as dredging, ice-breaking, pipe laying or offshore installation activities.
So maybe that will apply for the ETS (Emission Trading System) changes as well.
And yet vulnerable to a range of weapons systems.
They also exempted private jets:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/co...
Yachts and private jets belong to the rich class and these exemptions are in line with most hypocritical legislation around the world.
Links to the sources:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/climate-impact...
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022...
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/co...
Yachts and private jets belong to the rich class and these exemptions are in line with most hypocritical legislation around the world.
Links to the sources:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/climate-impact...
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022...
I am extremely cynical of all “climate initiatives”. From plastic straw bans to water conservation. All I see is the uber wealthy telling the poor why they need to consume less and but spend more.
If true, this sounds like a blatant admission that they're completely bought by the super rich.
There's simply no good reason for yachts and private jets to be exempt.
There's simply no good reason for yachts and private jets to be exempt.
There is a good reason. The private yachts and jets ferry the world’s elite to climate change conferences. Climate change conferences reduce global warming.
It's a reason, but is it a good one? It depends on the way you look at it.
I think it's possible that carbon footprint could become a (somewhat narcissistic) metric that individuals use to gauge and signal their self-worth (in addition to other vanity metrics).
On the one hand, claiming that your individual actions have reduced carbon emissions for a wide population could result in genuine behavioural changes and environmental improvements (even if it turns out to be difficult to calculate attribution to specific people).
On the other hand, if only individuals with high net worth are able to travel by private jet/yacht (a reality already, to be honest), and they are able to use their existing wealth to offset their environmental damage enough to come out net-positive in terms of ROI (image + reputation being leveraged into financial reward), then what has been created is a tiered class system without social mobility where long-distance travel is only available to a small number of people.
From that line of thinking I'd suggest that environmental cost produced per person should be a key metric to keep in mind, regardless of offsets.
I think it's possible that carbon footprint could become a (somewhat narcissistic) metric that individuals use to gauge and signal their self-worth (in addition to other vanity metrics).
On the one hand, claiming that your individual actions have reduced carbon emissions for a wide population could result in genuine behavioural changes and environmental improvements (even if it turns out to be difficult to calculate attribution to specific people).
On the other hand, if only individuals with high net worth are able to travel by private jet/yacht (a reality already, to be honest), and they are able to use their existing wealth to offset their environmental damage enough to come out net-positive in terms of ROI (image + reputation being leveraged into financial reward), then what has been created is a tiered class system without social mobility where long-distance travel is only available to a small number of people.
From that line of thinking I'd suggest that environmental cost produced per person should be a key metric to keep in mind, regardless of offsets.
They could fly coach with the rest of us unwashed masses.
With that kind of political mindset, where they can pollute all they want in order to show off their power, do you think they are gone to do something about private aircrafts and vessels that most of them have? It's very naive to think so.
Like other person said in the comments, I don't know how true or how false this article is, but I won't doubt it too much.