Major setback for Germany's global warming lobby: Merkel's new government set to scrap the flight tax

Another major setback for Germany's global warming establishment: The soon to be formed new CDU-SDP government is set to scrap the useless and costly air passenger duty:

Members of the transport group decided on Thursday during coalition talks between Chancellor Merkel’s conservatives and the Social Democrats (SPD) to abolish air passenger duty, which applies to departures from German airports, the Bild newspaper reported.

But the final decision on whether or not the duty is scrapped will fall to party leaders and depend on the SPD and Merkel’s conservative bloc forming a coalition government. Negotiations are still ongoing.
The tax was introduced in Germany two years ago but the parties believe that it is costing the country more money than it brings in as passengers are put off flying from German airports by the high cost of travel.
If the duty is abolished, ticket prices would be reduced by €7.50 on short-haul journeys, €23.43 on medium-haul and slashed on long-haul flights by €42.18, the Bild said. --
 
The tax was also seen as an important move by environmental groups to make flying more expensive.
When the German parliament took the decision to introduce the tax in November 2010, a statement from Bund, Germany’s branch of Friends of the Earth, called it “one of the few measures for more climate protection in the transport industry.”

Quote of the week: Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt on Ukraine's decision to turn its back on Europe

Quote of the week:

"Carl Bildt ‏@carlbildt 22h

Ukraine government suddenly bows deeply to the Kremlin. Politics of brutal pressure evidently works."

---

PS

As the readers of this blog certainly know, I am not a great admirer of the European Union, but compared to Putin's mafia state, it would certainly have been a much better alternative for Ukraine.

 

 

At last some good news from the UN climate jamboree in Warsaw: The COP 19 is "is on track to deliver virtually nothing"

At last, some good news from the UN global warming jamboree COP 19 in Warsaw.

Today's and yesterday's walk outs are a clear sign that the eco-fundamentalist "green groups" - Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam, ActionAid, the International Trade Union Confederation and Friends of the Earth - now have to admit that their indoctrination campaigns in the developing countries have been useless and counterproductive. The "rich" industrialized countries are not going to accept unlimited  "compensation" payments for "loss and damage" due to (non-existent human induced) global warming:

Developing countries including the Philippines and economic superpower China walked out of one of the most critical negotiations of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, Poland on Wednesday, November 20, over the issue of climate finance.
The walkout, which happened 3:55 am on Wednesday, was led by Bolivian negotiator Juan Hoffmaister who was representing the G77+China group in a closed night-time session on loss and damage.
It was motivated by the developing nation bloc's frustration over the unwillingness of developed countries like Australia and Norway to discuss a mechanism for compensating poor nations for loss and damage due to climate change impacts like storms. --

"Codifying loss and damage issues in an agreement could lead to claims of legal liability, which would be problematic, to say the least," Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, told Agence France-Presse.

Read the entire article here

Six green groups walked out of UN climate negotiations on Thursday, November 21, declaring that the ailing talks were "on track to deliver virtually nothing".
"Organizations and movements representing people from every corner of the Earth have decided that the best use of our time is to voluntarily withdraw from the Warsaw climate talks," they said in a statement.
"The Warsaw climate conference, which should have been an important step in the just transition to a sustainable future, is on track to deliver virtually nothing."
The signatories were Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam, ActionAid, the International Trade Union Confederation and Friends of the Earth.

Read the entire article here

British businessman Paul Sykes on the EU: "Ever closer union" is a "death sentence" for any country that wants to control its own affairs

What the British businessman Paul Sykes, a Eurosceptic former Conservative supporter, writes in The Express today deserves to be read also outside the UK:

"At the heart of the jungle of European Union treaties, directives and meddlesome edicts is a chilling weasel phrase: “Ever closer union.” It sounds innocent enough but in reality it is a death sentence for any country that wants to maintain control over its own affairs." --

"No one under 56 has had a chance to vote about Britain’s European destiny. The European project lacked democratic legitimacy from the outset, not least because the political establishment assured us in the Seventies that joining the Common Market, as it then was, involved no loss of sovereignty.

In a television broadcast to mark Britain’s entry in January 1973 Prime Minister Edward Heath said: “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in someway sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Tell that to the fairies. There is hardly any aspect of the nation’s life untouched by the EU. There are 150,000 pages of EU laws and directives covering everything from farming, fishing, business, trade, the environment and much more." --

"The federalists who run the European Commission want a United States of Europe with a single flag, bureaucracy, parliament, army and president. They want to control all major decisions in their new superstate and they want to reduce national parliaments to the status of a county council.

Quote of the week: Fouad Ajami on the difference between Obama and Reagan

"The Reagan presidency was about America, and never about Ronald Reagan"

Fouad Ajami, senior fellow at the Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, on the difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan:

During his first campaign, Mr. Obama had paid tribute to Ronald Reagan as a "transformational" president and hinted that he aspired to a presidency of that kind. But the Reagan presidency was about America, and never about Ronald Reagan. Reagan was never a scold or a narcissist. He stood in awe of America, and of its capacity for renewal. There was forgiveness in Reagan, right alongside the belief in the things that mattered about America—free people charting their own path.