Beijing is motivated by altruism
I refer to Tom Holland's Monitor column ('Beijing's stance on airline emissions stinks of hypocrisy', February 21), which reflects his prejudice.
Without telling us what he knows about emissions, global warming and their supposedly adverse economic effects, he presumes that there is a fair formula to calculate the damages. Without any comparative review of the European Union's tariff on airline emissions, he asserts that it is not costly.
The Wall Street Journal published an article on January 27, signed by 16 scientists who hold that 'it makes no sense at all to back expensive programmes that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of 'incontrovertible' evidence [of greenhouse gas causing economic losses]'.
The article refers to William Nordhaus, professor of economics at Yale University's school of forestry and environmental studies, who has recommended a policy that 'allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls' because 'more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet'.
The EU's keenness to prematurely impose a unilateral tax on airline emissions resembles its desperate attempt to claim moral high ground while no tangible objective appears attainable to salvage the reputation of a lethargic continent where profligacy is the only sign of dynamism.
Its tax on airline emissions is ultra vires because it has no authority to tax foreign nationals for activities outside its jurisdiction. Airport tax for use of ground facilities is different from an out-of-jurisdiction levy on flight paths over international and foreign territories.