Taxation Without Representation … Again!

Think it’s costly to fly on a plane or run an airline today? Well, new reports late last week made clear that it could get even pricier when flying to or from Europe.

On June 27, a New York Times report noted that the European Union reached an agreement to force airlines – including U.S. airlines – using European Union airports “to buy pollution credits beginning in 2012,” joining other industries in Europe’s emissions regulatory scheme. Here’s a particularly scary line from the report: “Including airlines in the system is the boldest move yet by Europe to stamp its environmental policies on the rest of the world.”

Airlines, of course, already are struggling under high fuel prices, and are passing along surcharges on consumers. This measure would only raise costs further.

The Times article noted that the European Parliament and individual nations must still approve the measure, but these are expected to be mere formalities. More substantively:

American officials warned that the requirements probably would be illegal under the convention governing international civil aviation. “The mandatory application of the European Emissions Trading System to U.S. airlines and airlines of other non-European countries is, we think, both contrary to international law and ultimately unworkable,” said Robert Gianfranceschi, a spokesman at the United States Mission to the European Union in Brussels.

One estimate put the cost of this plan at $4 billion. That’s a massive tax on consumers and airlines, including U.S.-based companies.

Hey, wait a minute. July Fourth provides a reminder. Haven’t we been down this path before with Europe? Yes, it was called “taxation without representation.”

Let’s hope Mr. Gianfranceschi is correct, and that these taxes never become reality. Let’s also hope that tax friendly politicians in America don’t try to do something similar in their zealous crusade against carbon emissions.

Delaware Politicians Strike Blow Against Small Business and Property Rights

In early-mid June, state legislators in Delaware overwhelmingly voted to beef up property rights protections. But then later, some of the same lawmakers didn’t.

The bill originally passed the state senate by a 19-1 vote, and then went through the state house unanimously. The Delaware News Journal described the measure as follows:

The bill would have allowed state or local agencies to condemn and take private land only if it were intended for "public use," but specifically stated that benefits derived from economic development do not meet the definition of public use. The measure also tightened the definition of what constitutes a "blighted" property that can be taken using eminent domain, adding a property must be a threat to public health and safety to qualify for transfer by a government agency.

That’s exactly what homeowners and small businesses need to protect their properties from eminent domain abuse of government in the shadow of the U.S. Supreme Court’s notorious 2005 Kelo decision.

But Governor Ruth Ann Minner didn’t see things that way, and vetoed the measure over this past weekend. But that should not be a big deal, since the legislation passed each chamber by veto-proof majorities, right? Well, think again.

The state senate failed to override the veto on June 30. With 13 votes needed for override, the vote came in at 11-9.

Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Varlano, was the original vote against the measure. The eight flip-floppers that joined him on the veto override were the following, according to the Journal News: Steve Amick, R-Glasgow; Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere; Catherine Cloutier, R-Heatherbrooke; Dori Connor, R-Penn Acres; Nancy Cook, D-Kenton; Margaret Rose Henry, D-Wilmington East; Robert Marshall, D-Wilmington West; and Harris B. McDowell, D-Wilmington North. And Thurman Adams, D-Bridgeville, chose not to vote.

Shame on each one of them! It was a vote against private property rights, against homeowners, and against small business.

Offshore Oil and the Environment

The big reason that most members of Congress cite for opposing offshore energy exploration is the environment. They bring up a spill that occurred nearly forty years ago in California, and of course, the nearly 20-year-old Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska.

But as the experiences with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and the improvements made in tankers show, technology, safety and protections have improved dramatically. This is nicely reported in a June 30 cover story in Investor’s Business Daily.

The article opened:

When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through the Gulf of Mexico in 2005, they tore into the Gulf fleet and crippled or destroyed 113 production platforms and 18 drilling rigs. Wave-tossed rigs dragged moorings across the seafloor and ripped up hundreds of miles of pipelines.

But the actual subsea wells tied to the wrecked platforms suffered no significant leaks. The biggest spills were from onshore storage and a barge accident after the storms.

"Not only did we not have any significant environmental spills associated with wells from those two hurricanes," said Tim Sampson, manager of exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute. "But we also had no accidents or injuries associated with the evacuation of all the offshore personnel."

Despite fears that new offshore drilling risks an environmental disaster, the U.S. industry has had a strong record for decades.

The entire article is well worth reading, as it does a solid job at putting things in perspective.

The U.S. desperately needs to open up offshore areas and federal lands to energy exploration, and forty-year-old arguments from radical environmentalists that hold no water should not guide policymaking.