Yes. When air ticket prices can range from £30 to £3000 for what seems to me the same flight, pretty much (maybe nicer chairs)--I've been seeking flights to Germany this week--those rich enough to pay the higher prices will pay anything, as the already-obscene prices demonstrate, and those who can barely afford the economy price will still pay it because they're willing to make the sacrifice to go to countries they would be unable to reach otherwise.
The passengers they need to stop is not the casual holidaymaker, but the businessmen (in their suits and ties) who make countless short- and long-haul journeys every year. That's the answer: ditch business class and let the little buggers fend for themselves. They can make rafts or something. "Row, Kropotkin, row!"
Yes, it is a problem for the environment, in that current government policy is cr*p at reducing CO2 emissions. Solution - different government (or at least different policy ;-) ). One of the things that most irritates me about Broons 'green tax' on airplanes is that it is deliberately set in order to increases govt revenue rather than reduce CO2 emmissions. Air passanger levy is a set amount per person flying, regardless of the distance travelled or number of people of the same plane. This is clealy daft, as CO2 emmissions are per plane and per distance. Clearly a tax should be as the Lib Dems propose on this and charge a plane with one businessmen the same as a plane with 400 chavs going to the Costa Brava. Ergo Businessman gets screwed as proportionally is screwing the environment more.
Is it a problem for me as someone who doesn't fly to excess - no, personally the fact that the tax increases govt revenue rather than reduce CO2 emmissions is helpful (in that, in theory, it should reduce the other taxes that I pay...) Clealy an overly selfish view and not one I truly subscribe too.
So: Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour? Is it a problem if a tax fails to discourage flying, if it pays for the damage that flying does?
I've just booked a flight now, and on lastminute.com (which is buggy and lame, but let's ignore that for now) you get the option of paying about 69p to "offset the carbon emitions" for you on that flight (about 0.13 tonnes of CO2 or something). I have no idea how this works, or what they do to offset it, but theoretically, I suppose, if everyone on every flight paid this extra (it's an optional extra cost at the moment), then all CO2 emissions for all plane flights would be offset (however that is accomplished). This, presumably, is a Good Thing, and should, rather than being an option, be added to ticket prices as per a tax (I mean, it's not much compared to flight taxes is it). At the moment, not all websites offer this option, and certainly not everyone will tick the box.
But anyway:
Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour?
Tax at the moment, as I understand it, seems to "charge" humans for indulging in things: thus taxes are higher on things like booze and fags, but comparatively lower on things humans need to survive (which should include beer, but hey). In the same way as taxes on cigarettes are supposed to pay for healthcare on those who suffer from their use, perhaps therefore air tax should exist to pay for the general up-fucking of the environment that ensues, but if this just means planting a few trees, then it's not going to be much help. If it's used in researching new fuels which don't emit so much CO2, then that's probably better.
On a different peg, tax on things like ciggies seem also to exist to deter people. If it costs £8 for a packet then (addiction aside) people should be deterred from buying so many (but probably aren't). If air taxes exist to make air travel less desirable, then you're just going back to the pre-Easyjet era where only super-rich people can travel by air, and they're not going to be deterred by cost (in a similar vein to compulsive smoker not being deterred by labels saying "Cancer kills"). So tax as a deterrent leads to elitism, which isn't good.
Other methods, albeit drastic ones, would be to force airlines to run fewer planes, or limit individuals' quota of flights per year, or something. But a tax where economy seats are not taxed so harshly, but that business and first class seats take the brunt of the tax quota for the whole plane, would hit the people who don't feel it, so nobody feels particularly ticked off, and the government is happy because it has money.
Not wanting to make this an essay, but the gov't could look into cutting down on internal flights in the UK, and start making their trains better. The reason people fly from London to Edinburgh is not only because it's faster, but because it's less unreliable. Trains, in an ideal world, are economical, efficient, and don't twat up the environment. Unfortunately, British trains are also complete cock.
In the same way as taxes on cigarettes are supposed to pay for healthcare on those who suffer from their use, perhaps therefore air tax should exist to pay for the general up-fucking of the environment that ensues, but if this just means planting a few trees, then it's not going to be much help.
If that's all that it takes to offset the CO2 emissions, then surely it's going to be all the help that is needed, no?
Indeed, the only caveat to any scheme would be that the tax is spent solely on a surefire method of offseting emissions. Do you know what their preferred method is?
"For example someone on a short haul flight could plant one tree in a new native forest - a mature tree is estimated to soak up a tonne of C02.
Another idea is to fund projects with a cash equivalent to the carbon used to back such ideas as energy efficiency, conservation or reforestation in developing countries or invest in eco-friendly technology."
That's from here. It must be noted that a more popular way of 'offsetting' your CO2 emmisions now is to buy from the UKs ETS, currently at ~£10/tonne.
Oh, and please note I think that tonne of CO2 for a mature tree is over it's entire life, and not including any CO2 it emits as it decays...
Spegasaur has been having an interesting discussion</a> about environmental taxes; basically "Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour?"
As far as I see it, as long as an environmental tax does one of the 2, it is doing its job - the problem is when it does neither. Ideally it should do both - that is, it should discourage certain unenvironmental behaviour by some people, and the revenues from those that continue to indulge should be ring-fenced into things that cancel the behaviour. What should not happen is that a 'nominal' environmental tax is chucked on something, not in proportion to the environmental damage, and the revenues simply added to the Chancellors coffers.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
February 2 2007, 09:55:51 UTC 5 years ago
The passengers they need to stop is not the casual holidaymaker, but the businessmen (in their suits and ties) who make countless short- and long-haul journeys every year. That's the answer: ditch business class and let the little buggers fend for themselves. They can make rafts or something. "Row, Kropotkin, row!"
Anonymous
February 2 2007, 11:53:47 UTC 5 years ago
Yes, it is a problem for the environment, in that current government policy is cr*p at reducing CO2 emissions. Solution - different government (or at least different policy ;-) ). One of the things that most irritates me about Broons 'green tax' on airplanes is that it is deliberately set in order to increases govt revenue rather than reduce CO2 emmissions. Air passanger levy is a set amount per person flying, regardless of the distance travelled or number of people of the same plane. This is clealy daft, as CO2 emmissions are per plane and per distance. Clearly a tax should be as the Lib Dems propose on this and charge a plane with one businessmen the same as a plane with 400 chavs going to the Costa Brava. Ergo Businessman gets screwed as proportionally is screwing the environment more.
Is it a problem for me as someone who doesn't fly to excess - no, personally the fact that the tax increases govt revenue rather than reduce CO2 emmissions is helpful (in that, in theory, it should reduce the other taxes that I pay...) Clealy an overly selfish view and not one I truly subscribe too.
February 2 2007, 12:12:53 UTC 5 years ago
You're right, I should have been clearer.
So: Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour? Is it a problem if a tax fails to discourage flying, if it pays for the damage that flying does?
February 2 2007, 12:49:20 UTC 5 years ago
But anyway:
Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour?
Tax at the moment, as I understand it, seems to "charge" humans for indulging in things: thus taxes are higher on things like booze and fags, but comparatively lower on things humans need to survive (which should include beer, but hey). In the same way as taxes on cigarettes are supposed to pay for healthcare on those who suffer from their use, perhaps therefore air tax should exist to pay for the general up-fucking of the environment that ensues, but if this just means planting a few trees, then it's not going to be much help. If it's used in researching new fuels which don't emit so much CO2, then that's probably better.
On a different peg, tax on things like ciggies seem also to exist to deter people. If it costs £8 for a packet then (addiction aside) people should be deterred from buying so many (but probably aren't). If air taxes exist to make air travel less desirable, then you're just going back to the pre-Easyjet era where only super-rich people can travel by air, and they're not going to be deterred by cost (in a similar vein to compulsive smoker not being deterred by labels saying "Cancer kills"). So tax as a deterrent leads to elitism, which isn't good.
Other methods, albeit drastic ones, would be to force airlines to run fewer planes, or limit individuals' quota of flights per year, or something. But a tax where economy seats are not taxed so harshly, but that business and first class seats take the brunt of the tax quota for the whole plane, would hit the people who don't feel it, so nobody feels particularly ticked off, and the government is happy because it has money.
Not wanting to make this an essay, but the gov't could look into cutting down on internal flights in the UK, and start making their trains better. The reason people fly from London to Edinburgh is not only because it's faster, but because it's less unreliable. Trains, in an ideal world, are economical, efficient, and don't twat up the environment. Unfortunately, British trains are also complete cock.
February 2 2007, 13:38:44 UTC 5 years ago
If that's all that it takes to offset the CO2 emissions, then surely it's going to be all the help that is needed, no?
February 2 2007, 16:01:54 UTC 5 years ago
February 2 2007, 21:51:43 UTC 5 years ago
Another idea is to fund projects with a cash equivalent to the carbon used to back such ideas as energy efficiency, conservation or reforestation in developing countries or invest in eco-friendly technology."
That's from here. It must be noted that a more popular way of 'offsetting' your CO2 emmisions now is to buy from the UKs ETS, currently at ~£10/tonne.
Oh, and please note I think that tonne of CO2 for a mature tree is over it's entire life, and not including any CO2 it emits as it decays...
Anonymous
February 5 2007, 22:14:40 UTC 5 years ago
Spegasaur has been having an interesting discussion</a> about environmental taxes; basically "Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour?"
As far as I see it, as long as an environmental tax does one of the 2, it is doing its job - the problem is when it does neither. Ideally it should do both - that is, it should discourage certain unenvironmental behaviour by some people, and the revenues from those that continue to indulge should be ring-fenced into things that cancel the behaviour. What should not happen is that a 'nominal' environmental tax is chucked on something, not in proportion to the environmental damage, and the revenues simply added to the Chancellors coffers.