UK might impose taxes on airlines to discourage people from flying

[pepitko]

Spotted this interesting article this morning, thought I'd share it with you. As a part of 80% cut in emissions by 2050 the UK government might impose taxes (or CO2 emissions tax) on flight tickets to discourage people from flying.

How about putting taxes on beef and milk to discourage breeding more farting cows??

The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6826794.ece
September 9, 2009

Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel

The committee believes that airlines should be forced to share the burden of meeting Britain's commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change.

Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel and ensure that carbon dioxide emissions from aviation fall back to 2005 levels, the Committee on Climate Change says. It believes that airlines should be forced to share the burden of meeting Britain’s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

The Times has learnt that it may challenge the Government’s decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow, suggesting that this would be inconsistent with that commitment.

The committee was established under last year’s Climate Change Act. It has a strong influence on government policy and proposed the 80 per cent target accepted by ministers.

It says that initially the cost per passenger of compensating for climate change would be small but would rise over time and eventually reach a level that would put people off flying.

Industry estimates suggest that the average passenger would pay less than £10 extra per return ticket when aviation joins the EU emissions trading scheme in 2012. This would depend on the price of allowances to emit CO2, which is expected to rise over time.

The committee proposes a global cap on aviation emissions, with airlines required to buy allowances, and that the revenue generated should be given to developing countries to help them to adapt to climate change — for example, by building flood defences to cope with rising sea levels.

In a letter to the Government published today, the committee says that an increase in global temperatures is inevitable and that developed countries must pay for the consequences. It says that the EU trading scheme does not go far enough and could result in airlines making windfall profits.

Under the scheme, airlines will be given free carbon permits covering 85 per cent of their emissions and will have to buy permits for the remaining 15 per cent. The committee says that they should have to pay for all their emissions. This would more than double the cost to passengers.

The Greenskies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups, estimates that the EU scheme would add £4 to the cost of a return ticket from London to Madrid and £18 for a round trip from London to Los Angeles. These would rise to £10 and £40 if the committee’s proposal was accepted.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: “A global scheme could raise tens of billions of pounds a year. You can still go on holiday abroad but there isn’t going to be room for massive increases in flying.”

[Hidden_Hunter]

yeah we know you're on your way to being broke England, at least say it's revenue raising than some bullshit about the environment

[efoolution]

Well this will help immensly with global warming especially when you consider that air-travel in Asia and South America will be up some 100% in the next decades ...

(do I have to point out that this was irony?)

[DarkReaper]

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change.

The committee proposes a global cap on aviation emissions, with airlines required to buy allowances, and that the revenue generated should be given to developing countries to help them to adapt to climate change — for example, by building flood defences to cope with rising sea levels.

In a letter to the Government published today, the committee says that an increase in global temperatures is inevitable and that developed countries must pay for the consequences.

WHAT...THE...FUCK! That is the worst explanation for a tax hike I have ever heard.
Why the hell do we have to compensate developing countries for "climate damage". I mean do we now have to pay America money because of Katrina and New Orleans??? The developing countries do not own the environment and don't have to be reimbursed for any damage done to it.

What they should rather do is invest in technology in developing countries like India or other fast growing nations. They now have the largest increase per year of emissions because there is a lot of "dirty" industry.
I bet that we can help the environment more by helping developing nations to improve their infrastructure and curtailing their emissions rather than by sending them money for arbitrary reasons.

[vikiradTG2007]

That advisory body to the British government must be locked in a bunker somewhere with only a book of Greenpeace dictates for sustenance, because they're so out of touch with the social, economical, and, dare I say it, environmental realities of today.

[AiR]

I agree that the revenue from the tax should be put to better use than build flood protection, and I think it would be weird if only the UK instituted such a tax, but if we get down to the issue, I see no problem. Airplanes emit alot of CO2, us car drivers pay for our emissions, trucks pay, buses pay, even trains pay. The airline sector should not have a free pass, they must pay too.

But there is a much better way of going about this, make a EU-directive out of it, apply to every airline in the union, spend the revenue on something worthwhile.

[tigger]

Let me make sure I have this right:

The UK wants their 2050 emissions to be 80% lower than they are now?

I can see how this will end ...

[DarkReaper]

Yeah, a reduction by 80% would pretty much mean pre-industrial civilisation.
Maybe Chuck Norris can smelt steel with his fists but unfortunately the majority can't.

[Twerp128]

Capitalism, a true free market economy would solve this. Not more regulation.

In my opinion Britain has no right to impose any taxation on it's people when it's transportation department has refused Virgin Trains routes and Virgin Atlantic slots. Virgin, a company that has placed it's reputation on pioneering efficient technology, most notably on aircraft, although they've done the same with their trains. They have a company which is on the cutting edge of energy-efficient progress and yet British Legislature slams the door in their face. Kinda hypocritical.

Why do you guys put up with this shit?

[WillDAQ]

In my opinion Britain has no right to impose any taxation on it's people when it's transportation department has refused Virgin Trains routes

The train routes are competitive, going to the highest bidder.. with the caveat that their numbers have to add up. Virgin Trains can bid a stupidly low number but have proved incapable of matching it in reality.

and Virgin Atlantic slots.

Heathrow slots are worth gold, there aren't enough to go round and it's BAs home base.. so what do you expect to happen.

The UK tends to operate on capitalism but not "blind" capitalism. If it's suspected that market forces alone will not worked then the govt. steps in to tweak the game.

[Steve Levin]

I think it's actually quite good that such tax burdens are clearly called out. My concern is that, in general, all these "carbon taxes" will simply get rolled into the cost of goods, rather than being clearly called out as a cost that consumers can see and understand. Especially as the carbon tax reaches massive size in future years.

Steve

[Twerp128]

The train routes are competitive, going to the highest bidder.. with the caveat that their numbers have to add up. Virgin Trains can bid a stupidly low number but have proved incapable of matching it in reality.


Heathrow slots are worth gold, there aren't enough to go round and it's BAs home base.. so what do you expect to happen.

The UK tends to operate on capitalism but not "blind" capitalism. If it's suspected that market forces alone will not worked then the govt. steps in to tweak the game.

Virgin Trains had a rough start with antiquated trains and made good on it's promise for new high-speed replacements. Network Rail has failed to keep it's part of the equation, and the DfT even admits Virgin's initial punctuality problems was mostly up to poor rail conditions. By 2006 Virgin Train's had exceeded it's punctuality and equipment goals.

These are government regulated industries. Therefore, the government is supposed to act fairly to promote healthy competition. It did this by granting Virgin Atlantic slots at Heathrow (Although it really had to under Bermuda II.) Yet the government has let BA get away with an awful lot because it's the premier carrier. The only thing BA has proved is that it will resort to underhanded tactics when it feels remotely threatened. Hell you could still have the Concorde if it weren't for BA's if I can't use it no one will attitude.

Just like the US special rights are granted to those who lobby with the most clout.

[Cobol74]

I think it's actually quite good that such tax burdens are clearly called out. My concern is that, in general, all these "carbon taxes" will simply get rolled into the cost of goods, rather than being clearly called out as a cost that consumers can see and understand. Especially as the carbon tax reaches massive size in future years.

Steve

Like every other "Earmarked Tax" has been in the past do you mean - Road fund licence - when did the UK spend 80 Billion on roads a year? National Insurance - when was that spent on the NHS and social benefits? Carbon tax I bet that will be spent on reducing Carbon NOT - that is going to work.

[WillDAQ]

Hell you could still have the Concorde if it weren't for BA's if I can't use it no one will attitude.

No we couldn't, Airbus / BAE Systems withdrew the Design Authority after boosting the maintenance costs beyond what was affordable.

Just like the US special rights are granted to those who lobby with the most clout.

BA doesn't really have to lobby, it's BA.

[klankymen]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't there already taxes on airlines?

[DanRoM]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't there already taxes on airlines?

May be, but airlines don't have to pay petroleum tax. It would be correct to get rid of that subvention.

[phuckingduck]

Why not just call it "Restrict free movement tax"?

[WillDAQ]

Why not just call it "Restrict free movement tax"?

Remember that you can drive just about anywhere in the UK in a day, but as it stands people still take internal flights. It's not like the US where everything is stupidly spread out

[ViperVX]

These days you can wrap pretty much anything into global warming paper and make people pay for it, this is another example. Also i am not sure if reducing let's say flying by 50% in Britian will reduce GLOBAL warming by that much, if at all, what will happen for sure, is hundreds of jobs will be lost, tourism will become more expensive, people will be forced to use cars more often, and what comes from that? More traffic issues and even "more" global warming.

Someone wasn't thinking.

[Cobol74]

Someone wasn't thinking.

Welcome to the British Government - and you are.