jungle

From The Times 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.”

__________________
Just another slave on the Marxist plantation. With the "joint Reptilian-Bavarian Illuminati" crew.

BoilerUP

I'm all for helping the environment...but the European ETS has been a clusterfark of epidemic proportions and it hasn't even started yet!

By most estimates I've seen, aviation GLOBALLY contributes only 2% of annual carbon emissions...but sure, let's tax the hell out of an industry that ties together the global economy simply because we can. Freaking idiots...

Thankfully, Obama's cap-and-trade (which will hurt US industry going forward) exempted aviation...

__________________
"Fat pilots carry less payload." - R.M. Grundman

jungle

As of now, we know nothing of any final bill which may be passed, so you have made a large assumption. No matter, pain suffered by other industries will be passed to the transport industries just as surely as water flows downhill.

__________________
Just another slave on the Marxist plantation. With the "joint Reptilian-Bavarian Illuminati" crew.

BoilerUP

You're right...I was going off of the removal of aviation from H.R. 2454 which passed the House (narrowly) in June...the Senate has not yet taken the climate bill up.

__________________
"Fat pilots carry less payload." - R.M. Grundman

Winged Wheeler

Many of these numbers are estimates, and all are apt to be manipulated by their owners. Still, let's go with that 2% number.

I think what you meant to say is 2% of industrial emissions. Industrial emissions are something like 4-5% of total carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year (insects exhale more CO2 each year than do humans, including our industrial emissions and those of our domesticated animals), the rest is respired by other animals, zooplankton, and the like.

Carbon dioxide, despite the increase in ppm in the atmosphere in the last decades, remains about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Whether the CO2 actually creates a problem is for another thread. The bottom line is that our industry is 2% of 5% of .04% of the annual total.

Destroying our industry with taxes will do nothing except spread misery.

WW

__________________
Lower Taxes. Less Government. More Freedom.

SmoothOnTop

1) Forty years of methodical indoctrination of our children.

2) Since the 2008 primary, the destruction of:
small businesses...
the energy sector...
healthcare...
personal wealth...

Bread lines for the masses and escolades for the ruling class to come...

and because of #1 above, we're too dumb to notice...

__________________
I'm moving to Canada...wait a second???

Eck4Life

It seems to me to be a redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Whether you agree with that or not, it can only be detrimental to our industry and private businesses in general.

__________________
Another bed bug is out of action!