It's all about the $$$$$
09-08-2009, 09:22 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
It's all about the $$$$$
Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel
From The Times
September 9, 2009
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.”
From The Times
September 9, 2009
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.”
09-09-2009, 07:35 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by cal73
I honestly thought this was an "onion" article.
Of course exceptions will always be made for personal aircraft used by the political elite of the environmental movement
09-09-2009, 08:25 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by cal73
I honestly thought this was an "onion" article.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | One giant slip in Bangladesh news
Sorry about the thread drift...
As far as this thread - I say tax the cows first, they create too much of "warming gases" already...
09-09-2009, 01:00 PM
#7
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
Let me sure I get the gist of this:
Lets tax an already unprofitable and failing industry, then hand the proceeds over to corrupt 3rd world governments as long as they promise to combat "global warming".
Frankly, I don't see why any sane person would have a problem with any of this.
Lets tax an already unprofitable and failing industry, then hand the proceeds over to corrupt 3rd world governments as long as they promise to combat "global warming".
Frankly, I don't see why any sane person would have a problem with any of this.
09-09-2009, 01:05 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by deltabound
Let me sure I get the gist of this:
Lets tax an already unprofitable and failing industry, then hand the proceeds over to corrupt 3rd world governments as long as they promise to combat "global warming".
Frankly, I don't see why any sane person would have a problem with any of this.
Lets tax an already unprofitable and failing industry, then hand the proceeds over to corrupt 3rd world governments as long as they promise to combat "global warming".
Frankly, I don't see why any sane person would have a problem with any of this.
extremist! Shame on you!
09-09-2009, 01:21 PM
#9
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,514
Cap-and-trade...the biggest tax in history which will severely impact the world economy, all under the false pretense of saving the environment. The stupid thing is aviation only contributes about 2% of global CO2 emissions annually; electricity & heat generation is in the 37% ballpark. Less than a 10% reduction in emissions from this sector alone (easily achieved via solar/wind/hydroelectric generation, or using modern processes at coal-fired power plants) would provide a greater reduction in CO2 emissions than parking every airplane on the planet.
You guys should take a look at the ridiculous hoops an operator has to jump through to register for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)...it'd blow your mind.
You guys should take a look at the ridiculous hoops an operator has to jump through to register for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)...it'd blow your mind.
09-09-2009, 05:24 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 134
The airline industry is high profile which makes us a target regardless of our actual impact. Any environmental impact we do have is FAR outweighed by the benefit to society.
This past week I had a nephew ask me "when is the airline industry going to go green"?
my response was the aviation has always been interested in efficiency. we were "green" before it was politically correct. We always wanted more range from a finite amount of on board fuel and in an industry with razor thin margins, airlines were always seeking cost savings.
No matter. All of our hard work to be efficient thus far won't satisfy the greenies. We are well past the point of diminishing return on becoming more efficient.
My guess is the future of the airline industry will look a lot like it was in the 1950's. Much smaller, very expensive, less frequency and only for the rich.
This past week I had a nephew ask me "when is the airline industry going to go green"?
my response was the aviation has always been interested in efficiency. we were "green" before it was politically correct. We always wanted more range from a finite amount of on board fuel and in an industry with razor thin margins, airlines were always seeking cost savings.
No matter. All of our hard work to be efficient thus far won't satisfy the greenies. We are well past the point of diminishing return on becoming more efficient.
My guess is the future of the airline industry will look a lot like it was in the 1950's. Much smaller, very expensive, less frequency and only for the rich.
