Calchas

^

HIDDY

We've got one of them here.

Seat64A

My understanding is that vehicles create roughly four times the volume of greenhouse gas/CO2 emissions [not sure which] in the UK than aviation.

A much more sensible approach to the reduction in these emissions, therefore, would be to ban the sale of cars which emit more than, say, 120g of CO2 per km. People would still be able to get from A to B and those who currently buy more polluting cars would see their motoring costs drop, including in relation to the sometimes huge depreciation losses.

You would never see such a proposal seriously considered by any mainstream political party because politicians know they would be hammered by the electorate.

For some reason, there is a disproportionate focus on aviation. I don't know why. There is a serious lack of consistency. Why, for example, is there no Sea Passenger Duty? UK shipping contributes the equivalent of about one-third of the CO2/greenhouse gas emissions [again, not sure which] of aviation. Why is there no Rail Passenger Duty [which would also help offset the taxpayer subsidy]? Why no tax on the agricultural products whose production creates colossal volumes of greenhouse gasses?

Worcester

I do think we need to tackle climate change and am for things like carbon taxes etc but this is purely about left wing politics and that is why I can't support people like Greenpeace because they are principally left wing pressure groups at least as interested in pushing the political agenda as the environmental.

This proposal for example it hits companies like Jet2 who have very old aircraft with increased fuel consumption worse than it would BA with a newer more fuel efficient fleet and plans to start using synthetically manufactured jet fuel made from waste (which should be in effect carbon neutral).

Worse the aviation industry is investing on research to make flying more sustainable, friction free paints, composite material, bio fuels and electric aircraft are in the vanguard, and all have the potential for the technology to to be used elsewhere. But will they make that investment if their future is in doubt?

Many of the leading environmentalists (such as Dr James Lovelock) are completely out of step with these quasi political/green groups, in supporting things like GM crops and Nuclear power simply because they work, rather than some ideological Nirvana which will not.

Calchas

I would question that number; the best estimates I have seen suggest it is more like twice the CO2 per passenger km for aviation vs "typical" driver.

But really the main damage of aircraft is not the quantity per passenger mile but rather that they allow people to travel long distances. As you say travelling by sea or by road or even rail would be similarly damaging in terms of carbon dioxide emission but the options are less practical: no one would go on a tier point run to Hawaii by ship.

In the UK general electorate, aviation is associated with holidays that's why; the implication in some newspapers is that one per year is appropriate but any more is greedy. Hence lots of discussion about the "well off" who probably are responsible for global warming anyway with all their conspicuous consumption.

Flying is not associated with business travel or freight, or even domestic UK journeys. Read any UK news story about aviation disruption and you will see the word "holidaymaker" numerous times, a word that only appears in stories about flights. It could be a flight from London to Riyadh and they would still get "holidaymaker" into the opening paragraph. It is only suggested in passing than an expatriate on a rare visit to see her family might be inconvenienced; the employee travelling for work or the anxious consignee awaiting his perishable cargo are not discussed.

But everyone knows that ships are used to bring us cheap stuff from China so we cannot have that imperilled.

/rant

origin

As I have suggested earlier the blog of one of the authors is always a good read and I find often a laugh.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2...y-from-flying/

He has linked it to this report http://blog.afreeride.org/wonkery/ which possibly outlines some of their rants.

I am not going to comment about their rants as my Doctor has advised me not to increase my blood pressure too much.

Calchas

Nice find—doesn't take long to find that the main problem is rich people [ABC1 group, whoever they are].

Edit: ABC1 is literally "not working class". http://www.abc1demographic.co.uk/ (!)

Is this a hoax?

Seat64A

I meant total volumes, not emissions per passenger km. Apologies if this wasn't clear.

From memory, and for the UK, the figures I recall are: shipping 2%, aviation (not sure if this includes military) 6%, road transport 24%. If memory serves, agriculture was much higher. Power generation was the biggest single contributor. These data were from the UK government and are, of course, subject to all the errors involved in trying to make estimates of this kind.

lhrsfo

I predict that this hare-brained idea will get even less traction than the mansion tax - and that proved an electoral liability.

If it did come in, Eurostar would gain a huge amount of business. ex-DUB would no longer work, but ex-BRU or ex-CDG would be attractive alternatives, just not particularly for BA flyers.

Behindthecurtain

BA will no doubt double the Avios needed fevers time you take a flight

Jimmie76

Silly Season has started early this year!

So those of us with family who live abroad, we're supposed to be taxed heavily for wanting to stay in touch?

Kiwi Flyer

Indeed seems like an April Fools Joke.

However it could in theory be implemented - just tax every flight and allow everyone to claim one credit back. Of course may be difficult in the case of non-UK people to identify each unique person.

Himeno

If they were to do something like this, then I'd simply stop flying BA, stop traveling through LHR and stop visiting the UK.

13901

Well, it wouldn't be the first case where an impracticable idea gets turned into a bill. Take, for example, the recent waiving of APD for young travelers below the age of 16, who are no longer children (and therefore aren't buying CHD fares). Airline don't ask/have the way of storing the passengers' age or DOB. So here you have a good idea, at least on paper, which is pretty much impossible to implement without tedious workarounds.

I'm more and more convinced that, should I ever send my sons to business school, they'll learn how the UK rulers basically dismantled a once profitable and world-leading civil aviation sector through sheer incompetence, utter ignorance and complete lack of vision. It's staggering how a bunch of wealthy individuals in Richmond and Chelsea can count more than the 100k+ people working in LHR and surrounding areas.

winchpete

I think the idea is supported by George Monbiot - I rest my case!