Payout
 

Accountability?? - Same as PFC's - Not just any joe airport can charge a PFC. There are implementation and expendature guidelines; plus, quite transparent as most if not all projects are in part federally funded and/or underwritten.

Don't PFC's do the same thing??? NO! That is the problem. Airports and the ATA have been stringently opposed to spending PFC revenue outside of reducing costs of airline operations. Several rulings have gone against the airports on this issue.

Why me!! - Well, because we use it. Right now many airports and airport related projects are funded through tax initiatives. The majority never see the light of day as they will not pass. The same reason I support toll roads versus tax increase. if you use it, you pay for it, if you don't you don't.

What about the US Transportation tax?? Not bad; but, much of these funds are used for capacity increases; i.e ORD reconstruction. This would also substantially restrict most airports from control of their own future. Simple, if MSN collects it, MSN keeps it.

Collection?? Much like XY, XC, etc, the process is already in place for accounting and distribution. Just another line item.

Plant a Tree, big deal!! Just one of MANY uses. The key use would be on mass transit options, recycled water systems and solar arrays. I love the tree comments. This as this is 3rd grade science here. You & Me = carbon emissions; Tree = oxygen emission. No tree, no you and me :)

Calculation of weight?? This is based on aircraft MTOW not individual passenger weights.

I think it was Hong Kong that did the impact study of mass rail to HKG and found that over a 10 year period, the use of rail would serve the equivelent of reducing over a million m/tons of carbon from the air.

For super simplicity and fend off the unfair advantage of regional jets in weight, would be to impose a flat GFC (Green Facility Charge).

Personally, it would be pretty cool to boast that my airport (MSN) was the first to achieve zero operating emissions.

First, it is not third-grade science, it is much more complex than the formulas you list here. Trees must be planted in tropical areas to have a functional carbon offset. Trees planted in temperate areas like MSN will not have the desired effect. You have to verify that the tree is actually planted and lives to maturity. Trust me, the issue is far more complex than just Tree=oxygen emission. If only it were that easy.

However, my problem is the verification issue. As soitgoes pointed out, much of this so-called offset would have been done anyway, it would just not have been funded through the carbon offset scheme you suggest. I believe in reducing carbon emissions, I am just wary of carbon offset as the way to do it. To give MSN as limited a carbon footprint as possible, you could require that all energy used to operate it be generated through non-carbon methods, like wind and hydro. Limit only the most carbon efficient planes to fly there, and limit the number of total planes that fly there. Restrict the number of vehicles which arrive at the airport. That will really cut carbon.

Carbon offsets might be good with the right regulatory framework, but I am not convinced its going to be there for the project which you describe. I think that voluntary carbon offsets as they currently stand are a wy for people who aren't doing enough to reduce their carbon footprint to ease their conscience without having any real effect.

As a separate note, your fee by weight arrangement is unnecessarily complex. You could collect the same amount by using a strictly mileage based figure which would be much more efficient, less invasive to personal privacy, and would have a much lower carbon footprint (manufacturing all those scales, the computers to hold all that data, the bureaucracy to manage it all generate carbon footprint).

The only way to do that would be to cease operations.