View Full Version : "Flight Taxes Needed"
fireflybob
26th Jul 2009, 00:43
A letter in yesterday's Daily Telegraph:-
Flight taxes needed
SIR The proposed tax rises on short-haul flights are 1 this year and 1 in 2010. Thats the amount Ryanair recently proposed charging passengers to use the loo. Are we to believe this will cause UK traffic to collapse (report, July 21)?
True, the tax rises more steeply on long-haul flights, but this reflects the damage they do to the environment equivalent to over 10 tons of carbon dioxide per person for the longest return flights.
Ten tons is the total annual output of the average British resident, but that figure will have to reduce drastically over the coming decades if we are to meet legally binding climate-change targets.
We trust the Chancellor will implement the proposed changes and not be swayed by the self-interest of the airlines.
David Nussbaum
CEO, WWF-UK
John Sauven
Executive Director, Greenpeace
Tony Bosworth
Friends of the Earth
Shaun Spiers
CEO, Campaign to Protect Rural England
Tim Johnson
Director, Aviation Environment Federation
Stephen Joseph
Executive Director, Campaign for Better Transport
Any comments?
Replies can be sent to:-
[email protected]
StephenM_SMC
26th Jul 2009, 03:33
How long is "the longest return flights" and how many people actually take them in proportion to total annual journeys by on UK flights? Sounds like they picked a sensationalist figure to support their argument because they cannot use normal reason?
awblain
26th Jul 2009, 05:55
Ten tons of CO2! That's 2.5 tons of carbon, so a bit more in terms of fuel weight, about 20%, so 3 tons of fuel burnt.
In extreme duration flights a 777-200LR carries up to ~280 passengers with up to ~180 tons of fuel, so unless my numbers are way off, you're out by a factor of about 4.5, if the flight's full.
radeng
26th Jul 2009, 08:55
I don't believe all this global warming nonsense anyway. The proponents can't explain the temperatures during the Maunder Minimum or why the Middle Ages were much warmer than today. Flight taxes are just to raise revenue.
Basil
26th Jul 2009, 09:20
Never mind their titles; these six are just people like thee and me.
They have no more right to a platform than you do; that's you, the passenger, you, the stewardess, you, smoking a fag outside the bar.
They THINK they're important but unless they have our support they are not.
TightSlot
26th Jul 2009, 10:30
Does anybody know what is the environmental cost in CO2 of physically producing and distributing the Telegraph on the day of publication of the letter? Nothing is 'free' of environmental cost - so are the costs of thee letter in some way 'better' than the costs of a flight. To the worlds' atmosphere, the source of CO2 is irrelevant, surely?
Avitor
26th Jul 2009, 10:52
"Any Comments?"
:mad::mad::mad: I prefer to remain a member.
Well Cryanair is wrong. Adding a pound for short-haul travel in Europe isn't going to affect travel. But what happens to this pound? There are no set environmental projects that will receive it - It just goes into Government Revenue to be spend on worthwhile projects - like moats, and MP's wife's brother's salary, etc, etc. Don't call it an environmental levy if it only goes to pay for your toilet-paper!
THAT is what the environmental lobby should be screaming against. They should also be devoting a proportional amount of their time and efforts against the real polluters on the planet. Sure aviation is 2% and may grow to 5% but what about the other 98/95%. If you can improve the power generation foot-print by 1% this will offset the entire amount produced by aviation. Power generation and surface transport can function with non-carbon based fuels - aviation cannot, at least not yet.
I invite the environment lobby to leave aviation alone and start picking on the real problems.
Basil
26th Jul 2009, 17:10
If our government really cared about CO2 emission we would be building nuclear power stations, all railways would be electric and we would be using electric trams in town. Heating and cooking would be electric and city dwellers would be encouraged to use cheap electric cars.
Our economy is in deep, deep poo and all the incompetent clowns at Whitehall want is more and more tax to waste instead of improving our infrastructure.
positive climb gear
26th Jul 2009, 20:09
A car engine is 90% efficient. A power station 40-50%. If you run an electric car, you potentially DOUBLE the output of CO2 due to the innefficiency........
Anyway- how did we move out of the last ice age.....no cars..no CO2....
The UK Government are proposing a 'fart' Tax on farmers for methane production (the animals that is!)- yet is Sweden cow manure is harvested and the gas produced is used to power cars, buses, trains...and the byproduct- manure is applied to the land to fertilize.
If they want to tax us lets spend money on this energy production scheme whereby Sweden now has less reliance on oil........:ugh:
But the money has to come from somewhere to pay for Blair Force One!
positive climb gear
26th Jul 2009, 20:16
...or perhaps we should go back to Airships- where the lift is provided by the 'hot air' produced by ministers in Parliament. That should keep the Green Lobby happy.
Or how about a S***T tax for all the BullS***t ministers produce on a daily basis.......
How can the UK be expected to compete with other businesses (in all spheres) if the tax hikes continue? It wont only be the airlines that suffer....
or is it just that Farming (not many people work in this sphere) wont lose them many votes- nor will taxing 'perks' like annual holidays.:=
Oh, and however bad the last Conservative Govt were at using the Queens Flight for 'jollies' the Labour Govt were 5 times worse!
Basil
27th Jul 2009, 09:34
A car engine is 90% efficient. A power station 40-50%. If you run an electric car, you potentially DOUBLE the output of CO2 due to the innefficiency........
Ball park for cars is about: IC:35% - 43% Electric: 90%
Agreed re coal fired power station about 50% so electric car using coal fired electricity about 45%.
I did specifically refer to nuclear power, therefore zero CO2 (other than incidental).
Fully renewable? Well why do we have wind generators? Could it be because they are cheap and in-your-face so that the government can be seen to do something no matter how feeble?
Tidal would be far more reliable but neither cheap nor seen to be done.
Just a little guilt bit - does extracting wind or tidal energy reduce the rate of rotation of the Earth?
A2QFI
27th Jul 2009, 14:07
Yes it does - just a little bit! PS I wish my car engine was 90% efficient!
Katamarino
28th Jul 2009, 11:03
A car engine is 90% efficient. A power station 40-50%. If you run an electric car, you potentially DOUBLE the output of CO2 due to the innefficiency........
Why say this, when anyone with half a brain knows that you are completely wrong, and about 30 seconds googling provides the evidence?
Diesel engine efficiency (better than petrol, so lets help cars out and use it) is 56% for an IDEAL engine. In reality rather less...40-50% at the very, very best (ironic, this...).
A coal power plant, 30-35%. However, the carbon can be captured as it is a fixed point source. And, of course, more efficient power plants can be used (coal is one of the worst). All this means that its trivial to show that grid produced electricity is less CO2 intensive than fuel burnt during transport.
90% efficency in a gasoline engine car? that may be but if we factor in the efficency of the refining process as well you quickly understand that it is total bull****.