Dr Dave (oops sorry now professor
) you make some nice concise points.....
A couple of things.
However, I would ask whether is there a case for saying that aviation should face a higher tax IF the impacts of the CO2 it produces are greater because the emissions are at higher altitude
Where is the hard science regarding this? Ive read some very interesting articles relating to this, and Ive yet to find anything other than to suggest that this concept is at best a vague hypothesis..at worst..pure conjecture.
Is it not sensible to put in place a tax regime that encourages the most efficient use of these resources, and which encourages the development now of sustainable technologies?
You surprise me with this one...surely an educated man such as yourself can view history and deduce that punitive measures (such as direct taxation) act to discourage..rather than encourage technological advancement.
What seems to be forgotten here is that the business leaders..and research companies that will make the next break-through in combustive efficiency (propulsive technology etc..) are driven by the profit imperative..not by any real altruistic values. That being said..the only real way forward is to offer incentives..rather than punishment to solve this problem.
Taxation is not a viable alternative...it stifles innovation, with most people interested in avoiding the charge. Look at london congestion charging as the latest example of this, sure its cut traffic, but the revenues are 1/3 of what was expected, and less that a 1/4 of that is being reinvested.
If taxation would solve this problem, I would be the first one to sign up, however those that believe this will make any progress are living in cloud cuckoo land.