EU Tax on Jet A1
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most folk agree that something needs to be done to reduce mankind's impact on the planet's resources. It is much harder to agree on what that impact actually is and what measures to put in place to preserve our generally wonderful planet. I mean compared to Mars the earth is still a fab place to be! Maybe in another 200-400 years it will be the other way around. I hear you can run rockets on old tyres and laughing gas!
I am all for more efficient air travel, lower emissions and better deals for travelers. I don't accept that air travel is only for the rich - without it much of the emergency relief work in africa wouldn't happen. This new tax won't dent too many pockets in the Biz Jet world whose clients can manage the extra £40 now and then. It will however reduce the viability of air travel for those on lower incomes who want to see relatives abroad or watch a sporting event.
In my view people need incentives and postive ones tend to work better than the whip. The industry has been at the forefront of technology and it should continue to make strides towards lower emissions for 2040 and beyond. If the tax on Jet A1 goes through then the govt/EU should encourage development of better fuels that attract either zero or lower tax - something along the lines of aviation specific versions of biofuels like ethanol or sunfuel/elephant grass diesel. Perhaps we will see a comeback of the propfan MD80 or even larger bypass turbines.
ATC and GNSS should be able to offer more direct routings. MLS curved approaches could offer fuel and noise savings. If Red Ken were in charge of Eurocontrol there would probably be congestion charging at major airports by now!
As to commuting with a doubtless fun 400bhp car - at £1 a litre I'll stick to my imported aluminium machine - 4 POB at 98 mph on the autobahn she still does an average of 68 mpg! And now due to low emissions ( 86g/km CO2 ) she's road tax free in the UK!
see: http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/audi_a2_tdi.php
Cheers
I am all for more efficient air travel, lower emissions and better deals for travelers. I don't accept that air travel is only for the rich - without it much of the emergency relief work in africa wouldn't happen. This new tax won't dent too many pockets in the Biz Jet world whose clients can manage the extra £40 now and then. It will however reduce the viability of air travel for those on lower incomes who want to see relatives abroad or watch a sporting event.
In my view people need incentives and postive ones tend to work better than the whip. The industry has been at the forefront of technology and it should continue to make strides towards lower emissions for 2040 and beyond. If the tax on Jet A1 goes through then the govt/EU should encourage development of better fuels that attract either zero or lower tax - something along the lines of aviation specific versions of biofuels like ethanol or sunfuel/elephant grass diesel. Perhaps we will see a comeback of the propfan MD80 or even larger bypass turbines.
ATC and GNSS should be able to offer more direct routings. MLS curved approaches could offer fuel and noise savings. If Red Ken were in charge of Eurocontrol there would probably be congestion charging at major airports by now!
As to commuting with a doubtless fun 400bhp car - at £1 a litre I'll stick to my imported aluminium machine - 4 POB at 98 mph on the autobahn she still does an average of 68 mpg! And now due to low emissions ( 86g/km CO2 ) she's road tax free in the UK!
see: http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/audi_a2_tdi.php
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Monarch Man
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.
Possibly a fair comment, although the Sept 11th and subsequent days studies in the US, when ground temperature changes were observed when there was no contrail generation over NB. America, do suggest that the contrail generation issue in aviation may well be real.
Regarding taxation, in fact the polluter pays principle has been very effective in improving many aspects of the environment, including the aquatic environment and the use of landfills. I also note that a fines-based system has been pretty effective in reducing noise pollution around airports. However, I take the point that a carrot and stick approach is best - but how can this be approached?
Joe le Taxi, I am sorry but at no point did I state or infer that aviation should face a disproprtionate tax compared with other transportation. Indeed I inferred that I agree with the polluter pays principle, which surely clearly implies that I believe that all transportation should face proportionate charges. If other industries are under-taxed compared with aviation then this should be addressed, no?
Your second paragraph infers that basically you believe that the status quo is acceptable, and that we should happily sail of into the blue without considering the future. Presumably you also feel that those industries that currently have a tax advantage over aviation should be left alone to enjoy that advantage. Is that right?
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.
Possibly a fair comment, although the Sept 11th and subsequent days studies in the US, when ground temperature changes were observed when there was no contrail generation over NB. America, do suggest that the contrail generation issue in aviation may well be real.
Regarding taxation, in fact the polluter pays principle has been very effective in improving many aspects of the environment, including the aquatic environment and the use of landfills. I also note that a fines-based system has been pretty effective in reducing noise pollution around airports. However, I take the point that a carrot and stick approach is best - but how can this be approached?
Joe le Taxi, I am sorry but at no point did I state or infer that aviation should face a disproprtionate tax compared with other transportation. Indeed I inferred that I agree with the polluter pays principle, which surely clearly implies that I believe that all transportation should face proportionate charges. If other industries are under-taxed compared with aviation then this should be addressed, no?
Your second paragraph infers that basically you believe that the status quo is acceptable, and that we should happily sail of into the blue without considering the future. Presumably you also feel that those industries that currently have a tax advantage over aviation should be left alone to enjoy that advantage. Is that right?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably you also feel that those industries that currently have a tax advantage over aviation should be left alone to enjoy that advantage. Is that right?
So on the second point; yes, I do think government action will have a very minimal effect on the amount of fossil fuels burnt worldwide in the next 100 years. Sad, but true.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that has been overlooked is that there is no (not to my limited knowledge anyway) viable alternative for Jet a1. On the other hand, cars can run on alternative fuels, hybrids are becomming more common, and fuel cells are progressing. However there seems to be a lack of political will to support the change from petrol to something else. Not entirely surprising considering the cash governments get from taxing petrol! I am little angry when I hear politicians lecturing us on how much damage our industry does, when the alternative for petrol exists, and the one for JET A1 does not...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joe le Taxi
OK, thanks for your clarification. However, you must agree that some transportation operates at a real disadvantage to aviation regarding taxation - most notably private cars. So in levelling the playing field, as you put it, should we reduce tax on cars (which will have a major impact on at least the short-haul aviation industry, and will increase fossil fuel use), or increase tax on aeroplanes? If you want to level the playing field you have to do one or the other - it is your call.
Note that in my original post I stated "It is also generally-agreed that at present aviation operates in a comparatively low tax environment (but note certainly not tax-free) when compared with many other industries" - i.e. that at least part of the pressure is indeed to level the playing field.
Since you want this levelling of the playing field, please can you outline how this should be achieved? Finally please also note that I did not advocate that tax on aviation should necessarily be increased, I stated that there is widespread pressure for this to occur, and that the polluter pays principle is the driver in many but not all cases, Thus I asked how this could best be managed without causing too much damage to the industry.
OK, thanks for your clarification. However, you must agree that some transportation operates at a real disadvantage to aviation regarding taxation - most notably private cars. So in levelling the playing field, as you put it, should we reduce tax on cars (which will have a major impact on at least the short-haul aviation industry, and will increase fossil fuel use), or increase tax on aeroplanes? If you want to level the playing field you have to do one or the other - it is your call.
Note that in my original post I stated "It is also generally-agreed that at present aviation operates in a comparatively low tax environment (but note certainly not tax-free) when compared with many other industries" - i.e. that at least part of the pressure is indeed to level the playing field.
Since you want this levelling of the playing field, please can you outline how this should be achieved? Finally please also note that I did not advocate that tax on aviation should necessarily be increased, I stated that there is widespread pressure for this to occur, and that the polluter pays principle is the driver in many but not all cases, Thus I asked how this could best be managed without causing too much damage to the industry.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in levelling the playing field, as you put it, should we reduce tax on cars
It is also generally-agreed that at present aviation operates in a comparatively low tax environment
Last edited by Joe le Taxi; 6th Jul 2006 at 15:04.
While the argument rages on about man's role in climate change, very little has been said about the influence of increasing solar activity. Could this is because our politicians have not yet figured out how to extract tax from the sun?
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
air passenger duty
Originally Posted by TightSlot
We are already taxed quite heavily in the UK on the purchase of air tickets within the EU by Gordon Brown. Is any element of that tax for green purposes? If so, could/should that be offset against the new EU tax, otherwise we are surely subject to dual taxation?
Possibly, I am misunderstanding air passenger duty? Please correct me.
Possibly, I am misunderstanding air passenger duty? Please correct me.
it also should put more pressure for direct routing and mean that winglets can reduce the tax bill. Provided the tax is not too high it could make the industry a little greener. I could not see the national goverments allowing it to be so high as to cause signifcant reduction in air travel. It may just take 1-2% off growth. The airlines will not like that but it may also be getting of a lot better than the car user.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
angelorange,
What better incentive on aviation to get it's arse in to gear reducing emissions than a massive tax that threatening its very survival? This is the argument put forward for how we will suddenly develop a replacement for hyrdocarbon consumption - and the justification for why we don't do sod all about it right now.
A properly invested tax will have a very positive effect if put into public and private R&D. If left to the airlines and manufacturers themselves any extra money will simply be thrown back to shareholders. That can hardly be seen as a better way of improving emissions efficiency.
As for the industry being at the forefront of technology, the unfortunate side is it hasn't been enough. Reductions in turbine pollution are indeed occurring, but they are outstripped by the pace of expansion in the airline industry. As such, aircraft emissions are set to increase year on year despite technological improvements. Only by reducing the use of air travel can this even be stabalised - nto that stabalisation itself is even enough.
Biofuels are a dead end. The environmental impact of their creation is as destructive as the carbon emissions we presently produce.
What better incentive on aviation to get it's arse in to gear reducing emissions than a massive tax that threatening its very survival? This is the argument put forward for how we will suddenly develop a replacement for hyrdocarbon consumption - and the justification for why we don't do sod all about it right now.
A properly invested tax will have a very positive effect if put into public and private R&D. If left to the airlines and manufacturers themselves any extra money will simply be thrown back to shareholders. That can hardly be seen as a better way of improving emissions efficiency.
As for the industry being at the forefront of technology, the unfortunate side is it hasn't been enough. Reductions in turbine pollution are indeed occurring, but they are outstripped by the pace of expansion in the airline industry. As such, aircraft emissions are set to increase year on year despite technological improvements. Only by reducing the use of air travel can this even be stabalised - nto that stabalisation itself is even enough.
Biofuels are a dead end. The environmental impact of their creation is as destructive as the carbon emissions we presently produce.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People want to travel and they will travel - Demand for travel is very price inelastic, so the task is to tax the operator, (and in turn the traveller) exactly proportionately to the pollution each passenger produces, not to try and prevent them travelling altogether. Therefore, the %ge of the airline ticket price going to the treasury should be far lower than the equivalent tax cut of the price of driving a car the same distance. It is complete nonsense to believe that extra money going into govt coffers would find its way back into aerospace R&D departments; Propulsion and airframe R&D is leading edge at the moment, and a looting by the tax man will not accelerate it significantly.
To try and tax people out of travelling by air would be ineffective, and push them towards more polluting means of transport; plus methods airline would employ to reduce the fuel tax burden (eg tankering) would further increase pollution.
To try and tax people out of travelling by air would be ineffective, and push them towards more polluting means of transport; plus methods airline would employ to reduce the fuel tax burden (eg tankering) would further increase pollution.
Last edited by Joe le Taxi; 6th Jul 2006 at 15:34.
Dave Martin
With hobbies like Rock climbing, cycling and organic gardening I can see where you are coming from. Do you also happen to be a colleague of Caroline Lucas?
With hobbies like Rock climbing, cycling and organic gardening I can see where you are coming from. Do you also happen to be a colleague of Caroline Lucas?
Last edited by brakedwell; 6th Jul 2006 at 15:49.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joe le Taxi
A reality check for you:
In the UK, the breakdown of the actual spend on a litre of unleaded petrol, based on a price of 85 p a litre (those were the days...) is as follows:
21.5p: production costs and profit
51p: duty
12.5p: VAT
So car fuel tax = 63.5 p on a product with a retail cost of 21.5 p. That is a tax rate of about 300%. So how on earth can you maintain that:
"Accordingly, that car seat ... maybe, still undertaxed relative to an aeroplane seat"?????
Extraordinary! Unless you think that those 1 p + tax Ryanair offers are actually typical?
A reality check for you:
In the UK, the breakdown of the actual spend on a litre of unleaded petrol, based on a price of 85 p a litre (those were the days...) is as follows:
21.5p: production costs and profit
51p: duty
12.5p: VAT
So car fuel tax = 63.5 p on a product with a retail cost of 21.5 p. That is a tax rate of about 300%. So how on earth can you maintain that:
"Accordingly, that car seat ... maybe, still undertaxed relative to an aeroplane seat"?????
Extraordinary! Unless you think that those 1 p + tax Ryanair offers are actually typical?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Pardon me for being nieve..or cynical
Can you honestly say Mr Martin that you could trust a politician to construct a well though out and fair tax? come on..get real
And Dr Dave..if we are talking % semantics
1p for a ticket...then £15.00 in airport charges..of which 50% go to the government....750%
My point being that depending upon which way you want to play the statistics..you can make an argument.
The facts are clear...aircraft are STILL the most carbon efficient (utilizing carbon based fuel) forms of transport known to man.
A properly invested tax will have a very positive effect if put into public and private R&D
And Dr Dave..if we are talking % semantics
Extraordinary! Unless you think that those 1 p + tax Ryanair offers are actually typical?
My point being that depending upon which way you want to play the statistics..you can make an argument.
The facts are clear...aircraft are STILL the most carbon efficient (utilizing carbon based fuel) forms of transport known to man.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZBMAN and senoir Martin
H2 has to be produced and at present that's using normal Fossil Fuel or Nuclear power - so a hydrogen economy is still a long way off. In addition the infrastructure would need changing significantly for cars to run on H2.
Bio fuels are a reality and not a dead end - yes it's true that in certain climates the likes of oil seed rape etc are unlikely to reap benefits of production cost (environmental as well as financial) - however take Miscanthus (better known as Elephant grass) as an example - it actually creates it's own compost so you don't need fertilisers and so less machinery/CO2 emissions. It grows far better in Africa than the UK (funny that - maybe why it's called Elephant grass then!) - there it can be grown when Maize is out of season and used to improve food crop yields in season.
www.nrfd.co.uk has some good links to papers on these fuels. There's no reason they can't be developed for gas turbines.
Bio diesel can be used in just about any diesel car - at present it's blended 5-10% with normal diesel. Chip fat can be turned into car fuel but you need a pre heater in winter and beware the fishy smells!
Ethanol blended with normal petrol has significant octane benefits and lowers emssions. The latest blends don't corrode away the internals like the 1970s brasilian variety. Expect to see it used in forthcoming F1 cars soon.
Another way to save fuel is to use ground effect - remove your induced drag entirely by flying very low over the sea - not in a 747 but a specially developed ekranoplan / WIGEC vehicle.
H2 has to be produced and at present that's using normal Fossil Fuel or Nuclear power - so a hydrogen economy is still a long way off. In addition the infrastructure would need changing significantly for cars to run on H2.
Bio fuels are a reality and not a dead end - yes it's true that in certain climates the likes of oil seed rape etc are unlikely to reap benefits of production cost (environmental as well as financial) - however take Miscanthus (better known as Elephant grass) as an example - it actually creates it's own compost so you don't need fertilisers and so less machinery/CO2 emissions. It grows far better in Africa than the UK (funny that - maybe why it's called Elephant grass then!) - there it can be grown when Maize is out of season and used to improve food crop yields in season.
www.nrfd.co.uk has some good links to papers on these fuels. There's no reason they can't be developed for gas turbines.
Bio diesel can be used in just about any diesel car - at present it's blended 5-10% with normal diesel. Chip fat can be turned into car fuel but you need a pre heater in winter and beware the fishy smells!
Ethanol blended with normal petrol has significant octane benefits and lowers emssions. The latest blends don't corrode away the internals like the 1970s brasilian variety. Expect to see it used in forthcoming F1 cars soon.
Another way to save fuel is to use ground effect - remove your induced drag entirely by flying very low over the sea - not in a 747 but a specially developed ekranoplan / WIGEC vehicle.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brakedwell
Dave Martin
With hobbies like Rock climbing, cycling and organic gardening I can see where you are coming from. Do you also happen to be a colleague of Caroline Lucas?
With hobbies like Rock climbing, cycling and organic gardening I can see where you are coming from. Do you also happen to be a colleague of Caroline Lucas?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So car fuel tax = 63.5 p on a product with a retail cost of 21.5 p. That is a tax rate of about 300%. So how on earth can you maintain that:
"Accordingly, that car seat ... maybe, still undertaxed relative to an aeroplane seat"?????
"Accordingly, that car seat ... maybe, still undertaxed relative to an aeroplane seat"?????
Originally Posted by Dave Martin
Quality mate. Do you happen to believe the world is flat and aviation doesn't contribute to pollution?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haughtney1,
Regardless of the cynicism, I don't consider private industry any better at voluntarily reducing it's emissions or investing potential dividend into expensive and risky R&D.
angelorange,
The problem with biofuels is they will only encourage further deforestation and land clearing as they become a cash crop. Given the difficulties in the supply side of agricultural production, diverting agricultural yealds towards fuel production is untenable.
At the end of the day you are looking at being able to produce only a small fraction of the the global requirement which further impinges on the the economics of such production. If anything, bio fuels would be great as a local energy source (as happens in Brazil) but far from a realistic option for a replacement for avgas, or even small sized towns energy requirements.
Regardless of the cynicism, I don't consider private industry any better at voluntarily reducing it's emissions or investing potential dividend into expensive and risky R&D.
angelorange,
The problem with biofuels is they will only encourage further deforestation and land clearing as they become a cash crop. Given the difficulties in the supply side of agricultural production, diverting agricultural yealds towards fuel production is untenable.
At the end of the day you are looking at being able to produce only a small fraction of the the global requirement which further impinges on the the economics of such production. If anything, bio fuels would be great as a local energy source (as happens in Brazil) but far from a realistic option for a replacement for avgas, or even small sized towns energy requirements.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
dammit..my maths is always crap....
Your right by the way regarding representative, but thats the problem, aviation is not like the other forms of transport. It punches well above its weight in terms of economic benefit, the statistics are VERY clear on that. The vast majority of air journeys undertaken inside the EU wouldnt be economically viable by other methods, or would be horrendously expensive.
What I find hard to understand is this seemingly hysterical, and hitherto irrational attack on an industry, that has thus far failed to impact on the environment in the way that so many "experts" have predicted.
I remember in the mid 90's Greenpeace (Im from NZ by the way so I'd like to think Ive still got greenish thumbs) screaming at the top of its lungs that aircraft would blacken the skys with pollution....consume the worlds breathable O2, and destroy the Ozone layer. None of which has happened by the way.
What we need is a reasoned debate on this, with emotions put to oneside, the rhetoric that eminates from certain sectors of the scientific communty staggers me, these are meant to be scientists, not activists.
To suggest that aircraft (and lets be realistic here please) will be contributing up to 15% of the CO2 emissions in 30 years sounds more like scaremongering than hard science, they seem to based on personal bias/agendas rather than hard science.
The tax question is another beaut, when in the history of western democracy has a punitive tax EVER encouraged private enterprise to be environmentally responsible? I could understand a punitive system based on overall emissions..i.e noise regulation. but not a blanket tax. Im certain a switched on tax lawyer would find a hole in the legislation.
Coming back to the original point, airlines pay more than their fair share through more indirect costs than its worth mentioning here.
Further taxation is a non-starter.
Mr Martin
So you'd be happy to trust the government to do it?..because thats the only alternative, I think you need to get real
Your right by the way regarding representative, but thats the problem, aviation is not like the other forms of transport. It punches well above its weight in terms of economic benefit, the statistics are VERY clear on that. The vast majority of air journeys undertaken inside the EU wouldnt be economically viable by other methods, or would be horrendously expensive.
What I find hard to understand is this seemingly hysterical, and hitherto irrational attack on an industry, that has thus far failed to impact on the environment in the way that so many "experts" have predicted.
I remember in the mid 90's Greenpeace (Im from NZ by the way so I'd like to think Ive still got greenish thumbs) screaming at the top of its lungs that aircraft would blacken the skys with pollution....consume the worlds breathable O2, and destroy the Ozone layer. None of which has happened by the way.
What we need is a reasoned debate on this, with emotions put to oneside, the rhetoric that eminates from certain sectors of the scientific communty staggers me, these are meant to be scientists, not activists.
To suggest that aircraft (and lets be realistic here please) will be contributing up to 15% of the CO2 emissions in 30 years sounds more like scaremongering than hard science, they seem to based on personal bias/agendas rather than hard science.
The tax question is another beaut, when in the history of western democracy has a punitive tax EVER encouraged private enterprise to be environmentally responsible? I could understand a punitive system based on overall emissions..i.e noise regulation. but not a blanket tax. Im certain a switched on tax lawyer would find a hole in the legislation.
Coming back to the original point, airlines pay more than their fair share through more indirect costs than its worth mentioning here.
Further taxation is a non-starter.
Mr Martin
Regardless of the cynicism, I don't consider private industry any better at voluntarily reducing it's emissions or investing potential dividend into expensive and risky R&D.