EU Tax on Jet A1 [Archive]

brakedwell

5th Jul 2006, 07:02

The greens and the greedy are out to get their pounds of flesh!
The Times July 05, 2006
Air fares 'to double' as Europe votes for green tax
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.
MEPs voted in favour of the “immediate introduction” of a tax on jet fuel for flights within the 25 member states of the EU. The charge would double the cost of millions of budget airline flights.
They also accepted a recommendation for a special emissions trading scheme for the aviation industry, which would see airlines buying permits to cover their output of carbon dioxide.
Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, and flights within Europe are on course to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.
British Airways and other European airlines have been lobbying for a more lenient scheme that would compensate for only a small portion of their emissions and cost the average passenger less than £1.50 per flight.
But the parliament rejected BA’s argument that the impact of aviation on the environment was not sufficiently understood and, therefore, the scheme should be limited.
MEPs voted by 439 to 74 to adopt proposals drafted by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MEP for southeast England. There were 102 abstentions.
The main proposal was for airlines to be forced to buy emissions permits within a separate trading scheme dedicated to aviation, with a specific cap on the amount of CO2.
BA had wanted to be allowed virtually unlimited growth by being able to buy cheap surplus permits from other industries.
The parliament also dismissed BA’s proposal for airlines to be allocated free permits to cover their existing level of emissions. BA wanted the scheme to focus on additional flights.
The MEPs said that the scheme should cover all flights arriving at or departing from EU airports rather than just intra-EU flights, as had been proposed by BA. But the scheme is likely to be limited to flights within Europe in the early years to avoid legal challenges from the United States and other countries. MEPs also accepted the proposal for a separate environmental tax to cover the impact of nitrogen oxides and condensation trails emitted by aircraft.
When emitted at altitude, these emissions trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. The parliament accepted that aviation’s total contribution to global warming was two to four times greater than the impact of CO2 alone, and that airlines should be forced to pay for this.
The GreenSkies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups that opposes the growth of aviation, said passengers would have to pay up to £20 per flight, or £40 return, to cover the cost of purchasing just the CO2 permits for flights within Europe. A jet fuel tax and an environmental tax would push ticket prices up even further but the costs are harder to quantify.
Jeff Gazzard, of the alliance, said: “The huge European Parliament majority shows that MEPs overwhelmingly recognise that air transport’s greenhouse gas emissions are out of control and urgent action to control them is long overdue.”
The parliament’s vote will strongly influence legislation being drafted by the European Commission and due to be debated later this year. The emissions trading scheme is due to be introduced in 2008 but commission officials admit it could be delayed until 2010.

ORAC

5th Jul 2006, 07:09

The Times: Air fares 'to double' as Europe votes for green tax

AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.

MEPs voted in favour of the “immediate introduction” of a tax on jet fuel for flights within the 25 member states of the EU. The charge would double the cost of millions of budget airline flights. They also accepted a recommendation for a special emissions trading scheme for the aviation industry, which would see airlines buying permits to cover their output of carbon dioxide.......

MEPs voted by 439 to 74 to adopt proposals drafted by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MEP for southeast England. There were 102 abstentions. The main proposal was for airlines to be forced to buy emissions permits within a separate trading scheme dedicated to aviation, with a specific cap on the amount of CO2......

The MEPs said that the scheme should cover all flights arriving at or departing from EU airports rather than just intra-EU flights...... But the scheme is likely to be limited to flights within Europe in the early years to avoid legal challenges from the United States and other countries. MEPs also accepted the proposal for a separate environmental tax to cover the impact of nitrogen oxides and condensation trails emitted by aircraft......

The GreenSkies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups that opposes the growth of aviation, said passengers would have to pay up to £20 per flight, or £40 return, to cover the cost of purchasing just the CO2 permits for flights within Europe. A jet fuel tax and an environmental tax would push ticket prices up even further but the costs are harder to quantify.......

The parliament’s vote will strongly influence legislation being drafted by the European Commission and due to be debated later this year. The emissions trading scheme is due to be introduced in 2008 but commission officials admit it could be delayed until 2010.......

ZFT

5th Jul 2006, 07:36

Very ‘sensible’ tax on an industry that, according to IATA lost US$7.4 Billion globally in 2005.

Goodness knows what would happen if our industry ever returns a profit?

LowNSlow

5th Jul 2006, 07:52

Another barmy scheme to make European flying the most expensive and therefore least attractive to customers.

If they are really trying to go green rather than just pour money into the various chancellor's coffers surely an "environmental" charge would be better than VAT on fuel. At least this would throw an equal cost burden on non-European airlines operating into Europe.

Still think the overall concept is pish though.

757manipulator

5th Jul 2006, 08:39

Nicely done, slap an "environmental" tax on an industry that contributes just under 2% of the worlds green house emissions:hmm:

Good old EU...rather than offering incentives to reduce emissions..just make some money off it:yuk:

Sailor Vee

5th Jul 2006, 08:40

Where will these taxes go? How do you wipe out contrails with money? Pound to a pinch of sh1t, the chancellors who hold the purse strings will not be feeding it into making a 'greener' environment. Wonder what the Green Party will do when they see the cash being used for any other purpose?

PAXboy

5th Jul 2006, 08:44

LowNSlow this would throw an equal cost burden on non-European airlines operating into Europe.That will not happen any time soon. The complaints from the rest of the world would prevent the legislation getting through. Folks like Qantas would be having hysterics at their costs of getting freight and slf to Europe, so the legal challenges would go to the WTO and the USA would prevent them.

When this eventually starts (proposed for 2008 and probably 1010), it will be the global trial which, if deemed successful, will then be taken up by other countries and zones. It may not be nice but we can either use up the oil in the planet quickly or slightly less quickly.

Airbus Unplugged

5th Jul 2006, 08:46

Formidable mes Bruxelles amis!

Will you also be putting VAT on tractor fuel in France?:ugh:

boogie-nicey

5th Jul 2006, 08:56

A dark day indeed, I hold my head in my hands ......

The extra taxes will be dissipitated into thin air and will contribute to nothing and almost no one. Let's not forget the country is at war in the Middle East and therefore needs to pay massive amounts every month. Coupled with the unstrained spending on needless social projects we are heading for a BIG hangover after and the mess of last night's party will have to be cleared up by someone, somewhere.

The taxes will hurt the economy quite hard and will have no environmental benefit. Other continents are racing away and we are going the opposite way. Looks like US, China, India and anyone else with more than one brain cell will be able to fly in and out of Heathrow without this burden and give rise to an unlevel playing field. We pay nonsense taxes on air travel anyway so why this bull. Labour (whether old or new) will never be the party of economics or prosperity. It's enough to make you want to throw up ... hopefully over Gordoan Brown's suit (though in this day and age that would be classed as terrorism).

Gnirren

5th Jul 2006, 08:58

Sweden has its own version of it already, although not yet implemented. It's "#€ bull**** is what it is. Hey, if we're really lucky we might get slapped with EU taxes and then swedish taxes on top of it all! Right before we go back to horse and carriage/sailboats. Christ...

The SSK

5th Jul 2006, 08:58

Before you get all jingoistic, this measure has been steered almost single-handedly by a Member of the European Parliament elected democratically by a British constituency (Caroline Lucas MEP).

As far as she is concerned, it has got nothing to do with raising exchequer revenue and everything to do with reducing the amount of flying by - how much? Only she knows. Probably at least 30%, maybe 50%.

The European Commission, the 'unelected bureaucrats' so beloved of the Little Englanders, think her package of measures stinks.

James 1077

5th Jul 2006, 09:26

Before you get all jingoistic, this measure has been steered almost single-handedly by a Member of the European Parliament elected democratically by a British constituency (Caroline Lucas MEP).

Sorry, since when were the European elections democratic? Nobody votes in them as nobody wants them but there isn't an option to say "Eff off to the lot of you, if I want to piss my money up a wall I'll do it myself"

Norman Stanley Fletcher

5th Jul 2006, 09:26

Anyone who has had the misfortune to listen to any 'debate' in the European Parliament will have noted how similar an occasion it is to the Madhatter's Tea Party in 'Alice in Wonderland'. It has become a losers' paradise where any sniff of common sense is outlawed in favour of Planet Tharg policies championed by the Greens. Many of these people would only feel happy if we were all living in tents woven from spider silk and sat around in the lotus positing meditating on some book that brings us closer to the 'inner self'. The purists among them would, of course, dispense with the book since it is a wicked implement of technocracy, only made possible by the murder of an innocent tree.

The truly dreadful thing is that the nutter fringe now hold considerable sway in our society. Whilst countries like India and China are industrialing at a staggering rate, the Buffoons of Brussels proudly reduce us to agricultural economies that have no possibility of competing in the global market. Their 'head in a shoebox' mentality fails to grasp the huge industrial strides being made by our competition who have no such scruples. To embrace concepts of profit and loss is to admit to being yesterday's man. As our inexorable rush to industrial disaster continues, we will find ourselves with less technical know-how than other nations who see oil as a commodity to be used. The end result will be a second rate society eclipsed on every side by harder working, more informed nations. No doubt the bunnies will be bouncing in their burrows in delight at the thought of no roads, no ships, no cars, no planes, no noise and no fumes. Their joy will in the final analysis be tempered by the harsh reality of no jobs, no industrial base, no enterprise culture and no hospitals to treat the sick as we have no economy to pay for them. Not to worry though, the Chinese and the Indians will be dominating every aspect of the world economy by then and you may find that they have a slightly different perspective on how to run things!

easyprison

5th Jul 2006, 09:30

This has been coming for a long time. It's going to place serious pressure on airlines especially the low cost market which has been resisting fuel surcharges. The threat of VAT on fuel may even tip a few over the edge. I’m worried I work for one.

I’m sure some of the old European Legacy airlines will be looking after the European MEP’s making sure VAT on fuel does come into force, nothing a few first class seats can’t persuade!

….but of course, this will apply to only routes flown in Europe and long haul flights will escape VAT for a little longer

:=

potkettleblack

5th Jul 2006, 09:31

So who gets the money and what is it going to be used for? I didn't think there was anyway to mend the Ozone layer or whatever these people think aircraft emissions are harming. Perhaps they will give the cash to engine manufacturers or fuel companies to improve the efficiency? Er no...on second thoughts they will probably throw it into the EU coffers and spend it. Remember those are the EU coffers that haven't once had an unqualified audit report issued as the auditors cannot validate where vast sums of our taxes have gone to. Nice.

The SSK

5th Jul 2006, 09:43

I’m sure some of the old European Legacy airlines will be looking after the European MEP’s making sure VAT on fuel does come into force, nothing a few first class seats can’t persuade!
I think you'll find that the majors have been fighting this every bit as hard as the loco's.
Ms Lucas yesterday in the Guardian:
When six of the most powerful airline representatives in Europe club together to call your work "unbalanced" and "misinformed", you suspect they're feeling just a bit defensive. And, as a legislator, you also begin to suspect you're on the right lines.
Being the draughtswoman of European parliamentary proposals to tackle the aviation industry's growing contribution to climate change, I have been the subject of a concerted lobbying effort by the Association of European Airlines (AEA) as its members wake up to the fact that they might be forced to cut their emissions, and therefore their expansion plans, as early as 2008.
A 30% cut in commercial aviation (I pull a figure out of the air) will affect everybody in the industry. That's 30% fewer jobs - at airports, in ATC, as well as in the airlines, majors as well as locos.

brakedwell

5th Jul 2006, 09:51

Surcharges have become a rip-off. If this load of s**te comes to pass, I'll stop flying to Munich to visit my family and drive instead. Four litres of supercharged fun, 400bhp, 23mpg and sod the po-faced Caroline Lucas and her misguided Greens. :\ :\ :\

Kiwi red

5th Jul 2006, 09:54

Believe it or not the ozone hole in the atmosphere over parts of the Sounthern Hemisphere have began to shrink. But as for what has caused this to happen I don't know. The greens will of course say it's because we are more green now but if that was the case then why did it happen to begin with as there's not many industrial countries down there.

As for the new tax I can only see that there will be more airlines going bankrupt and of course prices going up with the ones that remain. It will be interesting to see what the industry's reaction to this will be - none so far as I can see. Also if avaition is so bad for the environment then why is European money being spent to help airports increase in size eg Madrid, Barcelona to name just a few.....

paulthornton

5th Jul 2006, 10:25

The threat of VAT on fuel may even tip a few over the edge. I’m worried I work for one.

Not wishing to sound dumb, but if VAT is applied to Jet A1 then surely the airlines will simply reclaim it in the same way that they reclaim any other VAT component of any purchase. I find it hard to believe that any airline's turnover is below the VAT registration threshold... :confused:

There maybe something magic which says "Thou shalt not reclaim VAT on fuel if you are an airline and we start charging it" in which case HMRC (and their European brethren) have got you by the short and curlies :(

757manipulator

5th Jul 2006, 10:37

Just read some info on Carolines website.......it seems she is determined to have us all go back to the ploughshare...and horse and cart:hmm:

Freehills

5th Jul 2006, 10:41

Presume they mean VAT on airline tickets...?

Meh, good luck to us all. I remember in one discussion meeting, the manufacturers warning that some of the EU greens were looking at banning all flights >8 hours, on the basis that flights longer than that are much more inefficient energy wise. (carrying fuel to burn fuel)

But as PAXBOY points out - difficult one to argue against. If the Europeans want to encourage fuel efficiency (massive taxes on petrol etc.) then it is their right, for intra EU flights at least. Reducing demand is the whole point.

But just seen VERY interesting US gasoline numbers. Price went up 30% over last year, but consumption INCREASED 0.9%. Many people have no choice but to travel, so demand may not be hit as bad as the greens hope

LGS6753

5th Jul 2006, 11:17

Oh dear, yet another simple minded moron failing to understand that legislating almost always doesn't work.

The loony's proposal - tax aeroplanes because they pollute the atmosphere.
What happens next - USA will not apply it and will not allow it to be introduced on trans-atlantic flights.
Then - rest of the world goes along with the US, or does nothing (same thing).
Result - fares in Europe increase. It becomes cheaper to fly long-haul. People choose Florida, Dubai, Thailand in ever greater numbers.

The next loony complaint - everyone's flying long-haul and polluting the atmosphere even more than before I crept out of my swamp.

If she can't see that, Caroline Lucas needs her head read.
As for the EU:yuk: :yuk: , the socialists there just want to tax everyone. After all, it's taxes that they live on. Parasites!

PAXboy

5th Jul 2006, 11:28

paulthorntonbut if VAT is applied to Jet A1 then surely the airlines will simply reclaim it in the same way that they reclaim any other VAT component of any purchase.This is NOT to be VAT on jet fuel but a tax on fuel that cannot be reclaimed from govt. The reclaim is via the pax and cargo.

L'aviateur

5th Jul 2006, 11:35

I think people have become so reliant on air travel, that I can't forsee a big change. In the tourist market, I imagine people will simply borrow yet more money from the banks/credit card companies to fund the holidays, I think the biggest damage to come would be if the interest rates rose rapidly rather then the price of jet fuel being taxed.

Another alternative would be for a Hub to be developed in a non EU country (North Africa for instance) and aircraft to route via the hub for refuelling.

POHL

5th Jul 2006, 11:37

May I suggest all MEP's strive to improve the polutive effects of aviation by NOT flying anymore between their homes, Brussels and Strasbourg at our expense.
Perhaps they could walk between these destinations in sandals.
This would have beneficial effects all round. Firstly there would be few MEP's in their parliaments pontificating and wasting money. Secondly we would save a fortune by preventing them 'double claiming' for their journeys and gratifyingly we could identify them on the road especially if wearing their 'free issue' sandals (Yellow?) for 'on the road surgeries' or do I mean surgury!

northern boy

5th Jul 2006, 12:08

Does anybody really belive that the airlines are going to lie down and be trampled out of business by a few idiot greens like Caroline "back to the trees" Lucas? The reason that no response is yet forthcomming is that they are keeping their powder dry. I imagine that this particular piece of student union nonsense will be tied up in appeals and court hearings until 2020 at least.

Then we have the reaction of the public to consider. Once they realise that they will be unable to afford their two weeks in Benidorm or their stag do in Prauge or Amsterdam because some po faced misery in Brussels that no one has ever heard of is telling them so, I should imagine more than a little uproar. The government of the day will realise that they are being held accountable by the great unwashed over an issue that is both deeply unpopular and also of no environmental benefit (unless the US, China, India and the Gulf states suddenly get a fit of the greens - very unlikely), the popular press will be up in arms and the prospect of airline bankruptcies, unemployment and loss of tax revenues will inevitably cause the whole thing to collapse or at least be modified out of recognition.

The greenies, lefties, druids and general nutters will spend the whole time arguing amongst themselves over their own little agendas, Lucas and her band of medieval barmpots will disappear into obscurity and the world will carry on being run by the grownups. The greenies will by then be too stoned to remember what the argument was about in the first place.

In the end money talks and the bullsh*t walks. It was ever thus.:}

MarkD

5th Jul 2006, 13:06

Has there been an explosion from Ryanair Towers yet? :eek:

So will this internal EU flight tax apply to connecting flights? e.g. BOS-LHR-MAN. If so the economics of airlines dependent on the hub and spoke model (i.e. a certain Big Airline) will be hit compared to the point-to-point traffic with 757s and 767s the US majors are employing.

James 1077

5th Jul 2006, 14:00

This is simply a money raising ruse. If the EU really cared about the environmental issues of flying then they would sort out flight routes etc so that people could fly the most efficient routes and not burn excess fuel unnecessarily.

BenThere

5th Jul 2006, 14:14

It makes perfect sense to me.

Aviation in all its forms is enjoyed primarily by 'the rich'. The poor don't go to Ibiza, they don't have business reasons for air travel, they don't benefit in any way, do they?.

Therefore, aviation should absolutely be taxed to the maximum extent, even at the risk of destroying it, which would be good. To do so while invoking Green sensibilities is a perfect solution for raising revenue to be used in helping 'the poor'. How anyone can be opposed to this fantastic idea reflects only on their selfishness.:rolleyes:

Flies-like-a-chicken

5th Jul 2006, 14:20

A recently released article in the prestigious scientific journal Nature claimed that the way to avoid the global warming effects of aviation (through contrails) was to reduce night flights. Surely by increasing the capacity of airports so as to support a greater volume during daylight hours would satisfy most parties (except the NIMBYs)!?

boogie-nicey

5th Jul 2006, 16:24

I think the might of the industry and their tax free fuel has resisted numerous calls in the past by previous governments. This is just another battle to fight something that they are quite experienced in by now. Which government from the past didn't relish with delight the prospect of earning (I use that term loosely --- very) extra revenues from this sacred cow of aviation. They were no doubt rebuffed either at ground level by the airlines (which lets not forget are large multi nationals and can seriously disrupt if not paralyze economies) or by the government's own realisation of the consequences of these actions.

The green's are relatively easy pickings as their viewpoint is static to say the least and thus predictable. They lack true 'bulk' in most European countries and can quite easily be conveyed as the bogey man (no link to me :) ).

If nothing else they'll be engaged in legal pursuits for so many years that by the time they get to introduce it aviation may be revealing it's first new generation fuel.

People such as the greens aren't really green otherwise the VAST MAJORITY of waste is a result of home consumers. Namely the simple light bulb, that's right lets get incentives for low power light bulbs. If GE can get more power from less fuel generation after generation then why can't we have low energy consumption light bulbs please (also reduce my energy bill too). Caroline is just going for the fashionable target of the day and that seems to be uncaring, dirty and awful aviation that provides a mammoth input to any economy and directly employs more people than Caroline can imagine.

ZBMAN

5th Jul 2006, 16:42

Ironicaly, it is the greens that pressured the germans to scrap their nuclear power stations, replacing them by mass CO2 emiting coal power stations :}, apparently oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of green house gas emissions come from coal and oil power stations. Many green nutters lack any technical or scientific knowledge, so they have nothing concrete to base their decisions on.
Their ignorance is quite dangerous really, and could lead all of us to the job center at best, or in a major recession at worst. Someone should lock them up!:oh:

055166k

5th Jul 2006, 17:22

This is obviously a joke; or else the "green" lobby are completely and utterly out of step with reality..... this measure deserves to fall at the first hurdle. If the aim is to reduce air travel then how do they explain the millions being spent to develop new air services and to prop up ailing airlines? If the aim is to reduce pollution then how do they explain that it is the respective governments' own fleets [air forces] that are the dirtiest noisiest polluters by far?
Dear EU members.....put your own houses in order first....lead by example and not by diktat.

MarkD

5th Jul 2006, 18:18

Easyjet responds (http://www.easyjet.com/EN/News/make_aviation_more_environmentally_efficient.html).

MercenaryAli

5th Jul 2006, 18:43

Democratically elected what?
Nobody asked for the EU.
Nobody will admit to voting for the EU.
Nobody actually wants the EU.
The EU waste some £15 milliion of YOUR money, from the UK alone, EVERY day. The overseeeing accountants refused to "sign off" the EU accounts for more than 11 years now as they are riddled with fraud and missing funds.
And yet. . . . . .
NOBODY DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT! :ugh:

luoto

5th Jul 2006, 19:03

But the MEPs will keep flying between Brussels and Strasbourg and on other jollies and we the tax payers will pay their new more expensive tickets.. Nice eh.
Save these emissions and stop the trcuking and flying when the parliament shuffles between the two locations.. But that won't happen though.

northern boy

5th Jul 2006, 20:37

Very good reply from the orange website, worth a read. The back to the middle ages brigade are going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. I hope that BALPA and the ECA get stuck into these luddites as well, after all its our jobs at stake. I have no intention of sitting back whilst the greens try to do to aviation what Mrs. Thatcher did to the miners in 1984. Interestingly, many of those who decry aviation as a polluter were out supporting the mining industry back then (remember coal not dole?) and coal mining is a damn sight more polluting than flying. For an insight into the green mindset, its well worth visiting their website and reading their "manifesto", especially the transport bit. They hate the idea of flying, comparing it to the nuclear industry and promise to get rid of it even should non polluting engines be developed. This is not an argument based on logic or science. The green argument departed from reason long ago and has now become more like a religious cult where no argument or dissent is tolerated.
As for the European parliament, its just a bunch of hopless nobodies who never got over their days as student agitators. Next time i'll be voting UKIP.

green granite

5th Jul 2006, 21:06

Perhaps a good time to buy shares in the channel tunnel, because for trips to the near continent they will become very competitive methinks :(

Empty Cruise

5th Jul 2006, 21:30

Forgive my ignorance...

...but AFAIK the EP cannot introduce EU regulations - it can only make recommendations to the Council. The members of the council are "just" national ministers, and need therefore - just as members of the Comission - not to be elected, merely appointed.

I wouldn't worry - the appointed (as opposed to the elected) will yet save us - they have national votes to think about, and nobody wants to be the one to sell price-hike-legislation to their national electorate.

Sad - that we look to the appointed for rescue, while the elected are bypassed. The above structure is what makes the EU undemocratic, not the elected MEPs!

Therefore, not necessarily the end of the world as we know it - but I could be wrong... :rolleyes:

INKJET

5th Jul 2006, 21:36

I suspect there is a long way to go on this yet. We should start by cancelling all order for Airbus and order Boeing, this would get the attention of the French to start with. I agree 100% with Easyjets statement, this move will do nothing for the enviroment. A 737 with 148 pax on board will pay the same as a 747 with 148 pax on board, which emits more Co2?

As ever with MEP's its tax first, think later.

No doubt the the MEP's will continue to enjoy cheap (ie free) flights at our expense.

Sunfish

5th Jul 2006, 22:20

ZBMAN

6th Jul 2006, 00:12

This is indeed predictable. The fact that one fuel is taxed and another is not is called an economic distortion.

One of the factors allowing Ryanair and Easyjet to offer "ten quid" fares to hither and yon and apparently still make a profit is the lack of any tax on Jet fuel.

So the trumped up "efficiency" of LoCo air travel is actually just a reflection of the fact that they are not paying tax like everyone else.

Sorry guys, no sympathy, I guess its entirely predictable. The greenhouse stuff is just an excuse.

If you really want to scream, wait till carbon taxes bite on manufactured goods - aluminium is basically congealed electricity - usually produced by burning coal.

What you say about lo-co fares is quite far from the reality. Your reasoning is flawed since the average fare is much more than ten quid. To believe 10 quid is the price of a low cost ticket is a common misconception. Yes, the average fare may be cheaper than, say, BA, but this achieved by cutting costs, and yes sorry to say, increased efficiency, or rather productivity.
Also, we are not seeking your sympathy, but to add 40 pounds on a ticket within Europe will cause people to think twice before flying, and WILL result in bankrupcies and mass redundancies. So you may not have any sympathy for us, but do realize these people in Brussels may well destroy our lives, if they are left to introduce such ludicrous measures.
We must not let these green idiots make aviation their target of choice, since they, themselves, are responsible for increased CO2 emissions by lobbying for more coal power stations, and their irrational and unscientific fear of nuclear power.

Nov71

6th Jul 2006, 00:40

How about making Countries pay a levy on CO2 increase due to -
Deforestation/illegal logging
Slash & burn clearances
Volcanic eruptions
Spacecraft & missile launches
Military air traffic
Cigarette smoking
Concreting over the 'green belt'
Air breathing organisms (humans included) per sq mile

That should set Creation back by a few days!

charterguy

6th Jul 2006, 01:29

ZBMAN

6th Jul 2006, 02:11

AFAIAK the EU is introducing these measures because our skies are being unneccesarily polluted by locos, carrying pax that should travel on coaches and trains. Locos offer artificially low fares by 'raping' secondary airports and regional governments. And when their special deals expire, they simply move on (see RYR's move from CWL to BRS). They are thus creating an unneccesary demand for air travel and and take great pride in carrying UK rejects to some of the most beautiful capitals of Europe, so they can cause havoc and throw up in the streets. The EU is sick and tired of this, and quite rightly so. Of course it wouldn't be politically correct to blame it all on the pax and MOL's arrogance, so we have to blame it on emissions. MOL, they are coming to clip your wings !!!! About time, too.

CG

You may not like LoCos but quite a few of us work for them, and needless to say, our families and children depend on their success. Your comment about pax taking the train or coach is typical of an ill informed green tree hugger. Are you sure that a coach is more fuel efficient than an a320? On what figures do you base that? As for trains, they run on electricity (or diesel! :E). How do you think electricity is produced? By burning coal (thanks to the green's hysteria over nuclear power)! And you know what? CO2 emissions due to power plants accounts for the vast, vast majority of all CO2 rejected into our atmosphere. These are scientific FACTS, which of course the greens choose to ignore to make their point that air travel is bad, although the hard FACTS may say otherwise.
It seems you have a lot to learn about Low Cost travel, because although you may not like Ryanair (who could blame you for that?), it is not the only Low cost airline in Europe. eJ for instance are not guilty of 'raping' secondary airports as you quite elegantly put it. And finally, many European cities are quite happy that the 'UK rejects' are there to boost their local economy... nuff said!

spud

6th Jul 2006, 05:40

The EU seems determinined to accelerate it's own decline. Unfortunately, as time goes on, it will have to find more and more ways to take money off of people who have earned it in order to pay for their policicies. Hopefully, Mrs Whatsername of the Green party will never have to explain to her grandchildren why their generation have to ask for food aid from India but if her ideas prevail, it will be become more likely. Sorry to hear voices telling us how reasonable these proposed taxes are, it will only lead to Europe going into the ring with one hand tied behind it's back and so losing to the competition with no such handicap.

Think I'll just sit in a corner and worry.

p.s. Spare a thought for the French owned China Clay industry in Cornwall (South West of England), just under half of the workers are about to be made redundant. Much of the work is going to South America which, last time I checked, was outside of the EU.

INKJET

6th Jul 2006, 07:12

I don't think that the likes of Leeds DSA CWL to name a few will feel "raped" at the hands of Loco's but rather the word "grateful" will come to mind. Sure some of the people who are flying on Loco's are Gods great unwashed, but most are down to earth folks, for who a couple of weeks in the sun(or a weekend) is very important in their lives, they earn't the dosh, paid the tax, how they spend it is up to them.not you, not me and certainly not the tossers in BRU.

The IT people (charter) were the people that took forgien holidays down market in the first place, Loco's just allow people to travel to Malaga on days other than change over days.

C02 emissions are rising and airlines play their part, but this type of hike in costs is just plain stupid, it will hit low income groups hardest and that in turn will decimate airlines, pilots,airports and oveseas resorts.

TightSlot

6th Jul 2006, 08:28

Billy the Kid

6th Jul 2006, 08:37

The problem as I see it has nothing to do with emmisions. The TAX is just another way to milk the public. How else will we pay for Blair's adventures in Iraq and Afganistan? The beauty is that the EU is doing Robber Brown's dirty work.:D
Let's face it we don't have a manufacturing base in the UK. Blair knows air transport is a service economy. It can change a local region from a basket case to an economic success. I once read LHR contibutes 11% of the UK's GDP. Also jobs (skilled and unskilled) are plentiful.
What I'm interested in is how airlines could aviod the Tax. Tanking in fuel from outside the EU?
I agree with the earlier poster(or was it EJ) who said a common ATC for europe is the way forward. Why do I have to go to German Corner? I think we could learn alot from our cousins in the US were ATC is excellent:}

FougaMagister

6th Jul 2006, 11:05

If this tax does go forward, I think we can expect more tankering from out of the EU.

In the same vein, I have learned recently that some continental countries will shortly introduce a 1 Euro surcharge on every air fare to pay for AIDS relief in the Third World.

Fair enough, you'd say; who could be against more money to fight AIDS? But what's the connection with air travel (other than considering it the perennial cash cow)?

Cheers :cool:

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 11:35

I find it disheartening the way aviation is picked out for govt bullying because its customers are perceived by your average air-headed voter/politician, as frivolous members of the bourgoisee, and therefore by definition, legitimate targets for totally disproportionate levels of wallet bashing.

The shipping industry pollutes on a far greater scale and the nature of the pollutants are more damaging (eg high levels of sulphur dioxides); yet that industry is almost entirely untaxed. Trains are also regarded as the target towards which air-travellers should be pushed, yet their pollutants emit into the low level amostphere which we all must breath from, not to mention the fact that the high level of the train's noise pollution is imposed upon residences at full volume and close proximity along its entire route; not just the start and finish like aeroplanes. Cars are of course highly polluting, and this is the means to which travellers will resort, for sectors such as London-Glasgow or Paris-Geneva; particularly when the convenience of door to door travel is now enjoyed.

Aviation is already massively taxed both through business tax and tax on tickets. Maybe a few letters to the editors of the broadsheets would help bring some balance to the public debate.

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 12:02

OK, can I try to take the discussion forwards. There is now a well-established principle in environmental management of "polluter pays", i.e. the generator of pollution should pay for its clean up. There is a widely-held perception that aviation is a moderately large polluter, especially with respect to carbon dioxide. 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.

So taking those things together it is inevitable that the aviation industry will come under pressure to pay a higher levy to recognise the environmental damage that it causes. Note that most sane politicians are not talking about this to reduce current levels of aviation usage, but to limit future growth and to encourage the development of, and use of, better technologies (aviation and ground-based).

Now clearly the proposed EU charge is not the way to do this, so my question is this. What would the best mechanism for this increased taxation on the aviation industry to recognise the (surely basically fair?) polluter-pays principle? Would it be a worldwide levy on each litre of Jet A1? Or a tax per passenger km? Or a tax per seat km (this encourages 100% occupancy, which is theoretically at least beneficial)? Or a tax per passenger flight? Or something completely different?

The fact is that it seems inevitable that increased environmental taxation will occur. Surely it is in the interests of the industry to be proactive in getting the most acceptable regime, rather than having something loopy imposed upon it.

I realise that the knee-jerk reaction from a few will be that there should be no increased tax. This is however an ostrich-like reaction that ignores the realities of the environmental costs of flying, which are substantive even without the carbon dioxide issue.

For the record I am not a pilot, but am an academic in a climate-change related discipline.

Dr (actually now Professor) Dave

ZBMAN

6th Jul 2006, 12:17

Dr Dave, a good post, thanks for your input.

I think most of us here agree on the polluter pays principle. What we will not accept is the proposed increase of 40 pounds (at least) on tickets within Europe, simply because this will not only limit future growth, but will force airlines to downsize dramatically. Also bear in mind that airlines operate on very low yields (compared to their cash turnover), so any increase in tax can have quite dramatic effects. Of course, airlines can transfer some of the cost onto their passengers, but there is a limit to this.

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 12:25

ZBMan, your point is well-made and quite correct. A blanket £40 charge is a nonsense that gets almost nowhere towards the polluter-pays principle. The point that a fully occupied Q400 flying from London to Manchester would pay the same tax as a near-empty L1011 flying from Aberdeen to Porto is a nonsense.

So, what would be a more sensible and logical, and acceptable, alternative? How should this be introduced - 5 year lead in time to allow airlines time to adjust? How should the proceeds be spent - research into better technologies; subsidy of less polluting technologies; carbon offsetting; coastal defences; third world debt alleviation?

Between us surely we can actually come up with something that is sane and fair, but achieves the polluter pays principles?

Dr Dave

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 12:54

Dr - You seem to be missing the point that unless ALL polluters are taxed directly proportionately to their emissions, then there will be market distortions and counter-productivity such as above mentioned fuel tankering and switching to more polluting transport methods such as the car; and also use of 'flags of convenience' which are outside distorting tax regimes.

I also find the whole case for carbon taxes unconvincing, because all the worlds accessible fossil fuels are going to be used in the next 100-200 years, whatever governments do, so the net effect on climate after that time will be the same. All regional taxes do is put these regions at a comparative disadvantage to developing countries like China and India, whose economies will enjoy even greater advantages over the 'west', fuelled by relatively cheaper energy, and at the end of the day, gaining a larger slice of a scarce resource.

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 13:09

Joe le Taxi

With respect, where in my post did I imply that aviation should be taxed disproportionately compared with other transportation? It seems eminently fair to me that all users of hydrocarbon should be taxed. In essence I think you have provided a partial answer to my questions - which is that "polluter pays" should apply to all polluters. 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 the effects are thought to be more severe (or indeed vice-versa if the impact is lower). Similarly if contrails are implicated in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, should the industry face a pollution tax to recognise this?

Regarding your comments about carbon taxes - I think you ignore one aspect, which is that the total lag time for carbon dioxide emissions is now considered to be about 200 years. The scary aspect of that is that our current climate is still responsing to the early part of the industrial revolution. That means that even if we stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at the current level immediately, we will still see a warming trend for the next 200 years. If we adopt your policy, we will see a warming trend for 300-400 years or more - is this really responsible - even if we use up all fossil fuels. You refer to regional taxes - I did not. Presumably you are also arguing that these taxes should be global, not regional, which seems reasonable. Is it however possible?

Finally, you believe that we will use up all fossil fuels in the next 100-200 years. This has massive implications for future societies. 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?

Monarch Man

6th Jul 2006, 13:26

Dr Dave (oops sorry now professor:ok: ) 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.

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 13:32

With respect, where in my post did I imply that aviation should be taxed disproportionately compared with other transportation?

- quite simply, where you advocate an increase in taxation for aviation. The are many examples of industries that are taxed less per kg/CO2 or SO2 emitted, (I have argued the case against shipping and cars, but all industries should be entered into the emissions equation). However, you advocate increasing this disparity, which leads to distortions and counter-productivities. We do at least seem to be agreed that a Jet A1 tax is particularly bad because emissions could well be increased due to tankering. Carbon trading has merits and BA advocates its use, but the mechanics of its application have got serious flaws at the moment.

I would accept that it would be preferable to spread our use of fossil fuels over 400 yrs rather than 200, but without some utopian 'world government', it simply isn't going to happen, because those who don't sign up to limitations will always gain the advantage and burn the fuel available on the market just the same. Therefore, why must the EU 'self-flagelate' itself for no gain, while the East (and the US) makes hay.

angelorange

6th Jul 2006, 13:48

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

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 13:52

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?

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 14:07

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?

What on earth gives you that idea? - I said completely the opposite - ie level the playing field; Stop picking on the EU airline industry and start taxing other major polluters which are virtually untaxed eg shipping, non-EU airlines (some chance), etc, etc. (My second paragraph refers to fuel taxation rates between countries, not between industries)

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.

ZBMAN

6th Jul 2006, 14:14

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...

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 14:18

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.

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 14:30

So in levelling the playing field, as you put it, should we reduce tax on cars

On the contrary, a single occupied car seat is more polluting per mile than a seat on a 75% occupied airliner (both fairly typical load factors). Accordingly, that car seat is rightly, more highly taxed per [occupied] seat mile, (and maybe, still undertaxed relative to an aeroplane seat).

It is also generally-agreed that at present aviation operates in a comparatively low tax environment

Compared to other means of public transport, quite the opposite. A comparison versus the tax/pollution ratio of urban buses would be interesting. Moreover, are buses and trains not given tax credits? They certainly are 'sur le continent'.

brakedwell

6th Jul 2006, 14:57

befree

6th Jul 2006, 15:04

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.
I think taxing the fuel is a lot more sane than taxing the passanger. There would be no need to tax the passanger if the fuel is taxed so it may not add much to the real cost of flying. In fact it should make airlines fill the last few seats up as they are in effect taxed if empty or full. With so many airports near boarders it make sence to have a common EU wide taxrate. Full planes will pay less tax per passanger than half empty ones.
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.

Dave Martin

6th Jul 2006, 15:06

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.

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 15:19

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.

brakedwell

6th Jul 2006, 15:29

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?

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 15:34

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?

haughtney1

6th Jul 2006, 15:38

Pardon me for being nieve..or cynical

A properly invested tax will have a very positive effect if put into public and private R&D

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:hmm:

And Dr Dave..if we are talking % semantics

Extraordinary! Unless you think that those 1 p + tax Ryanair offers are actually typical?

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.

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 15:47

Haughtney1

Actually, your calculation is way out. On those 1 p tickets, a £7.50 tax would be 75,000% (which is what my rather tongue in cheek comment was alluding to). That is hardly representative though, is it?

angelorange

6th Jul 2006, 15:50

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.

Dave Martin

6th Jul 2006, 15:52

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?

Quality mate. Do you happen to believe the world is flat and aviation doesn't contribute to pollution?

Joe le Taxi

6th Jul 2006, 15:58

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"?????

....because it pollutes far more per seat mile.

brakedwell

6th Jul 2006, 16:01

Quality mate. Do you happen to believe the world is flat and aviation doesn't contribute to pollution?
It was certainly round the last time I circumnavigated it. Like tree trunks to hug! :E :E :E :E

Dave Martin

6th Jul 2006, 16:03

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.

haughtney1

6th Jul 2006, 16:04

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

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.

So you'd be happy to trust the government to do it?..because thats the only alternative, I think you need to get real

Dr Dave

6th Jul 2006, 16:11

Haughtney1

Just to follow up on your second comment:
"The facts are clear...aircraft are STILL the most carbon efficient (utilizing carbon based fuel) forms of transport known to man."

You are having a laugh, right? More efficient than a bicycle (last I knew the fuel that goes into a human is carbon based - or do you eat silica?)?

The Japanese government have calculated the following carbon emissions ratios (amount of carbon emissions per passenger kilometre across the whole of the fleet in that country, comparted to a baseline value of 100 for electric trains):

Railway: 100
Bus: 413
Aircraft (airline): 643
Private auto: 949

i.e. per passenger kilometre you emit 6.43 x as much CO2 travelling by air as you do by train. Your argument is quite unsustainable. However, it is true to say that aircraft are more efficient than cars (but then, the average journey is hardly comparable is it?).

angelorange

6th Jul 2006, 16:21

Professor Steve Long, at the University of Illinois, argues that Maiden Grass, the common name for the various species of Miscanthus, has some pretty attractive qualities as a feedstock for bio-energy. Also called "elephant grass" (as it can reach four meters in height), It can be grown in a wide variety of soil types, requiring little or no fertilizer. It can be harvested off-season, so farmers can grow it along with food crops. Each ton of dried Miscanthus yields energy equivalent to three barrels of oil, and a single hectare can produce from 12 to 60 metric tons of dried plant. (The lower number is a typical current yield; the higher is from an experimental stand at U of I.)

The grass appears to be hardy, but as it's not a native species, Long is taking no chances:

The scientists used a sterile hybrid of the plant, which comes from high altitude areas in Japan and produces a silver, feather-like foliage, in the trials so it would not become invasive.
"Currently, in those trials that have been carried out, there appears to be no real problem with pests or diseases," according to [Long's partner Dr. Mike] Jones.

Long claims that converting about eight percent of the land area of Illinois to growing Miscanthus would produce sufficient fuel to generate the entire electricity load of the entire state, including Chicago. Eight percent is roughly equivalent to the entire developed area of Illinois, and about 1/8 of the current farmland.

So not total deforestation then !

brakedwell

6th Jul 2006, 17:46

Gloom dismal gloom. Perhaps we ought to univent the wheel, breed more animals for fur, live in caves - and ban volcanoes, forest fires and cows that fart!
BTW. Mile for mile, cyclists produce more CO2 than a small modern car.

rodthesod

6th Jul 2006, 19:47

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)

Brakedwell Dear Sir,

An interesting article I thought, certainly had me almost convinced until I reached the end and saw 'the purpose of this website' and the links to other sites by the same author.

It seems you are a 'Chemtrailer' after all - how sad!

haughtney1

6th Jul 2006, 20:27

Now Dr Dave you are just being silly....
You are having a laugh, right? More efficient than a bicycle (last I knew the fuel that goes into a human is carbon based - or do you eat silica?)?

You are suggesting you have the time to cycle to Glasgow? or perhaps Madrid for a meeting?
Efficiency in every sense of the word....so yes I stand by my statement..a push bike hardly qualifies, you are comparing apples with oranges.

Mile for mile, cyclists produce more CO2 than a small modern car
Ooooops did you forget that us humans produce CO2 as well....espcially when we exercise..perhaps we need to be carbon taxed by the breath per minute?

.e. per passenger kilometre you emit 6.43 x as much CO2 travelling by air as you do by train. Your argument is quite unsustainable. However, it is true to say that aircraft are more efficient than cars (but then, the average journey is hardly comparable is it?).

Dave as I state below, this argument is pure fantasy, the generation of electricity with carbon based coal renders it so (which Europe does). If the electricity was generated by predominately Hydro-schemes or nuclear means..perhaps your arguement would hold some water, as it stands its as leaky as John Prescott's civil service office.

Railway: 100
Bus: 413
Aircraft (airline): 643
Private auto: 949

How is the VAST majority of electricity for trains produced in Japan? (I'll let you figure that one out):hmm:
How would you get from say Sapporo to Sendai? a train with wings perhaps?

Oh and one other thing regarding this survey...look at the terms of reference for aircraft, you will find the average trip length in Japan falls well under the 300nm range, hence the comparative inefficiency compared to a bus, but then again how many times have you travelled by Bus in Japan Dave? It takes 8 hours to get anywhere:hmm:
(I know because Ive done it)

The SSK

6th Jul 2006, 22:54

Lots of points being missed here.
And trust me, I'm at the sharp end of this debate (on the aviation side). Of the salary I earned :) today, this particular issue provided about two-thirds.
First - aircraft burn kerosene
Second - burnt kerosene produces CO2 (I don't have the formula handy but it's a straightforward x times y = z)
Third - CO2 production is a bad thing.
OK - now if anyone disagrees with any of those three, they are living on a planet that I don't inhabit.
So now we move on into more questionable territory.
4th - aircraft produce a very small proportion of global CO2
some say 2%, some say 4%, the truth is somewhere in between but probably closer to 4%
5th - it is 'generally accepted' that emissions at altitude are more harmful than at ground level ('radiative forcing') but nobody can agree how much
6th - the demand for air transport is growing. The standard figure in Europe is 6% pa but locos are driving that higher. Internationally China and India are stoking up the growth rates
7th - other CO2 producers - automotive, heavy industry, households - can clean up their act. Aviation can't - it's locked into the formula x times y = z (don't get suckered by the 'alternative fuels' argument - it's a pipe dream)
8th - there is stuff that the aviation industry can do. The A350/B787/B747-8 can deliver impressive fuel economy (read: CO2 savings) but they will trickle into the fleet mix at a slower rate than the countervailing traffic increase. The European Single Sky initiative will deliver huge benefits (did I say *will*?) but again over such a long timescale that it will merely be playing catch-up.
So - the 'fact' is that aviation makes a negligible contribution to global warming at the moment (despite the rantings of MEP Lucas) but that this contribution will grow and grow over time.
The environmentalists have one strong argument on their side. Aviation *does* give rise to external costs (pollution, congestion, etc) and they should be taken into account when pricing the product. Air transport consumers should pay a price that reflects the costs they inflict on non-consumers, and it *doesn't matter* whether this is a tax, a charge or whatever, so talk about Chancellor Brown vacuuming the pockets of air travellers to pay for Iraq is totally irrelevant.
What does matter is that various sides in this debate stop ranting on about how aviation is destroying the planet (it isn't) or how it's no threat whatsoever (it isn't) and come up with a serious, watertight assessment of precisily what the external costs of aviation are. Then weigh these up against the external benefits - for example the contribution to the mobility of Europe's citizens, to find jobs in other countries, to travel home from time to time, to look beyond your borders if you want to find a lawyer/ad agency/accountant/interior designer whatever. (God I sound like a euro-evangelist).
I could go on, but if anybody's got this far (which I doubt) they can start to develop their own ideas, they are probably at least as good as mine.

haughtney1

6th Jul 2006, 23:06

Here Here SSK...........in so many better ways than I could describe, bloody well said!:ok:

Dr Dave

7th Jul 2006, 10:12

Brakedwell

I am not sure where you got your numbers from, but they are absolutely wrong.

Assuming an efficiency of 50 mpg, a car could travel 8 km for an emission of 1 kg of CO2. A bike can travel 186 km for the same level of emission. So even if the car has 6 passengers, the the distance is 48 passsenger kilometres, compared with 186 passenger kilometres for the bike.

Haughtney1: can I just remind you that I was responding to the following statement that you made:

"The facts are clear...aircraft are STILL the most carbon efficient (utilizing carbon based fuel) forms of transport known to man."

The statistics that I quoted might indeed not compare like with like, but they do show categorically that your statement is wrong.

The SSK: good post. The question is how aviation can achieve this without wrecking the industry or having an insane measure imposed upon it. That is one of the great challenges facing the industry in the years ahead. This is an issue that will not go away, and indeed as the evidence about global warming continues to stack up, the pressure will intensify substantially.

In this thread there has been a number of posts based on at best misleading info. It is interesting how strident the complaints are on this board when journalists do the same in reporting on aviation matters...

James 1077

7th Jul 2006, 10:25

Brakedwell

In this thread there has been a number of posts based on at best misleading info. It is interesting how strident the complaints are on this board when journalists do the same in reporting on aviation matters...

And no info from environmental wackos (sorry scientists) is misleading? How about the hockey stick graph which has been disproved but is still trailed out. What about ignoring the effects of a lessening of global dimming to prove that global warming is speeding up.

What about the fact that there is absolutely no conclusive proof that mankind is having any effect whatsoever on climate.

When the world is billions of year old you'll find that most environmental wackos only look at the past few thousand years to draw conclusions - which is not a reasonable statistical population.

Yes, the world is warming up but probably due to natural changes rather than manmade ones (which if they have an effect is most likely to be minimal). What we should be looking at is ways to live with a hotter world rather than ways in, like King Canute, we can hold back the inevitable.

Dr Dave

7th Jul 2006, 10:59

James 1077

Yes, it is true that there is massive mis-information by the green lobby, and indeed there is also misreporting by scientists. However, the scientific process is to interpret data, generate a hypothesis, and then to attempt falsify it. Sometimes hypotheses are right, sometimes they are wrong. That is the way it works. At least scientists publish analyses in peer reviewed journals, which means that criticism is invited and indeed required.

The hockey stick graph was such an example - it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the data were made available to other scientists to work with. That is the reason that there can be discussion about the validity of it. However the hockey stick graph is absolutely not discredited or disproved. There is widespread discussion about the accuracy of the data, but the general form of the graph is unchanged. There are a few dissenting voices about it (that is science), but the number is comparatively small. I would like to point you to the recent papers by, for example, Rutherford et al (2005) and Wahl and Amman (2006), which strongly support the conclusions of the original study proposing the hockey stick graph, and the strong support for the conclusions of the original paper in the National Academy of Science synthesis report of 2006, which was commissioned by the US Congress.

Note however that there is no such thing as absolute proof in science - just absolute falsification. We have never yet been able to prove, for example, Einsteins equations, but to date no-one has been able to falsify them either, so they are the best model we currently have. The same is true of global warming - we have no proof, and we never will have. However, attempts to falsify the hypothesis are also falling by the wayside (and quickly actually).

I am a scientist working in a climate-related field. I have attended climate science conferences for the last 20 years. Unitil about 4-5 years ago most climate scientists did not believe the anthropogenic climate change model, and there were very impassioned arguments in conference sessions about the evidence. In the last couple of years most have changed their mind because the evidence is just getting stronger and stronger. The last one I went to (in December 2005), the discussion focussed on how strong the warming is, and what will happen in the future. Amongst most climate scientists, who know more about this then anyone else, the debate about whether it is happening or not is now essentially over.

A couple of months ago I asked one of the world's leading climate modellers what is the probability in his view that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring. His reply is that it is less than 1% - i.e. he is now 99% certain. The fact is that the very advanced climate models that we now have just cannot explain the current warming without an anthropogenic component.

You are quite right though that finding means of adaptation to warming is essential. The current warming trend is set for 200 years due to lag times, so we must adapt regardless of whether we can stabilise emissions.

INKJET

7th Jul 2006, 11:37

Firstly thank you for your informed input.

This issue (as yet) has made little or no impact in the general press, but if or when a time table for implementation is published, ie if the (EU/UK Gov) were to say that from the 1st 0f October 06 all flights in Europe (irrespective of distance) will have a climate levy of £40.00 per sector (or return) the s$it will hit the fan big style.

It will achieve the objective of reducing growth in the airline sector, it will probably cost 10's of thousands of jobs across Europe, aircraft emmisions will fall because there will be less of them flying, with less pilots,cabin crew,handling agents, car park staff,ATC guys,fuel guys,aircraft engineers,cateering,cleaning staff and of course pax driving to airports.

Yet next Summer, and for decades to come our summers will be hotter and winters wetter (apart from the South East?) meanwhile all the real scarfices that we have made(and we will) will count for nothing as China & India forge ahead in so many ways, not least C02 emmisions, and "Reach 342" continue to overfly Europe en route to the middle east with Nylons & body bags to secure the US future oil supplies.

We can and should do more to improve the enviroment and when the Greens take Nuclear power seriously, more people might take them seriously.

We can have all trains running on electricity, we can further improve how clean our cars (and aircraft) industry etc are but at this point in time there is simply no alternative to Jet A1.

I'm i alone in thinking that the clowns in Europe have taken leave of their senses?

Dr Dave

7th Jul 2006, 11:48

INKJET

I agree completely. The set £40 levy is a nonsense and will achieve nothing positive. The desire should not be to take the world back to the Dark Ages but to genuinely account for the true level of damage done to the environment, and to encourage greener technologies.

Nuclear Power - now that is a thorny issue. If I am honest, and even having looked in detail at the scientific literature, I acnnot decide whether it has a role in the long term provision of power in Europe or not. I suspect though that what is undeniable is that we will need to build some nuclear power stations in the UK in the next few years to avoid a real energy crunch in the next two decades. Beyond that I am not sure.

Finally, yes there is no alternative to Jet A1 simply because non-fossil derived fuels (and I include hydrogen as a fossil derived fuel as you need nergy to create it) do not have the required energy density.

Dr Dave

7th Jul 2006, 11:54

I should have said this earlier. If you want a location of really good, informed, scientifically-led debate on climate science, can I suggest you look at:

http://www.realclimate.org/

This was a site created by leading climate scientists to try to get around the dsitortions created by the media about climate science. Take a look - I think that it is excellent.

There is for an example an excellent section on the "Hockey stick" controversy at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

The SSK

7th Jul 2006, 11:55

Dr Dave, maybe you can answer the question that's been bugging me for years.
The very first thing you learn in school science lessons is that the most remarkable feature of CO2 is that it is heavier than air...

Dr Dave

7th Jul 2006, 12:14

The SSK

Yes, that is correct (it is about 50% more dense) . I suspect that you are asking why it doesn't settle out - the answer is atmospheric turbulence, which keeps it all nicely mixed. Note that CO2 represents only 0.033% of the composition of the atmosphere (Nitrogen is, by comparison, 78%).

The Lake Nyos disaster of 1986 occurred when there was a sudden release of CO2 from this volcanic lake. The air was very still, so the gas dense rolled down the flank of the volcano as an intact cloud. The cloud remained intact over a distance of 23 km, killing through asphyxiation over 1700 people.

Dr Dave

James 1077

7th Jul 2006, 12:22

There is for an example an excellent section on the "Hockey stick" controversy at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Yes, but what about climate fluctuations prior to 1000 years ago?

As someone with a masters in an environmental science I completely understand the problems with getting the same level of annual data looking back beyond, for example, tree rings (yes there are ice cores but these have their own problems and still don't go back far enough). However this still doesn't excuse the fact that, in comparison with the history of the world 1000 years is not statistically significant.

As for taxing aviation fuel we need to be careful on this one. Should you get a credit for flying in the daytime (and therefore producing contrails which cool the planet down due to their reflectivity)? Should you be able to offset this credit against night-time flights when the contrails work like clouds to keep heat in? What do you do aout someone who fills up on the day but actually flies at night?

Dr Dave

7th Jul 2006, 12:37

James 1077

Hmmm, not sure what you are trying to prove. Why do we actually need to look beyond the ice core record (which goes back 650,000 years now by the way)? If climate has not changed as rapidly as it is now in 650,000 years (i.e. six glacial - interglacial cycles), which appears to be the case, and if when there are large temperature changes there are also large CO2 changes, which is also the case - see the Vostok core data - why do we actually need to go back further in reality?

Science can always be blocked with the argument that we need more data (my PhD students do this all the time), but the reality is that the key long term data are already in place. Longer climate records really just fill in small gaps in knowledge. Actually what we really need, as the hockey stick argument shows, is better resolution for the tempertaure and atmospheric chemistry records of the last few thousand years, and better computers to model the system.

Dr Dave

haughtney1

7th Jul 2006, 12:56

The statistics that I quoted might indeed not compare like with like, but they do show categorically that your statement is wrong

Well thats ok then, we can agree that statistics mean diddly do..when you start arguing semantics...Im happy to stand corrected on that one:ok: .....because you are right, even though Joe average wouldn't ride a bike more than 5-10 miles for practical and realistic purposes.

transitionlevel

7th Jul 2006, 13:23

This seems to me like the worst possible news for the industry in europe.

I can see the only effect of this tax being the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs europe wide. Thousands more claiming unemployment benifits, and thousands more paying far less income tax? How can they make a decision like that so easily, do they have any idea of the effects of their actions!!!

Is anybody else terrified about what this is going to do to our industry?

Dave Martin

7th Jul 2006, 13:55

transitionlevel, why necessarily?

The only real target of this is the lo-co sector, whereas paying an extra £40 on a >£300 airfare is unlikely to deter anyone from flying. At the same time the lo-co airlines are encouraging flights between destinations that could be served by better public transport with a lower environmental impact - not to mention totalyl unecessary flights. If the levy discourages that then that can't be a bad thing?

Likewise, a £2 airfare from London to Malaga certainly isn't paying for the damage it causes. Given the growth forecasts for the carriers in question, rather than forecasting mass job cuts it might be more realistic to simply reappraise the current sky-high forecasts to something a bit more moderate.

Also, environmental impact from aviation comes in more flavours than just CO2. Increasing frequencies of flights and expansion of small airports doesn't serve a quality of life to everyone, despite the claims of job creation.

Interesting to see the b1tching about this being a European initiative. Surely the existence of such widespread air travel within Europe is the direct result of the EU?

All that aside, all sectors suffer downsizing and budget cuts resulting in the same claims of thousands being thrown on to the dole. It seldom works out that way.

MarkD

7th Jul 2006, 14:20

Dave Martin

It's a result of deregulation rather than the EU per se. The EU was around about 40 years (as the ECSC/EC) before the major surge in air traffic that open-skies brought.

The SSK

7th Jul 2006, 14:50

MarkD

The air-transport landscape in Europe is a 100% EU creation. The ability for any EU airline to enter any EU market, and set its own prices, flows directly from the 1993 Third package.
The Single European Act, which foresaw the creation of the internal market, was signed in 1986. 1986 to 1993 is pretty quick work for that kind of revolution; aviation was one of the pioneers of the single-market process, many sectors (eg energy) are still way off.

brakedwell

7th Jul 2006, 15:01

Dr Dave.
Quote: The only real target of this is the lo-co sector, whereas paying an extra £40 on a >£300 airfare is unlikely to deter anyone from flying.
That >£300 airfare is already subject to fuel surcharges of around £70. A typical European shorthaul flight, LoCo or BA, costs around £120 after TAXES and surcharges are added. Airport car parking charges are exhorbitant, as are rail fares for those using public transport. Add £40 to each sector and passenger figures will plummet al la post 91 Gulf War What will this achieve? Job losses, bankruptcies, airlines will fail and another deep recession for commercial aviation. Meanwhile the greens, tree huggers and populist pseudo-scientists will continue to push their destructive theories. Politicians will rub their hands with glee and climb on the the bandwagon to extract even more "green" taxes from a gullible public, but the natural cycles of climatic change will continue on their merry way as they have done for millions of years.

Dave Martin

7th Jul 2006, 15:40

Brakedwell,

Not understanding the science behind global warming theory is no justification to ignore it, dissmiss it as some green conspiracy theory, or latch on to any other theory, no matter how small and unsupported, that attempts to refute it's validity. Refusal to acknoledge what is ocurring is very much akin to those who refused to accept the earth was not actually flat - it conflicted with everything they wanted to believe.

Far from greens or tree-huggers having destructive theories, they were the first to point out (at considerable risk to their credibility) exactly the kind of damage we are doing to the planet. If that means I can't take a trip to Thailand every year, so be it. Our present lifestyles are an unsustainable priviledge. The effect of our lifestyle is likely to have a dissproportionate effect on the vast majority of the worlds population who will never have the priviledge of sitting in an aircraft.

Far from the "natural cycles" of climate change, by nearly every account the current situation does not resemble any previous "natural" or "cycle". Not only that, but combined with the earth's propensity to produce CO2 anyway, the possibility that global warming might become self perpetuating and the continued and accelerating release of CO2 from previously buried hydrocarbons, your "cycle" instead looks much more like the first 90 degrees of a tan curve than a sine wave!

As for your predictions that the effect of £40 on a European Airfare will be a collapse in the industry I think you are the one spouting doomsday theories. The surchagre might not be the best way of going about it, but it may be better than keeping heads stuck in the sand.

boogie-nicey

7th Jul 2006, 16:06

Care and respect for the environment is a admirable , humble and respectable thing to do.... BUT.... Is taxation really the answer seems like they are using are masquarading the cause in terms of bleeding more funds off us.

Mobility is a right, we have all contributed to the advancement of science and consequently to our society and why should we being regressing to the dark ages. It will serve no purpose to go backwards, that will merely suspend activity for the time being whilst giving the silly brigade a chance to bleed us dry too accompanied with the usual patronising overtures.

Lets initiate an agenda of 'cutting down' by introducing more efficient routing structures and get away from the lethargic post WWII route designs we have at the moment. From there we can start implementing practical point to point flying whilst initiating a reduction in ground queuing of aircraft. Lets get the B-I-G oil companies involved and ask for better and more advanced fuel blends that have more 'bang' and therefore less fuel is actually burnt, this will also lighten the aircraft too and make for more efficient trips in terms of fuel burn. However what we don't want nor need is ther blind personal agendas of the Greens who don't really have nor ever wish to have a firm grasp of the scientific basis, fact or task at hand (like a novice officer leading a dangerous cavalry charge). We need to do a New Labour maneouvre and steel the idea and momentum from the Greens and Loony left that way we'll be able to implement the ideas more effectively and in a timely manner.

The SSK

7th Jul 2006, 16:11

As for your predictions that the effect of £40 on a European Airfare will be a collapse in the industry I think you are the one spouting doomsday theories. The surchagre might not be the best way of going about it, but it may be better than keeping heads stuck in the sand.
It depends how you define 'collapse'. last year the EU Commission produced a working paper which analysed the cumulative effect of a Ticket Tax of €10 on intra-EU journeys and €30 for flights to non-EU destinations, and a Kerosene Tax of €330 /1000 lit of fuel, for intra-EU journeys.
Three different assumptions were used for price elasticity, giving low/medium/high impact scenarios. In the high scenario, 25% of intra-EU volume would be lost, and 15% of traffic to/from the EU.
The Lucas proposal opens the door to ticket taxes (VAT) plus fuel taxes plus environmental charges plus an emissions trading scheme so heavy that it would effectively be another fuel tax. No impact assessment (what? Parliament voted on a proposal without an idea of what its consequences would be?) but you have to guess that it's at least as bad as the 2005 proposals and probably a fair bit worse.
If anyone was to venture that the European airline industry could lose 30% of it's business I wouldn't call that a doomsday prediction, I'd say it was a reasonable assessment of the likely outcome. 30% less business would seem to suggest 30% fewer jobs, not just in the airlines but at airports, ATC, all the support sectors. Sure, the price-sensitive LoCo market will be badly hit, but so will any market which is only marginally viable, and there are plenty of those throughout the industry.

boogie-nicey

7th Jul 2006, 16:41

those figures scare me....

transitionlevel

7th Jul 2006, 17:35

as someone who has just got my big break on a large TP at the age of 20 they terrify me. who do you think will get the chop first?

ShotOne

7th Jul 2006, 18:38

Sorry, Dave Martin but what you are stating as unarguable fact is actually very speculative. Very many distinguished scientists disagree with what you say and are of the opinion that the case is -at best -unproven. Those making the case are often putting forward alarming statistics which are in fact misleading....e.g. "hottest summers since records began!!", while not stating that in climatological terms records have only been kept for the blink of an eye.

And as for the chap saying he felt an "environmental tax" would be fairer than VAT on fuel, let me say the distinction is lost on Gordon Brown. He will be happy to call it anything just so long as he screws a load more money out of our industry!

MarkD

7th Jul 2006, 19:57

SSK - Indeed it was but my point was that dereg was brought in by the EU later rather than being part of the EU "from day 1".

Dave Martin

8th Jul 2006, 11:42

ShotOne,

There is a massive difference between the subjective news reports of variable weather and hot summers compared with the science behind global warming theory.

The case is most certainly unproven and won't be proven until such time as we are wiped off the planet. Unfortunately the costs of inaction are simply too much, on top of the current environmental degredation of our lifestyles.

The interesting thing about global warming is the effects are being seen by in just about every field of science, whether you are studying Amazonian frogs, Micronesian coral reefs or climate change un sub-Saharan Africa, the evidence is overwhelming.

The solution could be had tomorrow, but the market isn't willing to react while it can still reap huge profits through inaction. Hence the need for government intervention. The very fact that governments are starting to pay attention to it speaks volumes. It could be the biggest con in history, but are you willing to risk it? PPRUNE is hardly representive of the wider global population. We might all have a vested interest in a continued aviation free-for-all, but the vast majority of people don't.

I really would like to exchange contact details with those madly clinging on to the shreds of theory that doubt the effects and causes of climate change. Perhaps in 40-50 years time we can get together and discuss the same matter again.

ZBMAN

8th Jul 2006, 14:24

Dave, what you are suggesting is that aviation is the major cause of global warming. It is not and you know it. The biggest cause is by far, power plants that run on coal or oil. Much of the global warming problem could be sorted by one solution: although you may not like it, it's called nuclear energy. Although you green activists don't even want to hear about it, it may well be the lesser of two evils. At least for the next 60 years, by which time we probably will have found a way of harnessing nuclear fusion.
The punishment that some green MP's would like to inflict on commercial aviation is more to do with personal beliefs and ideology, rather than logical, objective reasoning, and is completely disproportionate with regards to the actual damage on the environment.
Sorry, but you (and the greens) lose all credibility when you try to convince us that cutting 3% out of the total CO2 emissions will actualy save the planet, when on the other hand you (the greens) advocate the use of coal power plants to replace nuclear ones.

James 1077

8th Jul 2006, 19:35

I have a far better, and simpler way, of decreasing emissions across Europe (other than to get rid of the hot air and pointless breathing that is the EU). Stick a €5 tax on normal lightbulbs that is ringfenced into subsidising and further development of energy efficient bulbs.

Would cut down pollution and CO2 emissions far more than killing the aviation industry.

Will they do it? Of course not - it doesn't fit in with the current climate scare story in the press.

Lucifer

8th Jul 2006, 20:03

Dave, what you are suggesting is that aviation is the major cause of global warming. It is not and you know it.
You don't do much for your credibility by ignoring the major impact of emissions at high flight levels as compared to ground level energy production.

Fact is that it is rapidly growing, and very visible, therefore it makes huge sense to be seen to be doing something. Taxation is great - if and only if it is also introduced for all other forms of public transport including trains, coaches and buses.

Emissions trading is a great way to ensure that polluters pay without being a nominal tax that discourages the poorer consumer more than the richer one as it has the ability to be spread over all fare classes on the aircraft (unlike a £5 tax on all seats impacts the budget traveller most - even those that are £5 economy, £10 business and first for example as the % rise of the ticket is enormous for the budget traveller).

There is a huge difference between what is provable with so many factors influencing weather, and common sense of what emissions cause. A pragmatic discussion of those common sense impacts of fossil fuels and the actions that can be taken is far better than a head in the sand approach, which opens it up to attack on all sides from unreasonable greens.

The SSK

8th Jul 2006, 20:03

The biggest cause is by far, power plants that run on coal or oil.
Sheesh, where do people get these ideas from? 'A bloke in the pub told me'? 'I read it in the Daily Mail'?
Stick a €5 tax on normal lightbulbs
Now we're really in loony land. That might sort the problem on your planet but not on this one.
The way out of this dilemma is through sensible solutions. Light bulbs, nuclear power stations and ticket taxes might even have something to do with it but there is no easy answer. People who (like me) depend on air transport for their livelihood have got to hope that the Great Minds who direct our industry :rolleyes: can come up with an answer. They might not, but you had better believe that greater minds than Nuclear Man or Light Bulb Man are getting paid honest money for working on it.

Dave Martin

8th Jul 2006, 21:00

ZBMAN,

Well, I guess I must not be green - I'm all in favour of replacing coal fired stations with nuclear (as a stop-gap). But as I understand it is automotive traffic which is by far the largest "needless" producer and that is where we should be focussing, although not at the exclusion of other producers.

Fuel efficiency has dropped and car sizes increased in the USA over the last 20 years or so, while your typical American apparently drives 40% further to do their shopping (5% of the global population, some 25% of global automtive emissions). It is this kind of wasteful consumption that needs to be curbed and this extends to the aviation industry. Lo-co's have provided a great service, but encouraging people to travel 1000 kms to acessorise their wardrobes for a weekend, costing less than a taxi ride across London is insane. The smell of kerosine and the sound of a CFM56 might be sweet to us, but to the inhabitants near growing airports around the world, it is no better than having rowdy students move in next door.

It is the growth of air travel which is making the industry a problem. Yes, reductions in emissions are occurring, but they are outstripped by industry growth. We are beyond the point of limiting our consumption/emissions growth - we have to actually reduce it. The airline industry is certainly NOT heading in that direction.

Far from being a "green activist" I'm merely following what appears to be a common snese angle. Increasing populations, fewer resources and evidence of CO2 related global warming already causing a squeeze on life on this planet (thankfully so far not ours). Action is required and merely slowing growth isn't the solution.

The aviation industry is in danger of wiping itself out by becoming its own worst enemy - much like the fisheries industry has done to itself.

haughtney1

9th Jul 2006, 15:07

May not even matter if this kind of technology can be scaled up...:ok:
Ion wind lifter (http://small.zmitac.iinf.polsl.gliwice.pl/ion.htm)

brakedwell

9th Jul 2006, 16:40

I understand household/industrial gas and oil fired boilers produce a large percentage of the Co2 produced in UK. If we generate all our electricity using nuclear or renewable means and heat our houses, factories and offices electrically, aviation would be less vulnerable to the crackpot proposals of overzealous greens. Being less reliant on Russia and the Middle East for our energy needs, we would enjoy a more secure future.

Dave Martin

10th Jul 2006, 09:25

atyourcervix73

10th Jul 2006, 09:59

I've read this thread over the past few days with interest
A few things jump out at me.
1. The aviation sector needs to work more closely with regulators to ensure its emissions and negative effects on the environment and quality of life of those who live near airports are considered and mitigated.
2. The green lobby, partisan scientists, ideologists, and climatical sooth-sayers all need a reality check. The future lies in sustainability, not in the tax/slash and burn politics of fear and exclusion.
3. National governments/EU need to wake up to the fact that aviation whilst not being perfect is certainly not the big bad polluter that Mr Martin would have you believe. The reality is however that aviation is a soft target purely because it is seen by the environmental lobby as a trendy and topical argument, it is also very very visible with the rational being that if you can see it, it is far easier to identify with it.
4. This debate will rage on and on, it is a battle of ideas, rather than certain lobbyists would prefer as a battle of ideology, the facts are clear and for all to see that aviation IS NOT the major player rather it is a small bit player in the pollution of the planet. The problem here is perception is different to reality, chaps like Dave will argue to his last breath that this industry is killing the planet, there is no point trying to argue with ideology, just ask Osama Bin-Laden:E

brakedwell

10th Jul 2006, 10:34

brakedwell,
And just how long will it take the build the tens, possibly hundreds, of reactors required to do this and where? Then what? Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions?
YES - Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions. The positives outway the negatives and your theories have yet to be proven.
Hundreds of reactors???? 13 Nuclear reactors produce 20% of UK electricity. Enlightened France already produces 75% of it's electricity with 59 reactors. http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
A new generation of reactors will be safer and much more efficient than the old gas-cooled versions, reducing the number required - and they should last until nuclear fusion is mastered.
Even if it took twenty years or more to build enough nuclear reactors/hydro electric schemes and wave power generators to replace the fossil fuel powered generator, that time span is miniscule in nature's scheme of things. By then the green merchants of doom will have other targets in their beady sights.
And let's keep wind farms to a bare minimum. Apart from being noisy blots on the landscape their ugly propellor blades will require too much deicing fluid when the ice age returns!
If the nuclear option is not taken up you can look forward to a cold bleak future when Russia turns off the taps and the Middle East implodes. I won't be around to see it, but i'll be watching with interest from my hangar in the sky.

The SSK

10th Jul 2006, 10:39

Speaking from the airlines' standpoint, I don't find much (if anything) in what Dave Martin says to argue against. It doesn't sound to me as if he's one of Caroline Lucas' visceral anti-aviationists. (If he is, then I take all that back).
Aviation's contribution to global CO2 is small but not negligible. Moreover as long as traffic grows faster than emissions are reduced, that contribution will grow. The industry cannot afford to be perceived as being in denial. This perception, which is not true by the way, is constantly being fuelled by Ms Lucas.
The sector is working with its regulators. Within the European Commission, it has allies in the Transport Directorate and among the champions of trade and European competitiveness (the currently fashionable 'Lisbon Strategy'). Less supportive is DG Environment. For reasons best known to themselves, the Parliament have chosen to be led by the nose gown the Green path.

Dave Martin

10th Jul 2006, 12:12

atyourcervix73,

Aviation might only be a bit player, but per passenger it is a heavy producer and frequently it seems so needlessly. This is especially true when the vast majority of the global population receive no benefit from the service.

The industry will increasingly fall into disrepute if it becomes known for ever increasing emissions, while the general public are stung and pressured to reduce their own environmental footprint. Already in the space of a few years people have become conscious of the impact of their airtravel. The effect hasn't been huge, but it can only increase.

You mention "mitigation". We are beyond the point of mitigation. The apparent effects of global warming lag by a century or two. What we need is a massive reduction. Sustainable energy sources, hybrid engines and micro local energy production achieve this, as do cultural changes in consumption.

Unfortunately the airline industry is moving in completely the other direction: encouraging cut price flights, increasing frequencies, connecting destinations that can otherwise be served by neautral emission sources.

What would you say if in 30 years time it is airlines that are the single major contributor to greenhouse gasses? What will occur then? As I said, the industry as a whole could be headed the direction of the fisheries - refusing to limit consumption ultimately cutting itself off at the ankles and heading for a much greater period of hardship in the future.

If sustainability is what's required, then isn't it time that airlines started working towards a sustainable model?

Thank-you SSK, I'm definately not an "anti-aviationist", but as development is my field the direction that aviation is heading looks painfully dire.

WHBM

10th Jul 2006, 12:22

Proposed taxes are just a government revenue raising matter. Any connection between them and the environment is purely coincidental, except that it forms a convenient justification for them that the more gullible voters will believe.

The money is not to be spent on anything environmentally meaningful but on whatever politically-correct issue or politicians' pet projects that can get to the front of the queue.

So-called "environmentalists" are now an industry of their own, protecting their own income by generating unceasing stories about all sorts of things, different each time and many contradictory.

Both too much rain and too little rain is blamed on environmental matters, which will be miraculously cured by giving the government more money.

"Needless" journeys are always somebody else's, never our own. Do you ever wonder how the environmentalists travel worldwide to their never-ending conferences .......

Dave Martin

10th Jul 2006, 12:27

Brakedwell,

Yes hundreds of reactors across Europe alone in order to provide enough energy, at a massive expense, not to mention decomissioning costs. As I said, I'm all for nuclear as an alternative to gas and coal, but the potential of nuclear power is not as rosey as it might seem. There are even questions over the economic viability of further uranium deposits.

YES - Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions. The positives outway the negatives and your theories have yet to be proven.

That is a most disturbing attitude. The positives of car travel also supposedly outway the negatives?

The only way global warming theory will be proven is when it is too late. Until that point we are already seeing massive unparalleled ecological changes and while we most likely won't be affected by them the natural world we live in certainly will.

Will there be much demand for air travel when the tropical coral reefs have been bleached? When weather patterns are so unpredictable that holidays can't be guaranteed? Or perhaps droughts, food shortages and civil unrest at some of the most popular destinations? This is already happening. It is in the industries interests to change. That is sustainability.

As for dismissing global warming as it is only a "theory". At the moment the theory is extremely strong, and unless you may have missed it, much of the science that we take as gospel and live with every day is based on simple unproven theory. It seems to be those refuting global warming are often funded by less than impartial interests and are vocal in proclaiming their counter-theory as fact.

atyourcervix73

10th Jul 2006, 13:52

SSK
I find myself in agreement with what you've stated, you will note that I made it clear in my comments that the "perception" is different to reality in regards to emissions. I am aware from first hand experience that there are a large number of organizations actively seeking an alternative and/or a reduction in the emissions of turbine powered aircraft.
Aviation might only be a bit player, but per passenger it is a heavy producer and frequently it seems so needlessly. This is especially true when the vast majority of the global population receive no benefit from the service
Thats a rather inflammatory, and narrow view-point, the vast majority of the worlds population don't benefit from eco-friendly trains either, does that have any bearing upon the argument? I wouldn't think so:=
You mention "mitigation". We are beyond the point of mitigation. The apparent effects of global warming lag by a century or two
Mitigation takes all forms, you are untitled your view point as I am to mine, my suggestion however relates to all forms of mitigation, whether they be monetary, ideas based or otherwise, to suggest in one sweeping statement that a balanced approach is unwise..sounds like you are trying to impose rather than educate.
The only way global warming theory will be proven is when it is too late. Until that point we are already seeing massive unparalleled ecological changes and while we most likely won't be affected by them the natural world we live in certainly will.
Unfortunately Dave, that particular comment has lost any credibility you had with me, up until I read that I was wholly prepared to engage in debate with you, enjoy preaching to the unconverted:oh:

Dave Martin

10th Jul 2006, 14:09

And thankfully eco-friendly trains don't have an adverse affect on the worlds population - aviation produced pollutants do. If you fail to see that point you are failing to see that a very small proportion of the population are contributing to the detriment of the vast majority.

I certainly haven't dimissed a balanced approach, that being reductions in consumption must also accompany reductions in emissions, carrot must go with stick.

Out of interest, at what point would you decide to take global warming seriously? What would you propose takes place at that time? The unfortunate reality of global warming is that it is just that - global. Nations far removed from the typical passenger suffer and nations that can afford to continue to consume will continue to buy their way out while the less able will suffer. None of which brings us any closer to reducing emissions.

brakedwell

10th Jul 2006, 14:59

Dave Martin
You make too many assumptions. I never said there is no global warming. What I did suggest was the warming could also be due to natural causes, ie increasing solar activity. Climatic cycles have been occuring since the earth was formed.
Quote:
That is a most disturbing attitude. The positives of car travel also supposedly outway the negatives?
Again I say yes. I you live in a rural area you need a car if you don't want to starve, fall sick and be unable to see a doctor or drive to the station to catch a train. Cars are needed to transport tradesmen, children and goods. We live in the twentyfirst century for christ's sake, not the middle ages.
Quote:
Will there be much demand for air travel when the tropical coral reefs have been bleached? When weather patterns are so unpredictable that holidays can't be guaranteed? Or perhaps droughts, food shortages and civil unrest at some of the most popular destinations? This is already happening. It is in the industries interests to change. That is sustainability.
You really have shown your true colours with that statement.
Quote:
As for dismissing global warming as it is only a "theory". At the moment the theory is extremely strong, and unless you may have missed it, much of the science that we take as gospel and live with every day is based on simple unproven theory. It seems to be those refuting global warming are often funded by less than impartial interests and are vocal in proclaiming their counter-theory as fact.
I say again. I am not refuting global warming - I just don't accept it is solely caused by mans' activities. The powers of nature are far greater.
If you and your green friends get your way, politicians will have carte blanche to tax transport out of sight, nobody would travel, trade would collapse and we could all spend our time hugging trees.
Stop sitting on the fence DM. You give the impression you are for nuclear power and yet against it. For the development of air travel and against it. You are preaching on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. I suggest you go back to your Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000, Caroline Lucas or wherever you came from.

Dave Martin

10th Jul 2006, 15:52

So against the available evidence you are unwilling to accept the high probability that our own CO2 emissions are the defining factor of global warming? That does sound very much like head in the sand to me, preferring to believe in solar activity. Everything I have read can attribute no more than a quarter of the temperature increases to this phenomenon, while the current warming cycle doesn't exactly follow previous cycles and coincides nicely with industrialisation.

Again, I don't dismiss the use of cars, or transportation in general. However, our use of automobiles must be altered and with the coming of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles we are making a massive step forward. There would be no need for drastic reductions of automobile use if these technologies are adopted...

Aviation on the other hand is moving in the opposite direction. Far from providing countryside folk with a survival means, lo-co operators are pandering to unecessary travel and providing it at a price to promote. At the moment we are talking a £40 surcharge. I'm not lauding this approach, but the industry itself itsn't coming up with alternatives so this result is hardly unexpected.

I don't see how I could be any clearer in my general approval of nuclear power, but it doesn't come without a cost, so simply building a multitude of new reactors isn't a universal panacea - it brings about a host of new problems. If you are worried about the economics of airlines maybe you'd do well to consider the economics of this approach to nuclear energy. Costly and you probably wouldn't want one in your backyard.

Just what do you perceive my true-colours to be, out of interest? If you don't like the message, simply saying you don't want to hear it isn't helping you or the industry.

Dr Dave

11th Jul 2006, 08:56

Just for info, and to shift the discussion away from unnecessary personal insults, the image below shows the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. These data were analysed from the Vostok ice core, drilled by the Russians. Atmospheric CO2 is the top graph, this is as measured from the chemistry of bubbles of air caught in the ice. Temperature is the lower graph.
Note that the relationship between the two is extremely strong. Note also though that, as indicated at tyhe top of the graph, atmospheric CO2 is now 375 ppmv, i.e. off the scale of the top graph, and rising (and indeed accelerating).
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/images/charts/vostok-ice-core-fr.jpg
The data are from a peer reviewed paper published in Nature. If you wish you can download the data from the web so that you can make your own interpretations.
Food for thought, right?
Dr Dave

brakedwell

11th Jul 2006, 10:07

Dr Dave.
Very interesting. Those temperature rises and Co2 levels show a remarkably consistent pattern of peaks and troughs. The last high was 130000 years ago wheras the previous two had gaps of 105000 and 95000. Apart from the odd bonfire I don't think man could have had any influence on those figures - so what caused the level of Co2 to reach 290 & 300ppmv in the last two peaks? May I also suggest the present high level of Co2 has been influenced by high levels of industrial and domestic coal usage over the last two centuries. To blame aviation is premature.

Dr Dave

11th Jul 2006, 10:25

Brakedwell

The peaks and troughs are the long term glacial - interglacial pattern, which is caused by the natural variations in the orbit of the Earth. These change the distribution of energy reaching the surface, and ultimately drive the long term climate. Note however that the pattern is a little more complex than this, especially as the Earth tends to cool comparatively slowly but warm again rather quickly (hence the asymmetric pattern of cooling and warming).

Interestingly, more detailed analyses of these data show that during cooling CO2 seems to lag behind temperature (i.e. CO2 is not driving climate but responding to it), but during warming the two are almost perfectly in phase. A paper published in 2000 by the late, great Nick Shackleton strongly indicated that during the warming phase the orbital variations drive these changes in atmospheric CO2, which then drives climate change.

For many scientists it is these datasets that represent a key smoking gun for the global warming hypothesis, and which show that this is more thana climate scare story (as some have implied in this thread).

There is a nice review of Shackleton's work here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5486/1868

The current very high level of CO2 is indeed because of multiple anthropogenic sources, including electricity generation, transportation, deforestation, concrete manufacture, etc. Coal is part of the problem, but not the sole source. At present, aviation contributes about 4% of the total, but this is rising quite quickly at present.

There is little doubt that aviation is going to have to play its part in reducing these impacts, but with care this can be done in a manner that will not wreck the industry.

Dave Martin

11th Jul 2006, 10:50

brakedwell,

I think you might be missing the very far right section in the top graph....and its position on the y-axis, 375 ppmv.

No one denies that all types of industry are the probable cause of this. As a result all industry must change to correct this increasing trend, and it seems many are - or at least making movements in that direction. Simple carbon trading is not enough; until such time as carbon sequestion (sp?) is adopted (expensive) and we can "dispose" of CO2, every time we burn oil we are releaseing carbon that was previously safely stored in the earth's crust.

Every solution will be costly and will require a fundamental shift in the way we behave and think. I can see no reason why airlines should be exempt from this, especially when consumption and emissions are growing. It is in the airlines interests to do so.

brakedwell

11th Jul 2006, 11:05

No I didn't miss it. I also said it has been 130000 years since the last high, rather longer than the 95 and 105 thousand year intervals between the previous peaks. Note - the present high might possibly have something to do with the industrial revolution over the last 250 years.

Dave Martin

11th Jul 2006, 11:25

Most certainly it had something to do with the industrial revolution. However my understanding is the industrial revolution, while important in industrial cities in Europe, most certainly didn't encompass the entire planet.

Hence, while it was filthy the by by-products were of sufficiently small scale and remained localised.

On the other hand, automobile use, gas and coal power stations and aviation are now prevalent throughout North America, Europe and East Asia....increasingly so elsewhere. I don't have figures at hand but I suspect our CO2 emissions are far higher than they were during the industrial revolution and most importantly, growing. This might be supported by the fact that CO2 levels are seen not as peaking, but accelerating.