UK Government Taxation to Deter Air Travel.

[Bruce Wayne]

Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6826794.ece)

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change..

[...] Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel.


[...] David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: “A global scheme could raise tens of billions of pounds a year."

discuss..

[northern boy]

All they will do is drive airlines away from the UK at the cost of thousands of jobs. The rest of the world will expand their aviation to compensate whilst thanking us for giving them their business.

We are pathetic.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, find a Greenie and boot them up the arse as hard as possible.

[Rusland 17]

"Driving airlines away from the UK" is not necessarily a bad thing, and encouraging physical violence against those who argue against environmental damage is perhaps not the most measured response.

We have to balance the growth of our own aviation industry against the downside of such growth - and there are many, I'm sure, who would prefer to see airlines migrating to Schiphol and Frankfurt than see hundreds of acres of England disappear under tarmac and aviation fumes. I think most people would prefer our airports to be world-class in terms of their comfort, facilities and ease of use than purely in terms of number of flights, and the easiest way of achieving that - bearing in mind that none of our airports is easily expanded - is to reduce the number of flights.

If all EU nations take similar measures - as they probably will - then there will be no economic disadvantage to this country.

[Blacksheep]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stm)

The UK may have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 90% by 2050 so the aviation sector can continue to grow. That is the warning from the government's official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC). It would mean even bigger cuts than the 80% drop on 1990 levels already planned for households and industry in Britain.
The EU "Guidance for the Aviation Industry, Monitoring and Reporting Annual Emissions and Tonne km Data for EU Emissions Trading" requires in

Section 7(a) - Monitoring Plan Template and
Section 7(d) - Procedures to ensure total uncertainty is metthat we airlines demonstrate the satisfactory operation of our aircraft fuel quantity measurement systems and check for inaccurate measurement instruments exceeding the threshold (accuracy error). In fact a typical airliner FQIS is designed to an accuracy within +/- 1% of FSD, far more accurate than that of most other vehicles.

We note that aviation is being targeted with requirements to provide direct certification of fuel quantities consumed despite the admission within the EU source documents that aviation is responsible for just 13% of EU transport emissions, while no such onerous measurement and reporting requirements are proposed (or even practical) for direct monitoring of the remaining 87% of EU transport activity.

Given that transport is only a small proportion of total emissions (power generation is the major source) and aviation is a minor contributor to transport emissions, why are our politicians so keen to single out the aviation industry for such draconian measures? Further, looking at that statement in the above quote, the question arises as to why the UK Government in particular seems so determined to damage our industry and destroy thousands of jobs, despite the fact that the EU's own admitted figures show that the CCC's claim is such an outrageous lie?

[racedo]

Cars do more damage to climate than air travel YET UK Govt is subsidising thousands of sales of new cars.

Love the idea of giving billions to developing world who will use it to enhance the lives of their people, mainly the miitary people who get all these shiny new toys in which to control the population and their masters (oops fraudulently elected Government) who will use the billions transferred for the shopping visits to London, acquisition of Swiss bank accounts and making their own lives better. The general population in these countries will of course be no better off then than they are now.

Climate change is a good story BUT None of the Climate change gurus can answer the question of What climate they want to end up with. If the climate stops changing the Earth is dead.

[W.R.A.I.T.H]

If all EU nations take similar measures - as they probably will -
You keep dreaming. In the last 10 years I haven't seen such BS to emanate from any other European country, by a country mile. Same with the draconian airside security policy, just by the way. It's a UK thing, shoot yourself in the foot and cut off your nose, tax everything to death and then blame consequences on the EU in Daily Mail. How the government stance on the Heathrow 3rd runway helps deter air travel is for everyone around to have a good laugh. Hypocrisy is paramount.

[WHBM]

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries
Which the "developing countries" will doubtless spend on whisky and Mercedes for their leaders and their extended families, as per usual.

[Oblaaspop]

Lets get real folks, the UK Government doesn't really give a toss about the environment, all they really care about is boosting its coffers and making as much money as it possible can through taxation in its easiest form.

They (we) know full well that people will always fly, Joe Public will ALWAYS go on holiday in the summer, and business folks will always use any excuse not to use video conferencing in favour of flying off to Vegas for the week!

The point being, Aviation is a soft target. People WILL stump up the extra tax cash to fly..... They wont like it, but they WILL do it, and the Government knows it!

A few years ago, fat boy 'Two Jags' Prescott (the then Deputy PM), declared that everyone should get out of their cars and on to public transport. Well there are 2 problems with that fatty, firstly, if everyone suddenly decided to do that then the smelly, expensive UK public transport system would grind to a halt in 12 minutes flat, because its ALREADY overcrowded, and secondly if everyone stopped buying petrol, then the 87% the Government takes in fuel duty (the most in the world) would suddenly stop and the country would become bankrupt in a matter of weeks. So despite the fact that cars in the UK are amongst the most heavily taxed in the world, it doesn't stop people from driving, the same goes for flying.......... another soft/easy target.

Lets face it, air travel is cheeper today than it has ever been. When I was about 9 years old, my folks took me on holiday to Antigua, back then (many moons ago), BA only had 1 flight a week there which went via St Lucia. The cost of 1 Economy ticket....... 1800 quid! The same today would be around 500 including a weeks full board hotel. Tellingly back then only those that could afford it could travel, today all and sundry are flying... good or bad, that's now the way it is, and it will never change because the traditional Bognor Regis summer holiday makers have now had a taste of 'the high life' and will not be prepared to give it up...... So to all you sandal wearing, Guardian reading, unemployed hippie oxygen thieves...... Get over it!!!

This rip off attitude (and the bend over and take it up the wrong 'un stance of the British public) is one of the (many) reasons I emigrated from the UK in the first place.

Jeremy Clarkson for PM I say............. maybe then I'll come back!!

[Bruce Wayne]

A point to consider is the following quote;

"Donald Washburn, a former executive at Northwest Airlines, has observed that airlines are merely cash accumulators for other constituencies" - The various government entities that tax it.

No matter what the increase in taxation, the travelling public will still demand ever lower prices, while operationally costs will continue to increase.

This will ultimately result in lower T&C's industry wide. Shareholders will also move their shareholdings into more profitable business shareholdings.

The resultant factor, both in the short term as well as the long terms will see a reduction in the competitive nature of the UK aviation industry, the reduction in industry stability within the UK and a reduction in T&C's for those that remain in the UK based industry.

The IPCC itself states;

"However, model studies have indicated that volatile organic emissions from aircraft have an insignificant impact on atmospheric ozone at cruise altitudes (Hayman and Markiewicz, 1996; Pleijel, 1998)."


Conversely, in the manufacturing industry, the production of concrete produces an equal amount of waste and contaminants to product. That is to say, one one ton of concrete produces one ton of waste and contaminants.

Do we see environmental protesters at cement plants ? No, we see them at airports.

Do we see heavy industry being subject to punitive taxation ? No, we see aviation being subject to punitive taxation.

We witness the destruction of this industry by means of poor government policy based on data that is nothing short of that peddled by a snake oil salesman.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.



When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent (http://www.prisonplanet.com/arctic-ice-grows-30-per-cent-in-a-year.html), an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC and a close ally of Hansen, also raised eyebrows recently during a presentation in Australia, during which he claimed that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever as he cited a graph showing purported temperature increases over the last decade. In fact, as even the vast majority of man-made global warming advocates will concede, temperatures since 1998 have moved sideways (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm) and over the last 18 months they have clearly begun a downward trend.

Whether such “mistakes” are made in genuine error or are part of a politicized push for man-made global warming to be universally accepted, and the evidence clearly suggests that latter is the case, the fact is that we can no longer tolerate the cry that “the debate is over” on man-made global warming in light of such gargantuan falsehoods.

Likewise, the push for carbon emissions to be reduced by 80 per cent or more, a figure that would completely cripple western economies and lower living standards to a near third world level, can no longer be accepted as a reasonable course of action now that the primary authority on man-made global warming, the UN IPCC, has been proven to be using fraudulent data to make its case.


Foisted upon the public by means of giant multi-million dollar PR campaigns and brainwashing mandates that have worked themselves into every sector of society, including education, movies, television the arts and culture, all the attention and funding is being lavished upon a manufactured hoax, peddled with the aid of phony data, as governments prepare to suck what’s left out of the middle class and poor with carbon taxes that do nothing to help the environment, while all the real environmental problems are left in the shadows.

[Bruce Wayne]

"Driving airlines away from the UK" is not necessarily a bad thing, and encouraging physical violence against those who argue against environmental damage is perhaps not the most measured response.

We have to balance the growth of our own aviation industry against the downside of such growth - and there are many, I'm sure, who would prefer to see airlines migrating to Schiphol and Frankfurt than see hundreds of acres of England disappear under tarmac and aviation fumes. I think most people would prefer our airports to be world-class in terms of their comfort, facilities and ease of use than purely in terms of number of flights, and the easiest way of achieving that - bearing in mind that none of our airports is easily expanded - is to reduce the number of flights.

If all EU nations take similar measures - as they probably will - then there will be no economic disadvantage to this country.

Rusland 17,

I just don't know where to start with that, I really don't.

Perhaps another forum member may be a bit less terse, blunt and/or offensive than my desired response !

[Hussar 54]

Can anyone confirm whether there are simlar Airline Passenger Ticket Taxes paid by the millions of passengers who buy tickets on the the cruise ships ??

If not - why not ?

Read somewhere that some of these ships manage something equivalent to about 14cms distance for 5 litres of ( presumably untaxed ) diesel fuel...And absolutely all for holiday/leisure travel and absolutely zero for wealth creating business travel....

Seems the playing field regarding holidaying passengers travelling by air and those by sea is more than unlevel - it's vertical...

[Oblaaspop]

Good post Bruce. It pretty well sums up this Global Warming 'Religion' and that people without common sense are just jumping on the bandwagon without getting all the facts.

On a micro level, Summer 2007 in the UK was the hottest since 1976, and boy was the media full of the gloom and doom merchants forecasting the downfall of humanity and that the end is neigh due to man using fossil fuel!!

Yet where were those same one sided argument folks when the winter that followed was the coldest for quarter a century and the summer of '08 and indeed this summer have recorded the lowest average temps for over a decade, no doubt if asked to raise their heads from the stones under which they live will say that it is global warming that has caused that as well. Oi morons, you can't have it both ways!!!

Professor Dr David Bellomy (of 1970's TV fame), has produced many papers on 'Global Warming', basically saying man only has a very minor effect on the planet, and that of the 10's of thousands of scientific writings on the subject, only 2% actually pin the rise in average global temps on man's influence.....

But of course not scaring the public into paying more tax and bolstering 'Green' companies doesn't bring any money into the coffers....... Funny that!!

[fireflybob]

Well we have a general election coming up fairly soon.

If anyone from any of the parties turn up on my doorstep canvassing I intend to ask them about their policies with respect to APD and if I don't get the answers I am looking for I will advise them that they will not be getting my vote!

Aviation is being unfairly targeted and we need to get this message across loud and clear.

Recently on Radio Nottingham I put this issue to Kenneth Clarke MP and he babbled on about it not being a time to reduce taxation and, I thought, completely missed the point about people being attracted to AMS or FRA to fly long haul.

I despair of our politicians more and more. WHY should we have to pay more tax on aviation?

[Mac the Knife]

"....to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment..."

Hilarious! Hope we get some so that our corrupt and conscienceless ministers can go on yet another round of multiple luxury vehicle buying splurge while their constituents struggle to pay the taxes that paid for their first lot.

God you Westerners are idiots!

Mac

[Dimitris]

A few years ago, fat boy 'Two Jags' Prescott (the then Deputy PM), declared that everyone should get out of their cars and on to public transport.

Well... isn't aviation public transport?!?!?! As much as the privately owned trains in the UK with government built infrastructure.. no???:ugh::ugh:

300 people in a plane is mass transport in my understanding with (probably) lower CO2 emissions than anything else.

The problem with aviation I think arises from the fact that is the newest type of transportation that is considered 'posh' due to the very fact that 20-30 years ago tickets cost insane amounts of money, and people were served champagnes smokes cigars and had golden watches in their wrists. Forget about all that, and its nothing more than an insanely cheap (in money and environmental effect) way of mass transport. (were mass=public cause trains in the UK are not public!!!).

Why isn't aviation considered as 'public transport' can anyone give a good answer to that???

SLF here but the thread is not only pilot related I believe.

[1800ed]

Cars do more damage to climate than air travel YET UK Govt is subsidising thousands of sales of new cars.
The point in the scrappage scheme is to get inefficient vehicles off of the road and replacing them with newer, 'greener' vehicles.

[glad rag]

OK I'll bite

Quote:
Cars do more damage to climate than air travel YET UK Govt is subsidising thousands of sales of new cars.
The point in the scrappage scheme is to get inefficient vehicles off of the road and replacing them with newer, 'greener' vehicles.

Oh please DO give us some examples of sustainable "green" vehicles and please include all carbon costs involved in their construction.

Oh hang on, errrr, did I ask the wrong question there????

I am amazed that after 2 gulf wars, Iraq, WMD, Hutton, Mandelson, Pensions, Gold sell off's, our soldiers dying in Afganistan for the want of bloody ladders (never mind helecopters), that ANYONE is dumb enough to actually believe what the lying, theiving bunch of ****'s that run this country promote as the truth!
Really, it's all just manipulation and mass mind control.:*

[Basil]

Schiphol, say "Thank you." nicely.

[racedo]

The point in the scrappage scheme is to get inefficient vehicles off of the road and replacing them with newer, 'greener' vehicles.

The point of the scrappage scheme is to provide money to manufacturers, you buy into the green idea toooooooooooooo easily.

[Basil]

mass mind control.
Judging by the comments on prune they don't seem to be very good at that either. ;)

p.s. Just looked at nipping over to NYC.
Taxes ex LHR: £81
Taxes ex JFK: £11

[jewitts]

Consider flying from Europe transiting through LHR. e.g. from Basel Switzerland (where I live) the tax/fee bill to Boston is CHF369 if you go AF via CDG. BA through LHR the taxes come to CHF465 That's about 56 of your GB£s... No Brainer!

[Bruce Wayne]

The fool’s gold of carbon trading - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5257602.ece)


The fool’s gold of carbon trading

A huge new market designed to solve global warming seems doomed to failure

It was a deal to make Alistair Darling hug himself with glee. Just as the world’s existing financial markets were hitting a five-year low two weeks ago, the Treasury raked in a cool £54m from a brand new one. The occasion was Britain’s first auction of CO2 permits. Almost 4m were knocked down to greenhouse gas emitters in a sale that was four times oversubscribed. The government expects to sell 80m more over the next four years, raising a further £1 billion.

We are witnessing the birth of the greatest and most complex commodity market the world has seen. Last year alone, permits worth more than £55 billion were traded on the world’s carbon markets – but future trading volumes, if all goes global according to plan, will dwarf these.

Carbon trading schemes originate from the Kyoto protocol on climate change agreed under the auspices of the United Nations in 1997. Governments adhering to Kyoto accept limits on the CO2 their countries can emit.

To meet their pledges, they put caps on the carbon outputs of domestic companies, which have to buy annual permits to exceed them.

Permits are bought from governments or from carbon traders, who, naturally, charge a commission. For the City the arrival of carbon trading is a bonanza.

The sector already employs about 3,000 people and has created a few dozen new millionaires.


As we are too painfully aware, the issue of climate change is not one of an environmental issue, it is one of a financial market issue.

Do we see airlines subjected to irrelevant taxation through 'environmental' policy, which does nothing but increase revenue to the state, and then coupled with restrictive caps requiring airlines to purchase on the commodities market permits to operate, thus increasing operational costs yet again?

[cessnapuppy]

Has anyone even attempted to calculate the 'carbon footprint' of all this trading activity? does anyone else feel the despair I feel at yet another mega industry that produces absolutely NOTHING?

[poss]

Our government don't half pick an amazing time to introduce such a tax, airlines are struggling at the minute as it is and it sounds as though they want to make it harder for them to keep going by attempting to reduce the amount of SLF that travels with them.
It would seem to me that our government need to get their priorities in order... as someone has already said shipping creates more pollution than the aviation world but I haven't read of an oceanliner company pumping their own money into greener ship research.
The only reasoning behind it that I can see is that the majority of the public is ill-educated in this subject and think that air travel is the worlds biggest killer, so the government stamp another tax on travellers, leaving the general public thinking that they are actually making a difference.

[merlinxx]

Stay away from us Aviation folks:ugh:

[racedo]

Wonder what is the carbon emmissions of RAF or USAF.

You can just see some numpty in MOD calculating that its costs £x per missile but with the Carbon Surcharge levy that has increased by 200%.

[Captain Smithy]

Labour are obviously not wanting to be at all electable next year :ugh:

Another thing with which to hammer the aviation industry. What is it that people have against us?

This tax has nothing to do with Eco-ism and everything to do with being a quick, dirty & cheap way to grab cash for the Govt. to balance its books after it buggered the finances up so badly.

"Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, find a Greenie and boot them up the arse as hard as possible." Statement of the day goes to Northern Boy :D

A somewhat cheesed-off Smithy

[Blacksheep]

The only reasoning behind it that I can see is that the majority of the public is ill-educated in this subject and think that air travel is the worlds biggest killer, so the government stamp another tax on travellersIt is the government's own advisory committee that is propagating the misinformation in order that the government can stamp another tax on travellers.

The CCC are promoting the idea that aviation doesn't contribute its fair share to emissions control and the rest of the economy will have to tighten its belt by 90% instead of 80% if aviation contributed more. From the EU's own figures, aviation contributes only 13% of total European transport emissions, which in turn are only a minor part of the emissions of the whole economy. Yet this blatant lie was being debated as gospel truth by otherwise intelligent people on BBC Radio 4 this morning. :ugh:

[xwindflirt]

On a simular note.....

Whilst on holiday in Canada I spotted an add in the window of a travel agent. London $299, tax an additional $498!!! Amsterdam $299 tax $200. Its time the Airlines in the U.K started advertising their tickets in this manor. How long do you think it would take for people to demand a reduction in this tax grab by our theiving government. Perhaps at the same time a blankett ban on any goverment MP or employee on official buisness useing the air transportation industry. This would get the attention focused on how one sided the taxation of UK travel is.

[sharksandwich]

Despite Greenpeace claims that they destroy GM test crops "on principle" we now have conclusive evidence that, in fact, the Greenpeace policy against GM and in favour of "organic" is bought and paid for.

Large foundations pay Greenpeace directly to create anti-GM propaganda, stir up fear and destroy test crops in order to keep genetically improved foods off supermarket shelves. Their objective is to promote "organic" farming -- with all its fascist history and neo-Nazi philosophy. By doing the work of these far-right foundations Greenpeace puts at risk the lives of millions in the developing world who stand to benefit from improved seeds.

Just over ten years ago, two dozen middle-class Greenpeace employees and activists destroyed the livelihoods of two brothers who ran a small (27 acre) farm in East Anglia near the large 850 acre estate of Lord Melchett, (then) Greenpeace Executive Director.

The excuse for this act of violence - which left one of the elderly brothers in hospital with a heart attack - was a small trial of GM crops on the brothers' land. In his subsequent trial for criminal damage, Lord Melchett used the excuse that his "organic" farm dozens of miles away might be contaminated by GM seeds or pollen. Only later did we discover that, despite his boasts, Melchett had not actually converted his land to organic and was still spraying his crops and using artificial fertilisers. In fact, even 10 years later that conversion has still not been completed - according to the financial statements of Melchett's charitable trust.

Further, in their defence, Melchett and his co-accused claimed their actions were a matter of principle.

Now, however, we discover from financial statements in the United States, that Greenpeace has been paid large sums of money to conduct its anti-GM campaign.

Greenpeace also has as its aim of preventing 3rd world farmers using pesticides and fertilizers - so that they will never compete with the West.
I very much doubt that the government has bought into the Green Movement - it is a cynical ploy to brainwash the "proles".
The very rich and the newly rich (like some New Labour ministers- many are old money) will continue to live in large, old houses, drive gas-guzzlers, and jet around the world on their holidays, while we stay at home huddled around a low-watt light-bulb for warmth.

[barit1]

In scrapping old cars in exchange for new, one should consider:

A. The carbon footprint of the manufacture of a new car.

B. The carbon footprint of the lost, unused life of a scrapped car.

C. The wasted capital investment of the "stub life" of a scrapped car.

Why are these not discussed? :ugh:

[cwatters]

I guess the real reason this is in the news today is this..

Ministers face 90% emission cuts call - politics.co.uk (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/environment-and-rural-affairs/90-emissions-cuts-will-make-room-for-aviation-sector--$1325800.htm)

Ministers face 90% emission cuts call

Allowing the aviation sector to remain at 2005 levels will require all other areas to reduce their emissions by 90 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050, the committee on climate change (CCC) has suggested. Article continues..

[Bruce Wayne]

Not entirely.. The reason for this is...

[...] David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: “A global scheme could raise tens of billions of pounds a year."


snip from prior post:

The IPCC itself states;


Quote:
"However, model studies have indicated that volatile organic emissions from aircraft have an insignificant impact on atmospheric ozone at cruise altitudes (Hayman and Markiewicz, 1996; Pleijel, 1998)."
Conversely, in the manufacturing industry, the production of concrete produces an equal amount of waste and contaminants to product. That is to say, one one ton of concrete produces one ton of waste and contaminants.

Do we see environmental protesters at cement plants ? No, we see them at airports.

Do we see heavy industry being subject to punitive taxation ? No, we see aviation being subject to punitive taxation.

We witness the destruction of this industry by means of poor government policy based on data that is nothing short of that peddled by a snake oil salesman.

[Caudillo]

Let's maintain a little situational awareness here, there's a world outside of aviation after all.

Firstly, aviation isn't being singled out for specialy crew-security style treatment as some breathless postings might suggest, it's simply being included.

1. The Times today (9 September) says the UK Government is now legally required to cut CO2 emissions by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050.

2. The Climate change committee says (also in The Times) that if aviation emissions stay at 2005 levels, the rest of the economy will have to make 90% cuts to achieve the overall 80% target.

3. The aviation target set by the industry itself if to maintain levels at 2005. If it joined everyone else to the 1990 level, it would force a halving of the present number of flights.

4. Passenger numbers 102 million in 1990, 240 in 2007 and on course for 470 in 2030.

Whether or not we believe in man-made global warming, it would probably take the most myopic of us masters of the skies to deny that pollution isn't a bad thing. Instead of pointing fingers and arguing that the cruise ships don't pay their bit, that car manufacturing is being propped up and that the immigrants down the road fart much more than the natives because of that spicy food, perhaps we should buckle down and play our part.

There's no going back. People want something done and little personal cuts won't cut it. We'd probably all agree taxes are necessary, but if left to us to pay or not I doubt we'd be as generous as we're legally required to be. The same with pollution, and I for one agree. If we end up like the dinosaurs, so be it - less pollution is good, global warming or no global warming. Something else better will replace us, and the cars, and the cruise ships - we'd better get used to it.

[MungoP]

Probably time for this thread to be relegated to the netherworld of JB but before it goes I have to admit that the idea of all those wonderful Mediterranean towns being free of the Brit drunken dross that gets deposited there by low cost charters is a huge relief to me.

[merlinxx]

Please don't come anywhere near an airport that I or my chums are:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ExXB]

3. The aviation target set by the industry itself if to maintain levels at 2005. If it joined everyone else to the 1990 level, it would force a halving of the present number of flights.

Says who? The industry is targeting a 50% reduction from 2005 levels by 2050, despite the growth that will (hopefully) occur between now and then.

They could probably do better than this, but they (we) are dependant on governments (for better air traffic management), manufacturers (for more efficient engines) and others (for biofuels).

Why is it Ford and GM that are to blame for the CO2 that cars produce, but it's BA and AA and the rest that are to blame for the CO2 that aeroplanes produce?

[Caudillo]

The Times. Which I no longer have to hand but it said that it was part of the deal for the third runway at Heathrow (struck me as odd too). Googling "third runway heathrow 2005 emissions" brings up a raft of results - this is from the Evening Standard today:

"a letter to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, the committee says the aviation industry will have to cut emissions to 2005 levels by 2050."

So better off than the 1990 level for everyone else, and avoids the 50% cut now.

Ford and GM aren't blamed for the CO2, users are penalised or incentivised. Furthermore, carmakers in response to popular and political pressure are slowly but surely turning their attention to a shift away from the traditional petrol internal-combustion engine. Soon in the next year or so we'll see the first mass-produced electric cars, albeit a very modest mass-production compared to what we have now.

McDonalds took a lot of flak for making everybody fat, so they've had to make some sort of nod towards healthier eating. Mostly window-dressing yes, but they've certainly shifted some emphasis away from the burgers and fries.

Airlines? Well, you've got the rapacious growth of low-cost carriers who scream blue murder if an airport so much as dares charge a Pound for passenger drop-off by car (see, we are environmentally friendly after all). Offering more of the same, more price-wars, more frequencies, more exponential growth.

The truth is, it's the developed world that has polluted and we're reining it in. The developing world is where the next load of soot is coming from - but it doesn't stop us cutting ours and leading by example. Britain was the first to outlaw slavery, and turned to catching slavers. I'll bet people then thought we were giving others a free ride by getting out of the game but isn't it now something in which to have some (reluctant) pride?

[flying lid]

Climate change, Carbon footprint / tax, etc, etc,

Forget it. The real reason for all of the above is sheer panic, in high places, brought about by two words, PEAK OIL

Yes folks, it's running out, fast - and the're scared. Look at this report, Statistical Review of World Energy 2009 (published yearly by BP)

Statistical Review of World Energy 2009 | BP (http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622)

Quotes from the report

Global proved oil reserves in 2008 fell by 3 billion barrels to 1,258 billion barrels, with an R/P ratio of 42 years. Declines in Russia, Norway, China and other countries offset increases in Vietnam, India and Egypt. The 2007 figure has been revised higher by 23.1 billion barrels, with the largest upward revisions in Venezuela and Angola.

Bit better for gas.

Global proved reserves of natural gas increased by 7.97 tcm in 2008 to 185.02 trillion cubic meters and the R/P ratio increased to 63.1 years

Certainly oil and gas are still being discovered, but factor in the rise of demand by India and China. (There is also demand destruction in the west caused by the current recession), etc. A complex subject indeed.

But there we have it. 42 years (or thereabouts) - and it's ALL OVER.

Flying Lid

[Biggles225]

Theres those of us who know the GW theory is rubbish and theres those who think its a religion and get a fuzzy feeling about being 'green', and neither will get close to agreement. I wish I was going to be around to see who was right!
Actually all it is is an excuse for HMG to boof up the taxes again, having lost so much saving banks etc. You want more tax income - bring back smoking I say! :ooh:

[wobble2plank]

There are lots of flies in the GW ointment at the moment.

The data released by the earth satellite temperature monitoring organisation in America states that the earth has cooled slightly over the last decade. Bit of a snag for the GW brigade.

UK Aviation will be destroyed by a Government punitive taxation program aimed squarely at fail social engineering. How dare those who work, pay taxes, own their own homes, have the audacity NOT to use public transport, take a few weeks off and fly?

If ICAO, as an overarching organisation, arranged 'taxation' in a global effort then maybe, just maybe, it would be fair. To tax UK based airlines, transit passengers don't pay the APD or airport taxes, is just an knife in the back to those airlines.

BALPA backed studies and polls have shown that, on a long haul flight to Australia, 80% of passengers would rather take a SH connecting flight to Europe then the LH flight to avoid Gordon Browns taxes.

If, and it is a very tentative if, the taxes were 'ring fenced' for the purpose of tackling the supposed 'effects' of the demonic airline industry then I could have a little sympathy. However, as the taxes go to top up the black hole created after 12 years of failed social engineering I, along with most of my colleagues, see this as nothing more than another money grabbing technique to add to the raft of UK stealth taxes.

Time for the Eurocrats to get off their collective ar$es and sort out the aviation industry. As much as the beardy ones would love to portray our industry as Bealzebubs spawn, without it the world wide economy would grind to a halt. When the 'campaigners' show off their nice, shiny new electric trains, where does the UK electricity come from? When they showcase their wind turbines, how much carbon goes into the manufacture and transport?

Do we see 'Ship Stupid' outside of the gates of Felixstowe and Harwich? Nope, but in there you have huge ships powered by 1960's design heavy fuel oil reciprocating diesel engines. Emissions? Anyone who has flown low level through the sulphur smut out of Tokyo knows what I mean. How much tax does the shipping industry pay? Very little as their fuel is the heavily contaminated bottom of the cracking tower fluid that no one else wants.

Wake up UK, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are robbing you blind to cover up for their mistakes now that the private pension fund tax cash cow has died. We will all be paying in the future, only the target industry will change when the current one is dead.

Rant over! :}

[WHBM]

It looks like word that Global Warming is the biggest scam since Max Bygraves sang "The Emperor has no clothes" is getting round :) :

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | UK climate scepticism more common (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8249668.stm)

"Twice as many people now agree that claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated".

[corsair]

But it's notable that the tone of that article and others related is that people are skeptical because they don't really understand the issue with the implication that they need to be convinced that man made climate change is real. Typically the BBC website ignores the elephant in the room. The simple fact that more and more people don't believe in it could be something to do with the fact that most people have worked out that the theory is not such a clear cut 'fact' and the reality that true or not, it's being used as an excuse to pile even more taxes on them, not to mention further curtailing their freedom of choice.

What's the saying, 'You can fool all of the people some of the time...........'

[Rusland 17]

Theres those of us who know the GW theory is rubbish and theres those who think its a religion and get a fuzzy feeling about being 'green', and neither will get close to agreement. I wish I was going to be around to see who was right!Alternatively, there's those who accept the reality of climate change and the need for the human race to reverse or halt it, regardless of its cause, and there's those who, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, refuse to believe it and seemingly get a fuzzy feeling about being a "denyer".

However, I learned a long time ago that climate change and taxation are two issues that it is pointless trying to debate on an internet forum because no-one (on either side) will ever be persuaded to change their position.

I should add, though, that my personal opposition to the expansion of aviation in the UK is not related to climate change. It is simply that I would prefer to see airlines migrate to Schiphol and Frankfurt than see another hectare of this mostly green and pleasant land disappear beneath tarmac, and I think that our aim should be to make the UK's airports the best in the world rather than the biggest. That does not make me anti-aviation - quite the opposite, I think.

[fireflybob]

What's the saying, 'You can fool all of the people some of the time...........'

Bertand Russell, the philosopher, once said "Even when all the experts agree, they may well be wrong".

In fact they don't all agree!

[757_Driver]

there's those who, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, refuse to believe it and seemingly get a fuzzy feeling about being a "denyer"oooh - a fantastic word from the green dogma.

I'm not a 'denyer' - the world implies I'm denying a fact. I'm not. There is no 'overwhelming scientific evidence'. In fact there is some very underwhelming pseudo science, and even that doesn't answer the question at the heart of the matter which is, that even if mankind is having a catastrophic effect on the planet, is it reversible? 'coz if it ain't then there is no point changing anything!

Anyone that travels outside of the UK (which i guess excludes the greenies - because they'd never be 2 faced and fly would they?) will know that this CO2 obsession and hatred of aviation is entirely UK specific. In the rest of the world CO2 features fairly low in the agenda and aviation, as befits an industry that generates such a small amout, hardly registers. In the UK of course we have a very unbalanced media with the government and green propoganda agency (i.e the BBC) giving very unbalance reports, and hogging most of the airtime.

Anyhoo, if we are going to have green taxes, then can they be fair? In which case, this forum , facebook, email and all those other lovely IT things would sudenly get very expensive, cos IT emits more CO2 than aviation. Goddammit, theres another nasty fact in the way of the green dogma. best ignore it and just get on with the cult chanting "aviation is evil, aviation is evil, ignore the facts, ignore the facts, aviation is evil, aviation is evil" etc etc.

And if aviation moves to Schipol then so do the jobs, and the tax - so you'd better get used to stumping up more cash, cos the aviation industry, and most of its employees are massive net contributors to the governments coffers.

[wobble2plank]

I should add, though, that my personal opposition to the expansion of aviation in the UK is not related to climate change. It is simply that I would prefer to see airlines migrate to Schiphol and Frankfurt than see another hectare of this mostly green and pleasant land disappear beneath tarmac, and I think that our aim should be to make the UK's airports the best in the world rather than the biggest. That does not make me anti-aviation - quite the opposite, I think.

Shall we ban cars, buses, trains, ships. Close down all the polluting power stations, move all industry outside of the UK and revert to middle ages farmers then when the lights go out?

Oh no, cows produce methane which is worse for the environment than a Range Rover.

Brilliant deduction Sherlock.

[manrow]

But in England at least The Guardian believes shipping accounts for up to 30% of air pollution, and that is equal to all the worlds car pollution. So by the time you have included electricity generation and heating pollution, it strikes me there is a not a lot left for aviation despite what all the media loves to announce!

Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution)

[wobble2plank]

Aviation, is, has and always will be a soft target.

The rich (and politicians) have always been able to travel and will always be able to travel. Look at the carbon footprint of the latest U2 global warming warning concert! However, now that the rest of the Plebian mass wants a bite of the air travel and foreign holiday cherry the Government has seen a new income revenue stream but trying to make us all feel guilty about air travel.

They gloss over the shipping, car, bus, lorry emissions as they are already monstrous revenue generators. They can't tax fuel as airlines would just buy it abroad and fly heavier less fuel efficient aircraft in and out of the UK.

So they panda to the green lobby, use facts that are less than reliable (from Government sponsored scientific organisations) and impose these taxes on the UK that the rest of Europe have seen for the sham they are.

Enough is enough. Aviation has been at the forefront of new, lean burn, clean burn technology for years. The efficiency of a modern airliner is stunning. Why not incentivise airlines to upgrade to newer, fuel efficient airliners by offering a taxation system that takes aircraft age, engine fit and passenger loads into account. Ditch the BAA slot minimum use restriction which is forcing airlines to fly empty aircraft to retain slots and drop the APD.

[ExXB]

Why not incentivise airlines to upgrade to newer, fuel efficient airliners ...
Do you mean cash for clunkers? What an interesting idea ... but haven't I heard that somewhere else recently? :confused:

Seriously, it doesn't matter if we believe that GW is there or not, is caused by mankind or not is irrelevant. The policols have decided that it is - that is the reality the industry has to deal with.

Seeing as the vast majority (if not all) the growth in aviation in the UK is driven by one sector, perhaps the UK should introduce a 'minimum' fare. Say £100 one-way. Any fare lower than that would be taxed until it reaches £100. No doubt that would reduce (or kill) any growth in UK aviation - which would meet the goals of the politicians. Who knows, this might have some interesting consequences - like the rebundling of 'optional' charges back into the fare. :O

[flyingfemme]

Why not incentivise airlines to upgrade to newer, fuel efficient airliners ...
That is sort of what the ETS is supposed to do........all charged on top of the current passenger taxes, of course (and nobody yet knows how much that will cost).
In practise it will incentivise the airlines who have old gas-guzzlers to upgrade their fleet while punishing those who have already done so!

[The Real Slim Shady]

And the effect of the tax is now showing as FR open 2 new bases in Italy with no new routes to the UK!

Of course, the explosion in air travel is directly attributable to de-regulation which was a political decision!!

[Rusland 17]

And the effect of the tax is now showing as FR open 2 new bases in Italy with no new routes to the UK!I don't think there is any unspoken rule that all flights must start and/or end in the UK. Britain is not the hub of the aviation world.