Qantas wants a carbon tax

[The The]

Qantas Airways chief executive Alan Joyce has unexpectedly come out in favour of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax policy, saying the move is an important step towards transitioning Australia away from coal-fired energy and non-sustainable fuels, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

Australia's largest airline, which expects to spend $3.7 billion on fuel in 2011, may find itself at odds with the airline industry's main body, the International Air Transport Association, which has lobbied against unilateral carbon taxes on the basis they will damage the global competitive landscape.

But Mr Joyce has joined a growing list of Australian corporate giants who are siding with the carbon tax, including Westpac Banking Corp Ltd chief executive Gail Kelly, Origin Energy Ltd head Grant King and the chief of Shell Australia, Ann Pickard.

Mr Joyce said the price on carbon is necessary because it will help Australia meet its emissions reductions commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and to wean the country off coal-fire burning to gas or nuclear, according to the AFR.


Let me guess why Qantas would want a carbon tax? Another justification to sending more and more jobs offshore, to remain "competitive"?

Also, very appropriate timing calling for a nuclear energy debate in Australia, given what is unfolding in Japan right now. You really have to wonder what goes through some peoples minds sometimes?

[mcgrath50]

I think it is more AJ is jumping on the band wagon, it isn't going to be stopped so you might as well support it and shape it the way that works best for you. Then pass the cost on to your customer.

[neville_nobody]

The full story is that AJ is happy to pay a Carbon Tax on domestic routes but is not prepared to pay it on international sectors. Which is fair enough really when your competitors don't pay tax let alone a carbon one.

However the whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce pollution. So if QF get's it way the carbon tax actually won't have any affect on the biggest carbon emitters in aviation, long haul flying.

Which then raises the point if the government is willing to exempt the major pollutors what is the point of having a carbon tax, other than trying to tax it's citzens into oblivion?

[teresa green]

You would also have to ask Neville, why every ten minutes in the Hunter Valley, 2 diesels pulling 69 carriages full of coal leave to go to the wharves, to be shipped to the worst polluters in the world, and then turn around and tax your own people. Madness.:*

[neville_nobody]

Yep don't get me started....:mad:

[rmcdonal]

Seems like a smart business move to me, you add on a tax that drives up flights by a fixed cost. As a ratio it effects your own flight much less then that of your competitors.
However it would not work in his favour on internationals, unless they could charge it as a departure tax and hit everyone equally.

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

A case of scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Is there any agenda that QF might have at the moment that they would like the governments support on? Jobs offshore maybe?

[ozbiggles]

Or a little love in terms of aircraft depreciation schedules maybe.
ie I'll back you on the carbon tax if you look after that for me....

[JohnMcGhie]

Let's assume for a moment that the carbon tax worked, and everyone in the world paid it...

Then carbon emissions on the ground would fall. Demand for petroleum-based fuels would fall. The price of jet fuel may not rise as fast as it is otherwise going to (we are already at 'peak oil', fuel prices can only get worse from here).

Aviation is one carbon-burning sector that cannot easily (or even practically...) change fuel.

So Joyce's position could be seen as an attempt to hold fuel prices down, and avoid aviation having to switch to low-carbon (e.g. Amonia...) fuel.

Now let me ask a question: If an aircraft achieves its lowest "miles per gallon per seat" at take-off/climb-out, would not the carbon contribution per seat/mile of domestic aircraft be higher than that of long-haul?

Cheers

[neville_nobody]

If an aircraft achieves its lowest "miles per gallon per seat" at take-off/climb-out, would not the carbon contribution per seat/mile of domestic aircraft be higher than that of long-haul?

No because the tax is on the total amount of carbon you put into the atmosphere not the amount of carbon per kg/km or some other ratio. So flying to LA in a 747 is going to be more polluting in carbon tax terms than flying Adelaide to Melbourne.

If you went to a carbon tax on carbon emission per kg carried this would destroy the car industry, who in turn would come down on the governments of the world like a tonne of bricks and the next you know you will wake up one day and the carbon tax issue has suddenly disappeared.

Aviation could be made more efficient by enforcing a law that means you have to fly 95% load factor. Unfortunately that would mean people would be inconvenienced and no government will be willing to enforce that type of law.

If the world was serious about climate change they would need to break the power of the petroleum/car manufacturers/chemical companies and get rid of petrol powered cars. Abolishing coal powered electricity would also help the cause. And maybe let's have a look at all the patents that have been bought up that have hindered the development of alternative/free/electrical forms of energy. Why did they have electrical vehicles in the 19th century and not now??? People need to be encouraged to have solar powered homes and they need to address the whole nuclear issue. Mass public transport in major cities needs to be the only way of getting around. (Why does the east coast of the US have great public transport but not the West Coast?)

Until that happens no one is serious about reducing carbon pollution.

[Capt_SNAFU]

How much carbon released from a bushfire? How much from controlled burning? The answer is plenty.

[abc1]

Has anyone asked what will the carbon tax be used for?
Reducing carbon?
Or we know you need oxygen so we are going to tax you.
Onya Gillard, for trying to build a very sustainable future.

[MRGTC]

Anyone who believes in a carbon dioxide tax is a fool and should get out of the flight deck. CO2, H2O etc are not pollutants. The ALP are fools and if you support them get out of aviation and live in a cave. Simple

[Peter Fanelli]

However the whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce pollution.


Surely you can't be serious.
It's about raising money, that's all.
As for electric cars, what good is a city car with a range of 40 miles between plugs when you have to escape from an event SUCH AS the goings on in Japan right now.

MRGTC I'm with you.

[breakfastburrito]

Fatguyinalittlecoat, I believe you are on the money. This is politics pure & simple. What is the quid pro quo? That is the question, the answer may not be apparent for some time, there is a deal.

Alan Joyce has a legal requirement to maximize profit, not "save the planet".

[DutchRoll]

How much carbon released from a bushfire? How much from controlled burning? The answer is plenty.Yes plenty. But bushfires are largely irrelevant as they're a constant inclusion over millions of years in the natural carbon cycle. Industrial emissions from 7 billion (and rapidly growing) humans are unique to the last 100-200 years.

I'm not saying a carbon tax is the solution, or even a remotely workable idea. Just sayin', that's all. The amount of carbon released in a bushfire is irrelevant.

CO2, H2O etc are not pollutants.
What is conventionally thought of as a "pollutant" and what is harmful to the environment and/or human longevity are two totally separate things and depend on the circumstances.

Humble water is essential, and nourishing, and life-giving. Well, unless your farm, your entire year's harvest, and all your worldly possessions get washed away by a deluge of it, or you drown in it, or drink too much of it and die from hypernatremia, or it causes your mainspar to corrode and your wing to fail, etc, etc. So of course we enjoy its great benefits, and at the same time we try to take sensible steps to stop too much of it being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not saying a carbon tax is a good idea or would be effective. Just poking around at simplistic and unsophisticated environmental arguments. ;)

[C441]

I have yet to hear anyone explain how a Carbon Tax will reduce demand for the offending materials when the consumers of those materials will in the most part be compensated for the additional cost and the producers likewise. :confused: