UK Government Taxation to Deter Air Travel.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boston USA
Age: 67
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emission Caps
The fool’s gold of carbon trading - Times Online
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?
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
big footprint
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?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labour are obviously not wanting to be at all electable next year 
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
A somewhat cheesed-off Smithy
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
A somewhat cheesed-off Smithy
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenpeace is a fascist organisation at heart
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the real reason this is in the news today is this..
Ministers face 90% emission cuts call - politics.co.uk
Ministers face 90% emission cuts call - politics.co.uk
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..
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..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
[...] 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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by MungoP; 9th Sep 2009 at 18:37. Reason: sp
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
"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?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate change, Carbon footprint / tax
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!