Greens against Aviation
Bring back the cold war I say. 3 minute warnings kept everybodys minds off Green issues and the loonies were all in one place securely strapped to Greenham Commons fence...
Cheers
WWW
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO an essential point has been missed in the fuel-efficiency comparisons between air travel and other various modes of transport. You can't compare them directly because they aren't substitutably equivalent choices... one does not climb into a car for the drive to Hawaii if one feels that the cost of a flight is too expensive. You simply cancel the vacation, and in so doing provide a net environmental benefit to the planet, by saving the cost in fuel in entirety.
By taxing petrol, there are two important benefits... you reap funds that can be used to counteract the cost to the environment, do research into alternative energy sources, whatever. But at the same time the higher cost of the product provides incentive for the populace to drive more efficient vehicles, hybrids, or electric cars, or simply drive less.
If one chooses to not tax certain industries such as aviation, that that is an implied subsidy, because they are being relieved of a cost that taxation-fairness should demand be applied equally to all people and industries alike. That's purely a political decision, done out of out of sympathy for airlines' ability to compete economically. Hurting industry and causing job losses, or airline bankrupcies in one's own marketplace is not good politics. And politics, as usual, will throw out-of-whack what should naturally occur out of sense and logic
From global benefit standpoint, it makes sense that higher petrol costs, passed onto passengers, would cause less travel as the public and businesses forgo trips that are less essential.
Naturally, those that are employed in the industry will argue against this green argument, but that is purely out of self-interest.
The question remains, when world population is mathematically on course to be 134 trillion by the year 2300 (OK, reality says as we overwhelm the planet, it might stabilize at around 9 billion), do we really want the downward trend in air travel cost to continue? Do we really want the bulk of the planet jet-setting across the globe whimsically as tax burdens are forgiven to the industry?
Unless you're an airline stock holder or employee, I'd say probably not.
By taxing petrol, there are two important benefits... you reap funds that can be used to counteract the cost to the environment, do research into alternative energy sources, whatever. But at the same time the higher cost of the product provides incentive for the populace to drive more efficient vehicles, hybrids, or electric cars, or simply drive less.
If one chooses to not tax certain industries such as aviation, that that is an implied subsidy, because they are being relieved of a cost that taxation-fairness should demand be applied equally to all people and industries alike. That's purely a political decision, done out of out of sympathy for airlines' ability to compete economically. Hurting industry and causing job losses, or airline bankrupcies in one's own marketplace is not good politics. And politics, as usual, will throw out-of-whack what should naturally occur out of sense and logic
From global benefit standpoint, it makes sense that higher petrol costs, passed onto passengers, would cause less travel as the public and businesses forgo trips that are less essential.
Naturally, those that are employed in the industry will argue against this green argument, but that is purely out of self-interest.
The question remains, when world population is mathematically on course to be 134 trillion by the year 2300 (OK, reality says as we overwhelm the planet, it might stabilize at around 9 billion), do we really want the downward trend in air travel cost to continue? Do we really want the bulk of the planet jet-setting across the globe whimsically as tax burdens are forgiven to the industry?
Unless you're an airline stock holder or employee, I'd say probably not.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyrno de B
The same applies to aviation! By the years you mentioned, aircraft will also be fuel efficient . They probably will have even lower contaminating emissions than a car.
There is one point you’re missing…the aviation industry in itself, generates and pays for its own costs. The development of technology is funded by all those companies that make their money from the airlines. On top of this you should add the tax passengers pay to most airports every time they buy a ticket. So, it’s not a case that the ‘airlines’ and their passengers, don’t pay any tax to the contrary, they do! What about all those people who works for the industry…don’t they pay tax? Balancing the problem to suffice all parties, that will be the juggling act politicians, will have work on.
The same applies to aviation! By the years you mentioned, aircraft will also be fuel efficient . They probably will have even lower contaminating emissions than a car.
There is one point you’re missing…the aviation industry in itself, generates and pays for its own costs. The development of technology is funded by all those companies that make their money from the airlines. On top of this you should add the tax passengers pay to most airports every time they buy a ticket. So, it’s not a case that the ‘airlines’ and their passengers, don’t pay any tax to the contrary, they do! What about all those people who works for the industry…don’t they pay tax? Balancing the problem to suffice all parties, that will be the juggling act politicians, will have work on.
The British magazine, "the Economist" has had articles about the Green Party, which I know almost nothing about. Besides the members who might be sincere, does the Green Party in certain countries not include certain factions of anarchists and (former)communists, who must find a mainstream party to belong to, otherwise having little chance of being part of a coalition government? Read about the background of Mr. Joschka Fischer (Frankfurt street riots in the 60s-70s: policeman savagely beaten by 'someone', another seriously burned by a 'Molotov cocktail', thrown by 'someone'), who is the Foreign Minister in the German government. According to a book, he went many years ago to a conference of either the PLO or PFLP in Algiers...never mind some friends among the Baader-Meinhof 'social club'.
I gave a copy of the local newspaper article about this guy, to a Lufthansa gate agent working her flight in Chicago.
But, in their favor, there are articles on the Internet which claim that the German Green Party tolerated the use of German bases last spring for military transport aircraft to operate in support of the invasion of Iraq. There were reportedly some major problems inside the Italian govt.
I gave a copy of the local newspaper article about this guy, to a Lufthansa gate agent working her flight in Chicago.But, in their favor, there are articles on the Internet which claim that the German Green Party tolerated the use of German bases last spring for military transport aircraft to operate in support of the invasion of Iraq. There were reportedly some major problems inside the Italian govt.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 18th Dec 2003 at 13:23.
I think the bottom line is that sooner (rather than later) people are going to have to stop doing things they would like to do because the environment cannot support the demand. Since the only efficient form of rationing is price, taxes on air transportation will increase.
Do you really want to see the air you breathe? You could in west London last night.
Do you really want to see the air you breathe? You could in west London last night.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jordan,
I despise nimbys just as much as anyone else.
CVT has its own supporters' forum, formed principally to counteract the local version of HACAN. There must be others around the country?
On the overall taxation issue, I don't see why I should be taxed at 80% if I were to drive to Edinburgh, but virtually nothing if I fly - yet Gordon Brown reduced APD to £5. Surely with the long term trends in leisure time, the industry can continue to grow, whilst still paying a reasonable rate of taxation to offset the environmental damage which it causes. Easyjet (and I think others) have argued for a long time that APD is unfair because it is a flat rate across all flights - hence the x000% argument on the £1 flights. So if APD was got rid of, what would be the fairest way of replacing it? VAT on (at least domestic) flights - but not necessarily at 17.5%?
I despise nimbys just as much as anyone else.
CVT has its own supporters' forum, formed principally to counteract the local version of HACAN. There must be others around the country?
On the overall taxation issue, I don't see why I should be taxed at 80% if I were to drive to Edinburgh, but virtually nothing if I fly - yet Gordon Brown reduced APD to £5. Surely with the long term trends in leisure time, the industry can continue to grow, whilst still paying a reasonable rate of taxation to offset the environmental damage which it causes. Easyjet (and I think others) have argued for a long time that APD is unfair because it is a flat rate across all flights - hence the x000% argument on the £1 flights. So if APD was got rid of, what would be the fairest way of replacing it? VAT on (at least domestic) flights - but not necessarily at 17.5%?
Aviation fuel pays no tax at all, although if it were taxed at the same rate as unleaded petrol, this would raise some £5 billion a year.
The Greens cocked it up similarly with the London Congestion Charge, saying it was to aid the environment but calculating the expected revenue as if the same traffic levels continued as before. As the traffic fell, they are now way below their own budgets for charge income, and having to think about putting public transport fares up to bridge the gap ! Of course if they put the charge for cars up even more cars will be deterred and income fall further.
