warrenm2

The Government has been forced to admit that "green" taxation is actually higher than the cost entailed by flying, and is blatently raising cash for Nu Labour to waste elsewhere. And we still have the EU carbon nonsense to come!

What the article doesnt mention is the same is true for petrol. If you were to tax petrol at its true environmental cost, it would be about 45p cheaper!

Green taxes on air travel exceed carbon costs - Telegraph

Gordo

How do they know what the real cost to the environment is? How do they measure it?

Scoobychick

iTrader: (1)

They use this

AllanB

I agree petrol is overtaxed but flying is not and should be far more, its not an essential right is it where as fuel prices affects more people even perople who do not drive as it increases transportation costs.


AllanB

cster

How about because it is a limited resource and is easy to tax.

Leslie

As I understand it from a friend with a pilot's licence, they do now tax aviaton fuel.

It will doubtless be down to the old Labour dogma in that if you could afford to have a car or use an airline, then you must be unfairly rich and therefore deserve to be taxed heavily for it!

Unless you are part of the govt of course!

Les

warrenm2

There are various estimates using various models which range from $2/tonne to the $85/tonne used by Stern in his famous (if useless) report. It models various ideas but none can be proven to be correct so it is always a best estimate.

I have no problem which this general approach (known as Pigovian taxation), the trouble is exactly this, how do you know the correct level? Best estimates are that petrol should be markedly reduced and now the same applies to airline taxation

warrenm2

Really? So you refute the article? Could you demonstate the logical, analytical thinking that you went through to reach this position? The research papers you rely on? The numbers you used? No? Funny that....

P1Fanatic

+1 more who struggles to understand your logic.

Simon

PeteBrant

I'm sure some people think that tax take is for the governments' personal gain

The problem, isn't so much the duty on airline ticket ( I mean even under the proposed scheme they will rise £11.50 per return ticket. Wow.)

It's the lack of joined up thinking. As far as I see it, if you assume that CO2 emissions are problem (and if you are going to vote for any mainstream party, you are agreeing that they are), then any taxation has to apply on a sliding scale depending on luxury versus necessity.

In this respect, I think Gordo is right (although he is dead wrong on population control ) Aviation is more of a luxury than driving your car for most people. In which case, it should be subject to higher tax.

So if your aim is to reduce carbon emissions, you increase the disincentive to do that particular thing as emissions increase.

But, there isn't enough "carrot". I'm a believer in a personal carbon scheme. Say if I don't fly in a year (for pleasure, for business the company takes the "hit) then I should be able to drive a bugatti veyron and pay £50 tax a year - Because I have made a choice. Of course, if I fly 20 times in a year, then I should £5000 to tax my veyron.

Thats what I think anyway, if you assume (and you have to) that green taxes are here to say, then argue for a more fair and constructive system.


Also, check this out. Tim Yeo thinks that the new car tax rules don't go far enough.

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs sceptical over car tax rise


And this was interesting too.

CO2 output from shipping twice as much as airlines | Environment | The Guardian

Leslie

If you really believe in the need to stop producing any carbon emissions, then youir idea about personal carbon rationing is all wrong Pete. If you saved all that CO2 by your actions, you cannot still agree that it is ok for you to go and produce it another way with your gas guzzler. According to your beliefs about so called GBW, you should be stopping everyone from doing anything at all which might produce CO2.

And how much extra would it cost the country to employ all those special managers to administer how much carbon each person had produced and therefore how much more he is entitled to and how to monitor it?

Les

PeteBrant

I didn't say that - I said that the drive is to reduce emissons


What I am saying is that if people had a carbon "allowance" per year, then how they reach that allowance is up to them. You set that allowance to a point which will reduce the overall emissions of the populace.
It has nothing to do with stoppng *all* CO2 emission because that is simply impractical

Nor do I think that any form of control that means *all* people are absolutely forbidden anything over a 500cc engine is particualrly fair when thier carbon footprnt might be tiny in other areas.

Of course there would be an administrative cost. But a lot of it could be automated. In essence it would be a like PAYE and tax.

Gordo

Sorry Pete, can't resist the challenge

Surely it's more logical to reduce the population growth (or even keep it static) than set silly targets we won't meet on CO2 (or whatever other environmental impact the human race is having)? i.e. 50% more people in the next 40 years, in parallel with the third world trying to upgrade (cars / industry etc) is going to massively increase emissions across the board. Those two together might double emissions - which would mean the existing population have to halve their output to stand still - which isn't going to happen.

At some point someone has to grasp the issue of population growth - if not now then when? I continue to be amazed that no politician has dared raise this one yet.

Gordo

Flatcapdriver

AVGAS has always attracted duty and VAT. AVTUR/Jet A1 attracts VAT.

The problem then arises with inbound aircraft, think short haul in particular, bunkering in countries with lower fuel duties and flying into the UK with higher fuel loads and consequently higher emissions within UK airspace as a result of increased fuel burn. So, the UK's emissions are higher (although these aren't included in the UK's CO2 emissions), HMG cannot collect duty on pre-loaded fuel due to ICAO agreements so they lose out.

Typical un-joined up thinking. For those of you who believe aviation fuel should attract higher duties at what point does it all end? If you submit to this as has been done with cars then you're effectively licensing the Government to tax any activity in the name of the environment, completely ignoring the fact that after the car industry, aviation has done more to reduce its emissions than any other industry.

Easy target though.

Leslie

Yes all understood about reducing the emissions. I wonder how they could automate so much of it though. What sort of considerations wouuld there be and how is all that information to be collated. Most of what we do will eventually produce CO2 emissions. The amount of information is staggering and it would take a considerably larger army of managers than we already have to run the target driven economy which is dragging this country down anyway and is costing so much of our already bloated taxes.

Just having all this organisation would in itself produce extra CO2, especially if they leave their office lights and computers on all night, and what good would it do since GBW has decreased over the last ten years anyway?

Les

PeteBrant

Individual swipe card that you sue every time you buy petrol/airline ticket/fuel bills and so on.

Thing is, you have to accept that green taxes are here to stay. The question is, how do you want to see them implemented, not whether you want to see them implemented at all.

Flatcapdriver

So, how's that going to be practical? I drive 25,000 miles per annum on company mileage, take around 20 business flights a year and around 30 train journeys. Therefore, I get taxed out of existence because the function of my job dictates that I must travel?

What about anyone who has to travel long distances as a result of their job? Penalise them or their company? If its the former, then people won't perform that function and if its the latter then that cost will simply get passed on to the customer.

Unworkable.

Luan Pra bang

Based on the current guestimates about global warming a flight in daylight reflects enough of the suns rays to offset the supposed 'global warming' effect caused by the C02 it emits. I cannot find the source for this info now but I MAY have read it in the Daily Mail so not gurantee it is not just something they made up one day.
The reason they tax flights is because it serves as a double edged boost to the economy. Brown gets more money to waste on lesbian awareness and if the knock on effect is less people can afford a family holliday then they will start to spend hollidays here and give him more tax revenue that way. Its the same with petrol. Add tax to petrol and people will use less, add a fortune to road tax and it makes no difference how much Co2 you produce you still pay more.
Brown is spending 19k for every working person in the UK he has to get that cash from somewhere and we are the little ants working to make the fat cats fatter.

PeteBrant

No as I stated previously, the company takes the hit for company use. Companies will have allownaces dependdant on business type/turnover/employees etc.
The company will have a allowance. What you are trying to do is discourage trips that are unnecessary (Which is quite a few in this day and age).


For example, notice how in credit crunch times all of a sudden trips aren't so necessary? I was going to China on a whim last year, this year it would take the potential fall of the company to get me out there.



No it isn't.

Flatcapdriver

The net effect will be the same as the CCL. The increased cost will be passed on to the customer who will then complain about 'profiteering' or similar cry of alarm as his costs increase.

All you're proposing is micro version of the Emissions Trading Scheme which effectively allows high emitters to buy credits from low emitters and remember where this was originally proposed? The good old US.

Solves nothing and I doubt the British electorate are as gullible as they were when they believed VED ratings were targeted at those nasty middle class Yummy Mummies in their spawn of the devil 4x4s, only to find their own vehicles wrapped up in it.

DJ_Jon

iTrader: (7)

I have to fly every week for my job, the prices are ludicrous, the govt is have a giraffe with the taxation & the airlines are taking the **** with the charges for booking online, ie, FLYBE charge £2.00 for paying by Debit card & £16.98 for hold luggage. If I went into a shop and bought something for £150 I wouldn't expect to be charged another £2 to use my debit card to pay for it.

GRRRRR

PeteBrant

Why will costs increase? If companies reduce thier carbon footprint, then costs don't rise. In factm they get cheaper.
Is there something inherently wrong with an idea propsed in the US, then? You can put a cap on the amount that can be traded - a percentage of total allowance for example.
Well, if the aim is to reduce overall emission, I think it would.

Flatcapdriver

Pete, with respect I've been involved with the marketing and selling of sustainable products for nigh on twenty years and whilst I admire your enthusiasm your ideas are neither new, nor effective if and its a big IF, reducing emissions is the ultimate ambition then any form of carbon trading simply allows high emitters licence to continue whilst buying carbon credits from low emitters.

If you're capping a company's carbon emissions, then at some point they're either going to have to curtail their activities or they're going to have to introduce technology to reduce their emissions which will cost money.

Example:

Distribution company forced to purchase Euro IV compliant trucks to reduce their emissions resulting in a significant up front capital cost (new trucks) requiring an increase in selling price to cover those increased costs.

Result? Increased cost to the customer plus increased emissions as a result of the truck's manufacture.

The alternative is for the company to continue as normal and end up purchasing carbon credits, thus increasing costs which are then passed on to their customer base.

Apart from the increased costs, I've yet to see the implementation of any Government IT project that either hasn't ended in disaster or gone seriously over budget and believe me a project of this size would cost billions to implement and would be so open to abuse that it would be a waste of time.

PeteBrant

I've been designing product for more than 20 years - Not sure why the length of time in a given job gives you any more credence.
I'm not saying my ideas are new. I disagree they won't be effective though.

As I said before, you cap the amount of emissions you can buy.
Reduced emmisions by default means less energy consumption ( in conventional terms) Therefore the investment will pay for itself over a period of time.

Example, Lead free soldering. Massive expense to lots of companies, cost passe don to consumer - Zero.

Companies have to cope with new legislation all the time, but the cost isn't passed on.

How much has, say, the minimum wage, which has a far bigger direct impact that any green measures had on high street prices?

You haven't offset any saving on economy.
They won't get passed on, because consumers will just buy from companies that don't add on the cost.

We've seen this countless times with countless legislation.

The costs gets absorbed, and in certain cases will eventually pay for itself.
You've got no precedence at all for costs being passed on to the consumer.

It wouldn't necessarily cost billions. Depending how how well you use existing systems.

Flatcapdriver

Your 'idea' is simply a distillation of ETS and look how ineffective that has been and if you believe that companies don't pass on costs to the consumer then you've spent too long designing things and not enough time at the sharp end of the business.

My 'length of time' gives me credence because I've dealt with all the major NGOs personally, actively and intensively lobbied HMG (and others) both prior, during and post-Kyoto so I've seen at first hand all the snake oil projects that have been dreamed up in back offices all over the world and none of them have made a blind bit of difference.

In the words of a former Minister for the Environment - "the minute this (or any other) Government works out how to increase the Treasuries' coffers by promoting the green agenda is the moment the environment will take centre stage". How prophetic those words were...

In order to really make an impact then it has to be carrot and not stick, the problem with that is that it makes no contribution in taxation terms.

lozgti

Hopefully in about 5 years time the Green Brainwashing Machine will have disappeared and we can talk about something interesting.

It really does drive me absolutely potty

Lightbulbs that just about outblast a candle.

1.2 litre blue/red/greenmotion cars that couldn't pull the skin of custard

Unemployed and students crying and beating themselves with their banners when someone mentions 'coal'

Budget speeches talking about banning plastic bags

Celebrities driving Toyota Prius things

People inventing spactastic phrases like 'carbon footprint'

Real men converting their 4x4 to LPG

Patio Heaters coming underfire from the Green Police

(Maybe I am actually living in a dream like that other thread)

Flatcapdriver

Loz. I hope you're right because the whole issue has been hijacked and blown out of all proportion. BTW - real men convert their 4x4s to LPG so they can go out and tear up the environment...



cheaply.

subaruturbo_18

+1