5 ms·

Air travel is exceptionally affordable because the fuel is not taxed. [1] We can curb frivolous air travel by fixing this anomoly, which is long overdue consid

Air travel is exceptionally affordable because the fuel is not taxed. [1] We can curb frivolous air travel by fixing this anomoly, which is long overdue considering the global climate situation we find ourselves in. [1] http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf

Retric 8y ago
Automotive fuel is taxed to pay for roads. Aircraft pay fees to use airports but that's independent of distance travel as that does not impact the airports. So, really if we want to tax CO2 we should tax all forms of CO2 equally in addition to current taxes.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  You should tax what you want to prevent in the way that harms the least things you want to continue. So for instance if you can show that car co2 use more drastically helps the most vulnerable amongst us while air co2 is largely a subsidy to rockstars then you can compellingly argue taxing air travel more on a per co2 basis is fine. Note: I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  Not all forms of CO2 emissions are equal. Aviation emissions at elevation "have a climate impact that is commonly estimated to be 2.7 higher than the same emissions if made at ground-level" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)
  - hueving 8y ago
    That's fine. The point is that adding an airline co2 tax should be met with co2 taxes on all petrol. The last thing you want to incentivize is a 737 worth of people all driving their own cars from LA to SF for the weekend instead of taking the flight.
    - newnewpdro 8y ago
      > The last thing you want to incentivize is a 737 worth of people all driving their own cars from LA to SF for the weekend instead of taking the flight. This is totally bogus. The amount of time people spend traveling has been relatively constant since 1950 [1]. Generally speaking, people will simply travel shorter distances by slower methods (car, train) if travel by air is unavailable, having roughly the same available time budget to work with. The introduction of commercial air travel has substantially amplified the impact of time spent traveling. People travel further and using more fuel in the same unit of time than before. The emergence of air travel has not conserved fuel, and to imply such a thing is to be a shill for the air industry. It created a new class of travel that is a bulk consumer of fossil fuels enabling travel to farther distances than ever with the time available, period. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)
- isostatic 8y ago
  Not in many countries. Some countries subsidise automatice fuel. In Europe it's taxed far more than transport budgets (to contribute to the externalities). Pollution from 1kw of fuel in an ICE is far higher than that in a power station too. Most of the world has been trying to capture the externalities of carbon emissions. It's not perfect, but we are admitting that our economy is reliant on spending our environmental resources. Effectively borrowing to be repaid later. The US is pulling out of that agreement though because reasons.
  - Retric 8y ago
    > Pollution from 1kw in an ICE is far higher than that in a power plant too. Not nessisarily automotive fuel contains both Carbon and Hydrogen. So you're producing both CO2 and H20. Coal power plants often have higher thermal efficiency, but that's not nessisarily enough to make up for the difference in fuel. Further, the highest car engine is 50% fuel efficient and in cold weather can boost a little further by using waste heat for passenger comfort. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115473_mercedes-created-the-worlds-most-efficient-racing-engine https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115473_mercedes-created... The vast majority of automotive engines are far lower, but many coal power plants are sub 40% where many hybrids are over 40%. Granted the extraction, refinement, and transportation of automotive fuel produces CO2. But those stages can and should be taxed separately.
jimmaswell 8y ago
"Hey wait, we left this thing in an affordable state. Can't have that, better fix this oversight ASAP."

Retric 8y ago

Automotive fuel is taxed to pay for roads. Aircraft pay fees to use airports but that's independent of distance travel as that does not impact the airports. So, really if we want to tax CO2 we should tax all forms of CO2 equally in addition to current taxes.

kasey_junk 8y ago
You should tax what you want to prevent in the way that harms the least things you want to continue. So for instance if you can show that car co2 use more drastically helps the most vulnerable amongst us while air co2 is largely a subsidy to rockstars then you can compellingly argue taxing air travel more on a per co2 basis is fine. Note: I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
newnewpdro 8y ago
Not all forms of CO2 emissions are equal. Aviation emissions at elevation "have a climate impact that is commonly estimated to be 2.7 higher than the same emissions if made at ground-level" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)
- hueving 8y ago
  That's fine. The point is that adding an airline co2 tax should be met with co2 taxes on all petrol. The last thing you want to incentivize is a 737 worth of people all driving their own cars from LA to SF for the weekend instead of taking the flight.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    > The last thing you want to incentivize is a 737 worth of people all driving their own cars from LA to SF for the weekend instead of taking the flight. This is totally bogus. The amount of time people spend traveling has been relatively constant since 1950 [1]. Generally speaking, people will simply travel shorter distances by slower methods (car, train) if travel by air is unavailable, having roughly the same available time budget to work with. The introduction of commercial air travel has substantially amplified the impact of time spent traveling. People travel further and using more fuel in the same unit of time than before. The emergence of air travel has not conserved fuel, and to imply such a thing is to be a shill for the air industry. It created a new class of travel that is a bulk consumer of fossil fuels enabling travel to farther distances than ever with the time available, period. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)
isostatic 8y ago
Not in many countries. Some countries subsidise automatice fuel. In Europe it's taxed far more than transport budgets (to contribute to the externalities). Pollution from 1kw of fuel in an ICE is far higher than that in a power station too. Most of the world has been trying to capture the externalities of carbon emissions. It's not perfect, but we are admitting that our economy is reliant on spending our environmental resources. Effectively borrowing to be repaid later. The US is pulling out of that agreement though because reasons.
- Retric 8y ago
  > Pollution from 1kw in an ICE is far higher than that in a power plant too. Not nessisarily automotive fuel contains both Carbon and Hydrogen. So you're producing both CO2 and H20. Coal power plants often have higher thermal efficiency, but that's not nessisarily enough to make up for the difference in fuel. Further, the highest car engine is 50% fuel efficient and in cold weather can boost a little further by using waste heat for passenger comfort. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115473_mercedes-created-the-worlds-most-efficient-racing-engine https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115473_mercedes-created... The vast majority of automotive engines are far lower, but many coal power plants are sub 40% where many hybrids are over 40%. Granted the extraction, refinement, and transportation of automotive fuel produces CO2. But those stages can and should be taxed separately.

jimmaswell 8y ago

"Hey wait, we left this thing in an affordable state. Can't have that, better fix this oversight ASAP."