28 ms·

France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall

• gourou 7y ago
  Is there any way this could impact plane manufacturers? Lighter planes would mean less pollution.
  • WhompingWindows 7y ago
    Would lighter planes mean less pollution? Shouldn't we look at per-customer emissions? There's clearly benefit to a 2 seater vs 1 seater, what about 30 seats vs 60 seats? I don't actually know the physics here, would be interesting to see that calculated.
• keiferski 7y ago
  I am actually surprised that short-distance flights aren't taxed more in Western Europe. The train infrastructure in France is world class and can get you from Paris (North-Central part of the country) to Marseille (Southeast), a distance of about 500 miles, in 3 hours. For Americans, this would be roughly equivalent to go from Boston to Washington D.C. (a trip that takes 7-10+ hours)
  • baud147258 7y ago
    The train infrastructure is not perfect, the biggest issue being travels not going to/from Paris: the lines aren't as good and there aren't a lot of high-speed lines.
    • samsonradu 7y ago
      And they’re expensive compared to flying the equivalent route/distance.
      • Scoundreller 7y ago
        But save you from the pain of getting to/from CDG.
        • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
          Getting to CDG...by train...is pretty easy. Traveling by train through Paris is a PITA as it often involves a station transfer via bus.
          • littlestymaar 7y ago
            You can always do the transfer via metro (and there will be at most one change). The metro isn't very well suited if you travel with a lot of luggage though.
            • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
              When I was transiting in Paris from Lausanne to Lyon, there was no metro connection between the Gares. That was 2006, things could be different now.
              • schoen 7y ago
                Wouldn't you be more likely to make that connection in Geneva rather than in Paris?
                • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
                  Sorry, I meant Nantes, not Lyon. Come to think of it, I’ve never been to Lyon, not sure why I got those two cities mixed up. It wouldn’t make sense to go to Paris just to go to Lyon. :)
                  • schoen 7y ago
                    Aha! According to Google Maps, there are some options for making this journey today that will use the Paris Metro, but you would still have to change metro lines en route between Gare de Lyon and Gare Montparnasse (the "one change" that littlestymaar mentioned) It's possible that these options already existed in 2006 but were complicated or inconvenient enough that no one or no web site suggested them to you.
    • ajdlinux 7y ago
      I'm currently planning a trip where I'm considering going from Strasbourg to Toulouse. Over 7 hours on the fastest train itinerary, versus a 1.5 hour flight. Not that difficult a decision.
  • acomjean 7y ago
    As an american who's taken the day long (not high speed) trip from Boston to DC, I was amazed how fast and easy to deal with the French Rail was. I only took Paris->LeHarve and Reims >Paris routes. But wow! The subway in Paris worked pretty well too.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • kaycebasques 7y ago
    Is the carbon footprint for train travel significantly lower than for plane travel?
    • sparsely 7y ago
      Massively https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml
    • keiferski 7y ago
      About 5-10% of a flight, according to this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/trains-vs-planes-whats-the-real-cost-of-travel/a-45209552 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/trains-vs-planes-...
      • kgwgk 7y ago
        I was going to say that these figures ignore infrastructure and necessarily underestimate emissions, but it seems that wouldn't change much the overall picture: https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/carbon_footprint_of_railway_infrastructure.pdf https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/carbon_footprint_of_railway_infrastr...
    • boudin 7y ago
      I guess it depend if the train is running on electricity or diesel, but in France I had read an article in a french newspaper stating that the carbon footprint of train was 10% of the one from planes. This article seems to have the same numbers: https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm
      • toomuchtodo 7y ago
        France is primarily nuclear powered, so electric trains there have extremely low carbon impact. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=FR https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=... (ElectricityMap.org: France)
  • ravedave5 7y ago
    Because of said train infrastructure I'm flying into paris, touring Europe (on trains) then flying out from berlin. Unless they can get the whole EU to agree to it it's probably going to have that affect.
    • icebraining 7y ago
      We're talking about less than 20€, and only 3€ if you're flying economy. There's no way it's worth changing travel plans over that, unless for cases where it really makes no difference.
  • vonmoltke 7y ago
    > For Americans, this would be roughly equivalent to go from Boston to Washington D.C. (a trip that takes 7-10+ hours) Half of which is stops... I would love Amtrak to start a service that is just BOS<->NYC<->WAS.
    • keiferski 7y ago
      In a perfect world it would be an hour between each stop: DC > Philadelphia > NYC > Boston
      • dajohnson89 7y ago
        Let's add in the BWI airport too. And while we're at it add Baltimore too. But that's it!
        • rayiner 7y ago
          Baltimore and BWI together have 1.7 million NEC boarding per year, only modestly less than BBY and BOS’s combined 2.1 million. Philly has over 3 million.
        • philshem 7y ago
          This is why we can’t have nice things
          • rayiner 7y ago
            We can’t have nice things because people in the US live in an almost continuous band of mid-density urban agglomeration from Boston to DC, and it’s hard to reach most of the population through just a few stations. The most noticeable thing about European cities, to my American eyes, is how they just... end. Drive from Munich airport to the city, and it’s farmland in between. Drive from Dulles to DC, and it’s strip malls and suburbs the whole way.
            • vonmoltke 7y ago
  • cgearhart 7y ago
    I took the train from Toulouse to Paris last summer and it was very pleasant—especially in comparison to air travel. A few hours of picturesque landscapes with plenty of legroom, baggage space, and opportunities to walk around. I think it’s too bad that we can’t seem to get that working here in the US. (See, eg, California high speed rail project...)
    • BeniBoy 7y ago
      I love that train! I must have took it around 20 times. But by French standard, this is a terribly long one (around 6 hours).. And sometimes much more expensive that taking the one-hour flight. Hope this tax will tilt the balance.
  • 7373737373 7y ago
    At least in Germany, taking the train is insanely expensive.
    • dewey 7y ago
      If you buy the ticket at the wrong time yes. If you take it more often and use a BahnCard it’s not too bad either and definitely not “insanely”.
      • kaybe 7y ago
        And getting a BahnCard can be worth it for just one trip (there are short-duration ones) so it's possible even for tourists.
  • ars 7y ago
    > I am actually surprised that short-distance flights aren't taxed more in Western Europe It does seem the like tax is backwards. They barely tax the flights that could be replaced by rail, but have higher taxes on the ones that can't.
  • mytailorisrich 7y ago
    I think they also do direct trains from London to Marseille in about 6 hours these days.
  • bengalister 7y ago
    Train infrastructure in France is not premium anymore, like our health system. Sure if you compare to North America like Canada, it is still better. I took the Via rail train in Canada last year from Toronto to Montreal, seats were spacious, good catering, but the journey was long and trains outdated. As for the price it was not crazy expensive but not cheap. The high speed train in France (TGV) is really expensive if you cannot get any discount compared to flights. I live near Nice in France and leaving my car in the airport parking lots is often more expensive than the flights themselves, even for 3 days ! For instance a one-way flight from Lille to Nice with Easyjet (around 900km) can cost only 60 Euros, it can be 100Euros back and forth. Also trains in France are more subject to strikes and delays. Well any mean of transportation in France is subject to strikes but the occurrence is greater with trains. Again the French government thinks that creating a French tax will pave the road to an European one. I highly doubt so. French airports and airlines will suffer from it compared to their European equivalent, and if an European tax is created, it won't probably make the French tax disappear. France loves taxes, we see the results. Again
    • maelito 7y ago
      > Train infrastructure in France is not premium anymore It still is premium compared to the average country, even if it could be far better > The high speed train in France (TGV) is really expensive if you cannot get any discount compared to flights. I live near Nice in France Nice is the most enclaved city in France, in the far south-east and surrounded by mountains. It is not at all representative of the rail experience you get in the other big french cities. > Also trains in France are more subject to strikes and delays. Well any mean of transportation in France is subject to strikes but the occurrence is greater with trains. I spend ~2000€ yearly in trains, and the cumulated delay I got in 2019 yet was 30 minutes, with 25 minutes due to a a crop fire close to the rails. Yes, delays happen, but people often overestimate them (that's my opinion). > Again the French government thinks that creating a French tax will pave the road to an European one. I highly doubt so. French airports and airlines will suffer from it compared to their European equivalent, and if an European tax is created, it won't probably make the French tax disappear. France loves taxes, we see the results. The 200 million € from that tax will go to make that very train system better...
  • cs02rm0 7y ago
    For comparison, Paris-Marseilles is about a 1hr20 flight. Maybe comparable given airport hassle these days, but that is on what is perhaps the best route in Europe for showing what trains can do. I doubt cost comes in to most train-flight comparisons and I'm not sure what the point of the tax would be if not to change behaviour.
    • maelito 7y ago
      How about Paris-Bordeaux (brand new), Paris-Strasbourg, Paris-Lille, Paris-London, Paris-Rennes ? Ok, France is very centralized but Paris-Marseille is far from being an exception.
    • rq1 7y ago
      You need to take into account the distance between the airport and the city center, the security checks, on-boarding, checking in, getting your luggage back... etc. It’s both time consuming and annoying.
    • DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      It takes about 45 minutes to get from downtown Paris to CDG or Orly airport though, and half an hour to get from the airport in Marseille to the city center, so by the time you've figured in getting to the airport 1.5 hours before your flight, the total trip time is more like 4 hours. For comparison, the fastest train takes 3:15.
  • akerro 7y ago
    International flights are much cheaper in the UK than local trains. I paid the same price for a flight from Cardiff to Malta as for train from Cardiff to Bristol (40 miles). https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/578284/train-air-fares-malaga-cheap-expensive-friends-meet-ticket https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/578284/train-ai...
  • eloisant 7y ago
    In France train is fine if you want to go to or from Paris, but connections between other cities have been closed or gimped with slower trains and less frequency. It's really hypocrite of the government to shame people of flying while they've been destroying the train infrastructure all these years.
  • briandear 7y ago
    Marseille to Berlin though, not such a fun trip. Marseille to Frankfurt, multiple hours on trains, 1 hour on an airplane. Stuttgart to Barcelona? Better set aside an entire day. Biarritz to Geneva? The train system is good on certain destinations, but it’s impossible to connect everything like airplanes do.
• benmdi 7y ago
  Based on recent events, I'm sure this will be well received...
  • namdnay 7y ago
    Not really the same population... I honestly don't think it will get much pushback
  • TheIronYuppie 7y ago
    Tbh, I like it - only 25% of the population flies, and it's the top tier (mostly). My biggest problem is it's so low. 1.5/3 Euro for EU/non-EU travel.
    • cptaj 7y ago
      And that sucks. More freedom is good. More taxing won't help more people travel. That is, of course, the intention here. But that's not a solution, its pretty regressive.
      • s_kilk 7y ago
        We may be at the point where we have to choose between the freedom to fly and the freedom to live on an inhabitable planet. Generations from now, people will, if there are any left, look back on these bourgeois luxuries as a kind of grotesque oppulance, utterly out of whack with ecological reality.
        • reroute1 7y ago
          That's something you just can't predict. No one knows what people will be thinking "generations from now". You seem to be projecting strongly.
      • Bayart 7y ago
        Flying takes a pretty heavy toll on the environment, it should be discouraged as much as possible. If people want to travel, the continent's already covered with roads and rail.
• isolli 7y ago
  Isn't the title misleading? From the article: "The new French tax will be 1.5 euros for flights within France." Unless "out of France" simply means originating in France, regardless of whether the destination is in France or not. Either way, the original title is better, I would keep it: "France to tax flights from its airports"
  • Ultramanoid 7y ago
    Thanks for the comment. I posted this with the original title as it was, they have changed it. I edited it just now, but I'm not going to keep checking to see if they change it again...
    • isolli 7y ago
      Maybe they changed it because it was not clear! I was also curious to know if I had misunderstood because I'm not a native English speaker. I know that "I work out of Berlin" means "I work in Berlin", so...
  • duxup 7y ago
    "The new French tax will be 1.5 euros for flights within France or the European Union, 3 euros for economy flights out of the EU, 9 euros for intra-EU business class and up to 18 euros for business class tickets out of the EU. Transit flights will not be taxed." I read that as most flights in or out of France being taxed. "Transit flights" Is that a connecting flight? Seems to be the only exception.
    • sgc 7y ago
      Layover flight.
    • usrusr 7y ago
      > "Transit flights" Is that a connecting flight? Seems to be the only exception. Makes sense, economically, in that there is quite fierce competition between CDG and other major European hub airports for filling spare intercontinental capacity and multi-hop connections are far more price sensitive than direct flights. If CDG would lose a majority of regional (but still international) feeder traffic to FRA or AMS, Paris would experience a noticeable drop in direct connections.
• lou1306 7y ago
  Not sure why the title was edited. The article mentions both domestic and international flights.
  • Ultramanoid 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20392885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20392885
• cameronbrown 7y ago
  I don't really understand what the purpose of this tax is. There's no alternative to burning fuel by energy density on an airline, so why go after flights? What do they expect them to do? If you're taxing petrol cars you'd expect electric cars to become more economically viable. Either way I disagree with carbon taxes. They're regressive, and ignore the fact that regular people are being badly hurt by them whereas the rich won't even feel it.
  • inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >What do they expect them to do? Use trains.
    • baud147258 7y ago
      Except that trains don't have the same possible destinations, you can't (easily) take a train to a destination outside EU. I think the gov went in the wrong direction here, the tax for flights within France should have been the highest, to give more incentives for using the train
      • inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >Except that trains don't have the same possible destinations I do not know of a commercial airport without a train station. There do however appear to be plenty of rail stations that do not have airports. >you can't (easily) take a train to a destination outside EU. Britain is about to test this theory. But also, that is nonsense. Passenger trains leave and enter the EU all the time.
        • baud147258 7y ago
          > I do not know of a commercial airport without a train station. Could you contact me when I would be able to buy a Paris-Tunis train ticket, please?
          • ceejayoz 7y ago
• buboard 7y ago
  It's nice how you can rename any tax to an "eco tax" and suddenly everyone's delighted. Kudos for the social engineering. (there is absolutely no indication that this will somehow help the environment. I 'm heavily against flying , but i m also appalled by the level of gullibility here)
  • mamon 7y ago
    Ecology is a new religion, except instead of Apocalypse they have Global Warming, and instead of sin they have "carbon footprint".
    • homonculus1 7y ago
      And instead of a bible, we have evidence ;)
      • mamon 7y ago
        No, all we have are scientific papers. And while in theory they should be considered evidence, the current financing system basically turns climate scientists into grant-seeking whores, and the results of research are determined not by facts, but by the needs of the sponsor. "Fighting" global warming is multibillion dollar business after all.
        • usrusr 7y ago
          Facilitating global warming is a multitrillion dollar business, so that argument is kind of weak.
  • la_barba 7y ago
    The funds have been earmarked for more eco-friendly transport services. It would be easy to go through the budget and see what happened. News articles can only give you so much context. It would consume an entire newspaper to give the back-story of every single news article. The reader is expected to do some work on their own. Also its not some 'random' tax. France has what they call an "ecological defense council" consisting of 150 randomly chosen citizens who debate such matters with domain experts. This idea has come out of such meetings.
• DocTomoe 7y ago
  So, this will mostly affect CDG as a hub. IF that tax gets painful, people will move to LHR or FRA.
  • realusername 7y ago
    By starting with a small tax which won't affect much CDG, the strategy is probably for France to push it on a EU-level after that.
  • pjc50 7y ago
    Heathrow already has UK Air Passenger Duty (at a higher rate!): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-allowances-for-air-passenger-duty https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-allowances-for-air-pas...
  • llamathrowaway 7y ago
    LHR can’t get any busier without a third runway, which is increasingly unlikely to be built.
• elohju 7y ago
  Because in France ecofascism is becoming the #1 religion thanks to leftist propaganda. Government uses that to increase taxes.
  • XMPPwocky 7y ago
    Do you have a working definition of fascism here or are you using it as something closer to "a bad politics thing"?
    • jimmaswell 7y ago
      That seems to be all it means these days.
    • elohju 7y ago
      It means screwing off people and justifying with "we're saving the planet".
      • XMPPwocky 7y ago
        Okay, but how does that relate to fascism? Really, you'd expect fascists to advocate the opposite actions, because of the strong nationalist component of fascism- wouldn't they tend to favor actions that benefit France and disregard global externalities?
    • nine_k 7y ago
      From Wikipedia: «Fascism ... characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy». There are people who see the enforcement of the green agenda in these terms, like this: you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it, and it gets forced on the economy through the power of the state. I personally think that such a view is a bit of a exaggeration. But we should remember that the danger of fascism is always around the corner, in the groupthink and in the enforcement of One True Way in anything.
      • 7y ago
• frenchman99 7y ago
  I think there is this thing called the train.
  • buboard 7y ago
    Immigrants cant train to algeria
    • craftyguy 7y ago
      They can take boats. Or not travel as frequently.
    • inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Given that you can get from France to Algeria by land and there are extensive rail networks across all the connecting regions, including extensive rail networks in Algeria itself, built originally by the French, I would be amused to know how you came up with this conclusion.
      • buboard 7y ago
        Last i checked the mediterranean was still there.
        • inflatableDodo 7y ago
          I just had a look to check what tickets would be needed for the journey and was dismayed to find that as you pass through the Middle East, it does appear that you will have to take some connecting bus services.
      • rjsw 7y ago
        France and Algeria are not connected by land.
        • luckylion 7y ago
          They are, it's just a long journey.
• flixic 7y ago
  As subsidies and taxes can be used to incentivize and disincentivize behavior, I’m happy about this. Flights have truly large ecologic costs, and flyers need to be aware of that, trying to minimize travel if not necessary. I’m particularly happy that it’s not a flat tax but based on ticket class.
  • dfilppi 7y ago
    Should be based on passenger mass
    • gourou 7y ago
      Can't tell if you're trolling. The A320 weights 42,600 kg. A passenger weights 100kg, let's say 150kg with luggages. That's 0.3% if the overall mass of the plane. Wouldn't make much of a difference if you have an extra 50kg.
• mgbmtl 7y ago
  They say it will "help support the environment", which could mean through funding of greener initiatives, R&D or level the playing field (although the tax is really low/symbolic, in my opinion). It makes sense to tax flights in order to subsidize rail for short-distance trips. I would have expected a higher tax on flights outside the EU, so that people change their habits (although then you need a carbon-tax sort of scheme, not to penalize low-income people who visit their family once a year).
  • isolli 7y ago
    Related: I was surprised to learn recently that short-distance trips by plane actually have lower CO2-emissions than long-distance ones, because the plane does not need to carry so much fuel just for later use.
    • ceejayoz 7y ago
      Do you have a citation on that? https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-clim... says "Longer flights are more efficient overall, as cruising requires less fuel." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/06/aviation-q-and-a https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/06/aviation... also states "short flights tend to be more harmful to the climate per mile travelled than long-haul flights are (because they have more empty seats, and because taking off and landing burns more fuel than cruising)".
      • isolli 7y ago
        Thanks, it is indeed a bit more complicated than I first thought! There is a sweet spot: "Above a certain distance it becomes more fuel-efficient to make a halfway stop to refuel, despite the energy losses in descent and climb." [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Flight_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Fligh... Interesting tidbit (from the same): Very long non-stop passenger flights suffer from the weight penalty of the extra fuel required, which means limiting the number of available seats to compensate. For such flights, the critical fiscal factor is the quantity of fuel burnt per seat-nautical mile. For these reasons the world's longest commercial flights were cancelled c. 2013. An example is Singapore Airlines' former New York to Singapore flight, which could carry only 100 passengers (all business class) on the 10,300-mile (16,600 km) flight. According to an industry analyst, "It [was] pretty much a fuel tanker in the air."
• caymanjim 7y ago
  This is simply rent seeking. It won't reduce flights, it's too small to incentivize any fuel efficiency changes, it's passed on to the consumer so it won't alter airline behavior, and while the article claims the revenue will go towards financing trains, it doesn't state how that will be implemented. Are they going to reduce fees on trains accordingly? Are they going to improve train efficiency? Are they going to build additional infrastructure? It's possible that they could do all these things and cause a tiny shift away from air travel toward less-polluting options, but it's more likely just another general tax revenue source that's politically easier to acquire because it's easy to demonize airlines. I'm not defending airlines; they pollute a lot. I just don't see how this helps.
  • dfilppi 7y ago
    Airlines dont pollute. Their customers do.
    • usrusr 7y ago
      Depends. I believe that regional feeder connections, where fuel cost is a lower fraction of total expenses than for longer distances would still have a lot of unexplored fuel economy improvement opportunities left. Even speed isn't terribly important there. Unfortunately, due to bigger picture economic incentives, feeder connections would likely be the last to suffer taxation/loss of subsidies.
  • baud147258 7y ago
    Trains in France are State-owned and heavily indebted, so more money would just mean reducing some of that debt; even then, the amount of money expected to be taxed (~200 M€) is nothing compared to the national railway budget, which is around 30-40B €.
  • perfunctory 7y ago
    > I just don't see how this helps. Just curious, what would be your favorite solution(s) of the climate crisis?
    • 7y ago
• rdtsc 7y ago
  I've flown through a French airport once - Paris Charles de Gaulle and since have gone out of my way to not fly through it again. It was a hot mess. They lost the luggage, it was hard to find gates, parts of it looked outdated, customer service sucked. A year after, the ceiling at its _new_ terminal collapsed killing several people (https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-de-gaulle-airport-terminal-collapse-3972251 https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-de-gaulle-airport-terminal...). Maybe it was just me having a bad luck, but it was certainly enough to convince me to stay out French airports even if it means longer flights, delay or changing the duration of my stay.
  • buboard 7y ago
    Yes CDG is doing pretty good job of deterring fliers already .
  • realusername 7y ago
    I had a pretty good experience on my case, nothing to say really. The passport control queues were pretty optimized and things worked as they should. I've definitely seen much worse airport than that.
    • rdtsc 7y ago
      Ah ok. It was close to 15 years ago for me so maybe they have improved and I've just held a consumer grudge for too long.
  • balthasar 7y ago
    I think yelp is another site.
  • gourou 7y ago
    It seems most people share your sentiment http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/the-most-hated-airport-in-the-world-paris-charles-de-gaulle-20111117-602084 http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/the-most-hated-airport-in-the-w...
    • dawnerd 7y ago
• jeanlucas 7y ago
  Smells like 2007
• theDevill 7y ago
  Why are Americans so obsessed with religion, devil and sins?! Taxes exist to capture money and finance the externalities that are ignored by corporations. If corporations were more responsible countries would not have to tax these issues. In this case France is using the money to improve an already pretty good rail system. Compare this to the US and the California train line?
  • toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Taxes also exist to incentivize desired behavior. See: Solar, EV tax credits
  • nerdponx 7y ago
    It's just a colorful name. A sin tax is nothing more than an opinionated Pigouvian tax.
  • TuringNYC 7y ago
    "Sin Taxes" are not meant to literally tax sins but to tax behaviours with negative consequences that where the price is ultimately bourne by society. For example, the cost of second hand smoke is bourne by others, and when they get sick, many times by taxpayers. The cost of alcohol is partly bourne by a variety of parties. "Sin Taxes" are not meant to discourage literal sins but to discourage such activities with external costs. Many argue sugar should also be added to the list of "sins" though of course it is not Biblically a sin.
    • baud147258 7y ago
      Taxes on tobacco are a good example of a sin tax in France, for example, alongside taxes on fuel.
    • bryanlarsen 7y ago
      Pigouvian tax is a synonym if you want to avoid the connotations of sin.
      • SilasX 7y ago
• cyrksoft 7y ago
  Will flights still be cheaper than trains?
• baud147258 7y ago
  I think the gov went in the wrong direction here, the tax for flights within France should have been the highest, to give more incentives for using the train, which is quite good (and very good when travelling to/from Paris).
• blondie9x 7y ago
  About time. Traveling is killing the planet. One of major causes of climate change. We need to take it seriously. I'm glad France is willing to take a bold and brave step to support the environment.
  • safog 7y ago
    [Citation Needed]
    • blondie9x 7y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollutio... https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/18177118/airlines-climate-change- https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/1817711... emissions-travel
      • umeshunni 7y ago
        Random click bait articles are not citations.
        • kevinh 7y ago
          Just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't mean they're clickbait. The articles linked cite their sources.
  • vuln 7y ago
    I can't believe I am living in an era that a "bold and brave step" is raising taxes. What a sad world we live in. I guess France and their leaders can sleep well knowing they have stifled the climate crisis. Pat yourself on the back France you "did something".
    • Analemma_ 7y ago
      Carbon emissions are an externality cost. How do you propose properly accounting for that cost if not through taxes?
• dewey 7y ago
  Finally. It's really frustrating to see how heavily subsidized airlines, plane fuel and airports are and how big of a tax breaks they get when they come to a city. At the same time people are shamed for buying salad in a plastic bag when the big lever is somewhere completely different. Had the same thought yesterday when I saw: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1148317244893597696 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1148317244893597696
  • rayiner 7y ago
    Aviation accounts for just 2% of global carbon emissions: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/18177118/airlines-climate-change-emissions-travel https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/1817711.... The plastics industry will burn through 14% of remaining carbon budget: https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/15/plastics-industry-climate-change-emissions-oceans-ciel-report https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/15/plastics-industry-clim...
    • tmalsburg2 7y ago
      Aviation hurts the climate in multiple ways of which CO2 emissions are just one. Vapor trails apparently contribute even more to anthropogenic climate change. Overall the contribution of aviation is estimated to be 5%.
    • marcosdumay 7y ago
      Those are 2 very different measures. You can't compare them.
    • adrianN 7y ago
      Aviation is a small factor globally because almost nobody can afford to fly. For a typical westerner like me, a transatlantic flight per year roughly doubles my carbon footprint. Similarly, meat is a really big factor globally, because most people can afford to eat some meat, but for a westerner it makes up a much smaller (but still signifacent...) fraction of the pie because I use so much energy compared to a villager in India.
  • hourislate 7y ago
• mberning 7y ago
  I wonder if this will roil the working masses like the planned gas taxes did. Maybe it will take a while until the work stoppages and lay offs kick in.
• gns24 7y ago
  The UK already taxes flights in a similar way. Whilst this does feel like progress, it would be much better to tax the fuel instead of the passengers. Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt. The problem with taxing passengers instead of fuel include: - it doesn't encourage improving the efficiency of planes - airlines can't fill their planes with really cheap seats, and empty seats seem like a ridiculous waste - freight isn't taxed If you tax fuel too much there's a risk that planes will fly in with enough fuel to fly out again, but that could be fixed by legislation or (better) by a standardised fuel tax across a large area.
  • rlpb 7y ago
    > Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt. "Without any international agreement on taxing fuel, it is highly likely that moves to impose duty on international flights, either at a domestic or European level, would encourage ‘tankering’: carriers filling their aircraft as full as possible whenever they landed outside the EU to avoid paying tax. Clearly this would be entirely counterproductive. Aircraft would be travelling further than necessary to fill up in low-tax jurisdictions; in addition they would be burning up more fuel when carrying the extra weight of a full fuel tank." This document explains it pretty well: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf
    • hokkos 7y ago
      You can tax fuel burned inside european airspace instead of fuel at rest once arrived at the airport. Also : >EU countries can end the decades-long exemption and tax kerosene on flights between them, according to legal experts. This could either be done at EU level through a series of bilateral agreements or by agreement between individual countries, the independent legal analysis for green NGO federation Transport & Environment (T&E) finds. The old argument that foreign carriers’ operating within the EU – de facto a small number of flights – can’t be taxed can be overcome by introducing a de minimis threshold below which fuel burn would not be taxed. https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/taxing-aviation-fuel-europe https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/taxing-avi...
• cloakandswagger 7y ago
  We could virtually eliminate carbon emissions altogether if humans went back to living in caves and dying at the age of 30. Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to reduce their carbon footprint by not eating meat, living in a tent or staying in one place their entire lives then be my guest, just don't regress the whole of humanity by mandating it.
  • noarchy 7y ago
    >Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. I hate to be that guy, but [Citation Needed]. Otherwise, I agree with you what what essentially amounts to a primitivist approach is counterproductive.
    • vorpalhex 7y ago
      You're right, those resources are really going to benefit all of catkind. My cat loves iron mines, favorite past time really.
      • selectodude 7y ago
        The resources weren't placed anywhere for the benefit of anybody. They just...are.
        • vorpalhex 7y ago
          > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Semantic games seem silly. If the parent prefers "placed" to "existed since formed in the Earth", then let's grant them the lingual shortcut. Likewise for "for Mankind" instead of "having existed for no particular purpose but being readily available for the usage of the dominant species of the land which can heavily benefit from their extraction and processing."
    • cloakandswagger 7y ago
• marnett 7y ago
  > Want to do something about climate change? Start with yourself I really dislike this line of thinking. I don’t manufacture millions of tons of concrete or millions of single-use plastic shampoo bottles. Our current path is irreversible if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon.
  • slg 7y ago
    "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible" ~ Stanisław Jerzy Lec Sure, you won't be able to make a measurable impact by yourself. However your mindset quickly leads to a tragedy of the commons type response that leaves us all in trouble. We should all take a more proactive approach to this in both our private life and in our professional work.
    • eat_veggies 7y ago
      tragedy of the commons is solved by regulation, not by hoping that individuals or corporations will discipline themselves
      • slg 7y ago
        I agree. We need regulations to change and that includes both taxes and subsidies which are the main topics of the article and the top comment respectively. But in order to change those things, we need political will and that political will comes from self discipline.
      • colordrops 7y ago
        Who writes and enactsn the regulation?
      • tathougies 7y ago
        Any regulation on corporate behavior is ultimately just a proxy for regulation on individuals (because it's often easier to regulate corporations, as they tend to be more accountable). Corporations will discipline themselves if the demand for their product goes away.
      • 7y ago
• gourou 7y ago
  It's surprising the government didn't start with that instead of abruptly raising gas prices. Both are eco-friendly moves, but this one targets the rich more than the poor. Maybe it would have prevented months-long Yellow Vest protests.
  • remram 7y ago
    I am also surprised by how much this seems to be an answer to that movement, yet it comes a year after this apparent deadlock and all this fighting.
• coldtea 7y ago
  "Airline shares fall", so? Would they also put a headline line: "Colony gets freedom, East India Company shares fall"?
• bartwe 7y ago
  Please use the tax to fund research into holoportation to replace quite a bit of travel.
• esotericn 7y ago
  Some of the posts here amuse me because they're based on the idea that everything that exists now somehow must exist forever. The train, or electric car, or boat, or other less polluting option from A to B, may well take a lot longer. That might make certain things impractical. Like, say, me wombling down to Heathrow and taking a weekend in Krakow. That may well just be the way it has to be. It may be temporary due to technological advancement; it may not. Just as it may be the case that, in fact, there is no suitable alternative to say, plastic wrap on food. And maybe we'll have to change our diet. I make no claim that any of the above is true; but if it is; such is life. We will have to adapt.
  • riffraff 7y ago
    There are indeed a lot of things that were "normal" just a few years back: driving without seat belts, smoking in clubs, having sex with strangers without condoms, eating things that are now restricted due to environmental or health concerns. It is hard to think that cheap flights can be a "dangerous convenience", but they may very well be.
    • esotericn 7y ago
      Stuff like the Clean Air Act and equivalent elsewhere. You could just burn whatever in the stove. It's your house, and castle, why not. Turns out that didn't quite work out, so now you can't. There is no replacement for a proper log fire that's quite the same. Life goes on. I'd imagine that the wise amongst the older generations would have a better understanding of this, and also those who grew up poor. Go back 15 years and jetting around Europe on Ryanair flights for the cost of a night out just wasn't a thing. Didn't exist. Completely unimaginable. Now? I can arb my flat in London against a flight and an Airbnb in a country 2000 miles away and have a weekend holiday for free. Something has to give.
• dorfsmay 7y ago
  Why are they taxing flights rather than fuel? There's nothing wrong with "flying"! What's wrong is how they get their airspeed, namely by burning fossil fuel. Also those prices are insulting. There is no jet fuel tax in the EU. This gimmick tax is less than what people driving cars pay in taxes on their fuel for a tank of gas. Governments want to increase tax on car fuels (hence the yellow jacket movement) but still give airlines a break!
  • wcoenen 7y ago
    Airlines are already included in the EU cap and trade scheme. That's effectively a fuel surcharge for CO2. (When that happened, the US disliked it so much that they passed the "European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act" to prohibit US carriers from complying. And China threatened to cancel airbus orders. As a result, flights that go outside of the European Economic Area are not covered by the scheme.)
    • Ericson2314 7y ago
      So sad...
  • tus88 7y ago
    > There's nothing wrong with "flying"! What's wrong is how they get their airspeed, namely by burning fossil fuel. Sadly at the current time there is no distinction between the two.
    • inflatableDodo 7y ago
      There's some, but not much. These look fun - http://lazairinfo.com/electric-lazair/ http://lazairinfo.com/electric-lazair/
  • ant6n 7y ago
    > Why are they taxing flights rather than fuel? Cuz Chicago convention
    • 7y ago
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• vinay_ys 7y ago
  Here are the ways I see airline industry produces pollution: * The airports are built (clearing so much green land, using so much concrete) * How flights taxi when on airport * How much time they spend in air due to congestion or weather * How far airports are located from city population centers and transportation between them. * Amount of time people spend at airports waiting - hence need large facilities to host them with food, entertainment (shopping) etc with air-conditioning. I can imagine ways of switching over to alternate fuels, optimizing the process flows to reduce fuel needed or avoid certain step entirely through innovation and drastic changes. But huge segment of travel generated pollution can be completed avoided by replacing in-person business meetings with alternate equally rich and rewarding experiences. In the future, some day, I hope there will be holographic rooms that one can use to holographically teleport to another location and do meetings as if they are there in person. This would consume way less energy and hence reduce pollution. Imagine "holo-portation" hotel rooms that you can rent for doing meetings.
  • bsilvereagle 7y ago
    > I hope there will be holographic rooms that one can use to holographically teleport to another location and do meetings as if they are there in person. HP took strides on this in 2007 with the "Halo Room". http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2008/halo/ds_halo-meetingroom.pdf http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2008/halo/ds_ha...
• agentultra 7y ago
  > A round-trip plane ride from New York to London costs another three square meters or so of Arctic sea ice. [0] It sounds like it wasn't a high enough tax. And perhaps we need to do more at the individual level to discourage international travel. [0] https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-co2-sea-ice-20161103-story.html https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-co2-sea...
• mbell 7y ago
  I'm getting to the point where I think 'tax incidence analysis' should be a required course, perhaps required every few years throughout ones life just to ensure it's not forgotten[0]. It would improve the political discourse substantially. [0] Actual implementation of this would be very difficult on many axes and perhaps impossible without introducing more problem than it solves, but I think it's worth it to try to figure out.
• hartator 7y ago
  I would rather them working on removing subsidies to airlines rather than them adding another tax.
• xvilka 7y ago
  French government, unlike German one, is a lot smarter, and didn't kill its nuclear industry, adding more coal burning emissions. Surely this will pay in the long term. And a lot.
• 0xNippon 7y ago
  Y'all have fun with that. France is at the bottom of the places in the developed world I'd actually want to visit.
  • dang 7y ago
    Can you please not post unsubstantive comments so we don't have to ban you? If instead you'd read the guidelines and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • 0xNippon 7y ago
      What? It's my opinion and is true. And is probably the lowkey opinion of many other people. I'm literally in Tokyo right now cause Japan subsidizes travel instead of punishing people for it. Honestly fuck hackernews. Y'all are the actual assholes. I wasn't being mean or a dick in any way. "Unsubstantive" my ass.
      • dang 7y ago
        The bar for a good comment here is higher than "it's my opinion". Not every opinion deserves expressing, only those that raise the signal/noise ratio. I don't see any information in the post, only that you're dissing France, which is nationalistic flamebait that counts as noise rather than signal here.
      • 0xNippon 7y ago
        And further. When I do have an actual real and legit point to make I'm shadow banned. I bet there's thousands of others in my position.
        • dang 7y ago
          When we ban established users, we tell them we're banning them and why. Shadowbanning is for new accounts that show signs of either spamming or trolling—especially serial trolling, i.e. someone we've banned before and whose new account indicates more of the same.