3 ms·
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 re
by 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 agoRelated: 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 agoDo 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 agoThanks, 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."
- dehrmann 7y agoSingapore Airlines relaunched that flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flights_21_and_22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flights_21_...
- mgbmtl 7y agoPerhaps, but it's still really cheap to take a weekend flight, and alternatives are available. Seems like a valid issue to tackle.
- gns24 7y agoPeople with also tell you that take-off burns most of the fuel. I think I read that the sweet-spot in terms of miles per unit fuel is about four hours. (Freight seems to go in roughly four-hour hops, I believe partly for that reason).
- MayeulC 7y agoI asked the other day [1] if electric towplanes might help with takeoff. I have no idea what the answer would be, but it seems like an interesting use-case to me: short distance, high intensity/power. Build a battery with wings and thrusters. Of course, it comes with its share of drawbacks as well. But if it was to allow lighter planes, and less fuel expenses/burnt, it could well be worth it. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20248645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20248645