3 ms·

> If climate change is truly the harbinger of the apocalypse, and if it needs to be stopped at all costs, then the flight tax would have to be infinite. I don'

> If climate change is truly the harbinger of the apocalypse, and if it needs to be stopped at all costs, then the flight tax would have to be infinite. I don't see how that follows. On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. > That's basically $100 per person on a 100-person flight, enough to prevent many people from flying. It's unclear to me what you mean by this. I think you mean that it would likely reduce demand? Sure, bonus.

dmix 7y ago
> On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. That’s very...optimistic of you. I wish I had the same trust in these systems. Regardless I highly doubt there will be a global movement to kill air travel any time soon, there’s no world gov to implement this mass tax so it will have to be a few very brave souls who do it while trying to convince everyone it won’t result in a massive brain and money drain which will be multiple x bigger than the tax “return”. Not to mention lost productivity. Asia and the US (I’m assuming EU would be the first) will suddenly sound like a far better place to live and do business, then there will be a ton of disincentives to follow suit. Remember when France was going to do their millionaire tax? That didn’t last long once the consequences became apparent and they could be dismissed with campaign slogans.
- rswail 7y ago
  Countries already apply taxes to flights in or outbound from their territories. Airlines already apply "fuel surcharges" as part of their ticketing. Adding a, for example, EU-wide tax on outbound flights based on the distance of origin/destination, would be one way of implementing. Getting international agreement on, for example, having it apply only to outbound flights, would mean that is not a tax on imports, that could be considered a tariff. The income could then be spent on subsidizing the other costs of decarbonization.

dmix 7y ago

> On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. That’s very...optimistic of you. I wish I had the same trust in these systems. Regardless I highly doubt there will be a global movement to kill air travel any time soon, there’s no world gov to implement this mass tax so it will have to be a few very brave souls who do it while trying to convince everyone it won’t result in a massive brain and money drain which will be multiple x bigger than the tax “return”. Not to mention lost productivity. Asia and the US (I’m assuming EU would be the first) will suddenly sound like a far better place to live and do business, then there will be a ton of disincentives to follow suit. Remember when France was going to do their millionaire tax? That didn’t last long once the consequences became apparent and they could be dismissed with campaign slogans.

rswail 7y ago
Countries already apply taxes to flights in or outbound from their territories. Airlines already apply "fuel surcharges" as part of their ticketing. Adding a, for example, EU-wide tax on outbound flights based on the distance of origin/destination, would be one way of implementing. Getting international agreement on, for example, having it apply only to outbound flights, would mean that is not a tax on imports, that could be considered a tariff. The income could then be spent on subsidizing the other costs of decarbonization.