13 ms·

EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

321 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

AnssiH 5y ago
I very much doubt that that kind of exemption will survive into the actual law. (If it even exists now, I haven't seen the actual draft)
deregulateMed 5y ago
I'm pretty disenchanted with government due to it being hijacked by those with 1%er money. Anyway, couldn't the aristocrats (10%ers) writing this do a better job with trade-offs? Like exempt it, but force them to buy carbon credits at a set discounted price? Pretty sure the 1% knows they can't get away with this without a compromise.
dang 5y ago
The key word here is probably "draft". Bill proposals usually don't amount to much, and for that reason it's generally good practice to wait for a state change (no pun intended). Proposed bills usually go nowhere - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bills%20propos&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... On HN, there's no harm in waiting - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22no%20harm%20in%20waiting%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- makomk 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the significance of a proposed bill is rather different from the EU than in typical democratic countries like say the UK, US or Canada. In most democracies any elected politician can propose a bill, and so they often do purely as a form of showboating to the electorate even if there's no chance it'll get passed. Within the EU, only the small, powerful and very much non-elected European Commission can propose new laws, and they don't generally have anyone to showboat to - as a general rule, I think if they propose something it's done with the intention of it becoming law and it usually does unless there's some actual, strong, substantial objection to it from some other group with the power to stop it.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    The commission proposes, then both council (= national governments) and the directly elected European parliament each develop their own position on this basis. Each of those two positions is already a compromise between the different national and political groups. The three organizations then meet in trilogue and hammer out compromises ('trilogue') with the commission facilitating but ultimately having little say on the outcome, except to block where something violates the EU treaties. Ultimately both Parliament and council (at minister level) have to vote and agree before it becomes law. So indeed lots still to be done and this is likely an attempt to already offer a compromise and will be reasoned (e.g. exempting these might be a small sacrifice if it gets a compromise that covers 99.9% of flights) - but given how visible this is it seems unlikely to stay in as Parliament will rally against it. You can also expect some egalitarian and green countries (Sweden, Finland, if the greens fet into government in the coming election even Germany) to already kill this in the council position.
  - Goety 5y ago
    I think this information is something more people should be exposed to.
  - benhurmarcel 5y ago
    > very much non-elected European Commission They are proposed by the elected governments of the member states, and approved by a majority vote from the directly-elected European parliament. It is very misleading to suggest that the Commission is completely unelected, like the British House of Lords is for example (in the "typical democratic UK"). It's not comparable. > some other group with the power to stop it You mean like the directly-elected European parliament, that needs to vote on it?
    - native_samples 5y ago
      That's how it works in theory, according to the treaties. In reality the head of the Commission has a lot of power over who the commissioners are and have developed a habit of placing many criteria upon national governments in whom they may appoint. The most obvious example of this is the way Jean-Claude Juncker illegally and secretly rejected candidates many times, against the treaties. This only became public because he bragged about it when telling countries that they would not be allowed to nominate conservative Euroskeptics to Commission jobs. He said: “Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments”. Note: this is totally illegal by treaty. As normal, nobody cares. The EU violates its own treaties regularly, this is just one more way. This system has now become institutionalized. For example vDL has required that half the commissioners be women and have rejected individual countries proposals, in order to get that. There have been quotas for women in the past too, just less than 50%. In theory this is not possible, in practice it is. As for the European Parliament, it's useless. It doesn't make laws, so elections to it devolve into pantomimes with candidates all explaining that their policy is either to strongly agree with whatever the Commission wants to do, or to just oppose everything. The level of democratic respect it garners was indicated by how it was totally bypassed last time - in theory, the head of the Commission is voted on by the EU Parliament. So what happens: they were given only one candidate on the list to vote for, vDL. A puppet pseudo-Parliament in which parties cannot have any policies, is not a real check on anything. It is a form of makeup covering the uglyness within, nothing more.
swiley 5y ago
Wow that defeats any reasonable point this could have had except to benefit larger corporations. The EU might be better off without the law entirely.
jey 5y ago
This seems to be the upstream source article: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  Much more substantive and less editorialized, thank you!
  - erdo 5y ago
    Although still a press article, anyone have a link to the actual draft?
- xphx 5y ago
  https://archive.is/aW95d https://archive.is/aW95d https://web.archive.org/web/20210708074814/https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://web.archive.org/web/20210708074814/https://www.argus...
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  Isn't this still a very .. unknown source to be using as basis for this type of outragy-clickbaity article?
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    I can't change the link itself, but I changed the HN headline to match the Argus article, which makes more clear that this is a draft proposal.
  - hkt 5y ago
    This is what Guido Fawkes ("order order") does. They are extremely right wing and hysterically anti-EU. Wait until a real outlet covers it.
- dang 5y ago
m1117 5y ago
We need carbon tax asap everywhere where it's possible otherwise the humanity is doomed.
BelenusMordred 5y ago
> Private jets will enjoy an exemption through classification of "business aviation" as the use of aircraft by firms for carriage of passengers or goods as an "aid to the conduct of their business", if generally considered not for public hire. > A further exemption is given for "pleasure" flights whereby an aircraft is used for "personal or recreational" purposes not associated with a business or professional use. Surely they can afford it more than everyone else flying?
- barbazoo 5y ago
  I don't understand the business aviation exemption at all. Why does it matter that the flight is being conducted to "aid to the conduct of their business"? And how is that different from other passenger flights? What about ICE, do companies also not have to pay the Ökosteuer (green tax) on gas in Germany?
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    Unlike what the mass outrage here makes you believe, this is a reasonable exception. Because non-commercial flights (business and hobby) already pay local taxes like VAT and excise on the fuel. The thing is that fuel commercial aviation is exempt from tax due to historic regulations. The EU is proposing to change that by taxing jet fuel for those users. So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax." How do the numbers compare?
      - t0mas88 5y ago
        Differs per country, especially excise can vary a lot. The proposal is for a minimum tax on jet fuel for commercial flights to still start at zero and then increase the minimum tax every year. So I'm expecting it to be below VAT + excise.
rado 5y ago
Somebody thinks of Davos
brobdingnagians 5y ago
To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while corraling the plebeians so that we won't use "their precious resources" or ruining their enjoyments.
- duxup 5y ago
  "more about control" Control what though? It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair). But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.
  - axiosgunnar 5y ago
    > It's a carbon tax on jets. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt. Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.
    - duxup 5y ago
      Not sure why that's hilarious, it's kinda sad.
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    It's control of the global commons. The elites (or "folks", lol) want to preserve their ability to engage in forms of consumption which put a burden on the climate's ability to absorb CO2 while excluding the rest of the world from it as much as possible.
    - duxup 5y ago
      I really doubt any 'elites' are worried about their access to jet fuel vs anyone else. Any 'elite' who thinks about that for a second or two knows they'd win that just by the nature of economics. I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.
anoncake 5y ago
Quoting from https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-... (thanks jey) > The commission is worried that taxing fuel for cargo-only flights would adversely affect EU carriers. Adversely affecting the aviation industry is kind of the whole point you gits.
- ska 5y ago
  Their point was a bit more subtle, it meant that EU carriers would effectively be penalized relative to non-EU carriers operating in the EU, because other agreements precluded applying the tax to those (non-EU) carriers. Means they need another tool. The exception for private jets seems hard to defend though, whether business or pleasure.
asasidh 5y ago
This probably why they goto Davos
cpach 5y ago
I’m okay with the events that are unfolding currently.
dharmab 5y ago
A relevant video examining the potential alternatives to jet fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4 A TL;DW is that biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment than standard fuels. Hydrogen is not yet viable, and would require entirely new aircraft designs. Electricity will likely never be viable for all but the smallest low-range aircraft. E-fuels (fuel made using carbon capture) is not yet viable, but may be a viable long term option.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Since it's a 25 minute video (ugh): what's the tl;dw for why biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment?
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Most of the worlds farmland is used to feed the worlds population and farm animals. The worlds use of fuel is many times greater in terms of calories than use of food. That means if we want to use farmland to grow fuel, we're going to need a lot more farmland. We already farm most of the land that's viable for farming. So there isn't really much more available without destroying a lot of ecosystems and chopping down rainforest...
    - tpmx 5y ago
      Counterpoint from a Swedish perspective: https://www.svebio.se/en/our-mission/is-there-enough-land/ https://www.svebio.se/en/our-mission/is-there-enough-land/
  - dharmab 5y ago
    The energy put into the process to grow and ferment the plants or algae is high enough to outweigh the offset use of fossil fuels. It's an energy negative process. The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM
postsantum 5y ago
This is ridiculous. So you have to pay the carbon tax unless you emit 200x the amount. But yeah, we are all in the same boat
raverbashing 5y ago
I agree with the exemption for Cargo. Some things do depend on quick transportation and plane is the way to go. Now, for Private Jets? Yeah that's ridiculous.
- dharmab 5y ago
  The exemption for cargo appears to be because they lack the means to enforce it for carriers operated by non-EU carriers within the EU, due to other existing agreements.
- adrianN 5y ago
  If some things depend on quick transportation, I think it's fair that they cost a bit more.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  If some things need air freight, and can't offset the carbon tax, why are we bothering? Maybe flying short-date crops from tropical climates shouldn't be a thing. If you really want those sugar snap peas, get ready to pay to ship them.
mustafa_pasi 5y ago
Nothing less would be expected from the European Commission. Not once have they declined to brown nose big business. Then they have the gal to accuse others of being corrupt.
black6 5y ago
Now, the wall simply reads, “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL / BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
Come now, people. How else will these poor oligarchs afford to fly to davos if they have to abide by the same rules they want to push on the plebs?
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Brussels eurocrats might enjoy comfy flights.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  Exactly. Taxes for thee, not for me... they are one of the most privileged class in Europe. Unbelievable amount of privileges even most local politicians or bureaucrats do not have.
wonderwonder 5y ago
I think its pretty nice that they care enough about normal / poor people to be willing to try and prevent global warming as long as those same normal / poor people pay for it and the rich are not inconvenienced.
rubyist5eva 5y ago
Just goes to show fighting climate change is nothing but a power grab that makes life more miserable for regular people and making them more dependent on the rich and government.
- allemagne 5y ago
  We're just lucky that the government just not fighting climate change is the obvious choice here. Imagine if the world was just a little more complicated than that, and rich government elites were also representing the interests for downplaying climate change and doubling down on fossil fuels. It might mean regular people died in unprecedented heat waves and got their houses burned down by wildfires. All while billionaires convince them that all carbon pricing is awful and corrupt, careful that they don't know too much about the option of revenue-neutral dividends.
- js8 5y ago
  I downvoted you. Fighting climate change is very important, and not just a power grab. People need to rise up and protest against things like these, so that power grab wouldn't happen. Just to clarify, perhaps my point is not obvious. We want to have carbon taxes because they address the problem of economic externality in combusting fossil fuels. Different example of a similar tax, that aims to solve a similar problem: road tax; it's supposed to help finance maintenance of the road, which gets slowly damaged by each passing vehicle. Now imagine somebody will lobby for a law that exempts certain vehicles (that rich people use) from the road tax. Would you then conclude, well, road maintenance is nothing than a power grab anyway, and we shouldn't do it? That doesn't make any sense to conclude that, and similarly, it is wrong to conclude that fighting climate change is just a power grab.
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > We want to have carbon taxes because they address the problem of economic externality in combusting fossil fuels. I think unified carbon tax with rebates (to be revenue neutral) is what we need to fight climate change. OTOH, specific taxes for some kind of consumption (like jet fuel tax) is just a power grab by valuing different consumptions in a different ways, regardless of how much CO_2 they emit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
traveler01 5y ago
So... Socialists taxing the rich... Right? Right?
LatteLazy 5y ago
Bear in mind the author of this piece [0] is a crazy brexiteer somewhere on the far far right... [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Woo, let's put everyone in a box and call them crazy!
- ossobucco 5y ago
  Are you implying: "Keep in mind messenger's political leanings. Ignore politicians' hypocrisy!" ?
- topspin 5y ago
  Thank you. Crazy brexiteer (and Reuters) dismissed. Resuming normal gushing over EU government.
shreyshnaccount 5y ago
The EU has been completely bonkers for the last few years. Just staggeringly stupid policy I mean look at them literally banning encryption and then this I'm confused but the ppl running the eu are more confused
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  > I mean look at them literally banning encryption This did not happen. Only extremely stupid people who uncritically swallowed extremely dishonest headlines without further research believe it did. Thank you for letting us know you're a fucking idiot.
- TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago
  How much EU policy have you actually paid attention to? Only the exciting (bad) proposals make headlines.
- js8 5y ago
  The EU (especially the Eurozone) was designed when neoliberal paradigm was in fashion (1980s-1990s). That's why currently its core institutions are less democratic than they should be.
  - muyuu 5y ago
    an ivory tower style structure like that of the EU can only end up on fascism, communism or an equivalently authoritarian system
  - sharken 5y ago
    That is a very generous interpretation of the EUs action in this matter. If the proposal regarding "pleasure" flights stands, then the EU is no better than UEFA or IOC. Is that really the message that the EU wants to send i wonder. It also reflects poorly on Slovenia that is currently holding the presidency, but i suspect they don't really care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of... EDIT: Having read another source it doesn't seem clear that pleasure flights are exempt. https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_06_Study_for_TE_Taxing_aviation_fuel_final.PDF https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mgarfias 5y ago
What a crock of shit
ping_pong 5y ago
I love it. They don't even care now, do they? Private jets are the most obvious targets of carbon tax because they are completely unnecessary, and the politicians decided to carve out the tax only for them. The world we live in is truly wonderful.
js8 5y ago
Ultra-rich don't have to pay any taxes, perfectly legally, according to recent ProPublica files: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov... So why would they pay jet fuel tax, too? This has nothing to do with global warming, it's all about tax avoidance, it fits the pattern.
- tracedddd 5y ago
  The wealthy certainly enjoy special tax advantages, but this article should come as no surprise. You pay taxes when you sell your stock. So not selling any stock for a year and not taking a salary means you pay no taxes. That’s just like everyone else. Of course you can’t spend your money or diversity without selling, either, so it’s really more of a delayed tax.
  - js8 5y ago
    Sure, it's the same law for everybody, just like everybody can just travel with their own personal jet for a "business purpose", right?
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Every time shit like this happens, it destroys faith of ordinary citizens in the system. The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game and less likely to follow the law when noone is watching
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game This is one of the primary reasons I'm a pure libertarian. The more in depth research I did, the more I found it's nothing but a rigged game. It truly is like the joke that's along the lines of: "What's the difference between the government and the mob?" "The mob didn't get 12,000 hours of schooling to convince you it's necessary."
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    The elephant in the room, what do you do with monopolies and cartels? How 'pure' is pure libertarian? Do we allow private currencies to be issues by anyone, this used to be a massive problem? Does someone in 'pure libertatian' society get a free defence attorney or school education? Do we have fire safety laws? We used to have entire cities burn down. Do we regulate banks and financial markets at all? Do we have a regulator to stop ponzi schemes if the contract explains the mechanisms in fine print? It feels like there would be a tidal wave of financial machinations where ordinary people would loose their shirts.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      I'm not going to expound on all topics here. Instead I'll give you a resource that closely matches my thoughts on one of the subjects of concern. > We used to have entire cities burn down. https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departments-united-states https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departm... This same resource hits nearly every one of your points with well reasoned alternatives to government intervention. Instead of expecting an answer to every what if that immediately comes to mind, please research the viewpoint from credible libertarian sources like the Mises Institute. Another research avenue--anything Murray Rothbard.
tpmx 5y ago
Blog spam (edit: link now changed to something less clickbaity). The original source, anyway: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/draft-shows-eu-propose-aviation-fuel-tax-green-policy-push-2021-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/draft-... The European Commission has drafted plans to set an EU-wide minimum tax rate for polluting aviation fuels, as it seeks to meet more ambitious targets to fight climate change, a document seen by Reuters shows. ... Introducing the proposals could be politically difficult. Changes to EU tax rates require unanimous approval from the 27 EU countries, meaning a single state could veto them. ... From 2023, the minimum tax rate for aviation fuel would start at zero and increase gradually over a 10-year period, until the full rate is imposed. The draft proposal did not specify what the final rate would be. ... The minimum EU tax rate would not apply to cargo-only flights or to "pleasure flights" and "business aviation". That could include recreational use of an aircraft or a company using a plane, not for public hire, to conduct its business. Member states could choose to tax those flights' fuel on a national basis. The draft proposal would also introduce minimum tax rates on polluting fuels used for waterborne navigation, fishing and freight transport within the EU.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  I'd be happy to see the link changed to the Argus article linked by jey earlier. The Reuters article buries the lede.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    I'd say that part is pretty much taken care of with the post headline.
hkt 5y ago
I'd be very reticent to take the source that OP has given. If it appears elsewhere, fine, but Guido and chums are not credible, especially on matters pertaining to the EU. They are ideological and partisan. The only other outlets carrying this story are of suspect origins, too: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu+carbon+tax+private+jets&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu+carbon+tax+private+jets&... See: RT. There is one more credible looking source though, which is this one: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-... The key wording: > The European Commission has proposed exempting private jets and cargo flights from the planned EU jet fuel tax. It has proposed this. Which is to say that it can be amended with input from back channels from both Europarl _and_ the national governments. I would be surprised if this headline grabbing omission wasn't kiboshed totally. As usual, Guido will take the opportunity to bash Europe without fairly portraying how it works. This is basic journalistic failure equivalent to slamming Westminster because of the publication of a green paper. EDIT: Original link was to an awful source, the lovely moderators have changed it.
jbverschoor 5y ago
Ohhh I thought it was the other way around..
mhandley 5y ago
Exempting private jets seems dumb, but I guess it's important we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Taxing regular commercial passenger flights will have most of the impact, and should encourage more efficient planes, bootstrap the market for sustainable synthetic fuels or electric short-range aircraft, and encourage more travel by train for shorter journeys. If exempting business jets is what's required to make it politically acceptable to all 27 member states so it actually goes into force, so be it. Much better this than another decade of debate and no action. The loose ends can always be cleaned up later.
oblak 5y ago
Can't even read the article without JS enabled.
Graffur 5y ago
I've lost any and all faith I had in the EU after how it handled coronavirus. Nothing will surprise me now.
throwawayswede 5y ago
Yeah, tell people to eat bugs and less meat but step out of the way of fast food industry, or those farms treating cows like bags of potato. Tell people to fly less or use the train and exempt private jets. But honestly, we deserve worse, it's our fault. We let those fucks FLY ON PRIVATE JETS to davos CLIMATE summit, and accept an increased tax on plastic bags (which incidentally was show to make people use more plastic). Anyway, yeah we deserve worse. It's not their fault. It's ours. We are the ones letting them tell us what to do while they fuck around on private jets.
amelius 5y ago
Come on EU, can't you do proper accounting? Tax the fuel, and give certain groups a subsidy when you think it is necessary. That way, accounting is fully transparent, and we don't end up in weird discussions about why some groups of people pay tax and others don't.
nabla9 5y ago
Historically, EU aviation fuel was tax free and applied no VAT. Many US states don't tax jet fuel. Air traffic causes 2.5% of all CO2 emissions globally. In rich countries about 3%.
silexia 5y ago
Special interests rule the world, except where a recent revolution happened. Special interests by definition have a stronger desire than the general population for certain policies, and thus get them installed even when it harms most citizens. Thomas Jefferson said that a nation needs a revolution once a generation to keep it's freedom. Either that or there needs to be a constitutional clause that automatically sunsets all government legislation and agencies every seven or ten years.
- js8 5y ago
  Or maybe the country just needs more democracy? To be fair to Jefferson, though, he was more in favor of it than some of his coworkers, like Hamilton. There was a nice study from Cato institute (somewhat surprisingly), a comparison between different U.S. states, that showed that tax measures established by direct democracy (referendums) have less loopholes than the ones established by representative democracy.
0x_rs 5y ago
I struggle to find one (1) reason for this exemption but political leverage. Embarassing.
Zenst 5y ago
So, like TAX off-shoring, some airlines will just fill up outside this remit of tax, so your flight from EU to Australia as an example - may have enough fuel to hit the next refuel outside the EU and then carry on, saving lots of money for the airline in what will be a completely legal avoidance move. Turkey will love this - as they are not an EU member and have just built the biggest airport in the World.
0wis 5y ago
I am wondering how these exemptions can be used as a loophole. Private drivers were one, why not private jets now ?
thysultan 5y ago
It's called TPT aka The Pleb Tax.
londons_explore 5y ago
I can see a reason to exempt flights that are flying abroad. For example, an EU airport could charge max(min(10%, tax rate of country you came from last), tax rate of country you're flying to next). Thats to prevent an aircraft just filling up where it's cheap and carrying that fuel around the world unnecessarily. The EU should then lobby other countries to introduce fuel taxes, and if they refuse, set fees for aircraft coming from those countries into the EU which is approximately equal to the taxes due on the fuel for those flights.
foolinaround 5y ago
ok course, who would fund their ad campaigns on pushing carbon tax?

321 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

I very much doubt that that kind of exemption will survive into the actual law. (If it even exists now, I haven't seen the actual draft)

deregulateMed 5y ago

I'm pretty disenchanted with government due to it being hijacked by those with 1%er money. Anyway, couldn't the aristocrats (10%ers) writing this do a better job with trade-offs? Like exempt it, but force them to buy carbon credits at a set discounted price? Pretty sure the 1% knows they can't get away with this without a compromise.

dang 5y ago

The key word here is probably "draft". Bill proposals usually don't amount to much, and for that reason it's generally good practice to wait for a state change (no pun intended). Proposed bills usually go nowhere - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bills%20propos&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... On HN, there's no harm in waiting - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22no%20harm%20in%20waiting%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

makomk 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the significance of a proposed bill is rather different from the EU than in typical democratic countries like say the UK, US or Canada. In most democracies any elected politician can propose a bill, and so they often do purely as a form of showboating to the electorate even if there's no chance it'll get passed. Within the EU, only the small, powerful and very much non-elected European Commission can propose new laws, and they don't generally have anyone to showboat to - as a general rule, I think if they propose something it's done with the intention of it becoming law and it usually does unless there's some actual, strong, substantial objection to it from some other group with the power to stop it.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  The commission proposes, then both council (= national governments) and the directly elected European parliament each develop their own position on this basis. Each of those two positions is already a compromise between the different national and political groups. The three organizations then meet in trilogue and hammer out compromises ('trilogue') with the commission facilitating but ultimately having little say on the outcome, except to block where something violates the EU treaties. Ultimately both Parliament and council (at minister level) have to vote and agree before it becomes law. So indeed lots still to be done and this is likely an attempt to already offer a compromise and will be reasoned (e.g. exempting these might be a small sacrifice if it gets a compromise that covers 99.9% of flights) - but given how visible this is it seems unlikely to stay in as Parliament will rally against it. You can also expect some egalitarian and green countries (Sweden, Finland, if the greens fet into government in the coming election even Germany) to already kill this in the council position.
- Goety 5y ago
  I think this information is something more people should be exposed to.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  > very much non-elected European Commission They are proposed by the elected governments of the member states, and approved by a majority vote from the directly-elected European parliament. It is very misleading to suggest that the Commission is completely unelected, like the British House of Lords is for example (in the "typical democratic UK"). It's not comparable. > some other group with the power to stop it You mean like the directly-elected European parliament, that needs to vote on it?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    That's how it works in theory, according to the treaties. In reality the head of the Commission has a lot of power over who the commissioners are and have developed a habit of placing many criteria upon national governments in whom they may appoint. The most obvious example of this is the way Jean-Claude Juncker illegally and secretly rejected candidates many times, against the treaties. This only became public because he bragged about it when telling countries that they would not be allowed to nominate conservative Euroskeptics to Commission jobs. He said: “Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments”. Note: this is totally illegal by treaty. As normal, nobody cares. The EU violates its own treaties regularly, this is just one more way. This system has now become institutionalized. For example vDL has required that half the commissioners be women and have rejected individual countries proposals, in order to get that. There have been quotas for women in the past too, just less than 50%. In theory this is not possible, in practice it is. As for the European Parliament, it's useless. It doesn't make laws, so elections to it devolve into pantomimes with candidates all explaining that their policy is either to strongly agree with whatever the Commission wants to do, or to just oppose everything. The level of democratic respect it garners was indicated by how it was totally bypassed last time - in theory, the head of the Commission is voted on by the EU Parliament. So what happens: they were given only one candidate on the list to vote for, vDL. A puppet pseudo-Parliament in which parties cannot have any policies, is not a real check on anything. It is a form of makeup covering the uglyness within, nothing more.

swiley 5y ago

Wow that defeats any reasonable point this could have had except to benefit larger corporations. The EU might be better off without the law entirely.

jey 5y ago

This seems to be the upstream source article: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...

AndrewBissell 5y ago
Much more substantive and less editorialized, thank you!
- erdo 5y ago
  Although still a press article, anyone have a link to the actual draft?
xphx 5y ago
https://archive.is/aW95d https://archive.is/aW95d https://web.archive.org/web/20210708074814/https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://web.archive.org/web/20210708074814/https://www.argus...
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
Isn't this still a very .. unknown source to be using as basis for this type of outragy-clickbaity article?
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  I can't change the link itself, but I changed the HN headline to match the Argus article, which makes more clear that this is a draft proposal.
- hkt 5y ago
  This is what Guido Fawkes ("order order") does. They are extremely right wing and hysterically anti-EU. Wait until a real outlet covers it.
dang 5y ago

m1117 5y ago

We need carbon tax asap everywhere where it's possible otherwise the humanity is doomed.

BelenusMordred 5y ago

> Private jets will enjoy an exemption through classification of "business aviation" as the use of aircraft by firms for carriage of passengers or goods as an "aid to the conduct of their business", if generally considered not for public hire. > A further exemption is given for "pleasure" flights whereby an aircraft is used for "personal or recreational" purposes not associated with a business or professional use. Surely they can afford it more than everyone else flying?

barbazoo 5y ago
I don't understand the business aviation exemption at all. Why does it matter that the flight is being conducted to "aid to the conduct of their business"? And how is that different from other passenger flights? What about ICE, do companies also not have to pay the Ökosteuer (green tax) on gas in Germany?
- t0mas88 5y ago
  Unlike what the mass outrage here makes you believe, this is a reasonable exception. Because non-commercial flights (business and hobby) already pay local taxes like VAT and excise on the fuel. The thing is that fuel commercial aviation is exempt from tax due to historic regulations. The EU is proposing to change that by taxing jet fuel for those users. So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax." How do the numbers compare?
    - t0mas88 5y ago
      Differs per country, especially excise can vary a lot. The proposal is for a minimum tax on jet fuel for commercial flights to still start at zero and then increase the minimum tax every year. So I'm expecting it to be below VAT + excise.

rado 5y ago

Somebody thinks of Davos

brobdingnagians 5y ago

To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while corraling the plebeians so that we won't use "their precious resources" or ruining their enjoyments.

duxup 5y ago
"more about control" Control what though? It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair). But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  > It's a carbon tax on jets. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt. Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.
  - duxup 5y ago
    Not sure why that's hilarious, it's kinda sad.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  It's control of the global commons. The elites (or "folks", lol) want to preserve their ability to engage in forms of consumption which put a burden on the climate's ability to absorb CO2 while excluding the rest of the world from it as much as possible.
  - duxup 5y ago
    I really doubt any 'elites' are worried about their access to jet fuel vs anyone else. Any 'elite' who thinks about that for a second or two knows they'd win that just by the nature of economics. I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.

anoncake 5y ago

Quoting from https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-... (thanks jey) > The commission is worried that taxing fuel for cargo-only flights would adversely affect EU carriers. Adversely affecting the aviation industry is kind of the whole point you gits.

ska 5y ago
Their point was a bit more subtle, it meant that EU carriers would effectively be penalized relative to non-EU carriers operating in the EU, because other agreements precluded applying the tax to those (non-EU) carriers. Means they need another tool. The exception for private jets seems hard to defend though, whether business or pleasure.

asasidh 5y ago

This probably why they goto Davos

cpach 5y ago

I’m okay with the events that are unfolding currently.

dharmab 5y ago

A relevant video examining the potential alternatives to jet fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4 A TL;DW is that biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment than standard fuels. Hydrogen is not yet viable, and would require entirely new aircraft designs. Electricity will likely never be viable for all but the smallest low-range aircraft. E-fuels (fuel made using carbon capture) is not yet viable, but may be a viable long term option.

tpmx 5y ago
Since it's a 25 minute video (ugh): what's the tl;dw for why biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment?
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Most of the worlds farmland is used to feed the worlds population and farm animals. The worlds use of fuel is many times greater in terms of calories than use of food. That means if we want to use farmland to grow fuel, we're going to need a lot more farmland. We already farm most of the land that's viable for farming. So there isn't really much more available without destroying a lot of ecosystems and chopping down rainforest...
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Counterpoint from a Swedish perspective: https://www.svebio.se/en/our-mission/is-there-enough-land/ https://www.svebio.se/en/our-mission/is-there-enough-land/
- dharmab 5y ago
  The energy put into the process to grow and ferment the plants or algae is high enough to outweigh the offset use of fossil fuels. It's an energy negative process. The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM

postsantum 5y ago

This is ridiculous. So you have to pay the carbon tax unless you emit 200x the amount. But yeah, we are all in the same boat

raverbashing 5y ago

I agree with the exemption for Cargo. Some things do depend on quick transportation and plane is the way to go. Now, for Private Jets? Yeah that's ridiculous.

dharmab 5y ago
The exemption for cargo appears to be because they lack the means to enforce it for carriers operated by non-EU carriers within the EU, due to other existing agreements.
adrianN 5y ago
If some things depend on quick transportation, I think it's fair that they cost a bit more.
oliwarner 5y ago
If some things need air freight, and can't offset the carbon tax, why are we bothering? Maybe flying short-date crops from tropical climates shouldn't be a thing. If you really want those sugar snap peas, get ready to pay to ship them.

mustafa_pasi 5y ago

Nothing less would be expected from the European Commission. Not once have they declined to brown nose big business. Then they have the gal to accuse others of being corrupt.

black6 5y ago

Now, the wall simply reads, “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL / BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

Come now, people. How else will these poor oligarchs afford to fly to davos if they have to abide by the same rules they want to push on the plebs?

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Brussels eurocrats might enjoy comfy flights.

throw_m239339 5y ago
Exactly. Taxes for thee, not for me... they are one of the most privileged class in Europe. Unbelievable amount of privileges even most local politicians or bureaucrats do not have.

wonderwonder 5y ago

I think its pretty nice that they care enough about normal / poor people to be willing to try and prevent global warming as long as those same normal / poor people pay for it and the rich are not inconvenienced.

rubyist5eva 5y ago

Just goes to show fighting climate change is nothing but a power grab that makes life more miserable for regular people and making them more dependent on the rich and government.

allemagne 5y ago
We're just lucky that the government just not fighting climate change is the obvious choice here. Imagine if the world was just a little more complicated than that, and rich government elites were also representing the interests for downplaying climate change and doubling down on fossil fuels. It might mean regular people died in unprecedented heat waves and got their houses burned down by wildfires. All while billionaires convince them that all carbon pricing is awful and corrupt, careful that they don't know too much about the option of revenue-neutral dividends.
js8 5y ago
I downvoted you. Fighting climate change is very important, and not just a power grab. People need to rise up and protest against things like these, so that power grab wouldn't happen. Just to clarify, perhaps my point is not obvious. We want to have carbon taxes because they address the problem of economic externality in combusting fossil fuels. Different example of a similar tax, that aims to solve a similar problem: road tax; it's supposed to help finance maintenance of the road, which gets slowly damaged by each passing vehicle. Now imagine somebody will lobby for a law that exempts certain vehicles (that rich people use) from the road tax. Would you then conclude, well, road maintenance is nothing than a power grab anyway, and we shouldn't do it? That doesn't make any sense to conclude that, and similarly, it is wrong to conclude that fighting climate change is just a power grab.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > We want to have carbon taxes because they address the problem of economic externality in combusting fossil fuels. I think unified carbon tax with rebates (to be revenue neutral) is what we need to fight climate change. OTOH, specific taxes for some kind of consumption (like jet fuel tax) is just a power grab by valuing different consumptions in a different ways, regardless of how much CO_2 they emit.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

traveler01 5y ago

So... Socialists taxing the rich... Right? Right?

LatteLazy 5y ago

Bear in mind the author of this piece [0] is a crazy brexiteer somewhere on the far far right... [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines

reedjosh 5y ago
Woo, let's put everyone in a box and call them crazy!
ossobucco 5y ago
Are you implying: "Keep in mind messenger's political leanings. Ignore politicians' hypocrisy!" ?
topspin 5y ago
Thank you. Crazy brexiteer (and Reuters) dismissed. Resuming normal gushing over EU government.

shreyshnaccount 5y ago

The EU has been completely bonkers for the last few years. Just staggeringly stupid policy I mean look at them literally banning encryption and then this I'm confused but the ppl running the eu are more confused

amznthrwaway 5y ago
> I mean look at them literally banning encryption This did not happen. Only extremely stupid people who uncritically swallowed extremely dishonest headlines without further research believe it did. Thank you for letting us know you're a fucking idiot.
TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago
How much EU policy have you actually paid attention to? Only the exciting (bad) proposals make headlines.
js8 5y ago
The EU (especially the Eurozone) was designed when neoliberal paradigm was in fashion (1980s-1990s). That's why currently its core institutions are less democratic than they should be.
- muyuu 5y ago
  an ivory tower style structure like that of the EU can only end up on fascism, communism or an equivalently authoritarian system
- sharken 5y ago
  That is a very generous interpretation of the EUs action in this matter. If the proposal regarding "pleasure" flights stands, then the EU is no better than UEFA or IOC. Is that really the message that the EU wants to send i wonder. It also reflects poorly on Slovenia that is currently holding the presidency, but i suspect they don't really care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of... EDIT: Having read another source it doesn't seem clear that pleasure flights are exempt. https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_06_Study_for_TE_Taxing_aviation_fuel_final.PDF https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mgarfias 5y ago

What a crock of shit

ping_pong 5y ago

I love it. They don't even care now, do they? Private jets are the most obvious targets of carbon tax because they are completely unnecessary, and the politicians decided to carve out the tax only for them. The world we live in is truly wonderful.

js8 5y ago

Ultra-rich don't have to pay any taxes, perfectly legally, according to recent ProPublica files: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov... So why would they pay jet fuel tax, too? This has nothing to do with global warming, it's all about tax avoidance, it fits the pattern.

tracedddd 5y ago
The wealthy certainly enjoy special tax advantages, but this article should come as no surprise. You pay taxes when you sell your stock. So not selling any stock for a year and not taking a salary means you pay no taxes. That’s just like everyone else. Of course you can’t spend your money or diversity without selling, either, so it’s really more of a delayed tax.
- js8 5y ago
  Sure, it's the same law for everybody, just like everybody can just travel with their own personal jet for a "business purpose", right?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Every time shit like this happens, it destroys faith of ordinary citizens in the system. The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game and less likely to follow the law when noone is watching

reedjosh 5y ago
> The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game This is one of the primary reasons I'm a pure libertarian. The more in depth research I did, the more I found it's nothing but a rigged game. It truly is like the joke that's along the lines of: "What's the difference between the government and the mob?" "The mob didn't get 12,000 hours of schooling to convince you it's necessary."
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  The elephant in the room, what do you do with monopolies and cartels? How 'pure' is pure libertarian? Do we allow private currencies to be issues by anyone, this used to be a massive problem? Does someone in 'pure libertatian' society get a free defence attorney or school education? Do we have fire safety laws? We used to have entire cities burn down. Do we regulate banks and financial markets at all? Do we have a regulator to stop ponzi schemes if the contract explains the mechanisms in fine print? It feels like there would be a tidal wave of financial machinations where ordinary people would loose their shirts.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    I'm not going to expound on all topics here. Instead I'll give you a resource that closely matches my thoughts on one of the subjects of concern. > We used to have entire cities burn down. https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departments-united-states https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departm... This same resource hits nearly every one of your points with well reasoned alternatives to government intervention. Instead of expecting an answer to every what if that immediately comes to mind, please research the viewpoint from credible libertarian sources like the Mises Institute. Another research avenue--anything Murray Rothbard.

tpmx 5y ago

Blog spam (edit: link now changed to something less clickbaity). The original source, anyway: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/draft-shows-eu-propose-aviation-fuel-tax-green-policy-push-2021-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/draft-... The European Commission has drafted plans to set an EU-wide minimum tax rate for polluting aviation fuels, as it seeks to meet more ambitious targets to fight climate change, a document seen by Reuters shows. ... Introducing the proposals could be politically difficult. Changes to EU tax rates require unanimous approval from the 27 EU countries, meaning a single state could veto them. ... From 2023, the minimum tax rate for aviation fuel would start at zero and increase gradually over a 10-year period, until the full rate is imposed. The draft proposal did not specify what the final rate would be. ... The minimum EU tax rate would not apply to cargo-only flights or to "pleasure flights" and "business aviation". That could include recreational use of an aircraft or a company using a plane, not for public hire, to conduct its business. Member states could choose to tax those flights' fuel on a national basis. The draft proposal would also introduce minimum tax rates on polluting fuels used for waterborne navigation, fishing and freight transport within the EU.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
I'd be happy to see the link changed to the Argus article linked by jey earlier. The Reuters article buries the lede.
- tpmx 5y ago
  I'd say that part is pretty much taken care of with the post headline.

hkt 5y ago

I'd be very reticent to take the source that OP has given. If it appears elsewhere, fine, but Guido and chums are not credible, especially on matters pertaining to the EU. They are ideological and partisan. The only other outlets carrying this story are of suspect origins, too: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu+carbon+tax+private+jets&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu+carbon+tax+private+jets&... See: RT. There is one more credible looking source though, which is this one: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-... The key wording: > The European Commission has proposed exempting private jets and cargo flights from the planned EU jet fuel tax. It has proposed this. Which is to say that it can be amended with input from back channels from both Europarl _and_ the national governments. I would be surprised if this headline grabbing omission wasn't kiboshed totally. As usual, Guido will take the opportunity to bash Europe without fairly portraying how it works. This is basic journalistic failure equivalent to slamming Westminster because of the publication of a green paper. EDIT: Original link was to an awful source, the lovely moderators have changed it.

jbverschoor 5y ago

Ohhh I thought it was the other way around..

mhandley 5y ago

Exempting private jets seems dumb, but I guess it's important we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Taxing regular commercial passenger flights will have most of the impact, and should encourage more efficient planes, bootstrap the market for sustainable synthetic fuels or electric short-range aircraft, and encourage more travel by train for shorter journeys. If exempting business jets is what's required to make it politically acceptable to all 27 member states so it actually goes into force, so be it. Much better this than another decade of debate and no action. The loose ends can always be cleaned up later.

oblak 5y ago

Can't even read the article without JS enabled.

Graffur 5y ago

I've lost any and all faith I had in the EU after how it handled coronavirus. Nothing will surprise me now.

throwawayswede 5y ago

Yeah, tell people to eat bugs and less meat but step out of the way of fast food industry, or those farms treating cows like bags of potato. Tell people to fly less or use the train and exempt private jets. But honestly, we deserve worse, it's our fault. We let those fucks FLY ON PRIVATE JETS to davos CLIMATE summit, and accept an increased tax on plastic bags (which incidentally was show to make people use more plastic). Anyway, yeah we deserve worse. It's not their fault. It's ours. We are the ones letting them tell us what to do while they fuck around on private jets.

amelius 5y ago

Come on EU, can't you do proper accounting? Tax the fuel, and give certain groups a subsidy when you think it is necessary. That way, accounting is fully transparent, and we don't end up in weird discussions about why some groups of people pay tax and others don't.

nabla9 5y ago

Historically, EU aviation fuel was tax free and applied no VAT. Many US states don't tax jet fuel. Air traffic causes 2.5% of all CO2 emissions globally. In rich countries about 3%.

silexia 5y ago

Special interests rule the world, except where a recent revolution happened. Special interests by definition have a stronger desire than the general population for certain policies, and thus get them installed even when it harms most citizens. Thomas Jefferson said that a nation needs a revolution once a generation to keep it's freedom. Either that or there needs to be a constitutional clause that automatically sunsets all government legislation and agencies every seven or ten years.

js8 5y ago
Or maybe the country just needs more democracy? To be fair to Jefferson, though, he was more in favor of it than some of his coworkers, like Hamilton. There was a nice study from Cato institute (somewhat surprisingly), a comparison between different U.S. states, that showed that tax measures established by direct democracy (referendums) have less loopholes than the ones established by representative democracy.

0x_rs 5y ago

I struggle to find one (1) reason for this exemption but political leverage. Embarassing.

Zenst 5y ago

So, like TAX off-shoring, some airlines will just fill up outside this remit of tax, so your flight from EU to Australia as an example - may have enough fuel to hit the next refuel outside the EU and then carry on, saving lots of money for the airline in what will be a completely legal avoidance move. Turkey will love this - as they are not an EU member and have just built the biggest airport in the World.

0wis 5y ago

I am wondering how these exemptions can be used as a loophole. Private drivers were one, why not private jets now ?

thysultan 5y ago

It's called TPT aka The Pleb Tax.

londons_explore 5y ago

I can see a reason to exempt flights that are flying abroad. For example, an EU airport could charge max(min(10%, tax rate of country you came from last), tax rate of country you're flying to next). Thats to prevent an aircraft just filling up where it's cheap and carrying that fuel around the world unnecessarily. The EU should then lobby other countries to introduce fuel taxes, and if they refuse, set fees for aircraft coming from those countries into the EU which is approximately equal to the taxes due on the fuel for those flights.

foolinaround 5y ago

ok course, who would fund their ad campaigns on pushing carbon tax?