6 ms·

I see you're getting downvoted but maybe "get rid of" isn't the best approach. Certainly taxing air travel at a chunky rate would reduce unnecessary flights.

by pmg101 5y ago

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 5y ago
Parent suggested "getting rid of bitcoin" so I dare to suggest getting rid of something else as well :)
wiz21c 5y ago
Taxing it means : the rich will be able to continue to fly while the poor, not being able to travel anymore because of the tax, will support the burden of climate adaptation. That's not justice. And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.
- corney91 5y ago
  A frequent flyer tax would help here. Everyone gets a tax-free flight, then a low tax for the next one, and it keeps increasing for more flying. ~23 minutes in this podcast describes it and explains how it'd make a huge impact: https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.
- QasimK 5y ago
  The rich will support the burden of climate adaptation because the income from the tax can be used directly to help mitigate climate change. The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights. So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think. Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly. [0]: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/ https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/
- _Algernon_ 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend >A carbon fee and dividend or climate income is a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming. The system imposes a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and then distributes the revenue of this tax over the entire population (equally, on a per-person basis) as a monthly income or regular payment.
input_sh 5y ago
Aviation overall is just 3.5% of emissions: https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2667/Aviation-is-responsible-for-35-percent-of-climate-change-study-finds https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2667/... I'm not saying we should leave it as is, but there are easier and more impactful things to focus on.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  You can say this of just about everything. The problem is that everything needs to be cut down.
- freemint 5y ago
  Very few people fly. 3.5% of emissions can be cut just by inconviniencing a few. Sounds easy and will not impact many peple.
  - input_sh 5y ago
    > just by inconviniencing a few. I mean, if you ignore cargo, sure. If you don't ignore it nor that more fuel is being burned by an average cargo flight (due to more weight compared to a commercial flight), it'd inconvenience everyone.
    - freemint 5y ago
      Expect cargo flight are responsible for a fraction of CO2 emissions from commercial aviation[1]. If you really want to push there are solutions: Packages just take longer over sea (10-15 days) until we switch to an air ship (2-3) based transport system which doesn't have to pay so much energy of lifting. [1] https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO2-commercial-aviation-oct2020.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO2-com...

I see you're getting downvoted but maybe "get rid of" isn't the best approach. Certainly taxing air travel at a chunky rate would reduce unnecessary flights.

by pmg101 5y ago

I see you're getting downvoted but maybe "get rid of" isn't the best approach. Certainly taxing air travel at a chunky rate would reduce unnecessary flights.

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 5y ago

Parent suggested "getting rid of bitcoin" so I dare to suggest getting rid of something else as well :)

wiz21c 5y ago

Taxing it means : the rich will be able to continue to fly while the poor, not being able to travel anymore because of the tax, will support the burden of climate adaptation. That's not justice. And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.

corney91 5y ago
A frequent flyer tax would help here. Everyone gets a tax-free flight, then a low tax for the next one, and it keeps increasing for more flying. ~23 minutes in this podcast describes it and explains how it'd make a huge impact: https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.
QasimK 5y ago
The rich will support the burden of climate adaptation because the income from the tax can be used directly to help mitigate climate change. The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights. So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think. Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly. [0]: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/ https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/
_Algernon_ 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend >A carbon fee and dividend or climate income is a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming. The system imposes a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and then distributes the revenue of this tax over the entire population (equally, on a per-person basis) as a monthly income or regular payment.

input_sh 5y ago

Aviation overall is just 3.5% of emissions: https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2667/Aviation-is-responsible-for-35-percent-of-climate-change-study-finds https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2667/... I'm not saying we should leave it as is, but there are easier and more impactful things to focus on.

Gigachad 5y ago
You can say this of just about everything. The problem is that everything needs to be cut down.
freemint 5y ago
Very few people fly. 3.5% of emissions can be cut just by inconviniencing a few. Sounds easy and will not impact many peple.
- input_sh 5y ago
  > just by inconviniencing a few. I mean, if you ignore cargo, sure. If you don't ignore it nor that more fuel is being burned by an average cargo flight (due to more weight compared to a commercial flight), it'd inconvenience everyone.
  - freemint 5y ago
    Expect cargo flight are responsible for a fraction of CO2 emissions from commercial aviation[1]. If you really want to push there are solutions: Packages just take longer over sea (10-15 days) until we switch to an air ship (2-3) based transport system which doesn't have to pay so much energy of lifting. [1] https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO2-commercial-aviation-oct2020.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO2-com...