2 ms·

That’s an option. The other option is that the price of the flight, which should include the damage it does to our planet, gets spread out to the 7 people on t

That’s an option. The other option is that the price of the flight, which should include the damage it does to our planet, gets spread out to the 7 people on the plane. So they could still fly, but at 20.000$ instead of 200$. At that point it might be much cheaper for that plane to be canceled and for those 7 people to fly on a smaller private plane at 1000$ per person, doing less damage to the planet. IMO any environmental damage tax should be required to be passed at least partially to the actual person being transported. That makes it obvious to the passengers why flying 7 people on a 747 is wasteful.

sumedh 5y ago
> Should the customer change all his plans if the plane is not full? No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. So more tax on middle class people? > IMO any environmental damage tax So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, if you keep doing that you will get a revolution, people will just fight and protest and vote out any politician who supports such taxes.
- maxwell86 5y ago
  > No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. The customer can buy extra insurance for that, or buy a ticket from a company that provides it. Such companies would be very motivated to only offer routes that operate at very high capacity to avoid paying. > So more tax on middle class people? How is this "class" dependent? > So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, We are already paying the price for this. Both in cash (e.g. the price of insurance for homes for natural disasters has skyrocketed due to global warming in certain areas), and in a lower future quality of life for yourself and your children. I'd rather have the people that use fossil fuels pay for them, instead of everybody else. I get that some people like to travel by plane - i do too - and that sometimes you really want to eat that fruit that has been transported by boat from 20.000km away, instead of buying the food that's available locally. I sometimes like that too. You seem to think that innocent children should pay with a lower quality of life to allow you to do these unsustainable things cheaply. I strongly disagree with you here. Pollution, climate damage, etc. has to be priced in. If that avocado from 5.000km away were to cost 1000 $ instead of 2$ people would think twice about it. The claim that we shouldn't do this because this only impacts non rich people is flawed. There are many things rich people can do, like buying a lambo, that poor people cannot do. Your claim that poor people somehow have the right to get a lambo, or for that matter, eat avocados, is false. These things are not "rights".

sumedh 5y ago

> Should the customer change all his plans if the plane is not full? No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. So more tax on middle class people? > IMO any environmental damage tax So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, if you keep doing that you will get a revolution, people will just fight and protest and vote out any politician who supports such taxes.

maxwell86 5y ago
> No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. The customer can buy extra insurance for that, or buy a ticket from a company that provides it. Such companies would be very motivated to only offer routes that operate at very high capacity to avoid paying. > So more tax on middle class people? How is this "class" dependent? > So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, We are already paying the price for this. Both in cash (e.g. the price of insurance for homes for natural disasters has skyrocketed due to global warming in certain areas), and in a lower future quality of life for yourself and your children. I'd rather have the people that use fossil fuels pay for them, instead of everybody else. I get that some people like to travel by plane - i do too - and that sometimes you really want to eat that fruit that has been transported by boat from 20.000km away, instead of buying the food that's available locally. I sometimes like that too. You seem to think that innocent children should pay with a lower quality of life to allow you to do these unsustainable things cheaply. I strongly disagree with you here. Pollution, climate damage, etc. has to be priced in. If that avocado from 5.000km away were to cost 1000 $ instead of 2$ people would think twice about it. The claim that we shouldn't do this because this only impacts non rich people is flawed. There are many things rich people can do, like buying a lambo, that poor people cannot do. Your claim that poor people somehow have the right to get a lambo, or for that matter, eat avocados, is false. These things are not "rights".