5 ms·

Banning private jets is a bit silly and seems difficult tbh. Tax jet fuel enough first (pick any high cost European country for a good reference on what CO2 tax

Banning private jets is a bit silly and seems difficult tbh. Tax jet fuel enough first (pick any high cost European country for a good reference on what CO2 taxes should be per gallon or liter). Today it’s a tragedy that air travels enjoy very low fuel taxes while better forms of transportation has higher taxes.

gruez 4y ago
>Today it’s a tragedy that air travels enjoy very low fuel taxes while better forms of transportation has higher taxes. that's more of an artifact of what "fuel taxes" represent. For roads at least they're not typically taxed as some sort of sin/environment tax, they're taxed as a way to finance road maintenance. Obviously that does not apply to airplanes. I'm not sure about other "better forms of transportation" (trains? boats?) have fuel taxes.
- afiori 4y ago
  Road/fuel taxes almost nowhere cover road maintenance and increasing fuel taxes for environmental reasons is extremely common in Europe.
  - gruez 4y ago
    That might be the case, but that doesn't mean the tax is primarily used to finance road construction. The availability of fuels with reduced taxes[1] (eg. for agricultural or domestic purposes) makes it obvious that it's not about carbon emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dye
    - afiori 4y ago
      Agriculture is heavily regulated and subsidized in many ways. It is perfectly reasonable to give farms access to lower cost fuel to allow for lower cost of food. The only thing this proves is that low emission is not the only priority of a government. For an example of my claim look at [0] which started as protest from rural France for an environmental fuel tax. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
      - jefftk 4y ago
        > It is perfectly reasonable to give farms access to lower cost fuel to allow for lower cost of food If what you want is cheaper food, why don't you subsidize food production directly? Or give money to people to buy food, which has the advantage of being something you can target directly to poorer people. Subsidizing fuel used in the production of food leads farmers to use more polluting options than they would otherwise, since fuel is artificially cheap.
        afiori 4y ago
        I don't know why these policies were made, lowering costs at the source is easier than than price control at the margin. Foods follow a long chain with many hands; farm -> processor -> factories -> distributors -> retail; you want low retail prices and farm to be economically sustainable, moreover sometimes the link in the chain are the same entity sometime they are distinct companies. You could keep track of prices along the chain (we already do with VAT) and reimburse expenses along the chain to allow farms to sell at higher price without it affecting the final buyer. Or you could just lower the operating cost of farms by taking the major expenses* and subsidizing them. The first also is highly vulnerable to exploitation since many farms sell to huge corporations that can outplay them in the regulation game. * Which I guess are wages, taxes, fuel, and material (food/fertilizer).
- alkonaut 4y ago
  My fuel tax is called a “CO2 tax” (and VAT) which together is around half the cost, or about $1/L or $3.8/gal. This isn’t earmarked for anything in particular but I think the naming “CO2 tax” smells a bit like a sin/environment tax. And it’s strange I pay more of this “CO2 tax” when filling up my car to drive 10h, perhaps $50 in CO2 tax alone, than all 100 of us in the cabin of a 737 pay together when taking one hour flight the same distance. My my car tax ($1.5k/yr regardless of distance driven) sounds more like a road maintenance fee collection but also not earmarked for any purpose. I suspect this latter tax will need to skyrocket for EVs once fuel doesn’t bring in enough road maintenance money. A bus is an example of a “better” method of transportation that uses taxed fuel and has to compete with planes flying on tax free fuel.
  - maccard 4y ago
    > And it’s strange I pay more of this “CO2 tax” when filling up my car to drive 10h, perhaps $50 in CO2 tax alone, than all 100 of us in the cabin of a 737 pay together when taking one hour flight the same distance. It's interesting that you make that comparison. Inverness to London fits that definition and from the last time I checked this,it's about 0.12 Tonnes of CO2 per seat to fly that distance, and roughly the same (actually slightly more) to drive the distance. For long distances like that, particularly if you're travelling in a small group, you're often better off flying over driving.
    - alkonaut 4y ago
      Greenhouse gasses are worse at altitude though so my car emitting 1T CO2 at ground level is better than the plane doing it at 10km. But regardless the point still stands: why is that 0.12 ton CO2 tax exempt in the plane but not in the car?
      - kadoban 4y ago
        Is that true? Seems like it would diffuse quite quickly in the scheme of things.
      - jefftk 4y ago
- derefr 4y ago
  Not much difference between an "environment tax" and "financing maintenance." We need to finance the maintenance of our atmosphere. Probably eventually literally, in a "planting forests in order to hit CO2 targets" sense.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Reason why they are not taxed heavily is that at least internationally the purchase of fuel would just move to countries with lower taxation. So unless the scheme was global and in every country it would not be perfectly efficient.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    A handful of rich countries could agree to a minimum fuel tax for domestic flights and flights between those countries. Then they could agree to charge more of planes arriving their airports from non-signatories of this agreement to also get an international effect. Just the US+EU would be a big chunk.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That could only sort of work for some very short international flights. On longer flights, even with higher fuel taxes it wouldn't be practical to load up extra fuel in cheaper countries and then ferry it around. That would increase fuel burn due to extra weight, and run up against limits in fuel tank capacity and maximum landing weight.
mc32 4y ago
I think that's the right track. Tax them very high. The odd thing is the very people who are trying to get the world to minimize hydrocarbon use are some of the people who most often use private jets --the Davos set and Hollywood crowd, among others. Can't they for the planet, travel economy on regular airlines? This tonedeafness can turn people off.
- dominotw 4y ago
  Their time is more valuable than the rest of us.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    You have it backwards, it’s that their money is worth less than the rest of us.
    - atoav 4y ago
      Especially considering if the rest of us includes all people still being born..
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The exceptions are quite notable, such as Greta Thunberg who sailed across the Atlantic to attend the UN Climate Action Summit. Sure it was a stunt, but it was a good one.
  - mc32 4y ago
    What are the other exceptions? And surely she does not take a tallship every time she crosses expanses of water, if she did, then, I'd buy in.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
sva_ 4y ago
> While commercial flights are set to be subject to a new tax system that discourages the use fossil fuels, private jets -- which are five to 14 times more polluting per passenger -- and cargo flights will be exempt from the requirement, according to a draft of the proposals seen by Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-jets-amazon-orders-set-to-escape-higher-eu-energy-taxes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j...
thereddaikon 4y ago
Could also start implementing emissions controls on aircraft as well. A Cessna is far dirtier than any modern road car.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Those are typically implemented as of a particular date of manufacture. My 60s Mustangs do not have (nor are they required to have) modern emissions control equipment as it was not required originally.

gruez 4y ago

>Today it’s a tragedy that air travels enjoy very low fuel taxes while better forms of transportation has higher taxes. that's more of an artifact of what "fuel taxes" represent. For roads at least they're not typically taxed as some sort of sin/environment tax, they're taxed as a way to finance road maintenance. Obviously that does not apply to airplanes. I'm not sure about other "better forms of transportation" (trains? boats?) have fuel taxes.

afiori 4y ago
Road/fuel taxes almost nowhere cover road maintenance and increasing fuel taxes for environmental reasons is extremely common in Europe.
- gruez 4y ago
  That might be the case, but that doesn't mean the tax is primarily used to finance road construction. The availability of fuels with reduced taxes[1] (eg. for agricultural or domestic purposes) makes it obvious that it's not about carbon emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dye
  - afiori 4y ago
    Agriculture is heavily regulated and subsidized in many ways. It is perfectly reasonable to give farms access to lower cost fuel to allow for lower cost of food. The only thing this proves is that low emission is not the only priority of a government. For an example of my claim look at [0] which started as protest from rural France for an environmental fuel tax. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > It is perfectly reasonable to give farms access to lower cost fuel to allow for lower cost of food If what you want is cheaper food, why don't you subsidize food production directly? Or give money to people to buy food, which has the advantage of being something you can target directly to poorer people. Subsidizing fuel used in the production of food leads farmers to use more polluting options than they would otherwise, since fuel is artificially cheap.
      - afiori 4y ago
        I don't know why these policies were made, lowering costs at the source is easier than than price control at the margin. Foods follow a long chain with many hands; farm -> processor -> factories -> distributors -> retail; you want low retail prices and farm to be economically sustainable, moreover sometimes the link in the chain are the same entity sometime they are distinct companies. You could keep track of prices along the chain (we already do with VAT) and reimburse expenses along the chain to allow farms to sell at higher price without it affecting the final buyer. Or you could just lower the operating cost of farms by taking the major expenses* and subsidizing them. The first also is highly vulnerable to exploitation since many farms sell to huge corporations that can outplay them in the regulation game. * Which I guess are wages, taxes, fuel, and material (food/fertilizer).
alkonaut 4y ago
My fuel tax is called a “CO2 tax” (and VAT) which together is around half the cost, or about $1/L or $3.8/gal. This isn’t earmarked for anything in particular but I think the naming “CO2 tax” smells a bit like a sin/environment tax. And it’s strange I pay more of this “CO2 tax” when filling up my car to drive 10h, perhaps $50 in CO2 tax alone, than all 100 of us in the cabin of a 737 pay together when taking one hour flight the same distance. My my car tax ($1.5k/yr regardless of distance driven) sounds more like a road maintenance fee collection but also not earmarked for any purpose. I suspect this latter tax will need to skyrocket for EVs once fuel doesn’t bring in enough road maintenance money. A bus is an example of a “better” method of transportation that uses taxed fuel and has to compete with planes flying on tax free fuel.
- maccard 4y ago
  > And it’s strange I pay more of this “CO2 tax” when filling up my car to drive 10h, perhaps $50 in CO2 tax alone, than all 100 of us in the cabin of a 737 pay together when taking one hour flight the same distance. It's interesting that you make that comparison. Inverness to London fits that definition and from the last time I checked this,it's about 0.12 Tonnes of CO2 per seat to fly that distance, and roughly the same (actually slightly more) to drive the distance. For long distances like that, particularly if you're travelling in a small group, you're often better off flying over driving.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    Greenhouse gasses are worse at altitude though so my car emitting 1T CO2 at ground level is better than the plane doing it at 10km. But regardless the point still stands: why is that 0.12 ton CO2 tax exempt in the plane but not in the car?
    - kadoban 4y ago
      Is that true? Seems like it would diffuse quite quickly in the scheme of things.
    - jefftk 4y ago
derefr 4y ago
Not much difference between an "environment tax" and "financing maintenance." We need to finance the maintenance of our atmosphere. Probably eventually literally, in a "planting forests in order to hit CO2 targets" sense.
Ekaros 4y ago
Reason why they are not taxed heavily is that at least internationally the purchase of fuel would just move to countries with lower taxation. So unless the scheme was global and in every country it would not be perfectly efficient.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  A handful of rich countries could agree to a minimum fuel tax for domestic flights and flights between those countries. Then they could agree to charge more of planes arriving their airports from non-signatories of this agreement to also get an international effect. Just the US+EU would be a big chunk.
- nradov 4y ago
  That could only sort of work for some very short international flights. On longer flights, even with higher fuel taxes it wouldn't be practical to load up extra fuel in cheaper countries and then ferry it around. That would increase fuel burn due to extra weight, and run up against limits in fuel tank capacity and maximum landing weight.

mc32 4y ago

I think that's the right track. Tax them very high. The odd thing is the very people who are trying to get the world to minimize hydrocarbon use are some of the people who most often use private jets --the Davos set and Hollywood crowd, among others. Can't they for the planet, travel economy on regular airlines? This tonedeafness can turn people off.

dominotw 4y ago
Their time is more valuable than the rest of us.
- Spivak 4y ago
  You have it backwards, it’s that their money is worth less than the rest of us.
  - atoav 4y ago
    Especially considering if the rest of us includes all people still being born..
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The exceptions are quite notable, such as Greta Thunberg who sailed across the Atlantic to attend the UN Climate Action Summit. Sure it was a stunt, but it was a good one.
- mc32 4y ago
  What are the other exceptions? And surely she does not take a tallship every time she crosses expanses of water, if she did, then, I'd buy in.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago

sva_ 4y ago

> While commercial flights are set to be subject to a new tax system that discourages the use fossil fuels, private jets -- which are five to 14 times more polluting per passenger -- and cargo flights will be exempt from the requirement, according to a draft of the proposals seen by Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-jets-amazon-orders-set-to-escape-higher-eu-energy-taxes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j...

thereddaikon 4y ago

Could also start implementing emissions controls on aircraft as well. A Cessna is far dirtier than any modern road car.

sokoloff 4y ago
Those are typically implemented as of a particular date of manufacture. My 60s Mustangs do not have (nor are they required to have) modern emissions control equipment as it was not required originally.