4 ms·
No. It's not good. It enables the rich to travel while locking out others. A fair system would ration access to a scarce resource based on need.
by throwaway049 4y ago
No. It's not good. It enables the rich to travel while locking out others. A fair system would ration access to a scarce resource based on need.
- midoridensha 4y agoPerhaps there should be a hefty aviation fuel tax that works inversely: basically, the more you buy at once (per plane), the lower the tax is, by a very large amount. So, if you're refueling an A380 super-jumbo or a 777, your fuel tax is very low, because those planes need a LOT of fuel. If you're refueling a 737, it'll be significantly higher, to penalize short routes. If you're refueling a small private jet, it'll be huge. Basically, big jets that carry hundreds of passengers will get the lowest fuel tax this way, and airlines will be forced to prioritize moving people as efficiently as possible.
- mantas 4y agoMore fuel is more pollution though.
- midoridensha 4y agoNo, it's not. Flying all those people on smaller planes would use far more fuel and cause more pollution.
- mantas 4y agoNot flying would be best :)
- midoridensha 4y agoThat's not feasible. You can't cross oceans in any reasonable timeframe without an airplane. Even long land trips don't really make sense by train, over I'm guessing 1000km. My whole point here was to devise a taxation strategy to discourage passengers and airlines from flying short routes, and leave those to trains instead, reserving airplanes for the much longer routes where they're much less avoidable, and also to encourage more centralization of air travel from large cities and their airports, so that larger numbers of passengers are funneled onto a smaller number of very large jets for those intercontinental trips. Passengers would then just have to take trains to/from the smaller cities. Larger planes are far more efficient in terms of fuel per passenger per mile; much of the fuel burned in a flight is used on take-off and getting to altitude anyway, so maximizing distance and plane size means minimizing fuel per passenger-mile.
- mantas 4y agoWell, then don't cross oceans then. Travel long distances rarely. It's not a human right to get cheaply to the other side of the globe. And with recent breakthroughs in electronic communications, we don't have much need for vast majority of travelling. Close-but-living-far-away relatives dying or getting married happens only so rarely. If we want to fight pollution big time, ultimately we have to reduce amount of traveling. At least till we get nuclear fission working and batteries with good energy density. Entirely new ways to make trains and planes themselves.
- midoridensha 4y agoSure, we'll just all go back to medieval ways of living! That sounds like a great idea! Why travel when you can just stay at home and play video games all day!
- mantas 4y agoMedieval way of living with internet and video calling? Sorry, this doesn't seem like medieval at all. You know there's lots of things to do outside without flying tens of thousands kilometers, right?
- midoridensha 4y agoIf you want to just stay at home all the time, feel free.
- mantas 4y agoNot flying long distance does not mean staying home. Unless you live on a 500m radius island in the middle of an ocean with next land mass thousands of kilometers away.
- mantas 4y agoAir traveling (and traveling in general) is not some sort of human rights where everyone MUST afford to travel. It is a scarce resource, especially with air traveling pollution. And high taxation is a good way allocate a very scarce resource.