The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[Trainbike46]

Difference is that every extra fare on an off peak Eurostar that was going anyway is improving the economics of a clean method of transport such that Eurostar may provide more through trains from Amsterdam, thus generating more capacity to attract fliers.

Every extra air fare however is contributing towards a polluting method of transport. There's no way of sweetening that.


And due to the mainly seasonal nature of the market, many airlines run at a loss for most of the year and hike their prices in the summer to make it back. Therefore one fewer seat filled off-peak won't cause a flight to be culled, but less demand in the peak season may push things under.

In train terms, someone travelling in the NSE area off peak has only used the railway's marginal resources, whereas someone travelling in the peak may be the reason that extra units had to be ordered.

Exactly.

For the Eurostar Amsterdam route there are various things under way to increase capacity - most notably that a new terminal is coming that will increase capacity to 600 passengers per train from Amsterdam. With capacity for another 165 passengers from Rotterdam

Eurostar is also considering increasing the frequency, initially from 4 to 5 trains per day, and the likelihood of that happening and any further increases is going to depend on passenger numbers, among other factors. So by taking the train you are contributing to the route improving in the future as well.

Though, in the short term stupid reasons mean that from next summer there is likely going to be a period where there won't be any direct Amsterdam-London trains - though that is for another thread!

 

[Bantamzen]

Why would a government attack low-carbon transport instead of more emitting sectors?

Read my post again. I was talking about a hypothetical scenario where a government would impose restrictions after having imposed them on aviation.

Doing nothing does not work and will cause massive detriment to a huge number of people. Sitting on our hands hoping for "innovation" to save us is not a plan.

Read my posts again. I have never said do nothing.

 

[eldomtom2]

Read my post again. I was talking about a hypothetical scenario where a government would impose restrictions after having imposed them on aviation.

I understood your post again. I am asking why a government would see attacking rail transport as the first priority after aviation?

Read my posts again. I have never said do nothing.

You have ruled out any solution that isn't "innovation", with the logical conclusion being that until an "innovative" solution is created we should do nothing.

 

[The Ham]

I've already answered your question, I don't believe any attempt to limit travel (which is basically what your proposals would do) is the right way, or indeed fair. A lot of people are happy to see aviation reduced because they either don't use it much, if at all, or they are not dependant on it. So it seems like a low hanging fruit, an easy gimme. I used the 8 trips of 50+ miles as an extreme example to make people think a little, imagine a government one day turning around and saying to us we trying to solve climate change through reducing aviation but it didn't work. So now we have to take the principles previously applied to aviation and expand them, starting with long distance trains. I mean how many people need to travel long distances by train right?

I hope by now you understand what I'm trying to do here. This is about making people think about the wider consequences of any attempt to forcibly limit aviation travel, be that directly or indirectly. And it is also to remind people that ideas creep, so what could start off in aviation could easily end up applying much further afield. Of course this is not to say we shouldn't be doing anything, but what we do apply should be fully thought through with both the beneficial and detrimental effects fully considered and weighed up.

The solutions are out there, but they require actual thought, innovation and application. They have to be able to work in the real world, and they cannot cause massive detriment to any number of people. Because if they don't work in the real world and/or cause detriment, put simply, they will not happen. That is the bottom line, and one that we are already seeing happen right here in the UK.

I understand that you want absolutely no limits, so in theory that could result in aviation growing by 5% year on year (not just in the UK but worldwide, which was 5.1% year in year between 1999 and 2019), the numbers flying wipe out 34% energy efficiencys in 6 years time and then double from that baseline by 2043 (i.e. double their current emissions).

Over that timeline if the rest of the emissions from every other sector have reduced by 20% then rather than being 2% aviation would be 5%.

If other sectors reduce on average by 30% and aviation sees growth of 9.5% year on year then by 2043 (even allowing for a 34% energy efficiency saving) aviation would be 10% of total global emissions. That's quite unlikely, as that would be growth of about 50% more than was seen from 1999 to 2019, but if we changed the end date to 2055 it may not be that far off the numbers.

Also, not only does that go beyond your started aim of protecting the tourist industry and those who work in related industries to the aviation industry, but it's allowed significant growth in those areas. That is a very different thing from it shrinking.

Anyway, if innovation is going to solve the issue there would be no harm in setting the limit at (say) 2023 emission levels, as that would still give the industry plenty of growth potential for to the significant amount of emission reduction which is going to be forthcoming. (Only both you and I know that it won't, because we're chasing diminishing returns when it comes to more efficient aircraft - which is why you'll not accept it nor any limit, even if it allowed 3% emission growth year on year).

 

[Bantamzen]

I understand that you want absolutely no limits, so in theory that could result in aviation growing by 5% year on year (not just in the UK but worldwide, which was 5.1% year in year between 1999 and 2019), the numbers flying wipe out 34% energy efficiencys in 6 years time and then double from that baseline by 2043 (i.e. double their current emissions).

Over that timeline if the rest of the emissions from every other sector have reduced by 20% then rather than being 2% aviation would be 5%.

That assumes the growth will continue at that pace. But as I've said there are built-in limitations such as the time to build new craft, space on the ramps at airports, airport infrastructure and passenger capacity, as well as airspace actually available.

Now of course there is a potential mechanism to actually slow growth here if needed without necessarily negatively impacting the industry or those reliant on it. Governments going forward could limit or even stop new slots being available in their airspace, meaning that the number of flights would be restricted without necessarily costing airlines more. This could be caveated by a requirement that any new slots allowed only be opened on the basis that craft allocated to be using them be of the latest engine gen, meaning that growth would only be allowed on the basis on ever improving efficiency. This would at least keep the incentives for the industry to drive for more efficient solutions, although as I've also said aviation being so cost sensitive there has always been plenty of incentive to develop the most efficient engines possible.

If other sectors reduce on average by 30% and aviation sees growth of 9.5% year on year then by 2043 (even allowing for a 34% energy efficiency saving) aviation would be 10% of total global emissions. That's quite unlikely, as that would be growth of about 50% more than was seen from 1999 to 2019, but if we changed the end date to 2055 it may not be that far off the numbers.

Hmm you see this is where statistics could be abused. Yes if the aviation industry did not deliver as many efficiencies as others, then statistically the overall percentage of global emissions that it would be responsible would go up. But it would be a higher percentage of a much lower overall volume. Theoretically aviation could even be reducing its output, but still show a higher overall percentage of the total global emissions.

This is where global fixations on set targets start to blur the picture. Yes we need to reduce our overall impact, but that doesn't mean it all has to be at the same pace or percentage. If the energy industry reduced it's emissions in half by 2040, that would have a massively greater impact on overall emission volumes than aviation reducing by the same. Again that doesn't mean aviation shouldn't strive for much better efficiencies, but as I repeatedly said the industry is striving very hard to do exactly that. Who knows by 2040 aviation may be making higher percentage efficiency savings than any other sector. This is the mistake many people make, by assuming that aviation will just get worse. But that is not a given.

Also, not only does that go beyond your started aim of protecting the tourist industry and those who work in related industries to the aviation industry, but it's allowed significant growth in those areas. That is a very different thing from it shrinking.

Anyway, if innovation is going to solve the issue there would be no harm in setting the limit at (say) 2023 emission levels, as that would still give the industry plenty of growth potential for to the significant amount of emission reduction which is going to be forthcoming. (Only both you and I know that it won't, because we're chasing diminishing returns when it comes to more efficient aircraft - which is why you'll not accept it nor any limit, even if it allowed 3% emission growth year on year).

As I've suggested above there is potential to control growth through pathing and only allowing new ones where efficiencies can be demonstrated. This allows for control on emissions, but also leave the way open for growth without immediate detrimental effects.

 

[Trainbike46]

That assumes the growth will continue at that pace. But as I've said there are built-in limitations such as the time to build new craft, space on the ramps at airports, airport infrastructure and passenger capacity, as well as airspace actually available.

Now of course there is a potential mechanism to actually slow growth here if needed without necessarily negatively impacting the industry or those reliant on it. Governments going forward could limit or even stop new slots being available in their airspace, meaning that the number of flights would be restricted without necessarily costing airlines more. This could be caveated by a requirement that any new slots allowed only be opened on the basis that craft allocated to be using them be of the latest engine gen, meaning that growth would only be allowed on the basis on ever improving efficiency. This would at least keep the incentives for the industry to drive for more efficient solutions, although as I've also said aviation being so cost sensitive there has always been plenty of incentive to develop the most efficient engines possible.


Hmm you see this is where statistics could be abused. Yes if the aviation industry did not deliver as many efficiencies as others, then statistically the overall percentage of global emissions that it would be responsible would go up. But it would be a higher percentage of a much lower overall volume. Theoretically aviation could even be reducing its output, but still show a higher overall percentage of the total global emissions.

This is where global fixations on set targets start to blur the picture. Yes we need to reduce our overall impact, but that doesn't mean it all has to be at the same pace or percentage. If the energy industry reduced it's emissions in half by 2040, that would have a massively greater impact on overall emission volumes than aviation reducing by the same. Again that doesn't mean aviation shouldn't strive for much better efficiencies, but as I repeatedly said the industry is striving very hard to do exactly that. Who knows by 2040 aviation may be making higher percentage efficiency savings than any other sector. This is the mistake many people make, by assuming that aviation will just get worse. But that is not a given.




As I've suggested above there is potential to control growth through pathing and only allowing new ones where efficiencies can be demonstrated. This allows for control on emissions, but also leave the way open for growth without immediate detrimental effects.

How would you feel about a hard cap on emissions (easy to estimate via fuel use, though there is some slight differences between fuel burn at different heights) to avoid aviation growth not covered by efficiencies?

 

[Bantamzen]

How would you feel about a hard cap on emissions (easy to estimate via fuel use, though there is some slight differences between fuel burn at different heights) to avoid aviation growth not covered by efficiencies?

If you limit airspace, there will be no growth so no need for a hard cap.

 

[Trainbike46]

If you limit airspace, there will be no growth so no need for a hard cap.

Limiting air space (or airport capacity) is certainly easier for a single country to implement.

The advantage of a cap on fuel use is that you would give airlines more flexibility to change routes - though I guess you could similarly argue that is a disadvantage

 

[Bantamzen]

Limiting air space (or airport capacity) is certainly easier for a single country to implement.

The advantage of a cap on fuel use is that you would give airlines more flexibility to change routes - though I guess you could similarly argue that is a disadvantage

To a large degree UK airspace already is heavily limited being quiet close to capacity, but flexibility is still available should carriers wish to reallocate routes which they do often. And using slots is a far easier way to ensure that new & indeed existing routes comply with efficiency requirements, if an airline doesn't use the craft specified without applying for individual exemptions (to cover off situations where a change of craft is required), they lose the slot.

 

[mi_z]

Leaving this thread full of woke lefties.

Sorry that reality (climate change and the impact of flying) is left wing.

Yes they are, but aviation accounts for around 2% of CO2 emissions globally (based on calculations that are widely believed to be way out of date thanks to aviation technology improvements). Would stopping aviation have saved those jobs, in fact would those jobs have existed in those numbers if it were not for aviation?

I said above why this is a misleading number. The fact is the vast majority of the population do not fly and most of those come from frequent flyers. It's a luxury activity. That's why it's so low. But as an action the emissions are significant. I think a frequent flyer levy is the most obvious way to tackle this in a fair way. Make it scale to the number of trips per year, for example. I suppose you'd split business and personal trips as long as there was no way to game the system.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sorry that reality (climate change and the impact of flying) is left wing.


I said above why this is a misleading number. The fact is the vast majority of the population do not fly and most of those come from frequent flyers. It's a luxury activity. That's why it's so low. But as an action the emissions are significant. I think a frequent flyer levy is the most obvious way to tackle this in a fair way. Make it scale to the number of trips per year, for example. I suppose you'd split business and personal trips as long as there was no way to game the system.

Just think about the last part of your last sentence. I think we all know this would happen.

 

[mi_z]

Just think about the last part of your last sentence. I think we all know this would happen.

Things can always be adjusted as needed. The potential for exploiting is not a reason not to have a levy. The split is for fairness but it isn't necessary either. It could be by name only. Most flights aren't for business anyway.

 

[The Ham]

That assumes the growth will continue at that pace. But as I've said there are built-in limitations such as the time to build new craft, space on the ramps at airports, airport infrastructure and passenger capacity, as well as airspace actually available.

The increase is based on global rates of growth, whilst there's likely to be those sorts of hard limits in some locations (for example Heathrow) there'll be plenty of other places where there's not those sorts of limits.

Now of course there is a potential mechanism to actually slow growth here if needed without necessarily negatively impacting the industry or those reliant on it. Governments going forward could limit or even stop new slots being available in their airspace, meaning that the number of flights would be restricted without necessarily costing airlines more. This could be caveated by a requirement that any new slots allowed only be opened on the basis that craft allocated to be using them be of the latest engine gen, meaning that growth would only be allowed on the basis on ever improving efficiency. This would at least keep the incentives for the industry to drive for more efficient solutions, although as I've also said aviation being so cost sensitive there has always been plenty of incentive to develop the most efficient engines possible.


Hmm you see this is where statistics could be abused. Yes if the aviation industry did not deliver as many efficiencies as others, then statistically the overall percentage of global emissions that it would be responsible would go up. But it would be a higher percentage of a much lower overall volume. Theoretically aviation could even be reducing its output, but still show a higher overall percentage of the total global emissions.

If you look at what I said, aviation emissions were reducing individual aircraft emissions by 35% whilst other sectors fell by 30%, the reason that aviation's values go up is because of the growth.

Whilst (for example) there's going to be a need for more electricity, a lot of the extra demand will be because of reduced oil and gas usage (for example the use of EV's and heat pumps) and so the overall emissions will still be lower.

As such, whilst technically generation of energy would see it's production increase which could result in an increase in emissions (assuming that the extra isn't entirely from solar, wind, etc) the reduction from the loss of oil/gas use would be noticeable larger.

This is where global fixations on set targets start to blur the picture. Yes we need to reduce our overall impact, but that doesn't mean it all has to be at the same pace or percentage. If the energy industry reduced it's emissions in half by 2040, that would have a massively greater impact on overall emission volumes than aviation reducing by the same. Again that doesn't mean aviation shouldn't strive for much better efficiencies, but as I repeatedly said the industry is striving very hard to do exactly that. Who knows by 2040 aviation may be making higher percentage efficiency savings than any other sector. This is the mistake many people make, by assuming that aviation will just get worse. But that is not a given.

Which is all very accurate, however it still doesn't explain why a global limit of 2023 emissions for aviation isn't acceptable to you. As that doesn't require any reduction to be delivered, unless aviation wishes to transport more people.

 

[Bantamzen]

Things can always be adjusted as needed. The potential for exploiting is not a reason not to have a levy. The split is for fairness but it isn't necessary either. It could be by name only. Most flights aren't for business anyway.

Actually the potential for exploitation is exactly why these things need to be considered.

The increase is based on global rates of growth, whilst there's likely to be those sorts of hard limits in some locations (for example Heathrow) there'll be plenty of other places where there's not those sorts of limits.

Remember its not just airports where limits apply, airspace in particular is going to be a limiter going forward as many parts of the UK & Europe for example are getting close to breaking point. Even if economies around the globe continue to grow, and that's not a given as recent events have shown, infrastructural may make aviation growth at similar levels considerably harder it may not follow the same curve.

If you look at what I said, aviation emissions were reducing individual aircraft emissions by 35% whilst other sectors fell by 30%, the reason that aviation's values go up is because of the growth.

Whilst (for example) there's going to be a need for more electricity, a lot of the extra demand will be because of reduced oil and gas usage (for example the use of EV's and heat pumps) and so the overall emissions will still be lower.

As such, whilst technically generation of energy would see it's production increase which could result in an increase in emissions (assuming that the extra isn't entirely from solar, wind, etc) the reduction from the loss of oil/gas use would be noticeable larger.

Which is all very accurate, however it still doesn't explain why a global limit of 2023 emissions for aviation isn't acceptable to you. As that doesn't require any reduction to be delivered, unless aviation wishes to transport more people.

What I am fundamentally opposed to is the application of taxes, charges or any kind of individual limits to prevent people from flying. However I will concede that setting emission levels at those of 2023 would not be objectional, although I would still prefer the option of handling growth through controlling slots based on the efficiency of proposed fleets. I think this would be a more robust system, and hopefully a little easier to implement than trying to calculate future flight emissions.

 

[Trainbike46]

Actually the potential for exploitation is exactly why these things need to be considered.


Remember its not just airports where limits apply, airspace in particular is going to be a limiter going forward as many parts of the UK & Europe for example are getting close to breaking point. Even if economies around the globe continue to grow, and that's not a given as recent events have shown, infrastructural may make aviation growth at similar levels considerably harder it may not follow the same curve.




What I am fundamentally opposed to is the application of taxes, charges or any kind of individual limits to prevent people from flying. However I will concede that setting emission levels at those of 2023 would not be objectional, although I would still prefer the option of handling growth through controlling slots based on the efficiency of proposed fleets. I think this would be a more robust system, and hopefully a little easier to implement than trying to calculate future flight emissions.

Emissions are easy to calculate from fuel use. The simplest way to put a cap on emissions is to put a cap on fuel use

 

[Bantamzen]

Emissions are easy to calculate from fuel use. The simplest way to put a cap on emissions is to put a cap on fuel use

Emissions maybe, but its not necessarily as easy to calculate how much fuel each flight will need. Sure it can be roughly estimated in advance but all manner of factors can change fuel actually needed per flight, which is calculated by the flight crews on the ground as part of pre-flight set-up.

So just to expand on @The Ham's 2023 limit. We take that and make it the 2025 limit (its too late to plan for 2024). Airlines then submit their plans for 2025 and these are assessed again 2023 emissions, if they come inside them the they are approved otherwise airlines would need to recast their plans to fit. If there is any spare capacity as a result of airlines using more efficient craft, then some but not all could be considered for growth. Over time the emissions levels could be reduced but still allow controlled airline growth if needed.

This would also give a mechanism to check compliance, without putting the inevitable commercial pressures on flight crews that additional fuel levies or caps would. And it would further drive aviation innovation to allow more efficient growth in the future.

 

[mi_z]

Actually the potential for exploitation is exactly why these things need to be considered.

Considered in terms of how to implement it, not in terms of doing it or not.

This would also give a mechanism to check compliance, without putting the inevitable commercial pressures on flight crews that additional fuel levies or caps would. And it would further drive aviation innovation to allow more efficient growth in the future.

Are you suggesting flight crews would in any way be affected by fuel duty? That's ridiculous. Their first aim is to not get people killed. Fuel is already a large part of an airlines cost so by your reasoning the cost would alter what they do because it's not fully predictable beforehand. So what? Yes the exact amount is not predicable but a rough estimate would be which would average over time.

I've already answered your question, I don't believe any attempt to limit travel (which is basically what your proposals would do) is the right way, or indeed fair.

Let me explain to you what is not fair: people in the West being the predominant cause of climate change while being least affected while those who aren't the main cause suffer the worst effects through storms, drought, food shortage, heat waves, and so on.

What I am fundamentally opposed to is the application of taxes, charges or any kind of individual limits to prevent people from flying. However I will concede that setting emission levels at those of 2023 would not be objectional, although I would still prefer the option of handling growth through controlling slots based on the efficiency of proposed fleets. I think this would be a more robust system, and hopefully a little easier to implement than trying to calculate future flight emissions.

Why? First of all the best way to motivate increased efficiency would be through these sorts of taxes, and a frequent flyer levy would reduce the biggest contributors of emissions. But you seem to think that technology can solve everything. I don't think so. The World's population could quickly turn to one more able to fly, and that increased demand would quickly outstrip any sort of efficiency gains. Planes have already made efficiency gains yet that hasn't decreased emissions.

 

[Bantamzen]

Considered in terms of how to implement it, not in terms of doing it or not.


Are you suggesting flight crews would in any way be affected by fuel duty? That's ridiculous. Their first aim is to not get people killed. Fuel is already a large part of an airlines cost so by your reasoning the cost would alter what they do because it's not fully predictable beforehand. So what? Yes the exact amount is not predicable but a rough estimate would be which would average over time.

I'm suggesting that flight crews may have to make decisions like not take on as much, if any fuel in the UK if fuel duties apply and cause excessive costs. And if fuel caps apply, if a flight needs to take on enough fuel to take an airline over it, they may decide to cancel the flight altogether. Flight crews would never put lives in any kind of danger, but they still have to follow company policies.

Let me explain to you what is not fair: people in the West being the predominant cause of climate change while being least affected while those who aren't the main cause suffer the worst effects through storms, drought, food shortage, heat waves, and so on.

And I would agree. But right now is not the time for blaming and shaming, no matter how cool it feels for the environmental lobbies. Now is the time for solutions that don't cause more problems than they solve.

Why? First of all the best way to motivate increased efficiency would be through these sorts of taxes, and a frequent flyer levy would reduce the biggest contributors of emissions. But you seem to think that technology can solve everything. I don't think so. The World's population could quickly turn to one more able to fly, and that increased demand would quickly outstrip any sort of efficiency gains. Planes have already made efficiency gains yet that hasn't decreased emissions.

Honestly, I will never understand this obsession about taxing everything to solve something. It may by now have come to your attention that generally speaking those people who can fly the most, are also those best positioned to absorb or avoid tax. I mean how often do people complain that the wealthiest avoid levels of taxation that less well off end up paying, yet a breath later the same people are proposing taxes left, right and centre. Taxes won't solve a damn thing, they are a blunt political tool.

What we need is less people gluing themselves to things in a petulant, and frankly pathetic manner, and actually get some brain cells rubbed together. In terms of aviation this mean engineers working towards more efficient craft, in wider transport about working out how to fund public transport and make it useful & affordable to many more people, in energy it is about bridging the gap between green energy generation and energy requirements (i.e. storing said energy until needed). All of these require innovation, not just in tech but in financing and thinking.

Sadly the way I see it this is the problem. No-one wants to work hard any more, everyone wants solutions now without effort. Solving the impact that humanity has had on the planet over the last 10,000 years at least, yes that long, is not going to be easy and requires the best and the brightest on the job finding those solutions that will work. And it is going to take time. Silly arbitrary targets like 2040 or 2050 are simply not going to be met, we can see governments around the world dialling back already. The solutions will be decades, maybe even millennia in the making. That's the reality. End of.

 

[The Ham]

Silly arbitrary targets like 2040 or 2050 are simply not going to be met,

Whilst targets may well be missed, arguably it's better to set a target of 2050 and only hit it in 2060 than not set a target and be almost no better off in 2060.

 

[Meerkat]

Aside from pollution the Covid and volcano times were wonderful in terms of the lack of noise and the clear blue skies.
Not sure how much we can do alone - loads if not most of the planes going over aren’t stopping in the uk.

 

[eldomtom2]

Honestly, I will never understand this obsession about taxing everything to solve something. It may by now have come to your attention that generally speaking those people who can fly the most, are also those best positioned to absorb or avoid tax. I mean how often do people complain that the wealthiest avoid levels of taxation that less well off end up paying, yet a breath later the same people are proposing taxes left, right and centre. Taxes won't solve a damn thing, they are a blunt political tool.

Take up your complaint with the vast majority of economists, then.

 

[Enthusiast]

Take up your complaint with the vast majority of economists, then.

Not really the best people to consult, I would suggest. Economists principally know about the economy. Their tools for change are interest rates, exchange rates and taxes. This problem requires scientists, engineers and technicians to provide innovative ideas to enable people to continue with their lives without influencing the atmosphere more than is ideal. Economists should certainly be consulted when those innovations have been devised so that the economic effects of them can be considered. This, of course, was a step that was missed out when it was decided to "fight the [Covid] virus." But nobody suggested taxing our way out of the pandemic.

 

[mi_z]

I'm suggesting that flight crews may have to make decisions like not take on as much, if any fuel in the UK if fuel duties apply and cause excessive costs. And if fuel caps apply, if a flight needs to take on enough fuel to take an airline over it, they may decide to cancel the flight altogether. Flight crews would never put lives in any kind of danger, but they still have to follow company policies.

So flight crews will put enough fuel that is necessary but won't go over. Tell me how the price of fuel or any tax would go into that decision. Sounds like something you just made up. And with fuel tax the price of flying would increase to reflect that, obviously.

And I would agree. But right now is not the time for blaming and shaming, no matter how cool it feels for the environmental lobbies. Now is the time for solutions that don't cause more problems than they solve.

It's not about blaming and shaming, it's about the people responsible doing something about their responsibility. In this case flying less.

Honestly, I will never understand this obsession about taxing everything to solve something. It may by now have come to your attention that generally speaking those people who can fly the most, are also those best positioned to absorb or avoid tax. I mean how often do people complain that the wealthiest avoid levels of taxation that less well off end up paying, yet a breath later the same people are proposing taxes left, right and centre. Taxes won't solve a damn thing, they are a blunt political tool.

That's not because taxes don't work, that's because the people in charge don't want to make them work. They could actually work towards closing loopholes if they wanted to, but they are bankrolled by the people who avoid it through party donations and such, or maybe they avoid paying tax themselves. It's not an argument against taxation.

But the people who can avoid are still a very small minority and they don't even make the bulk of the frequent flyers. And since it is something you would pay when you buy a ticket and something that is linked to your identity it would be much harder to avoid than other forms of tax.

What we need is less people gluing themselves to things in a petulant, and frankly pathetic manner, and actually get some brain cells rubbed together. In terms of aviation this mean engineers working towards more efficient craft, in wider transport about working out how to fund public transport and make it useful & affordable to many more people, in energy it is about bridging the gap between green energy generation and energy requirements (i.e. storing said energy until needed). All of these require innovation, not just in tech but in financing and thinking.

Sadly the way I see it this is the problem. No-one wants to work hard any more, everyone wants solutions now without effort. Solving the impact that humanity has had on the planet over the last 10,000 years at least, yes that long, is not going to be easy and requires the best and the brightest on the job finding those solutions that will work. And it is going to take time. Silly arbitrary targets like 2040 or 2050 are simply not going to be met, we can see governments around the world dialling back already. The solutions will be decades, maybe even millennia in the making. That's the reality. End of.

But don't you see that these sorts of taxes incentivise doing the research you want to see? Where is the motivation to do so when fuel is cheap and flying is cheap? The idea "no one wants to work any more" is preposterous by the way.

 

[eldomtom2]

Not really the best people to consult, I would suggest. Economists principally know about the economy. Their tools for change are interest rates, exchange rates and taxes. This problem requires scientists, engineers and technicians to provide innovative ideas to enable people to continue with their lives without influencing the atmosphere more than is ideal. Economists should certainly be consulted when those innovations have been devised so that the economic effects of them can be considered. This, of course, was a step that was missed out when it was decided to "fight the [Covid] virus." But nobody suggested taxing our way out of the pandemic.

The point, which you have missed, is that economists pretty much universally consider taxes an effective way to discourage behaviour.

 

[Bantamzen]

So flight crews will put enough fuel that is necessary but won't go over. Tell me how the price of fuel or any tax would go into that decision. Sounds like something you just made up. And with fuel tax the price of flying would increase to reflect that, obviously.

If fuel in the UK becomes much more expensive then flight crews may come under instructions to take on as much fuel elsewhere to keep costs down, which of course in turn would make the flight less carbon efficient. Its called tankering. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Don't kid yourself for a minute that airline companies wouldn't take whatever measures to keep fuel costs down without compromising safety.

It's not about blaming and shaming, it's about the people responsible doing something about their responsibility. In this case flying less.

Of course it is. For the vast majority of activists its about claiming some moral high ground. You only need to look some protestors placards to see that they what everyone else to stop to save "their" lives not everyone's.

That's not because taxes don't work, that's because the people in charge don't want to make them work. They could actually work towards closing loopholes if they wanted to, but they are bankrolled by the people who avoid it through party donations and such, or maybe they avoid paying tax themselves. It's not an argument against taxation.

But the people who can avoid are still a very small minority and they don't even make the bulk of the frequent flyers. And since it is something you would pay when you buy a ticket and something that is linked to your identity it would be much harder to avoid than other forms of tax.

Oh to be so wonderfully free of cynicism. Sadly this doesn't work in the real world, as we all know.

And you mention said taxes being "linked to your identity"? What exactly so you mean by that? Are you proposing that details of a flight purchase be passed onto HMRC, or perhaps some kind of Chinese style social credit?

But don't you see that these sorts of taxes incentivise doing the research you want to see? Where is the motivation to do so when fuel is cheap and flying is cheap? The idea "no one wants to work any more" is preposterous by the way.

The aviation industry innovates without the taxes....

 

[Krokodil]

If fuel in the UK becomes much more expensive then flight crews may come under instructions to take on as much fuel elsewhere to keep costs down, which of course in turn would make the flight less carbon efficient. Its called tankering. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Don't kid yourself for a minute that airline companies wouldn't take whatever measures to keep fuel costs down without compromising safety.

Which is why it has been said that a pan-European tax is the way forward because short-haul flights would just brim the tank at the other end, and transatlantic flights would be making stops at Shannon.

The aviation industry innovates without the taxes....

It's the customers who are being targeted by any taxes. The theory being that where possible they would take their business elsewhere (whether that means a passenger using Eurostar or a shopper buying their green beans from a European source when they're in season, rather than from Kenya).

 

[Bantamzen]

Which is why it has been said that a pan-European tax is the way forward because short-haul flights would just brim the tank at the other end, and transatlantic flights would be making stops at Shannon.

Tax is never the way forward though. It is however just about the only "solution" anyone here can come up with.

It's the customers who are being targeted by any taxes. The theory being that where possible they would take their business elsewhere (whether that means a passenger using Eurostar or a shopper buying their green beans from a European source when they're in season, rather than from Kenya).

Because everyone travels to destinations served by Eurostar. Oh, wait....

 

[Krokodil]

Tax is never the way forward though. It is however just about the only "solution" anyone here can come up with.

Tax hasn't been a significant part of the UK's much lower smoking rates than our neighbours then?

Because everyone travels to destinations served by Eurostar. Oh, wait....

Did you fail to read the words "where possible" in my post?

 

[Bantamzen]

Tax hasn't been a significant part of the UK's much lower smoking rates than our neighbours then?

There's been tax on tobacco since 1660...

Did you fail to read the words "where possible" in my post?

There's not a lot of destinations via Eurostar. Three if I recall correctly. But I've already addressed the issue of short haul / domestic flights. Make trains cheaper than flights.

 

[Krokodil]

There's been tax on tobacco since 1660...

Bit of a difference between just introducing something as a revenue raiser, and hiking the tax up to punitive levels to change people's behaviour for the sake of public health.

There's not a lot of destinations via Eurostar. Three if I recall correctly.

Lots of places you can get to without flying. But you are wilfully missing the point that this is about getting those who could change to do so.

But I've already addressed the issue of short haul / domestic flights. Make trains cheaper than flights.

For that we need to increase capacity on rail (supply/demand etc.). Good job that we have a progressive government who are making investment in rail capacity. Oh wait, the PM sent a tweet about how well his transport policies were going - from an RAF VIP jet. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.