To think we need to increase taxes on flights. If you fly more you pay more.

[ThereWillBeAdequateFood]

Just that really. I think something like 70% of all flights are taken by 30% of people.

I think we need to move to a system where the tax increases the more you fly. Something like (per year)

10% tax for the first 1000 miles
20% tax for the next 1000 miles
30% tax for the next 1000 miles
40% tax for the next 1000 miles (etc).

AIBU? Should we tax flights more?

You should also take into account the amount of diesel that will be burned to construct them.

Are the "side effects" taken into account with wind & solar farms, electric car manufacture, etc?

We could find a way to tax the flights based on how much fuel they are estimated to use regardless on where the fuel is bought? Distance, weight, aircraft, I wonder if that would be too difficult?

we don't have a 'right' to see our dying relatives?... Do you have no empathy at all for your fellow human beings?

People advocating reduced flying are doing so because they have empathy for the millions of people who will die and be displaced by climate change during our lifetimes. Most of them will have never been on a flight and had a tiny carbon footprint, because the poorest in poorer countries are generally the most vulnerable. I would find it hard to explain to one of the Bangladeshis displaced by the cyclone this year why I didn't want to reduce my flights, red meat consumption, or other aspects of my carbon footprint.

Let's bring in a 1 child birth policy as well. Those who have multiple children who will in turn have multiple children are much more harmful than those who fly.

(joking but it seems to me that many the environmentalists I know have large families)

I have no DC. Does that mean that I'm 'allowed' to fly more?

I read that the environmental impact of each DC was equivalent to many transatlantic flights.

So that probably means that the environmental impact of my couple of return flights to the canaries each year is a tiny fraction of that of a woman with a similar lifestyle but never flies but has 2 DC.

I had to go to a business meeting in Ireland. I could fly there and back in a day. Or go on the ferry for a lot more money but be away for 2 nights.

I had to go to a business meeting in Ireland. I could fly there and back in a day. Or go on the ferry for a lot more money but be away for 2 nights.

Did you really NEED to go to a business meeting? Could the discussions not have been done by phone, email, skype etc? What was so important it needed people to actually physically meet?

The OP's proposal doesn't actually stop the avoidable/worst journeys, i.e. internal/short haul flights. They should be targeted first because the journeys are often possible by alternative means, i.e. trains between UK cities, or road/rail via the Channel Tunnel.

They'll have to reduce rail fares or put the cost of flights up massively.

A while ago, there was a programme on R4 about this. A company somewhere in the NW had to get a contract signed by 4 directors on a tight deadline. The contract was in Brighton.

The cheapest way for the 4 of them to get there was to charter a private plane, fly to Shoreham airport and get a taxi to Brighton, then fly back again.

What kind of craziness is it when a private flight is cheaper than 4 return rail tickets?

I have no DC. Does that mean that I'm 'allowed' to fly more?

You should, I totally agree. Me, having had 2 children is far worse for the environment than what you’re doing @BarbaraofSeville

I have no DC. Does that mean that I'm 'allowed' to fly more? No. You can fly as much as you can afford to now. If taxes/restrictions are brought in you can fly as much as you can afford/the restrictions allow.

If you live in that corner of the country, yes. If you live in the North, you have several hours of driving on pretty heavily congested motorways until you get there, so not a pleasant experience. Hence why people fly instead! Now if we had HS2 and HS3, we could probably have car transporting trains from the North - that's a much more pleasant option - drive onto a train in, say, Newcastle, and drive off in Calais. If only?

Rail/drive used to be a thing when I was younger. I remember a friend's parents putting their car on the train and getting a sleeper for an overight rail trip to Scotland, then spent their holiday touring.

It was incredibly expensive though, hardly anyone used it and it stopped.

I'd love that to be reintroduced. I love train travel, but I love holidays in my motorhome, too - imagine being able to combine the 2?

So what about the flights I am required to take for work which I would prefer not to take - should these increase the tax on my personal flights? Seems unfair as I already limit these.

But if the environmental impact of flying is far less than having lots of children, why target flying? I can see the outcry if they proposed limiting DC to only those who can afford the taxes.

The business meeting was a conference and yes, teleconferencing should have been available but it wasn't in this case.

Maybe there needs to be more done to encourage conferencing and meetings remotely.

Although I suspect far to many people like the getting together for the piss up networking.

Would be fine with me. We haven't been abroad since 2012.

So what about the flights I am required to take for work which I would prefer not to take the (much increased) cost would be born by your company, who would then decide that some of these flights weren't necessary after all.

Flying is already massively taxed.

Would you tax more than one child too? That would help more...

But why? It’s not going to stop climate change.

@CatintheFireplace maybe they’re self employed?

Surely we should be looking to giant industries like aviation to start being greener rather than penalising the consumer and subsequently people trying to make a living?

How do you propose that aviation businesses, and the holiday companies associated with them, become greener?

Their business model depends on high load factors: lots of aircraft in the skies, as full as possible of travellers. If you buy or lease an aircraft, your profit depends upon using it.

I think that we should all fly less, but it’s up to the consumer to limit flights, whether voluntarily or otherwise (eg the controls suggested by other posters). Asking the providers to somehow become greener is both contrary to their raison d’etre and beyond current technology.

I think it will be some while before we see an electric aircraft, unlike electric cars, so if we all continue to jet off to Amsterdam for the weekend, or borrow Elton John’s private plane to get to a climate change summit, we’ll keep on burning millions of tons of jet fuel and messing up the environment.

Flying is already massively taxed.

No, it really is not.

1 measure doesn't work it needs to be a wholesale attitude change.

I have 1 child
1 fly very regularly (6 flights this week) probably a hundred plus this year
I have a large car but regularly transport up to 7 adults- thus saving 7 journeys (place not accessible by public transport)
My business has a work from home policy to save journeys.
I always consider the train as an option before driving/flying
A lot of my food comes from within 15 miles of home. I buy locally wherever possible. I would not usually import a fruit from Africa or a veg from Italy out of season (did have 1 bag of Christmas satsumas though)
I buy clothes that last and get them mended- I do the same with shoes. I limit the amount of clothes that I own to a set amount at any time.
I buy goods in packaging but try and recycle
I use amazon but save up and have one order a month
I use tampax/sanitary towels I cant do moon cups etc
I use toiletries in plastic bottles
My child had disposable nappies.
My child walks to school- I deliberately chose a local school.

So how would be the best way to environmentally tax me- over the course of my life?

Most people have a pretty mixed lifestyle surely?

I live near Farnborough Airport in Hampshire (& its flight path...) which sells itself as having excellent links into London, etc so all you might want for your business needs. The average number of passengers per flight, excluding crew, is 2.3. Those are the flights that need taxing massively.

YABU because essentially increasing taxes on something like flights equates to 'poor people are an environmental problem and therefore they shouldn't be able to do nice things like fly'. It's disingenuous and one of the reasons I've long suspected the left wing really despise the working class for daring to want nice things.

The solution is greater investment in efficient energy generation, and more effective and energy dense fuels so we can replace oil consumption with other more efficient methods.

The efficiency of an internal combustion engine is something like 30%- 70% of the energy used is wasted as heat. Wouldn't it be ideal if ever more efficient and better engines could be invented so that even poor people could drive cars. Or go on flights, or do other things the super wasteful but very rich are allowed to do because there aren't many of them.

YABU because essentially increasing taxes on something like flights equates to 'poor people are an environmental problem and therefore they shouldn't be able to do nice things like fly

If you are able to afford to fly long hall you aren’t poor by global standards (or even by U.K. standards).

I’m kind of baffled by how people think they are poor unless their income is over 100K.

The efficiency of an internal combustion engine is something like 30%- 70% of the energy used is wasted as heat. Wouldn't it be ideal if ever more efficient and better engines could be invented so that even poor people could drive cars. Or go on flights, or do other things the super wasteful but very rich are allowed to do because there aren't many of them.

I'm not sure where you've been hiding but Britain will ban all diesel/petrol engines by something like 2030-2040.

If people want to buy cars or fly, I'm afraid that's what a job is for.