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?

@bigbubbles increase taxes on your flights

(Compared to the majority of the world's population that's not a "mixed lifestyle" it's a hugely polluting one)

As it stands, there's not even a tax on jet fuel, that's fucked up. It's not even clear that EU member states can introduce such a tax.

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

If people won't voluntarily change their behaviour, we will see policies like this.

If that shocks you, then think how you can change your life in ways that aren't shocking. If we don't change things, we will ultimately be driven to desperate measures. A one child policy isn't even that drastic.

But lots of more environmental choices are easier if you have more money. If you are reliant on cheap food then it will have travelled miles and been processed at different points in different countries.

I eat meat (bad) but all my meat comes from a named farm within 15 miles of home
All my cheese comes from the county that I live in
My Christmas chocolates had no palm oil- they were handmade locally etc etc
My wine came from America (very bad) I bought it directly from the winery and it came with me on a journey I was making anyway (bit better- maybe- maybe not)
My milk comes from the handful of suppliers who pay a fair price to farmers- it costs more to buy.

For lots of people they have no choice to think about where their food came from- it is a luxury.

What is the journey of a takeaway coffee or an M&S ready meal?

Do we really know the impact of what we eat?

The airmails/transport miles of our food/clothing and goods is just as important as the miles we travel.

(Compared to the majority of the world's population that's not a "mixed lifestyle" it's a hugely polluting one)

I agree but the thread is about it UK taxation. I live in the UK- how should I be environmentally taxed overall to make it fair? Just taxing my air travel is a tiny part of the picture.

In NZ our carbon footprint is significantly lower than the UK so any long haul flights to see relatives is offset and more.

^ This. I think this offsets flights to see family who emigrated. Thankfully most are in Australia so it's not as bad but some are much further.

The supermarket is 80km away so it's only really feasible for a monthly trip, locally caught fish is from a sustainably run marine reserve with low catch limits. Meat and cheese are locally farmed/made so has low food miles - the cheese is made about 6 km away, fish is from a place less than 2 minutes walk from the harbour and lamb/beef can be bought from a local farm around 30km away. Most importantly, there is a local vinyard

The worldwide average household income is less than 10,000 dollars. I don't think these people are eating m&s ready meals.

I agree but the thread is about it UK taxation. I live in the UK- how should I be environmentally taxed overall to make it fair? Just taxing my air travel is a tiny part of the picture.

All commercial production should bear the cost of repairing any damage wrought along its supply chain. It's pretty simple, really.

A company somewhere in the NW had to get a contract signed by 4 directors on a tight deadline. The contract was in Brighton.

There is such a thing as digital signatures. No need for travel, just a shot gun email.

The worldwide average household income is less than 10,000 dollars. I don't think these people are eating m&s ready meals.

The post was about how wealthy people have more choice? And so need to think more about the content and journey of their food/

I didn't suggest that poorer people worldwide eat M&S ready meals?

The thread is also about UK environmental taxation- not the average world income.

@bigbubbles I agree but the thread is about it UK taxation. I live in the UK- how should I be environmentally taxed overall to make it fair? Just taxing my air travel is a tiny part of the picture. It's not though. 100 flights a year massively out weighs everything else. (Except having children but I don't think the UK govt wants to discourage us from doing that altogether or we'd have massive problems with an aging population).

I'm not having a go at you btw. I am far from perfect. But tbh the only thing that would really cut down my and everyone else's flying is increasing the cost.

But will the rest of the world - the vast majority, pay these taxes as well.

What if the meat and cheese locally made is intensively farmed? When is it better to buy free range products that are from hundreds of miles away or another country?

Is milk and cheese just as bad as beef, given that it also needs cows to produce? I could happily never eat beef, not use much milk, or use plant based milk, but I do eat a lot of cheese. Is sheep or goats cheese better than cows milk cheese?

How does locally produced meat, dairy etc, compare with products like avocados and asparagus flown in from South America? I've heard bad things about the impact on the water supply on farming products like this. Of course there's also the palm oil issue.

Does comparatively well off people buying produce from other countries provide a valuable source of income for poorer farmers, or does it raise prices for locals in that country to unaffordable levels?

Are my 10 flights within Europe per year on average a lot when people like bigbubbles flies 100+ times per year, but others never fly?

It's all very complicated and often the answers are not straightforward.

I would guess anyone flying 100 flights/year is doing so for work and therefore the footprint is to be absorbed by whatever projects the flight is related to.

@bigbubbles - sorry, I misinterpreted what you were getting at.

Having said that, while of course you're right and this is about UK taxation a) the people hit hardest by climate change will be poor Bangladeshis etc so I think they are relevant, especially when people start complaining about punishing "poor" British families who will no longe be able to afford to fly to Disneyland (not saying you have done this) and b) if we really want to sort things out it will have to be a worldwide effort so that other countries can't undercut the UK tax regime (and no, I have no idea how this would work!).

It's not though. 100 flights a year massively out weighs everything else. (Except having children but I don't think the UK govt wants to discourage us from doing that altogether or we'd have massive problems with an aging population).

I don't disagree- maybe we all need to have a personal carbon allowance and we pay when we exceed it?

www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year

Frequent Flyer Tax.

The most destructive thing we do to the planet is have more children, so before we start taxing flights we should think about taxing heavily for each child over replacement so people with than more than 2 children are taxed heavily in comparison taxing flights is a drop in the ocean.

@BarbaraofSeville it is very complicated but if we're looking at ways we can have the biggest impact on climate change then the vast majority of experts agree that a) flying is a massive deal and b) incentives need to come from government rather than just rely on personal good will.

Your 10 flights a year are well above average (most Brits don't fly at all on an average year).

(Sadly I think cows cheese is pretty bad, I wish it wasn't as I'm veggie but love cheese so would prefer to feel virtuous! I don't know for sure but guessing sheep's cheese would be better)

I've read this before and I don't buy it, it's absolutely nonsensical. Do you have a link?

Which bit? Blog summarising link between female education and family size, it has links to multiple papers looking at the link. It's a very well established link.

As for having children later there are several factors. Delaying parenthood reduces the overall fertility rate at a population level - Finnish study. Population growth is affected by several factors one of which is the generation time and it is this that means delaying parenthood has a positive impact, because you are reducing the number of descendents you will have over any set period.

Why flights?

Did you pick this because it doesn't really impact you? I am always suspicious of claiming we should pay more for x to help the climate when it's something that the person saying it doesn't want to use anymore.

Honestly if it cost more it wouldn't stop me from flying. If it was just the uk I would consider a short hop to a country that didn't impose high taxes and then fly the most miles from there on a different ticket.

@bigbubbles I don't disagree- maybe we all need to have a personal carbon allowance and we pay when we exceed it? Maybe. I think the issue is that the more complicated you make it, the more people can regig and offset and end up not actually changing anything. To be effective it needs to be simple and non-transferable (so that, e.g. Mrs Migins who wouldn't have used her allowance anyway can't sell it to you, so neither of you end up changing your behaviour). I'm not a tax expert though!

Unfortunately the bottom line is that many more green taxes will be brought in over the next few years and, as usual. it's the poorer people who will suffer most.

Congestion charging is a prime example. We live near Newcastle and they are talking about bringing in a charge for driving in the city centre. DP often has no choice but to go through the city centre to get to a job . He will find it impacts on him a lot more to pay any charge than someone who is wealthy and can absorb this.
The same thing with cars. We have a diesel car (I know, shoot me now) because it was the only car we could afford at the time. We cannot afford to replace it but I imagine it is highly unlikely that help would
be given to buy a less polluting one.

I think what I'm trying to say is that taxing people does not solve the problem. It simply leads to resentment from those who feel they are being disproportionately targeted.

i think that there needs to be a coordinated global approach to this issue but with the state of the world today this is becoming increasingly unlikely. There is nothing to stop us all from doing our small part but unless governments agree a joined up strategy it is unlikely to make a significant difference.

Sadly I am not optimistic that this is going to happen.

*rejig!

According to this the CO2 impact of 'one fewer child' (I can't find what they mean by this - compared with 2 per couple or something else? is 58.6 tonnes of CO2 per year.

The CO2 for one return transatlantic flight is 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per trip, so the impact of flights really is a drop in the ocean compared to having multiple DC. So why so much focus on flying? Genuine question. Most people's biggest impact will come from having DC not flying.