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?

People make the changes that suit them and that's it. If we are honest we are all the same, really.

That’s human nature. And it’s why individual «everyone does what they feel they can» action is not enough. The scale and speed of change required can only be achieved by imposing it from the top down. And taxes on flights is not even scraping the surface.

Yes @Watchagotcha, I agree. Hopefully we'll soon see a tax on meat as well as a tax on flying. We all need to make a few changed that aren't palatable and the only way most people will do it is if it costs them.

Who doesn’t love steak long haul travel and being transported in a nice warm car not cycling a bike in the cold? That’s the problem.

Or travelling to that long-haul place to get vital medical treatment your ill child could not get here despite the best efforts of even his doctors, saving both your life and his, but now fuck off, you have no right to visit because flying's not cool anymore.

Immigrated here to flee war or economic devastation? You should expect never to visit your family again, or them you, those pesky airplanes! You should have just stayed home and star

The scale and speed of change required can only be achieved by imposing it from the top down. And taxes on flights is not even scraping the surface

Very true, far more needs to be done.

%Immigrated here to flee war or economic devastation^
In the future there will be plenty of people fleeing environmental devastation too. Futures not looking rosey.

Damn it, italics fail

Or maybe the govt should introduce laws for airline companies to carbon offset 50% of their flights.

DH flies to New York around 4-5 times a year for work. We do one foreign holiday a year (skiing in Europe) and one domestic holiday in Devon. Given how expensive it is to fly in Feb half term (£2400 return for a family of 4) even more tax because he has to fly for work would be pretty unfair...

Or maybe the govt should introduce laws for airline companies to carbon offset 50% of their flights

This would cost the companies a lot of money. Which they would add to the cost of a ticket.
So frequent fliers and those taking a once a year short haul flight would pay the same CO2 tax evenly.

The scale and speed of change required can only be achieved by imposing it from the top down. And taxes on flights is not even scraping the surface.

But it can't be imposed from the top down because we live in a democracy.

Energy needs to be put into positive measures, inventing planes that reduce emissions, more sustainable farming, tree planting, affordable public transport, encouraging cycling (that alone is a challenge if you read the cyclist-hating threads)

People will simply not vote on mass though for taxes on meat and air travel.

Or maybe the govt should introduce laws for airline companies to carbon offset 50% of their flights.

Carbon offsets, sadly, are more or less nonsense. There's only so much carbon trees can absorb, and new forests can't really absorb the level of Co2 that older, mature, diverse forests do.

The only measures that have actually impacted global C02 emissions is coal becoming more expensive vis a vis other lower carbon/renewable energy sources. That's it.

But it can't be imposed from the top down because we live in a democracy.

I hear some nonsense on here, but this takes the custard cream.

How do you think laws and acts of parliament work?

How about reversing the tax? So short-haul passengers pay more proportionally, because they should have taken the train, but long-haul passengers pay proportionally because they really do have no choice.

It's a perverse argument, but it's a matter of 'reductio ad absurdum' to prove the point.

The scale and speed of change required can only be achieved by imposing it from the top down. And taxes on flights is not even scraping the surface.

But it can't be imposed from the top down because we live in a democracy.

It can't be imposed from the top down because it requires a lot of interplay between the government, transnationals/quangos and the private sector, i.e. a feedback loop.

How do you think laws and acts of parliament work?

And what do you think happens to the jobs of MPs who vote against what their constituents, the voting public, find in their best interests? Remember ye ol' poll tax protests.

One I have always wondered about is freight and road haulage. There are so many lorries on the road. Perhaps if instead we went back to more freight trains so trains moved the cargo around the country rather than lorries and lorries were only needed for the shorter journeys from the stations that could cut a lot of the road pollution we have.

I hear some nonsense on here, but this takes the custard cream.

How do you think laws and acts of parliament work?

You clearly need it explaining to you. We elect people who make laws. If the people disagree then we disagree and the new parliament can overturn it. Unless you live in a dictatorship. So laws cannot be imposed from the top as if they are the government is out on their ear. It isn't a difficult concept to understand

Hahahahaha! That’s right. I need somebody like you to explain politics to me.

Can you understand that acts of Parliament are not voted on by ordinary people, even in a democracy? So if a new law limiting activity causing carbon emissions was passed, e.g. preventing you from flying to Tenerife twenty times a year, you could do sod all about it. You could always set up a new political party for the next election, I suppose: call it the ‘Single Issue Selfish Party’ or something. Your manifesto would be, “I will fly whenever I wish and sod climate change, particularly Australian bush fires”.

I will say two words to you poll tax. Governments cannot impose highly unpopular taxes from above in a democracy or they will be voted out. It is simple and that is what a democracy is and how it works.

It might surprise you to learn that all taxes are unpopular. We still have them, because they are necessary.

Try it in five years’ time: set up the ‘no taxation party’, stand at the next election and see what happens. You’ll get a few selfish thickarses voting for you: the type you overhear whining that they have private healthcare so shouldn’t have to pay for the NHS, or that people who haven’t paid very much NI should starve in the streets after they have “used up what they put in” post retirement etc., but you won’t win.

That is because most people, even if they don’t like paying tax, recognise that it’s something that needs to happen and they have to deal with it.

Similarly, if excessive flights are killing the planet, anybody with a modicum of sense will recognise that, even if they don’t want to cut back on their city breaks, they will have to deal with paying more to fly. You probably won’t have a choice in the future anyway, since all the major parties will have policies to control carbon emissions.

Well obviously but they need public buy in.

We are well away from that here - the Prime minister is currently on a trip to the Caribbean which would go down well with Daily Mail readers I'm sure. Along with the constant travel of celebrities and the royals. But blame the emissions on your average person.

There are still lots of people who don't even believe in global warming. If this was introduced now it would be about as popular as the poll tax.

So quite simply my opinion is it cannot be imposed any more than that.

There is no need for a new party because it would just give power to whatever party is in opposition as that's how our system works. I also think it is something that the Tories would never ever introduce anyway.

Finally, I really don't understand the need for your rude, patronising tone over a perfectly sensible discussion. We may differ over what is possible in a democracy but there is no need to treat people who have a different viewpoint as they are stupid. I am definitely not.

But blame the emissions on your average person

As has been said before. This would be aimed at frequent flyers. Not the average family that takes one trip to Europe.

There are still lots of people who don't even believe in global warming. If this was introduced now it would be about as popular as the poll tax

I don’t know how many people can genuinely deny climate change any more. You only have to look at the news to see evidence of it. Whether or not large proportions of the population are prepared to do anything about it is another matter.

I can’t quite imagine middle classes staging poll tax style riots about increased taxes on multiple / long haul holidays. *

This would be aimed at frequent flyers. Not the average family that takes one trip to Europe

I am a frequent flyer-ish (average 10 short haul flights per year). I have no DCs and never will have. Therefore my carbon footprint is far lower than 'the average family' however few flights they take.

Why should I pay extra taxes? If I decided to never fly again and have even 1 DC, my carbon footprint would increase massively.

I have no DCs and never will have

If people aren’t going to vote for more taxes on frequent flyers there’s no way they are going to vote for taxing people when they have a child.

I actually think it’s a good idea to give each individual a “carbon allowance”. It’s not very practical though, policing it would be almost impossible.

Sounds like a good idea and it won't penalise ordinary people who may only have one flight a year. Make the smug ones who don't care about the environment pay more. I havent flown this century 😏but that is mainly because it terrifies me and flights in August are very pricey .

therewillbeadequate

You need to read the daily mail. There's also Trump denying climate change.

I think a lot of average people particularly those without DC fly more than once a year. It isn't just young people either some of the most frequent flyers I know are retired. The rich would continue to do exactly as they pleased in their private jets which would cause a lot of anger.