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?

I’m not sure it’d have much effect. It’d punish the people scraping to save to visit family long-haul once every couple of years, yet the people flying more often are likely wealthy enough to just absorb the cost (or their business will).

I kind of feel thats the issue with financial penalties for negative climate impact - the people who contribute to that negative impact the most just pay up and continue doing what they’ve always done.

Methane only stays in the atmosphere for around 10 years. Carbon dioxide for 200 years. We should consider both but methane in a constant natural cycle is not the same as putting Carbon that has been trapped for millions of years into the atmosphere.

Might encourage more locally grown produce too.

As an aside adding “Erm...” to the front of a sentence doesn’t make it more intellectually weighty.

Rather than look to tax people flying, another option would be to look at the stuff that’s being flown. Look in your fridge: if you’ve got blueberries, avocados, green beans and asparagus in their you’re part of the problem too.

Why dont you suggest that tax increase to the likes of China, the US and India, in your attempt to limit climate change, sure they will tell you what they think.

Aviation accounts for 2% of all global pollutants

As you know this is predicted to rise massively by 2050.

I don’t know why you keep talking about cows. I 100% agree with you, we need to do something about cows. It is possible to do more than 1 thing at once.

Maybe just ban first and business class, cram people in and make flying as uncomfortable and awful as possible, so people do everything they can to avoid it 😅

Ah yes the argument of well this is worse so I won't change until they stop this......

I think people are in real denial of what is happening to the planet. All of us need to make changes; however small or big they may be as when enough of us do it big change can happen.

People do not want to change their lifestyle. At the moment they have a choice not to change. In the future that choice may be taken away from them as the damage is already done. Do they not think what they are leaving for their children or grandchildren? Just so they can go on a holiday but refuse to pay a bit more for it. People can be so selfish and they can be massive hypocrites. Start small and let things grow.

But one doesn't mean that person does nothing else environmental wise. Dh and I live in another European country now, we have to fly back to England several times a year for work.

So yes we contribute to air miles pollution.

However, our business creates jobs for people both in England and where we live. Our house is run mostly on renewable energy, we have a car but that is not used on a daily basis, we rarely buy anything and what we do is usually locally made etc. We grow a large % of our food.

I think we use far less resources that the general population of the Uk. Otherwise I could say tax everyone a higher % also if your electric isn't from a renewable source, if you buy strawberries in december, etc

I realise this doesn’t specifically answer your question as flights will actually only form a minute part of those figures, however investment in public transport, renewable energy, eco-friendly cars etc will do more than taxing flights imo.

the people who contribute to that negative impact the most just pay up and continue doing what they’ve always done.

The "polluter pays" principle in action. Why is this such a bad thing? It's not like people need to fly, they just set their lives up to make it convenient.

As an aside adding “Erm...” to the front of a sentence doesn’t make it more intellectually weighty

It wasn’t intellectually weighty, it was pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Yes, we need to change the way we live. But flights are being unfairly targeted. It’s cars and lorries- road vehicles that we need to focus on.

Say you have a 30min/20 mile driving commute to work. Literally, driving your car to and from just work in one week emits as much carbon as if you took 1 medium distance flight (on a per passenger measure). You drive to work for a year, and that is the same as your passenger carbon share on 52 flights.

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).

Most pollution is generated during take off and ascending to cruising altitude. If you were going to introduce a tax, it would be more appropriate to base it on the number of flights, rather than solely on the distance.

Although, we already have such a tax in the form of Air Passenger Duty.

"As you know this is predicted to rise massively by 2050."

Predicted. Thats the key word. We arent there yet. And nor are we in 2050.

"I don’t know why you keep talking about cows."

Thank you for aptly highlighting your own ignorance on this fake-love you have for the environment. Nice to see you wanting to concentrate on the 2% of pollution rather than the 18% (and growing) pollution emitted by livestock.

Taxing flights is ridiculous. They already cost a fortune. We already pay tax on absolutely everything these days so why would you insist people pay even more?

Flying is too cheap if anything. Why should it be so much cheaper to fly to Edinburgh than to take the train?

This can’t be a single issue thing. The only way to make any progress is to establish some kind of carbon allowance for people.

Taxing only flights would be very unfair on those who do take flights, but whose other behaviours are very environmentally friendly (are veggie/vegan, don’t drive, don’t have kids).

My SIL is in NZ. Are we supposed to never see her?

Sorry that should have said further taxing only flights

“Polluter pays” isn’t actually addressing the issue though. It’s not reducing the pollution.

You can argue that the tax they pay will go towards reducing pollution elsewhere - but will it really? Even aside from the fact that its value will be diluted by overheads.
If the issue is pollution from air travel, then paying your way out of that is not addressing the issue.

Most pollution is generated during take off and ascending to cruising altitude

And if you tax people more if they fly more miles. There is a good chance they will take fewer flights per year. Which is good.

Failed there too then.

Do you have any of the items i mentioned in your fridge?

I was considering Poinsettias earlier. What do you think the environmental impact of the way we celebrate Christmas is? All the advent calendars filled with miniature disposable plastics.

We will be switching cars this year. Want to go all electric but hamstrung on charging points. I notice taxis in London are moving that way; surely white vans and trucks need to follow?

I don't think it would solve much. I'm not sure aviation from leisure flights are one of the biggest contributions statistically, and you would end up making it that lower income families then can't afford to fly. Holidays abroad become only available to the well off. Do we really want to make world wide travel only something the rich can experience again?

Business flights could be taxed more though and perhaps some of the money used to improve better communication systems to allow business contacts to talk more,effectively without the need to travel. A lot of business could easily reduce their flight use massively by making more effective use of communication systems rather than face to face.

"We should stop subsidising meat farmers at the very least."

Which would lead to us using farm animals from Eastern Europe, who have lower welfare standards and theirs no ethics applied to the source of the animal feed.

So what we should be doing is ensuring our meat is home produced (so no live animal imports or horrific abuse) and look to produce our own farm animal food. Even if that means greater subsidising of our meat production.

The problem we need to tackle is China and the US, but DT doesn't believe in climate change and is fucking over their farmers.

We are looking to trade with China even more post Brexit, so we'll agree to anything.

Meanwhile the UK gets hit the hardest over climate change.

Post Brexit we have the chance to stop live animal imports and exports and we can only do that by working with farmers. Those live imports and exports also use a lot of resources.

"And if you tax people more if they fly more miles. There is a good chance they will take fewer flights per year. Which is good."

If it applies to businesses it will either be a tax write off, or the cost passed on to the consumer/service user. So the people who don't do the actual flying will pay for it.

For people who travel for leisure, they will just compromise elsewhere. Which could mean less money spent in the UK.

I agree with you OP.
A large number of flights are generated by businesses labouring under the mistaken belief that flying employees across the world to meet other employees or clients is more effective than using virtual meeting spaces such as FaceTime and/or that it is a delightful perk of the job. I would love to see corporations taxed more on their excessive flights - they would absolutely reduce the number of flights - and it might just support better work life balance too. Large corporations making changes like this can really make a big difference.
I’d also like to see much higher tax on petrol and diesel company cars