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 have no children. I never will. An additional child adds nearly 200 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere a year. A transatlantic flight adds 0.3tonnes.

So errrr, no.

We could do much more about our food miles and our single use plastic, etc. But all of these, including making flights for your average holiday maker, are only a small slice of the real issues.

Large businesses and industries here and abroad need to do way more than just the individual citizens doing their bit.

Less flights on larger planes?

In these days of technology I'm not sure I understand why so many people need to travel to other countries in their jobs.

I do agree that the changes that are needed to offset climate change red to be radical and will, no doubt, punish us all but if that is what is needed......

So many families have multiple cars and in many cases they are not a necessity. Car-sharing schemes introduced in the past don't seem to have worked. Diesel fuel in cars was certainly a mistake.

I do think @OceanSunFish is correct. It has to be linked to economic incentives. It shouldn't have to be but must people are too selfish to give up life's luxuries unless there is something in it for them.

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

I don’t actually (hate avocados with a passion). There’s lots I do get wrong, shit loads - all the time.

Totally agree with you about cars, trucks busses moving to electric.

25% of carbon emissions globally are due to transport.
Transport is further broken down to types:
Aviation 12.6%
Rail 1.6%
Maritime 10.6%
Road 73.4%
Rest is inland navigation (lake ferries, river barges) and other.

So, if you translate each type of transport to their global contribution you get:
Aviation 2% of global
Road 18% of global

The cars we drive every day do 9x more damage than the annual holiday flight we take.

But it’s harder to give up driving than it is to give up flying. It’s so much easier to target a minority than look at what the majority are doing.

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

It is if only rich people can afford it! It means fewer will be flying, so less pollution. You can argue it is unfair, but twas ever this I'm afraid.

A lot of business could easily reduce their flight use massively by making more effective use of communication systems rather than face to face.

Well they could. But the businesses don’t spend thousands on this currently for shits and giggles.

There are reasons to want people there in person. Face to face communication is far more effective in complex negotiations than any other kind. How much actual progress is made not in the meeting, but the bar afterwards?

Everyone has (to them) good reason for their behaviour. It’s very easy in this debate to look at what other people do and deem it less worthy of using up resource than what you do. I’m willing to bet that those advocating taxing flights on here don’t fly very much to begin with and have no desire to.

It's really easy to try to find ways to reduce climate change when we chose to focus on one area we, as an individual, doesn't make much use of.

I don't eat meat so it'd be easy for me to tell,everyone they shouldn't eat meat.
I only have one child so it's easy for me to say everyone with bigger families should pay more.
I have an electric car so it's easy for me to suggest everyone with a petrol or diesel should have to pay more increasingly more taxes.

Etc.

Hence why some previous posters who chose not to fly on holiday think this is an easy/best way to charge others more.

Where does that taxing end though? We should really be taxing cars for the damage they do. But how do you do that? By mileage? By the car itself? Both?

Probably shiuld be both. Might stop people buying the discoveries that they just don't need. But that would annoy them too much so it will never happen. Just like taxing sir travel will never happen.

It's a nice thought, but not going to happen until its way too late. Although it already is too late.

I don't think that would do anything. There's a tax on cigarettes but people still smoke like chimneys.

Most science and engineering jobs require on site experts to see and study on the spot. It can’t be done remotely by face time. And in some fields there are only a handful of experts in the world.

I agree something needs to be done. A parent from ds school works for a Dutch company, flies over to Holland, Sweden etc every week. I am sure she is not the only one.
It does make me laugh when she posts things about saving the environment (including reducing the kids xmas presents). She is the biggest offender of them all!

i cannot think of a single person flying for business that does so because it’s fun. Every business I have worked for that requires travel reduces costs here to deter travel or simply reduce costs. It is no fun flying to and from Chicago in economy for work.

Let’s have the Graham Norton show and all the others done by Skype as there’s no benefit to face to face meetings.

But, I’m being picky because I do actually agree that lifestyle changes of consumers must also be a contributor to overall change. It just irks me that the call to arms is always something the caller doesn’t do much of.

Have you thought about the knock on effects? People then won’t fly as it becomes expensive, si therefore all those tourist destinations will suffer. Some rely on that income, it will affect countries economies, so less can be spent there on infrastructure etc, so people in that country suffer worsening standards of living, people won’t get employment etc. And don’t also forget that will apply to the uk as we also get lots of tourists coming to us, that then don’t be able to afford to, so our unemployment goes up, businesses fall, economy reduces etc etc. Never mind the air industry completely failing.

Air industries, like all other transport industries are looking at alternative fuels to ensure they do their bit

If you want to help out with climate change go join Greta and speak to countries like India, China and the USA who can actually do more and do need to change their ways

It just irks me that the call to arms is always something the caller doesn’t do much of.

Exactly. It’s just so easy to do that.

Actually addressing the problem will require much more complex thinking.

Lots of the frequent flyers are business flights, so the business will pay. No incentive at all to reduce flights - big businesses won't care. The rich with private jets won't care as they can afford it.

Far better to restrict supply of flights. I.e. no more airport/runway building, limits as to take off/landing slots etc.

At the same time, improve public transport, especially the railways to reduce internal flights.

And in some fields there are only a handful of experts in the world.

If there are so few, then they're having minimal impact on the environment with irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

Businesses do care. If you think any business signs off on the costs of unlimited air travel you are really wrong.

Looking at just one form of pollution and and suggesting to tax it because you don’t think people need it? YABU.

Look at your entire environmental footprint, the food you eat, clothes you wear, toys and electronics you buy and their journeys they have taken across the world to get to you. How many presents did you buy this Christmas? Did you wrap them in wrapping paper? Are you aware that many cheap clothes are made out of plastic - that is refined from oil, and have travelled halfway around the world. 75% of ‘recycling’ in the uk is actually just exported back out of the country as we don’t have the infrastructure to actually reuse it, (normally eventually to Chinese landfill- clocking up more carbon miles on the return journey) Or that many commercial passengers long haul flights also carry freight? The stuff you consume is a far bigger problem than people going on a stag do, right down to electronics and the internet - or did you think the mumsnet servers run on fairydust rather than electricity (and normally coolants/water)

The environmental problem is complex and features large scale political and economic considerations. Just looking at passengers on flights is completely missing the big picture.

Considering that short flights are more polluting per mile, and that a lot of short flights are for business, I think changes to tax for businesses could help.

If businesses were unable to claim flights under two hours as a business expense (thereby increasing their profits and thus tax), then they might look into using trains or even video conferencing. So many of my friends get sent on UK internal flights for one meeting- there is no reason at all they couldn't do that by Skype.

It just irks me that the call to arms is always something the caller doesn’t do much of

Except at no point have I said this is the only thing that needs to be done. I have family 1000s of miles away. This would cost me.

But potentially there are other changes that need to happen that would be a bigger pain in the butt for me. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen though.

I don't understand the constant reference to cows. Aviation accounts for 2% global emissions. The vast majority of the world's population has never flown anywhere. So the flights taken by the relatively small number of people who regularly fly is having a significant impact on global emissions. Agriculture is an issue but we do have to eat. Most flights are not actually essential for people to live.

The reality is that we all will have to make changes to protect the environment- it's a mindset that presents difficulties because it does mean we have to change how we do many many things (and those things are super convenient for our modern lifestyle). No one really wants to pay more for flying or not eat blueberries flown in from Chile. But it will have to be done.

The way changes will be made will be a mixture of disincentives (flying tax) and incentives. We cannot carry on as we are.

The vitriol and nastiness of some posters to a suggestion that may, at some point, become our flying experience is evidence of how much people do not want to give up those easy modern trappings despite knowing the environmental impact of them.

Put the taxes up to reduce overall usage. Putting it up only for frequent fliers is ridiculous. CO2 doesn’t care how often you fly and every flight contributes. Saying some people are more allowed to damage the climate because it’s their one holiday a year is so naive.

As much as we should be encouraging business people to do more telecommuting we should be encouraging holiday seekers to go to Skegness, Blackpool and other local places with a lower carbon footprint too.

Tax it and use the funds to recompense Brazil if they cease their deforestation of the rain forest which means that they cannot farm their land like we do ours since we deforrested our land a long time ago.