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?

@ohprettybaby modern diesel still very good for co2 though, it depends on how much town driving you do as to how bad it is.

@nakedavengeragain people are already having a lot less children. As someone who's entire family is outside the UK if me not flying and just sticking to facetime is what it takes I am more then happy to make that sacrifice. Online communication and smart phones have made it so much easier to keep in touch without having to visit. I limit my visit to one short haul flight a year to see my mum. And just use online to talk to family in america and asia. Would be happy to also cut out the germany flight if that was what is needed. I don't have a human right to see my family. If they set a flight cap or higher taxes on flights I would be in full support.

And the point is that population growth is the single biggest factor to impact climate change. People who have children (and the attendant landfill plastic, short car journeys, water and electric use) should be paying, not someone who is child-free, living virtually off grid or using renewable energy but who takes a long haul flight once a year

Flights would be cheaper for this person.

And our birth rate in the UK is actually below replacement rate I think. But if we were to think about incentives and disincentives in the round (ie for other products) then the cost of having children would also increase a lot.

I agree with a PP, who stated that a higher tax on flights would just mean that the wealthy would still fly, and business would continue to fly their employees and allow their consumers to absorb the cost.

A better way, in my view, would be to put an outright cap on how many miles each person is allowed to fly per year, without exception. No extra costs, just simply, here are the miles you are allowed to have, and that’s it.

"Everyone should get a personal carbon footprint allowance per year. That should be small but reasonable but you can spend it as you wish."

"For example if you decide to have a child that's your carbon allowance taken up for 10 years and you are in negative so you have to make significant and permanent changes in your life that offset that."
How would that be policed? If it wasn't policed would people actually do it?

A better way, in my view, would be to put an outright cap on how many miles each person is allowed to fly per year, without exception. No extra costs, just simply, here are the miles you are allowed to have, and that’s it

This could also work, but is quite authoritarian. Could you trade them? Could one tree carbon allowances like the EU ETS?

Trade not tree!

Flying isn’t a luxury. It’s the only way of seeing our families and why should I be taxed more to do that?

I agree with a PP, who stated that a higher tax on flights would just mean that the wealthy would still fly, and business would continue to fly their employees and allow their consumers to absorb the cost

Also, not many consumer items/services are essential. In a proxy way, if flights keep going up consumers may reject that product so an indirect (albeit weaker) disincentive

@Parker231 I am sorry but it really is a luxury. It is not some human right. You can keep in touch through other means. Is it sad to not see them? sure. But it is a luxury

@SachaStark why not just a carbon allowance for each person? As mentioned I live virtually off grid. I use public transport. I grow most of my own veg. I take a long haul flight once or twice a year and a medium haul flight every 6 months or so though and my total carbon footprint would still be a fraction of someone else's in the Uk who drives their kid to school every day.

If there was an allowance I spend it flying and other people spend it driving their kids 500 years down the road and shoving landfill full of disposable nappies.

Flying isn’t a luxury. It’s the only way of seeing our families and why should I be taxed more to do that?

Because it trashes the environment.

I’ll be in the same boat soon (in fact I’ll get a number of free flights when I’m away) but I won’t use them because of the environmental impact. But I do other things that are bad, and need more incentive to stop!

"Everyone should get a personal carbon footprint allowance per year. That should be small but reasonable but you can spend it as you wish."

This is nothing but a planned economy (no thanks) and also separates production from the market forces that drive greener technology.

@SachaStark why not just a carbon allowance for each person

I do agree with this in principle and maybe we should work towards it but it would take a really really long time to do and we need to take action now!

I fly a lot for both business and pleasure. I feel very guilty about it and have been cutting back on avoidable travel. I think I should pay more and often do carbon offsetting voluntarily. It's crazy that sometimes flying is cheaper than train for short distance. The money generated should be ploughed into more carbon neutral alternatives. I know taxes can be unfair to less well off but we do need to reflect the externalities of air travel somehow - someone has to pay the cost somehow!

Haha, I was trying to figure out how one could swap trees for more air miles! Be an interesting way of checking in for your flight...

I’m just musing aloud, really. Trading them off for other environmental impacts would be too complex, I think, and businesses would find loopholes to continue to allow employees on “business meetings” across the globe, social media influencers to trot around photographing their products in exotic locations every week, etc.

The fact of the matter is, we now need to revert to a simpler way of life. We have had a couple of centuries of global living and complexity, but that’s all the planet can take. I believe part of returning to a simpler way of living is to place strict rules in place (such as air miles per person per year) without over-complicating the issue with allowing for loop holes.

@nakedavengeragain And yet again we are penalizing parents. Who do you think is going to pay for most people pension once they are old (most people pay in less then they take out) who will support the society and provide services if no one had kids. We are one of the most family unfriendly countries in Europe.

There was an interesting episode of the podcast Reasons to be Cheerful about a graduated frequent flyer tax - so your first flight in a year free, and an increasing tax per return flight each year. And a separate scheme for business but working on a similar premise.

The guy they had on had some interesting stats around flight numbers - that the majority from the UK are shorthaul leisure.

A better way, in my view, would be to put an outright cap on how many miles each person is allowed to fly per year, without exception. No extra costs, just simply, here are the miles you are allowed to have, and that’s it.

Why flying and not meat, for example? Or better yet, number of children?

Sorry nothing is going to stop me visiting our families. Action should start with industry and governments. Nothing is going to improve whilst you have people like Trump around.

Yes, @JassyRadlett that’s the podcast I was thinking of!

@EntropyRising, I’m certain limits on both of those matters would also be an excellent idea, like rationing during the world wars, though the premise of this thread is air travel.

@Hollyhead

"modern diesel still very good for co2 though, it depends on how much town driving you do as to how bad it is."
While diesel cars may have lower Carbon Dioxide emissions they still emit high levels of NOx, the nitrogen oxides that are most relevant for air pollution - nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide. These gases contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain, as well as affecting tropospheric ozone.

It may well contribute to the increased incidence of asthma. Pollution doesn't just affect the planet itself, it affects the health of the population too.

@Parker231 great for you does not make flying any less of a luxury if you are being honest

Who do you think is going to pay for most people pension once they are old (most people pay in less then they take out) who will support the society and provide services if no one had kids.

And who's going to care for those kids when they're old? and so on.

Whatever the social implications of an ageing global population, if we ever manage to get there, it pales in comparison to the prospect of an earth supporting more than 11B people.