Carbon tax on airlines would never fly
In the UK The Times is reporting Carbon tax on airlines would never fly.
The European Parliament is to vote in July on a report from its Environment Committee which recommends that airlines be drafted into an emissions trading scheme, similar to the one that operates for European industry.
MEPs in the green camp want to stem the rapid growth in aircraft carbon emissions and they reckon that the best way is to ensure that the cost of carbon has a monetary impact on air travel, thereby creating incentives to curb emissions.
The article goes on to speculate on the likely impact this might have.
Travellers shrug off the extra charges because there is no alternative, unless they remain at home. Moreover, the budget carriers are challenging the cost economics of air travel. Having stripped the expensive glitz from flying, their margins are fatter and better able to absorb a $20 increase in the oil price. They can then use the promise of cheaper fares to lure consumers into making more journeys.
So it seems counterproductive, the article argues, to impose emissions caps on the airlines. But arguing that emissions caps will increase the number of flights is simply ludicrous. The number of flights will increase anyway, with or without the caps. They do make the following valid point however:
If green MEPs are genuine in wishing to curb pollution by aircraft, they must first address the continuing range of subsidies available to near-bankrupt national airlines that fly half-empty planes.
However this too is hyperbole as I swear I can’t recall the last flight I was on that was anywhere near half full. In my experience most flights are almost completely full. The Times then propose a solution which seems to contradict everything they just said.
Better to tax kerosene. Its impact would be direct. Long-haul aircraft could avoid some of the tax by filling up outside the EU but that effect would be marginal.
A broad tax on fuel will just go to fatten Government coffers with no guarantee that the money would go to emissions reduction projects. And the increased cost will be ignored by consumers anyway for the same reasons as they are claiming an emissions cap won’t work. I think the simplest and most direct way to address this is to require that the carbon emissions associated with any flight be offset directly using carbon credits. The money goes to actually reduce emissions and, as has already been shown, the traveller is willing to pick up the tab. You can offset your flights in under a minute via Carbon Planet. — DS
Technorati Tags: airlines, carbon credits, climate change, CO2, eco, emissions reduction, emissions trading, energy, environment, EU, Europe, flights, global warming, Kyoto Protocol, politics, travel, UK
