OT: Greenhoused aeroplanes

[Anna Kettle]

I havent got a good answer out of anyone I know in the real world so maybe you lot can do better ...

Why, at these climate change conferences that heads of state junket off to have I never heard mention of the idea of putting a tax on aircraft fuel. It seems like a nobrainer to me so am I missing something?

- Flying aircraft around produces lots of greenhouse gas. Dunno how much but its a noticeable percentage of the whole

- Flying aircraft is unnaturally cheap cos there is no tax on fuel

- Lots of countries would have to collaborate in taxing aircraft fuel otherwise the plane would just fly on to the next country to refuel

- All these countries' governments would be raking in the taxes while virtuously wearing the eco hat

So why doesnt it happen?

Anna

[The Natural Philosopher]

Actually really VERY small IIRC < 1% of total.. The bigger issue is the high altitude pollution, where various things happen to magnify the effect. Arguably high altude contrails actually combat global warming by increasing high level reflectivity, and reducing energy striking the earth. Conversely they act to reduce nightime losses.

No, everything else is unnaturally expensive cost there IS a tax on fuel.

Almost impossible. The economics of flying with more fuel than you need for the journey - if indeed you have the fuel capacity - makes it seldom worth while.

Because the largest users of aircarft are the very people who make these sorts of decisions?

With respect, do you really believe that political decisions are made for the good of nations or the world , rather than simply to :-

- pander to the electorate to get elected next time

- to pander to the elected, cos they don't actually give a shit?

I rather had you marked down as an ex 60's person, with a bit more political nous than that..

[Andy Hall]

It would be politically impractical and economically a disaster.

Passengers want to buy cheap flights and commercial users want low air freight rates because their consumers expect low prices.

Because there is no real political or economic will to do so.

There is fuel tourism as it is. Currently it's not that interesting to drive trucks from the UK to France to refuel, but it has been at points in the past.

Some years ago, in Luxembourg, immediately next to one of the border crossings with Germany, there were about 10 filling stations. They didn't disappear with the introduction of the Schengen agreement but when the taxes moved closer together they mainly closed.

If one visits the Gulf states or Russia, there is huge consumption of cheap fuel with very little thought given to ecological issues. There seems to be little sign of that changing.

[nightjar]

You are missing the fact that different countries simply would not agree on the same tax rate. Some might even keep the fuel tax free to bring in hard currency. As a result, you would probably get more aircraft movements, particularly on short haul routes, with empty aircraft being sent to another country to fill up on cheaper fuel. It would also give an incentive to fly out of a high tax country with less fuel aboard, which would have serious implications for aircraft safety. Zero tax is much easier to get universal agreement on.

Colin Bignell

[newshound]

Exactly. Same reason road haulage contractors in Kent are going out of business. Plus, as TNP implies, this is sound-bite territory not real science. I suspect that planes are net coolers (seeding from contrails) but that's not the answer lobbyists want to hear.

[mark]

When people are on holiday in Tenerife they are not driving their gas guzzling 4 by 4's and they haven't got the central heating cranked up. Good for the planet are these flying machines.

mark

[Colin Wilson]

Moving goods around by container ship uses at least 4x as much fuel, but the environmentalists seem to miss that for some reason ?!?

[geoff]

In message , Colin Wilson writes

[Colin Wilson]

I think it was, but unfortunately can't remember the source at present...

[Clive George]

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message news: [e-mail]...

Shipping is 5% of C02, air is 2%. Or something like that. However per tonne, ship is about 100 times more efficient - there's a heck of a lot of stuff shifted on boats.

cheers, clive

[PJ]

Possibly, today's Guardian quoting a leaked UN study.

[Andy Hall]

of convenience in the usual developing banana republics so that emissions don't count

[Adrian]

newshound ("newshound" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Hardly. What's to stop road haulage contractors in Kent putting the tractor unit, empty, on a ferry?

[Roger]

The message from Colin Wilson contains these words:

You have been listening too much to the airline propagandists. Shipping is a very efficient means of bulk transport. If shipping was banned civilisation as we know it in the West probably wouldn't survive the experience. OTOH if air travel vanished overnight some of us wouldn't be at all inconvenienced.

[Clint Sharp]

In message , Andy Hall writes

Wasn't Southern Ireland also one of the fuel tourists destinations?

>

[Andrew May]

Can you explain this to me please it seems to be a common argument that I have never really understood.

If I am a Kent based haulage contractor running between say London and Paris and competing with a French company then I can fill up at the same places as they do and so they have no advantage.

If I am competing with them on say the London - Manchester route then they have to fill up in the UK and still have no advantage.

If I am doing London-Manchester and they are doing London-Paris then yes, they can get cheaper fuel than me but we are not exactly in competition are we?

Andrew

[Roger Mills]

If they're doing repeated return trips just between London and Manchester, then yes.

However, if they've just done Paris to London and then go on to do a single trip to Manchester and back, surely they can do that using fuel they bought on the other side of the channel?

[Mary Fisher]

Our ex Glorious Leader used to say that our economy depends on thriving air trasport and it would suffer if fuel were taxed.

Hmm.

Mary

[The Natural Philosopher]

I seriously doubt that, certainly not on a per kg-mile.

Ships are some of the most efficient movers of tonnage there are.

(hint: absence of traffic lights has a lot to do with it).

[John]

Please - no more taxation to save the planet. Education and encouragement - not taxation.