Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Transportation United Kingdom

Air Travelers May Have To Pay Carbon Charge To Offset Emissions (theguardian.com) 219

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Air passengers may have to pay an extra "carbon charge" on flights as part of a UK government initiative to reduce CO2 emissions and tackle the climate crisis. From a report: Passengers could choose to pay more for travel tickets, which would then be used to offset greenhouse gas emissions. Or the scheme could work on an "opt-out" basis and also be applied to trains, buses and ferries. Ministers hope the plans will raise awareness about the effects of public transport on the environment. The extra funds could be used to spearhead eco-friendly projects such as planting trees to reduce the carbon footprint. The government said it hoped the initiative would "drive consumer choices towards less polluting journey options."

However, the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, has launched a call for evidence on offsetting carbon emissions produced by public transport. In addition, the government has expressed concerns consumers may not trust that their payments are supporting worthwhile causes. Grayling said on Thursday: "Climate change affects every one of us and we are committed to ensuring that transport plays its part in delivering net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Air Travelers May Have To Pay Carbon Charge To Offset Emissions More

Air Travelers May Have To Pay Carbon Charge To Offset Emissions

Comments Filter:

  • Or just tax Kerosine? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by freakingme ( 1244996 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @08:31PM (#58976152)
    The European Commission recently did a report on this subject. Their conclusion was basically that although such a levy could in theory work, it would be very complicated to govern and as such easily circumventable (and what big company isn't willing to bend the rules if they're flexible?).

    The conclusion from the EC was that it would be much easier to simple start taxing Kerosine. Then you don't have to make any distinction between short and long haul flights, you no longer have to look at what kind of air plane was being used. Just tax the fuel, like all(?) developed nations have been doing for a very long time with cars.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Yeah, more fuel taxes in Europe. I'm not sure you understand why there are so many strikes in Europe lately by truckers and delivery people - fuel taxes being the primary reason.

      This is another fuel tax, as you say, nothing will be done because the act of collecting and then reimbursing through various tax loopholes makes it a net negative so no trees will be planted.

      If all it took was some trees to be planted, any government can plant a tree for ~$1/piece, set aside a billion dollars one year and you can c

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's Europe. They'll tax everything they can 10x. It's what we have to look forward to in the US if progressives get more power. Continuous feeding and growing of bigger and bigger government while removing freedoms from the populace.

      • If all it took was some trees to be planted, any government can plant a tree for ~$1/piece,

        That seems way too low.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Q-Hack! ( 37846 )

          Actually it seems a bit high. Saplings in bulk cost almost next to nothing. A couple hours work for a farmer would yield several hundred thousand planted in a field. Then another day to transplant them to their final location, once they have matured enough. Even counting transportation costs, $1/tree would be quite adequate to cover the costs.

          • Make it ten times the price, then perhaps.

            Do you have any clue what is invloved as work? If you transplant very small trees, about a foot high.

            I doubt you can do more than 10 per hour. And worker would easily cost more than $10/h ... that does not even include nursing the tree, clearing the area where you plant it, transporting it etc. p.p.

        • Yeah,
          but the real problem is finding those open spots in europe.

      • Yeah, more fuel taxes in Europe. I'm not sure you understand why there are so many strikes in Europe lately by truckers and delivery people

        I'm sure the blue collar working class are not having their livelihoods impacted by a slightly more expensive airfare.

        By the way you know the strikes started in France right? In which case I'm not sure that *you* know why there are so many strikes. Answer: Because the French were bored and striking is a national passtime.

        There are many places with higher taxes than the areas which are striking. But people don't like facing the externalities of their actions in terms of actual dollars. Fuck all those who are

      • Re:Or just tax Kerosine? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2019 @07:15AM (#58977974)

        If all it took was some trees to be planted, any government can plant a tree for ~$1/piece, set aside a billion dollars one year and you can cover pretty much any open spot in the country with a tree.

        Sadly, productivity of temperate region forests seems quite insufficient for this. The absorption rate of forests in temperate regions is estimated to be "0.7 to 7.5 tonnes [of carbon per hectare per year]" [fao.org] The UK emits annually 100 Mt of fossil carbon from fuels. That means that it needs an area of 13 to 143 million hectares of extra forests. Which is 130000 to 1430000 square kilometers. The currently unforested area in the UK is 210000 square kilometers. The whole area of the UK is 242000 square kilometers. So there's a decent chance that even covering the whole of UK with forests (which in itself would be very impractical for its inhabitants) wouldn't compensate for its fossil carbon emissions.

        • It's a lot more efficient to use bamboo if your only goal is carbon fixing, because it grows so very fast. It also has the side benefit that all you have to do in order to use it as a building material is cut it down, and let it harden. Wood has to be cut and planed before it turns into the crappy little sticks they build homes out of these days. (It used to just be cut, and it was actually larger then. Now we plane it off to make it easier to handle, and slightly more fire resistant, and it's smaller.)

      • If all it took was some trees to be planted, any government can plant a tree for ~$1/piece

        But wouldn't the trees spoil the airflow for those wind generators and shade the solar panels? In the UK we are running out of space for this stuff, and on top of that we need the land anyway to build millions more houses to meet the aspirations of the hordes of immigrants.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      I love the implication that jet fuel, bus fuel, etc. aren't taxed.

      I'd appreciate a list of all the "developed nations" that tax fuel with the revenue going toward "climate" concerns, not the general revenue fund or infrastructure investments.

      Of course, taxing jet fuel to pay for road construction is non-sensical.

    • Exactly this.
      Transportation Gasoline : 80% of it is tax (a 500% tax)
      Transportation Diesel : 80% of it is tax (a 500% tax)
      Heating diesel : 40% of it is tax (bargain at only 60% tax)
      Jet-A Kerosin : 0% tax

      We need to correct that. A simple 500% tax on kerosin is needed !!

    • If it was a fuel tax, then our holy saviors would have to pay it when flying around saving us in their private jets!

      No no no, it must be a ticket tax, that was only the unwashed masses pay it, leaving real people to be free.

    • This seems like it misses part of the point: "Ministers hope the plans will raise awareness about the effects of public transport on the environment."

      If you just tax Kerosine then prices go up, but people can't see why. That distinction between short and long haul flights needs to be there and it needs to be visible in order to meet this objective.

  • "Offset" in what way? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @08:37PM (#58976170) Homepage

    Where is this money spent? That's what I always wondered. People buy these "offsets" without asking the question, how does this actually "offset" anything?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      It helps Al Gore put fuel in his private jet.

      Oh, and they plant some trees (as noted in the summary above).

    • Don't worry, it's not like the politicians and bureaucrats will just use it as a slush fund to help out their friends at various "environmentally friendly" organizations. I mean, Solyndra [factcheck.org] worked out fine, right?

      • Don't worry, it's not like the politicians and bureaucrats will just use it as a slush fund to help out their friends at various "environmentally friendly" organizations. I mean, Solyndra worked out fine, right?

        Solyndra was a boondoggle, and maybe even a scam, but the Obama administration's solar loans actually turned a profit overall, even when you figure them in.

    • Where is this money spent? That's what I always wondered.

      Then why not look it up. Pretty much every company that provides an offset system tells you where the money goes. A lot of them end up going to nonprofit organisations like https://www.goldstandard.org/ [goldstandard.org]

      The last ticket I bought directly funded a specific wind farm.

    • It says right in the summary: "The extra funds could be used to spearhead eco-friendly projects such as planting trees to reduce the carbon footprint."

      That is the answer to your question. Carbon offsets are usually about replanting forests, preventing deforestation, or reducing pollution from other sources.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by melted ( 227442 )

        >> The extra funds could be used to spearhead eco-friendly projects

        Or they "could" be used to "spearhead" yet another beachfront mansion for Al Gore. Gotta read the fine print.

        • Yes, I suppose that it would be possible for the British government to create a new tax solely for the purpose of funding a mansion for Al Gore. That seems like an awfully dumb thing to worry about though.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bazorg ( 911295 )

      There are several different projects that either plant trees or replace high emission equipment with better choices:
      UK projects [carbonfootprint.com]

      It does not take a huge effort to find more "carbon offset UK" hits. Even compared with the effort for spreading FUD.

  • They do it left and right. Trump did it with the tariffs. Most people don't even realize they are paying more in taxes as a result! But anything the politicians do with a "for a good cause" just blows right past the majority. It might sound like free health care will be a great thing until you find out (though most don't) that it actually reduces your pay significantly and as its now done in the most inefficient way possible. My partner suffered through Massachusetts forced socialist bull shit. His employer

  • In which case I'd imagine we'll keep subsidizing them with cheap fuel and free air strips.

    • That's a great idea those activists have! Let's make air travel even more miserable! What people are waking up to is not that they need to fly less, it's that they need less bullshit from the leftists.

      People are just trying to get home from travel for work, for family matters, or a bit of time away from the daily grind. Then when they get home they find the streets full of protesters, which tie up traffic and take up valuable police resources. This bullshit is costing these travelers time and tax money. Expect them to vote accordingly.

      Keep it up you idiots. You have become your own worst enemy. Keep going and you will find more and more of your "fellow travelers" out of public office and in a jailhouse.

      I've been suggesting that offering solutions would be far more effective than protesting about the problem. No one seems to listen to me, which is fine because soon enough no one will be listening to you.

      • Re:Let's start by outlawing private aircraft (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2019 @02:48AM (#58977282) Homepage Journal

        The problem is people who consider convenience more important than the future of the planet, and their children's futures.

        Climate protests are working well in Europe. Major policy changes resulted, action is being taken. Just today figures showed Germany producing more electricity from renewable sources than from fossil and nuclear in the first six months of the year.

    • Let's start out by building better trains, everywhere, so that people have options for intra-continental travel. My family lives and works in different cities. We don't have a modern train system in the US so we have to fly. We're trying to move to Europe largely because of their good rail system.

    • Like the outrage. None the less the impact visibility can bring on a global scale vastly offsets the small expense of a a few flights.

  • Conflicting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @08:43PM (#58976210) Homepage Journal

    Ministers hope the plans will raise awareness about the effects of public transport on the environment.

    The government said it hoped the initiative would "drive consumer choices towards less polluting journey options."

    So they want to tax public transportation so that people will be "(aware of) the effects of public transport on the environment" to "drive consumer choices towards less polluting journey options."?

    I thought public transport was preferable to other options, since it minimizes your individual carbon footprint - what are the "less polluting journey options" they prefer over public transport?

  • How ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @10:12PM (#58976502) Homepage

    ... is that supposed to work?

    Is that supposed to what.. discourage people from flying?

    So what we supposed to do if we wanna travel? Swim? Take a boat? Oh wait, boats have carbon emissions too, so extra charge on those too? For what?

    I'm all for combating climate change. But this doesn't seem like combating climate change. This seems like greedy a-holes profiting more off climate change and not changing their behavior AT ALL.

    • I'm all for combating climate change. But this doesn't seem like combating climate change. This seems like greedy a-holes profiting more off climate change and not changing their behavior AT ALL.

      Who is profiting more?
      Not the greedy flying a-holes who will pay more. (That may change some behaviour.)
      Not the greedy a-hole airlines who will pass on the extra money to the government.

      The extra funds could be used to spearhead eco-friendly projects such as planting trees to reduce the carbon footprint.

      Oh the greedy a-hole environment will profit more...

      So what we supposed to do if we wanna travel? Swim? Take a boat? Oh wait, boats have carbon emissions too, so extra charge on those too? For what?

      Yes, don't fly and take a boat instead. Take a train. Planes are probably the worst. Surprise, people were discouraged from flying, less CO2, it worked as planned.

    • Is that supposed to what.. discourage people from flying?

      Yes.

      So what we supposed to do if we wanna travel?

      Go somewhere local.

      I'm all for combating climate change. But this doesn't seem like combating climate change.

      Climate change is the result of the actions of people. The reality is that *one* of the things that people have been doing in the past 30 years is dramatically increasing the amount of travelling they do, precisely because of how cheap such travel has gotten.

      So yes, not travelling would have a great impact on emissions. As would not driving, not burning gas, not bringing another person into this world (that's the biggest contribution you could make yet).

    • The aim is to keep all you good little serfs back slaving away being productive little drones, while the people who matter zip around in their private jets enjoying those wonderful holiday locations that you have ruined by filling with the unwashed masses.
      This is why its a tax on tickets, not a tax on fuel...

      What do you think you are, people?
      Freedom is not free you know! call us back after your first billion!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Unfortunately it does look like the current amount of air travel is unustainable. Even with foreseeable improvements in efficiency, aircraft are contributing too much to the greenhouse effect.

      However, that doesn't mean people have to stop travelling. For example, a lot of flights could be replaced by high speed rail. More comfortable, faster, cheaper, takes you directly to the centre of town. I'd much rather take a bullet train than fly if possible.

      Having said that, I'd like to travel less for work. It's no

    • If you want to cross an ocean, it makes sense to take a plane. But we also have to use planes to go a lot of places where they aren't the potential option which makes sense. For example, we could have rail from Canada to Brazil. But we don't for a variety of reasons, and in fact we couldn't do it now unless we did something about the sociopolitical situation in the Darien Gap.

      The US should have coast to coast HSR by now. But instead a conspiracy (convicted in court) deliberately shut down functional passeng

  • We already saw this when jet fuel was expensive due to the high price of oil. Airlines imposed a "fuel surcharge". When oil became cheaper, many airlines just reabsorbed the higher ticket prices into their mainstream revenue.

    Although how this would work - one third of passengers through Heathrow (one of the world's largest airports) are simply in transit. Yet they contribute just as much to CO2 emissions as pax who originate flights in the UK.

    This seems to be a particularly ill-thought out wheeze. One t

  • Remember when UK introduced retail tax VAT at 8% or 12.5% (depending on the class of item), and promised that was for non-essentials. Well, it's now a flat 20% and has crept to cover essentials.

    So this "optional" tax won't be opt-out for long...

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It's just another excuse for a government money grab - the money will straight into Government coffers one way or another.

    You already pay a fuel surcharge plus departure taxes in European airports.

    The fact that this is coming from a Tory Government is beyond belief.

  • You should be aware that Chris Grayling is the poster boy for inept politicians. Ralph Wiggum would seem a genius in comparison.

    If he's backing a plan it probably will never happen (but will incur costs along the way).

    Amongst many disasters (a prolonged dispute on one of the major rail lines into the capital) he's the genius who arranged for a ferry company to handle transport in case of a no-deal brexit; a ferry company with no ships, no experience in maritime transportation. He then ended up having to pa

  • That is, I pay an extra charge to an air company and its planes emissions go down?
    Ah, I see.
    I pay extra money, they (say they) invest that into reducing the emissions by airplanes and if an independent survey finds that didn't work I will get my money back?

  • ....that can't be fixed by a nice tax!

  • "Ministers hope the plans will raise awareness about the effects of public transport on the environment."

    So instead of a bus or train, they'll drive their POV and get there and back cheaper? Instead of a plane, they might opt to not go on that vacation and pick another that doesn't require increased fines for using public transportation? Hasn't a push for public transportation been that it's more economically and environmentally friendly? If you put the perception it's not environmentally friendly, they why

  • Opt-out (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    OK. I choose to opt out.

    Why can't all taxes be this simple? Where do I apply to opt out of my income tax?

  • All these years I thought that Car pooling, riding trains and buses, was all good !! And that driving my single-person car was bad.

    So now you need to pay an Offset tax to make up for the inefficiencies of car pooling -- which in themselves seems to Offset single-person cars?

    Look - if the mass-transit option is polluting - invest and clean it up. Put the "tax" on the company that is driving the dirty buses and trains and planes. Make more HOV lanes and then inspect cars to make sure they are non-polluting

  • Once they figure out they are being LIED TO about man made global warming? Nope, just another way to stick it to people. And, will they ALSO tax those that jet around on their private jets? Bet not!

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close