Aviation fuel tax - Why Oh Why Not???
- Thread starter aurora green
- Start date
And just how trivial would the money raised by this tax be? Would it regenerate deprived areas? Improve social services? Improve other environmental measures?
I know you're so far from a trained economist it is ridiculous, but your short sighted and static analysis is pitiful even compared to most people at age 16/17.
If you're younger than this, so be it, but you've a lot to learn and are probably quite old to be learning it.
I know you're so far from a trained economist it is ridiculous, but your short sighted and static analysis is pitiful even compared to most people at age 16/17.
If you're younger than this, so be it, but you've a lot to learn and are probably quite old to be learning it.
Cobbles said:
Haha!
Clearly showing you know fuck all about Economics now
Goods have different elasticities with respect to income when differentiated or econometrically derived by doing Guass-Markov linear regression on the logarithm of the quantity of the good used against the regressors!
n00b!
(Pwned!!!!1111 OMGLOLWTF)And if you're going to use a strawman like 'all travel is equal', you deserve a hard swifty in the jewels.
* Looks at posting history *
Ah, I see.
I'm sure many economists will agree with me that one of the more effective measures to deal with climate change involves
+
Not just for the satisfaction - these are economists we're talking to - but for the effect on insurance premia and the taxes indirectly collected therefrom. No overt tax rise needed
Ah, I see.
I'm sure many economists will agree with me that one of the more effective measures to deal with climate change involves
Not just for the satisfaction - these are economists we're talking to - but for the effect on insurance premia and the taxes indirectly collected therefrom. No overt tax rise needed
laptop said:* Looks at posting history *
Ah, I see.
I'm sure many economists will agree with me that one of the more effective measures to deal with climate change involves
+
Not just for the satisfaction - these are economists we're talking to - but for the effect on insurance premia and the taxes indirectly collected therefrom. No overt tax rise needed
More effective ones involve things like recycling. Switching to bikes. That kind of thing.
All travel is not equal, a business class fare from Edinburgh to Heathrow is cheaper than a first class rail ticket for the same journey and that's including the 30 odd quid slapped on the air fare as airport tax.the B said:Haha!
Clearly showing you know fuck all about Economics now
Goods have different elasticities with respect to income when differentiated or econometrically derived by doing Guass-Markov linear regression on the logarithm of the quantity of the good used against the regressors!
n00b!
And if you're going to use a strawman like 'all travel is equal', you deserve a hard swifty in the jewels.
£1 bus fare +VAT = £1.17 - if someone can afford a quid, they can afford a quid plus VAT. When rail fares go up beyond inflation, people often have no choice - they just have to keep travelling (little elasticity there) so there's no reason not to phase in VAT on rail + bus fares.
Cobbles said:
And now, we introduce you to own-price elasticity of demand, cross-elasticity of demand and maybe even a little welfare economics about other uses of marginality and externalities in markets.
It is evident you know as much about economics as I speak Martian. ie. not a lot
The only economics I study are those that contribute to the the figures that I discuss with my accountant prior to the year end.the B said:
On ecomomics:
"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today" Laurence J. Peter
Q - what do you say to an economics graduate who's managed to find a job? A - I'll have fries with the Big Mac.
My degree was in a rather more practical discipline.
Anyway, I thought this was a discussion around the need for tax on aviation fuel - nobody's presented a cogent reason for imposing one.
Cobbles said:
1. Yeah, economists are so shoddy, they devoted a Nobel prize award to them.
2. Economics graduates at my uni average a basic salary of £25k. The highest earned £100k in year one and several earned over £35k in finance. Over 20% of those will rightly or wrongly choose to work in the City to the tune of, with bonus, over £50k in year one. Sourced from the compulsory 6 month leaving graduates survey which can be found in the University of London Careers Service.
Glad to see the evidence streaming out from your side. (*adds insult for a giggle*) Pleb!
I'll give you one word, externalities, for you to unravel when it comes to why an additional tax should be imposed (as for why a tax should be imposed, that is trivial beyond belief).
the B said:
There was no evidence of 747's and budget 737/Airbus traffic in the skies prior to and during the warming of the last ice age was there?
If Global warming is the excuse to tax aviation fuel then why not also tax other forms of currently untaxed fuel such as agricultural and marine diesel? Similarly, there's absolutely no rationale not to add VAT to land based public transport to restrict its usage.
obanite
Kroketten
http://www.uoregon.edu/~recycle/caR2.htm
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/aviation_climate_change.pdf
NEW SCIENTIST NEWS: AIR TRAVEL BOOSTS CLIMATE CHANGE
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725183.600&feedId=climate-change_rss20
I guess the New Scientist is a fundy Green group though with an agenda to grind, right?
Really wasn't hard to find all that, if you just open your eyes for 5 sodding minutes.
obanite
Kroketten
Cobbles said:
Land based public transport is getting greener - gas powered buses, more efficient combustion engines, etc. Are jet planes?
Also, what about the social dynamic: all very well saying "people will be able to afford it", but do the people who use public transport have the same kind of budget as a person who flies from Edinburgh to London for business regularly?
obanite
Kroketten
Oh and finally just found this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4111310.stm
So not some "unmeasurable amount". Tell me, did you bother to do any research at all on this subject before you started mouthing off about it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4111310.stm
So not some "unmeasurable amount". Tell me, did you bother to do any research at all on this subject before you started mouthing off about it?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I agree with those arguing against a direct taxation - it should rather be based on the number of miles the individual flys rather than a blanket tax on those who are infrequent flyers. Establish a 'sustainable' carbon useage amount on a per annum (or whatever time scale)basis, record the mileage on people's passports and when they buy a ticket the price they pay is partly decided by their own carbon emmissions.
Those who fly all the time would pay the most, those who fly infrequently would pay the least.
Incidentlly - all these eejits denying climate change...it's a scientific reality and has been throughout earth's history. The argument is about mankinds contribution to the rise in average temperature and if what we are seeing is natural, manmade or a horrifyingly complex combination of the two, plus other stuff (earth's magnestic field switching, orbital fluctuations).
However, regardless of the merits of ANY of these, fossil fuels are a finite resource so we shouldn't be so profligate in their use - and that extends to air travel as well.
Those who fly all the time would pay the most, those who fly infrequently would pay the least.
Incidentlly - all these eejits denying climate change...it's a scientific reality and has been throughout earth's history. The argument is about mankinds contribution to the rise in average temperature and if what we are seeing is natural, manmade or a horrifyingly complex combination of the two, plus other stuff (earth's magnestic field switching, orbital fluctuations).
However, regardless of the merits of ANY of these, fossil fuels are a finite resource so we shouldn't be so profligate in their use - and that extends to air travel as well.
Cobbles is pro-trolling.
- Saying "banning aviation" when noone has even remotely suggested that.
- Saying "the supposed melting of the ice caps"... implying it's a subjective thing rather than something that has been measured.
- "Global warming is the excuse to tax aviation"... as if there's some hidden agenda and it's not really about environmental impact.
- Suggesting that because there has been warming before without aircraft, therefore aircraft can never cause warming. (Basic logic fault).
- Claiming there is no data to support things like global warming, then poo pooing the data when it is produced.
Not really a patch on dwyer, but a good effort.
- Saying "banning aviation" when noone has even remotely suggested that.
- Saying "the supposed melting of the ice caps"... implying it's a subjective thing rather than something that has been measured.
- "Global warming is the excuse to tax aviation"... as if there's some hidden agenda and it's not really about environmental impact.
- Suggesting that because there has been warming before without aircraft, therefore aircraft can never cause warming. (Basic logic fault).
- Claiming there is no data to support things like global warming, then poo pooing the data when it is produced.
Not really a patch on dwyer, but a good effort.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Best climate troller on Urban was pbman.
"- Saying "banning aviation" when noone has even remotely suggested that."
I was suggesting that even if aviation were to be banned, then the nett effect would be undiscernible - in that case, what's the point in using fuel tax as a lever to reduce aviation. If aviation fuel tax were to be hypothecated against growing trees or something, then it could be seen as an attempt to offset, rather than simply a way of grubbing more tax revenue into the central pot.
"- Saying "the supposed melting of the ice caps"... implying it's a subjective thing rather than something that has been measured."
There's also plenty of data showing which parts of which ice caps are advancing/thickening, also based on measurement - whose data does one believer?
"- "Global warming is the excuse to tax aviation"... as if there's some hidden agenda and it's not really about environmental impact."
No government in its right mind will ever pass up the opportunity to generate new tax sources and it's easier to accomplish when it's tarted up with a worthy cause. Again, if the tax were to be hypothecated, then it'd be believable that the aim was environmental rather than purely fiscal.
"- Suggesting that because there has been warming before without aircraft, therefore aircraft can never cause warming. (Basic logic fault)."
I don't see where this assertion comes in - however, if we're seeking to blame something that wasn't in existence 100 years ago, then why not photocopiers or biros?
"- Claiming there is no data to support things like global warming, then poo pooing the data when it is produced."
Every page decrying the theory of global warming is matched by one that supports it.
The fact that Governments have latched onto it for a bit of panem et circenses hardly raises the credibility of the theory.
History is littered with concepts espoused by governments for political expediency that were subsequently discredited.
I was suggesting that even if aviation were to be banned, then the nett effect would be undiscernible - in that case, what's the point in using fuel tax as a lever to reduce aviation. If aviation fuel tax were to be hypothecated against growing trees or something, then it could be seen as an attempt to offset, rather than simply a way of grubbing more tax revenue into the central pot.
"- Saying "the supposed melting of the ice caps"... implying it's a subjective thing rather than something that has been measured."
There's also plenty of data showing which parts of which ice caps are advancing/thickening, also based on measurement - whose data does one believer?
"- "Global warming is the excuse to tax aviation"... as if there's some hidden agenda and it's not really about environmental impact."
No government in its right mind will ever pass up the opportunity to generate new tax sources and it's easier to accomplish when it's tarted up with a worthy cause. Again, if the tax were to be hypothecated, then it'd be believable that the aim was environmental rather than purely fiscal.
"- Suggesting that because there has been warming before without aircraft, therefore aircraft can never cause warming. (Basic logic fault)."
I don't see where this assertion comes in - however, if we're seeking to blame something that wasn't in existence 100 years ago, then why not photocopiers or biros?
"- Claiming there is no data to support things like global warming, then poo pooing the data when it is produced."
Every page decrying the theory of global warming is matched by one that supports it.
The fact that Governments have latched onto it for a bit of panem et circenses hardly raises the credibility of the theory.
History is littered with concepts espoused by governments for political expediency that were subsequently discredited.
Exactly, an intergovernmental clambake, driven by the joy of something new to tax, estimates some figures. and the BBC's transport correspondent takes those figures as utter gospel. In the same article, the industry estimates that emissions can be reduced by 50% through new technology and that is howled down as inaccurate. Now that's balanced journalism.
obanite said:
IF (it's only an estimate - remember) Aviation contributes 3% of the World's CO2 emissions, how much of a reduction will a £34 levy (as suggested by the BBC article) achieve? It's hardly going to impact on a decision as to whether or not to buy a Transatlantic fare and even if it doubles the cost of a budget carrier jaunt from Cardiff to Dublin, it's still not going to reduce that volume of traffic by a significant degree.
Based on the probability that the US will totally ignore the idea of taxing air travel, which countries will impose such a tax and what proportion of global air miles will their tax bonanza represent? (e.g. is US air travel 10% or 60% or 80% of the world's total travelled air miles?) .
As most flights in Europe are much shorter (and less frequent) than US internal flights and as the threshold will discourage such a trivial proportion of travellers, the whole exercise would be, in environmental terms, utterly futile.
Its only benefit will be to the exchequers of the countries that adopt it. Without any guarantees from the adopting governments that the funds will be spent on any form of greenness, the environmental impact of that tax revenue will be unmeasurable.
pembrokestephen
New Member
We're all paying, as it is. Burning fuel at the altitudes it's burned at in jet aircraft has a FAR more deleterious effect on the ozone layer than any other form of hydrocarbon burning, and, by subsidising air travel vs other forms of travel in this way, we're also encouraging people to make journeys and use up a diminishing resource of fossil fuel.Giles said:
Of course, I realise that, in your version of free market politics, it's a question of burn now, pay later, and hang the grandkids, but we don't all think like that...
pembrokestephen
New Member
Y'know, I don't KNOW that global warming is connected to fossil fuel burning. Nor do I KNOW the likely results of climate change, or what the connection between THAT and fossil fuel burning is...circlesquare said:Yes Theory. There are a lot of people who think it is a load of old bollocks. I'm one of them. We are talking tiny temperature variations which would be too tiny to measure 100 years ago.
What sort of temperature variation do you think we needed to bring us out of the ice age????????
But these are some things I DO know...
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and they're running out in various places already.
Getting fossil fuels out of the ground is often an environmental catastrophe (actually, it's not just getting them out of the ground - my nearest beaches are the ones that were poisoned by the Sea Empress catastrophe 10 years ago, and the ecosystems STILL haven't fully recovered)
Burning fossil fuels MIGHT have an effect on climate change, but by the time we know one way or the other, it'll be too late anyway.
One day, we're going to need alternative sources of energy, and alternative lifestyles (eg transport patterns) to accommodate the new realities.
It's going to take us a minimum of 10 years to get any kind of alternative energy options off the ground once we need them, anyway.
So, to me it makes sense to give consideration to the possibility that our fossil fuel use is, at the very least, *potentially* likely to harm our environment, and plan ahead to the inevitable scenario where we WILL need to be looking at alternatives, and doing it now.
In my book, effectively subsidising (by failing to tax) airline fuel usage runs completely counter to any kind of common sense about dealing with fossil fuel burning, climate change, or other environmental concerns...whatever your views on the connection between fossil fuel burning and global warming might be.
"by subsidising air travel vs other forms of travel in this way, we're also encouraging people to make journeys and use up a diminishing resource of fossil fuel"
Firstly, flying often has no credible substitute (ever tried overland travel from Edinburgh to Amsterdam or Wick to the Shetlands?), secondly how is it subsidised? - there's no tax on fuel in the same way that there's generally no VAT on travel.
Tax aviation fuel and you're merely adding a cost rather than removing a subsidy - unfair unless you also "green" tax other forms of transport (last time I looked, the train from Leeds to Edinburgh was burning diesel - partly - difficult to tell through the environmentally friendly black smoke).
Firstly, flying often has no credible substitute (ever tried overland travel from Edinburgh to Amsterdam or Wick to the Shetlands?), secondly how is it subsidised? - there's no tax on fuel in the same way that there's generally no VAT on travel.
Tax aviation fuel and you're merely adding a cost rather than removing a subsidy - unfair unless you also "green" tax other forms of transport (last time I looked, the train from Leeds to Edinburgh was burning diesel - partly - difficult to tell through the environmentally friendly black smoke).
Similar threads
