Should aviation fuel for domestic and international flights be taxed to combat climate change?

Question

Could such a tax be used to fund development aid? Are there viable alternatives?

Answer 1

The notion of greenhouse gasses is to guilt us all into thinking we are killing off the Earth by doing what we do.  While air pollution is a legitimate concern, paying taxes will not and has not solved the problem.  We already give billions to aid other countries, and the people still live in squalor or in fear of their lives.  The problem is getting the aid to the people, and more money is not going to be the answer.  

Besides, thanks to the high cost of fuel, I've noticed a big fall off in air traffic these days.  The airline industry is already overburdened with skyrocketing costs as it is, and any taxes it has to pay will be passed on to the already taxed-to-death consumer.   And Uncle Al does not need any more of our hard earned money.  

Answer 2

"Flying is a major source of pollution,"

Turbine powered aircraft are pretty clean, those running on petrol can be pretty nasty thanks to 100LL.

In terms of CO2, they should be taxed, but so should everything else that emits CO2 (including power plants and cars).  Aviation is a minor contributor to global warming and also one where we don't really have any alternatives so we should be spending our resources dealing with bigger sources where we do have alternatives (such as fossil fuel electricity that could be replaced by nuclear fission).

With short flights of up to around 1000 km high speed trains could provide roughly the same travel time (when boarding, going through security, driving to airport outside of city, etc are taken into account) as planes although to get the full environmental benefit from that you'd have to use nuclear electricity to run the trains (as they do in France), for longer distances there's really nothing that can compete with air travel.

As for what the money from a carbon tax should be used for, I'd say we invest it for mitigation work.

Answer 3

Yea - The airline businesses should be taxed out of existence.  Things were far better 100 years ago when it took 2 weeks to cross the ocean in a coal fired steam boat.

Answer 4

Nothing can be done to control climate change.We cannot affect the sun,but the sun can certainly affect us.Man made global warming due to c02 is a scam.And your question is proof that it worked.

Sure,,,,let's tax all of our industries out of business and destroy our economy.Why not.I always wondered what it would be like to live in a 3rd world country.

And besides.The earth has been cooling for the past ten years.

Answer 5

Yes, taxing aviation fuel would be a good measure because pollution from airplanes is more harmful than that from cars.  Hopefully economics alone will shut down most of the airlines.

Lee J: Check your math.  150 cars using 100 gallons of fuel each is not 150,000 as you stated, it's 15,000.  And if people carpooled 4 to a car (uncomfortable for many americans, I know), it would be only 7,500 gallons.

My real point is the trip doesn't need to be taken by car or plane.  People just need to travel less often, less far.

Answer 6

I think this is a great idea for any country other than the United States.  I enjoy living in the world's only Super Power.

BTW:  Were you aware your user name is spelled like a restraining device for canines?  Very inventive!

Answer 7

Airtraval is largely a luxury and one which has a very negative effect.

I am not saying we should tell people they cannot fly, but if fuel is tax free it is effectivly subsidised. What is more so many of these flights are completely unessesary, my dad has been sent to America for a problem they could have solved with a telephone call

Here in the UK around 10 billion pounds (20 billion dollars) is lost in not taxing aviation fuel. There is a limited amount of money in the budget so it makes me angry just thinking what could be done with that money.

As a student i have to pay tuition fees, plus money for accomodation, i will finish my degree with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. With the money from aviation fuel tax, student fees could be payed and there would still be billions left over. Alternatively every home in Britain could be insulated. Or perhaps they could replace our notoriously rubbish railway lines. Im sure the picture is the same elsewhere.

Answer 8

Flying is a major source of pollution????

Suppose you have three hundred people in New York who need to travel to Los Angeles. If they don't travel by Jet liner, they would all have to pile into 150 cars. Those 150 cars would burn approximately 100 gallons of gasoline each (2750 miles / 27.5 mpg) for a total of 150,000 gallons of gasoline.

Furthermore, because the trip would take three days, there would be all of the energy usage associated with hotel stays, hotel laundry, electrical power consumption, meals on the road, etc. etc.

Would you like to imagine what the energy costs would be to get the same 300 people to London!

When you consider the whole picture, air travel is very efficient.

Yes, there are alternatives. They could bicycle to Los Angeles, or take busses, but people have time constraints too.

Here are some other, more attractive alternatives to combat climate change:

We could seize Al Gore's 10,000 square foot mansion that consumes more energy than 20 average American homes, and use the money to further research into nuclear fusion technology.

Then we could seize Al Gore's boat, that burns more fuel per hour than four family sedans, and use the money to further clean coal technology.

We could also seize Al Gore's private jet that consumes more fuel flying one-way across the country than a Hummer consumes in an entire year, and use the savings to fund programs to make older homes more energy efficient.

Sounds like a good start to me.

Answer 9

No.  You trust the government too much, and most of the tax would go elsewhere.  

Answer 10

global warming is a myth. but you are hot.