Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnstun)
    Its not a new tax though, its an existing one in TSR (since the Carbon Act 2012) so its already being levied (we're only increasing the rate of it)
    ah okay, that makes more sense, I guess I can support this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Republic1)
    More efficient planes yes. Which is what the point of the tax is. More efficient planes will reduce airlines fuel and tax costs, so it's beneficial for them and it will reduce fuel burn so it's good for everyone else too. A little bit of lost revenue is good if CO2 emissions are lower.


    Aye from me.
    You actually think this will prevent global warming? You actually think anything Britain does will prevent global warming? Oh so deluded.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    You actually think this will prevent global warming? You actually think anything Britain does will prevent global warming? Oh so deluded.
    Yes it will be an extra incentive. High fuel costs are currently crippling airlines (a business which has historically small profit margins anyway). Hence they're pushing manufacturers to produce modern, efficient aircraft such as the 787 and the A350. A side effect of this is lower carbon emissions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Republic1)
    Yes it will be an extra incentive. High fuel costs are currently crippling airlines (a business which has historically small profit margins anyway). Hence they're pushing manufacturers to produce modern, efficient aircraft such as the 787 and the A350. A side effect of this is lower carbon emissions.
    Airlines will always seek more cost efficient aircraft regardless of this. Effectively paying airlines to have more efficient aircraft does nothing to help the British people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Yes. We need to make it uneconomical to be polluting in business. Green enterprise is something that has to be encouraged so the market can take it on happily.
    hear hear.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    You actually think this will prevent global warming? You actually think anything Britain does will prevent global warming? Oh so deluded.
    It won't prevent global warming, but it'll help to contribute to a paradigm shift in the markets about sustainability. Only an internationalist agreement could help to alleviate the affects of global warming, but you have to start locally before taking on the rest of the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cheese_Monster)
    It won't prevent global warming, but it'll help to contribute to a paradigm shift in the markets about sustainability. Only an internationalist agreement could help to alleviate the affects of global warming, but you have to start locally before taking on the rest of the world.
    By the time that happens it will be too late and the temperatures will have already risen. The global warming war is over, we lost it, we must now do all we can to adapt to the global warming future that awaits us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Does it mean that 'taxes' can no longer be an added charge as it is per plane?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, a good and well-thought out bill
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Since there is no practical method to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions of aircraft this tax would only reduce emissions by imposing deadweight cost (ie. flights people would prefer to take but choose not to because of the tax), the same as the old tax. CO2 emissions are more or less only related to the length of the flight.

    Imposing 'green' taxes in this area is something of a chimera: the government chooses the airline industry precisely because the response is so inelastic. They don't want the industry to respond by making relatively cheap changes to cut emissions and therefore no longer qualify for the tax (as is possible in baseload electricity generation where the incentives are specifically set up to avoid this outcome), they want to impose taxes on activities that will still be profitable despite the tax and therefore ensure steady revenue for the government.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    they want to impose taxes on activities that will still be profitable despite the tax and therefore ensure steady revenue for the government.
    Except the airline industry is famously volatile, and profit margins are very very slim. Taxation that rises faster than CPI, as set out in this bill, will eventually force airlines to look for "greener" aircraft (more so than they already are)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Republic1)
    Except the airline industry is famously volatile, and profit margins are very very slim. Taxation that rises faster than CPI, as set out in this bill, will eventually force airlines to look for "greener" aircraft (more so than they already are)
    Competition only matters if there is someone competing with you who can do things more efficiently. Since all of the airlines are faced with the basic physical fact that avgas is the most weight efficient fuel available and the only non-speculative fuel that is sufficiently weight efficient to be feasible at all, the effect will just be to raise prices across the board. Some poor people will just stop flying entirely but the main effect will be to increase tax revenue, not reduce CO2 emissions.

    With the possible exception of cement production this is the worst and last place we should be looking for savings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Competition only matters if there is someone competing with you who can do things more efficiently. Since all of the airlines are faced with the basic physical fact that avgas is the most weight efficient fuel available and the only non-speculative fuel that is sufficiently weight efficient to be feasible at all, the effect will just be to raise prices across the board. Some poor people will just stop flying entirely but the main effect will be to increase tax revenue, not reduce CO2 emissions.

    With the possible exception of cement production this is the worst and last place we should be looking for savings.
    The difference is that Airlines don't build their own aircraft, so the competition is between the manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier etc). Taxes on airlines which push them to seek more fuel efficient aircraft will push manufacturers to produce even more efficient aircraft. We've already got some pretty great aircraft lined up, such as the 787, A350,737MAX etc, so taxes could help to push airlines to buy these aircraft.

    The only downside is probably when it comes to budget airlines like Ryanair, who carry large amounts of passengers, but already operate quite efficient aircraft like the 738. It'll probably benefit O'Leary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Republic1)
    The difference is that Airlines don't build their own aircraft, so the competition is between the manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier etc). Taxes on airlines which push them to seek more fuel efficient aircraft will push manufacturers to produce even more efficient aircraft. We've already got some pretty great aircraft lined up, such as the 787, A350,737MAX etc, so taxes could help to push airlines to buy these aircraft.
    Those are incremental improvements only and are the result of programmes begun before there was any political force behind global warming. A major reduction in CO2 emissions would require, the best I can come up with, a shift to hydrogen powered aircraft which would be the largest technological divergence since the jet engine.

    Decarbonising air travel will be enormously difficult, slow and costly to save comparatively little in emissions. This is why it should be done after easy, quick and cheap measures that can make major savings are implemented.

    The only downside is probably when it comes to budget airlines like Ryanair, who carry large amounts of passengers, but already operate quite efficient aircraft like the 738. It'll probably benefit O'Leary.
    The tax will add a fixed cost to each passenger for a flight of a given length. This will disproportionately affect low-cost airlines (eg. if you add £20 to a £20 bill that is a 100% increase; if you add £20 to a £200 bill that's only a 10% increase). This will disproportionately remove the poor from the traveller class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    WHat do you plan to do about the lost revenue when all planes reach 0 emissions?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Those are incremental improvements only and are the result of programmes begun before there was any political force behind global warming. A major reduction in CO2 emissions would require, the best I can come up with, a shift to hydrogen powered aircraft which would be the largest technological divergence since the jet engine.

    Decarbonising air travel will be enormously difficult, slow and costly to save comparatively little in emissions. This is why it should be done after easy, quick and cheap measures that can make major savings are implemented.


    The tax will add a fixed cost to each passenger for a flight of a given length. This will disproportionately affect low-cost airlines (eg. if you add £20 to a £20 bill that is a 100% increase; if you add £20 to a £200 bill that's only a 10% increase). This will disproportionately remove the poor from the traveller class.
    I think it's fair to say that any tax on airlines are going to have a minor effect in terms of decarbonisation. It's also fair to say, just like it is for concrete production, that the negative effect on the climate of air travel is massive, whilst the potential impact on the economy of drastic and sweeping tax changes is not insignificant. So there's not going to be a quick, easy, high impact low consequences solution that the government can do, it's got to be with a longer term strategy in mind.

    I would say that the price increases to flights as a result of taxes like these are where the benefit comes; it's slowing down the increase in air travel and giving the industry a bit more time to develop newer and greener technologies and more efficient aircraft, giving a lesser impact on the climate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    WHat do you plan to do about the lost revenue when all planes reach 0 emissions?
    In that case we can celebrate as we've accomplished the best imaginable scenario. There's more to life than just money- any carbon tax is designed to help the environment as a first goal (not to be a large source of revenue)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    I think it's fair to say that any tax on airlines are going to have a minor effect in terms of decarbonisation. It's also fair to say, just like it is for concrete production, that the negative effect on the climate of air travel is massive, whilst the potential impact on the economy of drastic and sweeping tax changes is not insignificant. So there's not going to be a quick, easy, high impact low consequences solution that the government can do, it's got to be with a longer term strategy in mind.
    There's an obvious quick, easy, high impact policy: forget about airlines and concrete, and build a lot of nuclear power stations.

    I would say that the price increases to flights as a result of taxes like these are where the benefit comes; it's slowing down the increase in air travel and giving the industry a bit more time to develop newer and greener technologies and more efficient aircraft, giving a lesser impact on the climate.
    As stated in the original bill this is not a new tax, it is replacing a tax that already does that.

    It's a way to increase taxes with the least PR damage.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNew)
    WHat do you plan to do about the lost revenue when all planes reach 0 emissions?
    By that point i'd hope we running consistent surpluses more than big enough to absorb the loss. Possible here, very unlikely in RL.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    There's an obvious quick, easy, high impact policy: forget about airlines and concrete, and build a lot of nuclear power stations.
    Only a fool would forget about the fastest growing source of greenhouse gasses. Air travel also has a disproportionately strong impact on the environment due to the burning of fuel at altitude.

    I appreciate your point about Nuclear power but this bill is not to discuss power generation it is to discuss Aviation Tax. You're more than welcome to propose a bill on Nuclear power generation.
    As stated in the original bill this is not a new tax, it is replacing a tax that already does that.

    It's a way to increase taxes with the least PR damage.
    It's how this tax is now applied that is important, as it takes into account fuel usage giving airliners an incentive (or dis-incentive however you want to look at it) to get more passengers flown per tonne of fuel.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 22, 2013
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.