Frequent flyers are the most responsible for aviation's climate impact

[Sheilbh]

This is getting into the problem of how do you distribute the costs of carbon and energy transition which is going to be very difficult and very contentious. Flying is arguably more straightforward compared to, for example, home energy standards or cars or food.

We're all sensitive here - but I suspect this will end up being the next zero-sum area that sees big populist campaigns.

[Zanza]

What is legitimate about the second approach?  Does our planet decide to warm up more from one ton of CO2 emitted due to a business traveler as opposed to one ton of CO2 emitted due to someone flying in for Christmas?

No, but we as society can legitimately decide to distribute the economic burden unequally if we consider that more fair. Same concept as progressive income taxes or tax breaks for certain behaviours we want to support, e.g. saving for retirement versus immediate consumption. Our tax laws make such distinctions all the time. Why not here for emissions as well?

[Berkut]

a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not? i see it doing so in two ways; one, lower income earners (which i'm using synonymously with less frequent flyers, which may be wrong) are flying for vacation or leisure time, so taxing them at an equal rate isn't equivalent to taxing a business traveler since a business travel isn't going for vacation or leisure. secondly if in a flat tax a lower income person would pay that tax personally, while a business travelers cost is covered by work. if you want to use taxes to limit travel a higher rate for a business traveler would make sense because companies have a higher threshold for costs incurred.

These are in fact good points.

My only issue would be with the practical reality of how to charge frequent fliers more. That sounds like a pain in the ass to track.

[Berkut]

We also seem to all agree on pricing the external effects flying causes by taxing this external effect. Classical liberal economic approach I guess.

The only question open seems to be whether it should be a flat price, i.e per air mile regardless of how many air miles you have per year, or progressive, i.e. growing prices for more air miles, in order to make frequent flyers pay more than occasional flyers. Both seem to be legitimate approaches.

What is legitimate about the second approach?  Does our planet decide to warm up more from one ton of CO2 emitted due to a business traveler as opposed to one ton of CO2 emitted due to someone flying in for Christmas?

If we are going that route, we are fucked.

The reality is that we do in fact have to look at a ton of CO2 differently, based on who is emitting it and why.

This is the argument that the wealthy countries, or rather elements within the wealthy countries, use to justify bailing on any accord. "Why should the US have to agree to limits when Bangladesh does not!!!!!"

Taxation here is like all taxation where the goal is to modify behavior. Getting caught up on the "fairness" of it is a pointless endeavor. Fairness is not the goal - reducing emissions is the goal, and the fairest way will often, if not always, be a non-started for a variety of reasons.

[Zanza]

Flying is arguably more straightforward compared to, for example, home energy standards or cars or food.

I get the impression that at least for cars a lot of countries have tax breaks or other privileges for electric cars over combustion engine cars already. For home energy standards in Germany you certainly get tax breaks or even direct subsidies on e.g. modernizing houses with new energy standards etc. I would guess that exists elsewhere in some form as well.

Food is tricky. Very emotional subject. A carbon adjustment for food would be a very delicate political project. Reducing choices there for consumers by pricing in externality sounds like a sure way to lose elections.

[Sheilbh]

I get the impression that at least for cars a lot of countries have tax breaks or other privileges for electric cars over combustion engine cars already. For home energy standards in Germany you certainly get tax breaks or even direct subsidies on e.g. modernizing houses with new e eggy standards etc. I sould guess that exists elsewhere in some form as well.

I think cars can get a bit emotional too. In the UK certainly there is still a bias to motorists in infrastructure and despite broad public support new, say, cycling infrastructure on the road tends to be very controversial. Or, rather, subject to a very organised campaign of middle-aged men - Jeremy Clarkson-ish types.

On housing I think it's just going to be cost of renovating old housing stock and the UK is particularly bad at this. But there's lots of energy efficiency improvements that could be made and I think it'll be contentious getting the balance right on landlords, councils, government, individuals paying for it. In the UK basically the tenant doesn't pay for anything structural, but it's not likely to lead to an increase in rent so landlords are very reluctant to invest even if there are subsidies on it.

Food is tricky. Very emotional subject. A carbon adjustment for food would be a very delicate political project. Reducing choices there for consumers by pricing in externality sounds like a sure way to lose elections.

Yeah. I think it's important and it's a large part of carbon emissions, but it is going to be difficult -  lab grown products/alternatives are really great now and getting better. But that's not enough on its own.

And obviously all of this is probably easier for countries like the UK or Germany which do not rely hugely on heavy industry or raw material extraction for their economy/jobs. The distribution and politics in, say, Australia or China are going to be very different and far more challenging.

[DGuller]

If we are going that route, we are fucked.

The reality is that we do in fact have to look at a ton of CO2 differently, based on who is emitting it and why.

This is the argument that the wealthy countries, or rather elements within the wealthy countries, use to justify bailing on any accord. "Why should the US have to agree to limits when Bangladesh does not!!!!!"

Taxation here is like all taxation where the goal is to modify behavior. Getting caught up on the "fairness" of it is a pointless endeavor. Fairness is not the goal - reducing emissions is the goal, and the fairest way will often, if not always, be a non-started for a variety of reasons.

It has nothing to do with fairness, but rather with pragmatic considerations.  I think taxing externalities is a good thing, but I think the focus of externalities taxes should be on maximizing their effectiveness towards achieving that goal.  I find it hard to see how anything other than a flat tax on carbon is going to maximize the effectiveness of reduction of carbon emissions, the nature doesn't care where one ton of carbon dioxide is coming from.  You can always redistribute the taxes collected from carbon taxes as a negative head tax, if you want to address the income inequality issue.  Introducing progressive taxation into everything strikes me as a rabbit hole, because not only are you going to sabotage the effectiveness of taxes on externalities, but you're also going to make everything unnecessarily complicated as fuck.

[frunk]

Another example of this is focusing on stupid shit like straws. We have to switch to biodegradable straw to save the oceans!

What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from fucking straws????? How about we talk about the real problems, instead of the stupid shit that makes people feel like they are doing something, even when they are not.

Sometimes I wonder if half of these "campaigns" are funded by the companies that are the real problem, as a way to distract. But that way goes madness....

The "Straws" thing arose from asking what small and easy to do things could be done that would have minimal detrimental effect on our lives, but have significantly larger environmental impact.  It isn't meant to solve anything on its own, rather be an example of changes that can be made to reduce waste while maintaining standard of living.

Of course people went overboard on it and treated it like a crusade, but the idea itself is reasonable even if some people lose sight of the point.

[Tonitrus]

a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not?

Well no, it should affect them flatly.

Just to be clear, I believe we're not talking the Steve Forbes flat tax...but a "flat" cost per/mile (i.e., 1$ tax per mile).  That would affect lower incomes harder.

[The Larch]

Slight bump to point out a new development wihch might be one of the things to do in the near future to adress this issue:

France to ban some domestic flights where train available
MPs vote to suspend internal flights if the trip can be completed by train within two and a half hours instead

French MPs have voted to suspend domestic airline flights that can be made by direct train in less than two and a half hours, as part of a series of climate and environmental measures.

After a heated debate in the Assemblée Nationale at the weekend, the ban, a watered-down version of a key recommendation from President Emmanuel Macron's citizens' climate convention, was adopted.

It will mean the end of short internal flights from Orly airport, south of Paris, to Nantes and Bordeaux among others, though connecting flights through Charles de Gaulle/Roissy airport, north of the French capital, will continue.

The climate commission set up by Macron had originally recommended the scrapping of all flights between French destinations where an alternative direct train journey of less than four hours existed.

This was reduced to two and a half hours after strong objections from certain regions and from Air France-KLM, which, like other airlines, has been badly hit by local and international Covid-19 restrictions on travel.

A year ago, the French government agreed a €7bn loan for AF-KLM on the condition that certain internal flights were dropped, but the decree will also stop low-cost airlines from operating the banned domestic routes.

The chief executive of Air France-KLM, Benjamin Smith, has said the airline is committed to reducing the number of its French domestic routes by 40% by the end of this year.

The transport minister, Jean-Baptiste Djebbari, told MPs: "We have chosen two and a half hours because four hours risks isolating landlocked territories including the greater Massif Central, which would be iniquitous."

The measure, part of a climate and resilience bill, was passed despite cross-party opposition. The Socialist MP Joël Aviragnet said the measure would have a "disproportionate human cost" and warned of job losses in the airline sector. Other MPs, including from the Green party, complained that watering down the climate convention's recommendation had made the measure meaningless.

Mathilde Panot, of the hard left La France Insoumise, said the measure had been "emptied", while her colleague Danièle Obono said retaining the four-hour threshold would have made it possible to halt routes that "emit the most greenhouse gases".

The French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir had called on MPs to retain the four-hour recommendation and give the new law "some substance ... while also putting in place safeguards that [French national rail] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices or degrade the quality of rail service.

"The Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating pre-existing environmental and social crises. It must lead us to rethink our health policies in order to face the challenge of future health crises of infectious origin."

It added that banning domestic flights if a direct train alternative of fewer than four hours existed it would have a "real impact" on reducing CO2 emissions and would not adversely affect travel times or prices.

"On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes, even though the train is cheaper and the time lost is limited to 40 minutes," it said. "Our study shows that ... the government's choice actually aims to empty the measure of its substance."

Details of the exact routes that will be halted will be published in the official decree. Flights from Paris to Nice, which takes about six hours by train, and Toulouse, four hours by train, will continue.

France's new law will be watched closely by other countries. Austria's coalition conservative-green government introduced a €30 tax on airline tickets for flights of less than 217 miles (350km) last June and a ban on domestic flights that could be travelled in less than three hours by train.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands has been trying since June 2013 to ban short domestic flights. In 2019, Dutch MPs voted to ban flights between Schiphol airport in Amsterdam and Zaventem airport in Brussels, a distance of 93 miles. However, the ban was seen as breaking European commission free-movement regulations and was not implemented.

This might be a particular French case, as they have a well developed high speed train network already, maybe Germany could pull something like this as well. In Spain since high speed trains have been available some domestic routes which used to be jam packed have gone down considerably, so this could be the next step for those particular ones for which a solid alternative exists. I did not know about measures already implemented by Austria, or the intended Dutch ones, so it's good to see that there's movement already.

I've also seen today that big environmental NGOs are starting a campaign requesting private companies to reduce business trips once Covid restrictions are lifted, which also goes in the same direction.

[Duque de Bragança]

The bill has been changed to 4h to 2h30. It remains unclear whether connections from smaller airports to Paris will be included.

Otherwise, yes, it does not make much sense to waste one hour to get to Orly or Roissy CDG to go to Bordeaux, Lyon or Nantes (2 hours by train).

However, the busiest domestic air line, Paris-Toulouse, is unaffected since by train it still takes 4 hours and a half (fasted) by going through Bordeaux. It's still much of an improvement compared to the 6 or 7 hours trip through the old line by the day train.

Domestic air lines have been closed previously following the opening of new high-speed lines. Some of the former were subsidized as well, not to mention the lack of any tax on kerosene, unlike diesel or gasoline.

It won't change anything for football players taking private flights for very short trips but that is beyond the scope of this bill.

PS: added some details

[Berkut]

That is some damn fine climate posturing right there! SEE WE ARE ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE!

Excuse me while I go snack on some dolphin safe tuna.

[The Brain]

...while also putting in place safeguards that [French national rail] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices...

If the competition has been made illegal a price hike wouldn't strike me as artificial.

[Sheilbh]

Another very interesting climate policy from France - trade in your car for a €2,500 subsidy to buy an electronic bike. They're taking the view, which I strongly agree with, that "For the first time, it's recognized that the solution is not to make cars greener, but simply to reduce their number."

As Duncan Robinson (Charlemagne in the Economist) put it France is the least decadent country in Europe - they're still trying to do things. Sometimes very good (climate, EU reform etc), sometimes very bad (numerous mini-conflicts in the Sahel) - but at least they want to do something.

[Berkut]

That is exactly how I feel about recycling plastic. It is total bullshit.

If we managed to recycle as much as it is possible to recycle, it would be like 25% of all plastic produced.

In 2014 the world produced 367 million tons of plastic. Of all plastic disposed of, 18% was recycled. So 66 million tons.

In 2015 the world produced 381 million tons of plastic. Assuming we recyle that same 18%, that is 68 million tons.

Produced another 14 million tons for the year, and recycled 2 more tons. The amount produced continues to go up at that same rate, year after year.

"Recycling" is a way that industry can continue to produce more and more shit that is destroying the environment, while pretending like something is being done.

"Recycling" is not even close to a solution. We have to figure out a way to stop making so damn much of it.

And that doesn't even begin to understand the recycling itself is actually of questionable utility anyway. It is nearly impossible to do well, and the cost is very high, and its debateable how much of a carbon footprint is even reduced by it.