HeadDesk

[andrewducker]

From here:

Tony Blair says it is unrealistic to think the tax system can be used to reduce air travel in the UK. The prime minister said it would take a "fairly hefty whack" for people to
cut back on flights in the UK and abroad.

He told the Commons liaison committee that it would be hard to sell, and said he would not be keen on such a move.

Instead, he said, the best way to tackle climate change was to invest in more environmentally friendly aircraft and to invest in other new technology.

Because the government isn't here _precisely_ to look at the big picture in a way that we can't individually do and push us to do the things that actually we ought to be doing.

I can't see how it can possibly be that much harder a sell than the Iraq War, when he didn't exactly have a majority behind him a lot of the time.  If he's willing to do the right thing there, why not here?

Comments

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

Because the government isn't here _precisely_ to look at the big picture in a way that we can't individually do and push us to do the things that actually we ought to be doing.

I agree with Tony Blair here, and I agree with you. You're right: It is the job of government to look at the big picture and push us to do the things we ought to be doing. (I'm leaving WELL alone the issue I have with the word "ought")

And Tony appears to have looked at the big picture, and analysed what will work, and has decided that environmentally friendly aircraft will be more successful than trying to price people out of travelling by plane. Although I really, really hate the idea that taxing people won't work, and that people won't lessen their air travel or even recognise the amount of damage it does to the environment, I think he's right that taxing it just wouldn't work, and would instead make a lot of people very angry.

To assess just how much it wouldn't work, look at me. How big would the tax need to be before I would fly to visit Geneva, for example? I'm well aware of the damage caused by plane travel, and it's by far the most environmentally unsound thing I do, and I try to ameliorate the damage by committing money to projects which support and develop sustainable energy, but I still feel really guilty. I'm the ideal person to try and encourage to reduce plane use, because I try to do it anyway...

...and yet I'm currently paying about $400 tax on a $1400 flight each time I travel to the UK. that's about 20% tax, and it doesn't deter me. It wouldn't deter me if it rose to 40% or 45%, honestly. I would still do it as frequently as my budget allows.

Now, taxing to a phenomenally high level would decrease how many trips per year I would take, but ... I'd be more likely to trim the domestic flights in favour of the international, and it would maybe reduce me by 1 trip per year, which is significant, but not significant enough when considered on a global scale, and especially if the UK is the only country that introduces such taxes.

And most travel, I'm sure, is done by commercial rather than consumer travellers, who can factor in and cover those tax increases, and get rebates.

Tony's right, and you're right. Ideally, both encouraging reduced airplane use and increasing investment in less harmful technology sounds like a good combination, but if I had to bet, I'd take the exact same bet that Tony has.

And it's a harder sell than the Iraq war because everyone either travels by plane, or dreams of being able to do it. The Iraq war was about principles, rather than personal goals. Get in the way of personal goals, and particularly *entitlement* mentality, and you'll get whipped at election time.

[andrewducker]

How would you feel about an 'environment tax' that went towards paying for enough trees to be planted to soak up the CO2 you'd produced?

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

I pay one voluntarily now.

:)

Which ought to tell you how I feel about it*. As I say, combination seems like the way to go, for me -- use the taxes to pay for environmental projects, and give tax breaks to business researching environmentally friendly aircraft, etc. Multi-pronged approach. I'm also a weirdo who has no problem in general with paying more taxes for services and infrastructure.

*As a biologist, I know that trees really aren't the most effective way to soak up CO2, except during their initial stages of growth and I'd rather see a diversity of initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gases through a variety of means.