Flights v Green Rights?
Former_MSE_Natasha
Posts: 672 Forumite
Poll Started 20 March 2007: Budget Airline Passenger Tax
Air passenger tax on economy European flights doubled from £5 to £10 this year, yet environmentalists argue we still fly too much, especially on short and domestic flights; and part of the problem is we can still fly for pennies. Which of these is closest to your view on what should happen to the tax?
A. No tax. The current £10 tax should be dropped
B. Back to what it was. Return it to £5
C. £10 is about right
D. Increase it to £15
E. Increase it to £25
F. Increase it to £50
G. Increase it to £100
H. Ban most domestic flights & increase European flight tax to £250
Vote here or click reply to discuss below.
Air passenger tax on economy European flights doubled from £5 to £10 this year, yet environmentalists argue we still fly too much, especially on short and domestic flights; and part of the problem is we can still fly for pennies. Which of these is closest to your view on what should happen to the tax?
A. No tax. The current £10 tax should be dropped
B. Back to what it was. Return it to £5
C. £10 is about right
D. Increase it to £15
E. Increase it to £25
F. Increase it to £50
G. Increase it to £100
H. Ban most domestic flights & increase European flight tax to £250
Vote here or click reply to discuss below.
0
Comments
-
The idea that increasing tax as a method of reducing useage is a complete Con and is simply a method of raising money for Government coffers. For many years, sucessive Political parties have increased duties on cigarettes, tobaco, wines and spirits using the excuse that a higher tax will cut consumption. Everytime it has failed and the Green tax on aviation and Gas Guzzlers will have the same nil effectCAUTION: Grumpy Old Man In Training.0
-
The Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle effectively pulled the plug on the environmental damage issue. In a nutshell it showed that current global warming is caused by increased Solar activity, not human activity. It has happened before, the world did not end.
CO2 emissions are irrelevant, and in any case all human caused emmissions are one twentieth of that caused by animals, and a still smaller proportion of that caused by volcanoes and decaying vegetation.
Until alternative transport to air travel is fuelled by nuclear power the waste of a resource is only relative. The energy wasted in moving trains about is significant.
However more money and resources still will be wasted on trying to cut CO2 emissions, on irrelevant piddling schemes like wind and solar power. Worse still we are bringing up a generation of children who think that global warming can be countered if we all try hard enough to reduce our energy consumption. No chance.
Trevorm is on target. Whoever forms the next UK government will have to foot the bills for the current government's profigacy. That means raising taxes, perhaps new taxes. The parties are flying various kites now to see what tax hikes might cause the least vote loss. Dress one up as concern for the environment - why not? But don't believe that is the real reason.0 -
Ian_Shearer wrote: »The Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle effectively pulled the plug on the environmental damage issue
This is just not true. One hour and a half of an alternative viewpoint does not proof make. All the links in this email work if you replace "!!!!!!!" with "tiny url . com" (without the spaces)
Ok, first the technical stuff. For a debunking of the (very old) scientific points made in the programme see the excellent Real Climate site - actually written by climate scientists - at: http://!!!!!!!.com/2pj5x5 (with embedded links for further information if you want to pursue it)
You will also find the response from the oceanographer Carl Wunsch on that site, claiming that he was "completely misrepresented" in the programme and is considering a formal complaint. The Independent reports on this and the fact that Martin Durkin, the producer of the documentary has long been thoroughly discredited here: http://!!!!!!!.com/2gsc2s
The same Martin Durkin - the man who claims he was just trying to put the other side of the debate - has now emailed a four letter tirade to academics who dared to question the veracity of his programme's claims, as reported by the Times here: http://!!!!!!!.com/2ujr28
It also turns out that three of the individuals featured in the programme were individuals who are actually no longer working at the universities with which they were captioned, and hence have no academic accountability. For some person-by-person explanation of these and others who appeared see: http://!!!!!!!.com/29fpzj
George Monbiot in the Guardian has also now produced a response to the programme highlighting many of these points: http://!!!!!!!.com/yqlfz7
Amusingly enough, I also noticed that at the programme's own website
(http://!!!!!!!.com/2b73yx ) there are links such as "GLOBAL WARMING" and
"THE ENVIRONMENT" which connect to other areas of the Channel4 web presence, where we are implored to reduce emissions etc! So I don't believe even C4 really buy this.
Having said all this I'm actually all in favour of debate, and I think if someone has valid scientific queries questioning human-caused climate change then they should be heard and not demonised, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm sure Channel 4's researchers are quite capable of doing the research I've done (it only took an hour or so) and debunking so much of this stuff. And as I say, despite his claims Martin Durkin himself appears to have no interest in hearing both sides of the debate.
Sadly though all this that I'm writing is in some ways a bit redundant, because it was on TV and so lots of people will believe it, especially as many will want to. I guess this highlights the power of the mass media.0 -
MSE_Natasha wrote: »H. Ban most domestic flights & increase European flight tax to £250
I can't believe 7% have voted for this, why not just ban everything!! How about banning living and breathing too ?Nothing to see here, move along.0 -
1. Flying burns fuel. Lots of fuel.
2. That fuel cannot be replaced in our lifetime.
3. Burning fuel emits carbon.
4. More carbon out than carbon in = imbalance.
5. Imbalance = problems (would you like to sit in a room full of C02?).
6. Taxing flights do not change a flippin' thing!
That said, the C4 Programme has stimulated a lot of (uneducated) debate.
Please think of your children and grandchildren, and prepare your excuses for the world they inhabit.
Just my thoughts...0 -
chocmonster wrote: »3. Burning fuel emits carbon.
No it doesn't the hydrocarbons in the fuel breaks down in to water and carbon dioxide
Nothing to see here, move along.0 -
Coveredinbees!!!! wrote: »No it doesn't the hydrocarbons in the fuel breaks down in to water and carbon dioxide
But Carbon Dioxide contains Carbon, ne'st pas?
Or did I miss something?0 -
yes lots of things contain carbon like wood, grass, Plastics, people,fish for instance but none doesn't come out the back of jet engines.chocmonster wrote: »But Carbon Dioxide contains Carbon.Nothing to see here, move along.0 -
I agree.
When Gordon Brown announced the tax and that it would start on Feb 1st my heart dropped, I had booked my flight to the US in December to fly on Feb 5th.
Considering that I live on disability and have to take out a loan to fly to the states to see my elderly parents I was in a panic, until BA announced that they would absorb the tax. Every penny of that loan had been accounted for.
Gordon Brown keeps raising taxes and inventing new ones. I can't wait to see what evil comes from his mouth today, Budget Day.
Plus, everytime I see other categories of people getting benefits, all that is except the disabled.
I would like to see the heating money (£200) given to those over 60 be given to those on the highest mobility allowance under the age of 60.
Sorry, I went off topic there.
CarolThe idea that increasing tax as a method of reducing useage is a complete Con and is simply a method of raising money for Government coffers. For many years, sucessive Political parties have increased duties on cigarettes, tobaco, wines and spirits using the excuse that a higher tax will cut consumption. Everytime it has failed and the Green tax on aviation and Gas Guzzlers will have the same nil effect0 -
I seem to remember reading a report recently (wish i could find it to post here) which gave a comparison between jet powered aircraft and ocean going ships.
Not only are there more ships in the ocean than planes in the sky; they also burn more fuel and in less efficient way than a jet engine.
The report concluded that these ships were to blame for much more CO2 emissions than aircraft.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards