Flights v Green Rights?

drp38

Bottom line of this tax is nothing to do with the enviroment and being green. It's pure and simple a way for mr gordon to help fund his mis management of the economy ( like selling our gold reserves!). It's time people woke up to the true increase in their costs since he took over with introduction of sneaky tax's.
As an aside for you clever people out there ...... Years ago diesal used to be considerably cheaper than petrol but today is basically the same price. The process to make it has nt changed ... why the increase ?

Cancessa_2

It is high time the principle of the polluter pays is put into practice in an effective way. All forms of travel should be taxed according to the amount of environmental damage they do and their impact on the lives of other people, either indirectly through increased global warming or directly through making roads congested and areas unpleasant or unsafe to live in. This means, not slapping a fixed penalty tax on each flight, or using an annual road tax, but working out the CO2 emissions per passenger mile, and also taking into account other problems caused by the mode of transport. eg particulate emissions, the problems of congestion etc.

What is needed is for all modes of transport to start from a level playing field. Then, either by taxing the fuel itself, or by charging by each mile travelled in a certain mode of transport, people could choose to use less damaging forms of transport and benefit from saving money, and their environment, or pay for the priviledge of inconveniencing everyone else.

cool1

This debate will continue well after many of us depart this life. The tv prog' was just as convincing as the other side so we have to balance our thoughts. Air travel just like cars is becomming cleaner as the older engined planes are replaced. Some airlines no longer start the engines until after pushback. If our and other governments were to make this a legal requirement a lot of fuel and emmissions would be saved.
Interestingly I was told the other day that BA fly an emply aircraft from Heathrow to Cardiff just to keep a slot at H'row. If BA do this how many others do the same?
I think we should all do our bit but not to the extreme some would have us do.

gingerman_3

My two pence worth....

The budget today sparked discussion at work today about how much tax we pay and where it goes. Now we all, me included think we pay a lot of tax, stealth or not, but I think we've got far to comfortable with the standard of living that we have in this country and the facilities/services that are provided for us. If I hear one more person complain about our NHS I'll go mad!

I know that the government swipe a load for themselves and their mistakes but this will always happen so we might as well get used to it. Have a good look around the world and decide if you could live in some of the other so called first world countries (don't include the fact that the sun might be out everyday in your conclusion). If you think dealing with you own finance's is tough then try dealing with 60 million peoples worth!

Taxing flights, to get back on topic , by an extra £5 (only out of the country remember, not each way) is hardly going to break the bank. Again, we have got far too used to paying pennies for flights that 10 years ago were far more expensive.

If you don't like it, don't fly, simple. Don't think it is your 'right' (oh, I hate that word, in that context) to be able to fly anywhere you like without have to pay the consequences, be they environmental or monetery. I have, and would fly, but only ever 3 times in my life (I'm 34) so I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. I just hate people winging about the relatively cheap cost of it!

Rant over.

Sans_Pareil_2

Of all flights, domestic flights must be the easiest to eliminate on core routes. Most of Europe has cheap to travel on High Speed Rail networks, or are in the process of building these. I am told there are over 100 flights a day between London and Scotland. Surely this is classic example of where flying can be eliminated and rail travel (up to 20x greener) can be used. Especially if European style pricing is used for tickets (before 9am fares dont really exisit on mainland EU and national 50% discount railcards are common). Where High Speed Rail has been introduced, over time flights have been reduced or removed on matching rail routes. Also the capacity freed up on old lines can then used by some freight from roads that currently may only be able run at night due to day capacity issues! Just a suggestion.........

Coveredinbees!!!!

Here is an alternative idea, why not make the airport duty optional. Then all you environmentalist can pay £250 or whatever and the rest of us can pay what we feel we should then everyone is a winner.

Bet everyone would opt for £0.00:D

percyplant

i think that air travel should costs should be reflective of "true costs" and that includes the cost to the environment. At the same time, however, taxing air travel will only stop lower income families from travelling, it wont stop those on reasonable incomes. So the poor end up paying....as per usual.
If the main problem is cheap short-haul flights, by all means put the tax up but use the revenue raised to subsidise alternative forms of travel like rail, boat and ferry

chocmonster

That you can't change science.

Irrespective of any tax on flying, planes will still emit.

Charging more for tickets won't alter this!

BarneyL

None of the above as far as I'm concerned.
If the tax is about the environment then instead it should simply be made complsory for air companies to pay to offset the CO2 they put out.
Suddeny companies will compete to have the most efficient flights as they will also be the cheapest to customers.

sarerb18

Just a thought. I would be happy to pay a tax if I knew that it was being used to fund research into other fuels that are sustainable for aircraft and ships.
Is this happening and if so who's doing it?

Sarer