PDA

View Full Version : Greenhouse levy on international flights


Greg McDonald
19th May 2008, 11:25 AM
From NEWS.COM.AU:


Passengers on all international flights should pay a compulsory greenhouse levy, an Australian academic says.

Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the Australian National University's Centre for Climate Law and Policy, recommends a $20 levy on passengers flying Sydney to London but lower levies on flights from developing countries.

Mr Macintosh has released an ANU study he co-authored which warns greenhouse gas emissions from international flights will more than double by 2025 as more people fly.

Global efforts to tackle soaring aviation emissions were not working, partly because of legal problems, and voluntary greenhouse levies were ad hoc, he said.

"Having a single mandatory scheme would be far better for the industry and the environment," said Mr Macintosh, who was formerly active with the left-leaning think tank the Australia Institute.

"An emission charge could be imposed at a low level of between $5 and $15 per tonne of CO2 on all developed country flights."

Passengers on flights from developing countries could pay a lower amount.

Money raised from the levies could be used to reduce emissions from deforestation, Mr Macintosh said.

Emissions from international flights will increase by between 111 and 144 per cent by 2025, more than previously thought, the study finds.

Economic growth and broader airline coverage will see emissions triple by 2050.

"While aviation is not currently one of the main drivers of global warming, the growth trajectory of the industry suggests it could become a significant factor over the coming decades," the report said.

The aviation industry has resisted calls for mandatory measures to address emissions, pointing to energy-efficient technological changes as the solution.

But such changes would not go far enough to contain aviation emissions, the report concluded.

Kelvin R
22nd May 2008, 08:37 AM
Like any industry which pollutes the cost should be built into the product price, not added on as a tax or levy. The reason for this is by adding a levy you offer no encouragement for the reduction of pollution and the company does not pay through the balance sheet, the consumer does.

When pay to pollute is part of the product cost it is seen as any other cost which provides the ability for a polluting company to reduce this expense to become competitive. While administratively a levy might been seen as easier it hides the true cost of pollution from shareholders. Pay to pollute then sees pollution as the expense, rather than remediation as the expense so it becomes profitable not to pollute, rather than a cost to clean up after.

Pay to pollute also treats each industry in the same manner, rather than targeting (unfairly) one industry over another (such as airlines versus cruise liners or road transport).

Kent Broadhead
22nd May 2008, 08:41 AM
I agree - it's a similar issue with fuel surcharges - there are an integral element of the airlines operating costs , not an external fee. They should be built into ticket prices rather than "government fees, taxes and surcharges" - when the fuel surcharge is the largest of these and little or nothing to do with governments.

Kent