Taxes to increase on flights...................

The EUSSR are demanding 90 billion a year in climate con taxes. The Government are just doing as they are told.

Chippie, why then are the taxes not universal, they vary from country to country.

You'll have to ask the EUSSR that. They'll probably tell you that it's for the greater good and make reference to historical precedent.

It wont make any difference to the number of flights, its just another tax on people who work.

Christ knows what Chippie is on about, hes a very stupid boy.

Dr Crippen 30 Oct 18:50


It wont make any difference to the number of flights, its just another tax on people who work.

Christ knows what Chippie is on about, hes a very stupid boy

Dr C.........................this is getting very worrying, we have agreed at least 3 times in a month, we both should book doctors appointments.

''However, some airlines are likely to oppose any rise at all. Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, recently called the idea of raising taxes to protect the environment "horse s***".''

That just about sums it up

Michael O'Leary is a self-indulgent idiot.

I'd prefer to see air travel rationed rather than taxed, but remember that aviation fuel is currently tax exempt. How much longer can a government supposed committed to halting CC continue subsidising the industry?

I'd prefer to see air travel rationed rather than taxed

I'm so glad he's back.

Why the hell should anybody be told how many times they fly ffs?

I like how "tax emempt" means that something is subsidised in Dr J's book. The same sort of argument leads people to say that not paying twice for healthcare is a subsidy just because you want to opt out of the NHS part. Anyway, back on topic, it will remain exempt because it's an international treaty. Changing will require everyone to agree which I see as likely as Lampus joining mensa.

Carbon rationing is definitely the way forward.

Dr J and alfie
"Rationing"????
Bollux. It's my money and I will fly as much as I choose to.
Stop nannying me.
I will take all this climate change stuff seriously when the Catholic world and Asia do something about birth control and over population.

spot on overboard

just another way to give economic advantages away to the 'BRIC's... and the weaker we are, the less we can impose our 'eco-friendly' agendas on those who put economic/industrial development at the top of their agenda

Poor people shouldn't be flying anyway. If what they're doing was adding any value it would pay for itself, so the price should continue to be a fair market price.

Dr Jesus-he-has-said-something-intelligent

' I'd prefer to see air travel rationed rather than taxed, but remember that aviation fuel is currently tax exempt. How much longer can a government supposed committed to halting CC continue subsidising the industry? '

Absolutely old boy. I don't really see the need for most air travel - true patriotic Brits take their holidays at home and do not fly Costa-del-Vomita for British beer, burgers and *****and skin cancer. TAX IT.

I'd prefer to see air travel rationed rather than taxed

It would be impossible to do that fairly enough to be accepted by the public.
Every time you picked up a paper or heard the news there'd be a new case of someone fiddling the system, and I suppose business trips wouldn't count.
So there'd be an explosion in the number of business trips to exotic places overnight.
No you couldn't ration it, there'd be riots.

Its more airports we are going to get and more runways, thats the real future if you hadnt noticed.

Rationing isn't anything like as complicated (or prescriptive) as people think. Those who wish to take extra flights would buy additional allowances from those who choose not to fly. The government would make no revenue at all, the environment would benefit substantially, and there's be a lovely bit of progressive wealth redistribution on the side.

What you guys need to realise is that, post-Copenhagen, things are gonna change fast. Carbon rationing is almost certainly the most painless way for targets to be met.

So you would get 10,000 airmiles with your annual tax code?

At no cost to the government. OK then.......

This notion that you have a divine right to be a selfish ar*ehole and destroy the planet is an interesting one. Does your right to a week in Benidorm supercede an African farmer's right to feed his family or his right to not have his crops fail for four consecutive years? Humans have only had the ability to fly for 0.1% of our time on Earth- indeed, most of the people on the planet now will never take to the skies, but the mere suggestion of a future with restricted air travel gets people frothing at the mouth.

Does your right to a week in Benidorm supercede an African farmer's right to feed his family or his right to not have his crops fail for four consecutive years

You are making the mistake of believing the two are linked.

Well if we are using so much compared to the third world countries it would make sense to halt immigration full stop, after all the more that come here to live, the more that their own personal carbon footprint would increase, in fact, if more left, we could then reduce it more??

Dr J-I thought rationing ended in 1951.
With rationing black markets develop as those who dont want something sell to those who do.A huge pubic sector bureacracy is needed to run and police the whole stucture.
Isn't allocating via the market much more efficient?

A huge pubic sector bureacracy is needed to run and police the whole stucture

Thats a leftist utopia noddy.

Göring 03 Nov 16:36
Poor people shouldn't be flying anyway.

If only YOU were poor.
You might be less pious.

alfie255 03 Nov 23:34

This notion that you have a divine right to be a selfish ar*ehole and destroy the planet is an interesting one. Does your right to a week in Benidorm supercede an African farmer's right to feed his family or his right to not have his crops fail for four consecutive years? Humans have only had the ability to fly for 0.1% of our time on Earth- indeed, most of the people on the planet now will never take to the skies, but the mere suggestion of a future with restricted air travel gets people frothing at the mouth.

Supremely well said, alfie.

Rationing is actually a market-based solution because allocations could be traded. It's either rationing or taxation, and, as people have rightly pointed out, taxation hits the poorest hardest.

Dr J-airline allocations are traded already. We are using a things called choice and money.
If you have limited money and prefer to go on holiday than smoke/drink/DIY/run a car/go to gym/buy clothes that is what you do. If you prefer to do other things than go on holiday that is what you do.Simple-why does the government have to get involved?

Rationing - imagine all the people who have no intention of ever flying, applying for their allocation of flights just so that they could sell them.
Theyd be selling them on Ebay, and we'd have people dealing in them, it would be a farce.
It would only restrict the flying of the less well off, and cost already does that.
The savings achieved would be a waste of time.

So to stop the inevitable trading that would happen, theyd have to put the applicants name on the passes and make them for the use of the named only.
That would restrict the amount of flights for rich people as well, and they wouldnt stand for that.

Dr J-airline allocations are traded already. We are using a things called choice and money.
If you have limited money and prefer to go on holiday than smoke/drink/DIY/run a car/go to gym/buy clothes that is what you do. If you prefer to do other things than go on holiday that is what you do.Simple-why does the government have to get involved?

I'd suggest you do a little background reading on CC before asking questions as criminally stupid as that, noddys.

Rationing - imagine all the people who have no intention of ever flying, applying for their allocation of flights just so that they could sell them.
Theyd be selling them on Ebay, and we'd have people dealing in them,

I see no problem with any of this, Crippen.

That would restrict the amount of flights for rich people as well, and they wouldnt stand for that.

Surely you're not suggesting that we do nothing for fear of upsetting rich people?

Dr J-I don't believe in climate change. Does that meke me a criminal?

Dr J,
The rich would see to it that the legislation didnt go through, theyve got the politicians in their pockets.

Dr J-I don't believe in climate change. Does that meke me a criminal?

No, it makes you criminally stupid, like I said.

The rich would see to it that the legislation didnt go through, theyve got the politicians in their pockets.

No doubt you're at least partly right, Crippen, but this is exactly the sort of submissive thinking that I always resist. There are very few Leftist measures that could be rolled out if you worry about the rich to this sort of extent.

If you believe in CC and fly you are a hypocrite. I would rather be criminally stupd than one of those.

Where does this criminal stupidity begin and end - when you boil a kettle, turn on a pc, drive a car, mow the lawn?

B0ll0x to it all

Look
As I said, I will take all this crap seriously when the Pope tells his mob to rubber up and the blacks in Africa and Asia stop inserting their diseased willies into their ravaged wives and having 10 starving kids each.

Until then, I demand my right to produce the largest carbon footprint my considerable income allows so that I can fly at least 12 times a year for holidays etc.
And my car has a 3 +litre engine ----because I can afford it and choose to spend my hard earned as I please , not as I am told.

If you believe in CC and fly you are a hypocrite. I would rather be criminally stupd than one of those.

noddys - CC isn't something you 'believe in', ffs. It's a scientific fact, like photosynthesis or gravity. You really do make yourself look stupid with statements like that.

As I said, I will take all this crap seriously when the Pope tells his mob to rubber up and the blacks in Africa and Asia stop inserting their diseased willies into their ravaged wives and having 10 starving kids each.

Contraception in the Developing World is definitely a huge problem.

Until then, I demand my right to produce the largest carbon footprint my considerable income allows so that I can fly at least 12 times a year for holidays etc.
And my car has a 3 +litre engine ----because I can afford it and choose to spend my hard earned as I please , not as I am told.

I'm afraid this will not be your 'right' for long.

I'm afraid this will not be your 'right' for long.

Oh - why?

And how long is "long"?

I believe Dave has promised to do away with Flight Tax or whatever it is called.
Long haul. Here we come.
Not a penny ever collected under these spurious "green" taxes has ever been spent on green issues or technology. Simply another stealth tax .
Copenhagen will lead to absolutely nothing. Obama isn't even going. The US don't give a damn and until they, the third world and the Pope get on message then bollux to the lot of them so far as I am concerned.

I believe Dave has promised to do away with Flight Tax or whatever it is called.

On the contrary, the Tories' green policies are far more advanced than Labour's.

Is it aceptable that we are getting to the situation where only the rich will be able to fly.

yes

stop being so sensible overboard

no doubt Dr J has kids, and has thus contributed to overpopulation himself (overpopulation is one of the fundamental issues underlying nearly *EVERY* environmental problem)

and yet he feels that he can lecture those like me, who are childless, on how many flights we can take

go swivel, Dr J

It's a scientific fact

Keep saying it, then it might become true.

overboard 04 Nov 12:57


Look
As I said, I will take all this crap seriously when the Pope tells his mob to rubber up and the blacks in Africa and Asia stop inserting their diseased willies into their ravaged wives and having 10 starving kids each.

Until then, I demand my right to produce the largest carbon footprint my considerable income allows so that I can fly at least 12 times a year for holidays etc.
And my car has a 3 +litre engine ----because I can afford it and choose to spend my hard earned as I please , not as I am told.

Quality post. Made me chuckle. Shame my engine is only 2.2 litre. :)

overboard 04 Nov 13:58
Copenhagen will lead to absolutely nothing. Obama isn't even going. The US don't give a damn

and more importantly for the future, countries like China don't give a damn either

and theres a billion in China alone, more than EU and US *COMBINED*, and they don't give a rats *ss about what they see as a Western-created problem... the West had their turn, now its the Easts turn to grow, and they aren't going to be told by the West 'oh no sorry you can't pollute even though we did'

and then India... thats another billion...

without these countries on board, the phrase 'p!ssing in the wind' comes to mind

theres a billion in China alone, more than EU and US *COMBINED*,

And yet who produces more carbon? Carbon output per person is much lower in China than in the West.

It's for exactly this reason that the rich nations are finally agreeing to subsidise poorer nations so that they too can hit their targets.

Dr J, i hate to burst your bubble, but China is currently the *LARGEST* CO2 emitter in the world, and is also growest *FASTER* than the West

get your thick lefty head around that if you can

http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf

in case you want to get some facts into your lefty brain Dr J

oh and btw Dr J/any other dumb lefty, China is the largest emitter *despite* its output per person being lower

but China's grand aim is to get its living standards up to western levels

apply some logic, and calculate what will happen to Chinas CO2 emissions if it even comes close to achieving that goal

and then maybe you'll see why your liitle schemes are simply p!ssing in the wind if countries like China aren't interested in playing ball

sub -

You really do need to learn to read posts more carefully before getting all stressed and pompous:

Carbon output per person is much lower in China than in the West.

This is simply a fact.

How old are you, btw?

haha not stressed Dr J, just pointing out the simple irrelevance of your points

and proving that these little Western-centric schemes you love so much are going to solve little without Chinas involvement...

chances are they'll just shift even more economic power and growth towards countries like China that consider CO2 targets fairly low on their list of priorities

but hey, if you want to console yourself with the fact that CO2 per person in China is lower than the West, hey ho... good old lefty wishful thinking again :D

sub -

I write:

Carbon output per person is much lower in China than in the West.

and then you write:

Dr J, i hate to burst your bubble, but China is currently the *LARGEST* CO2 emitter in the world,

get your thick lefty head around that if you can

In other words, you completely misunderstand the basic notion of 'per person' and then go hurling completely misdirected and specious insults around instead.

If I was you I'd be feeling thoroughly embarrassed with myself. It's one thing to make an honest mistake; it's another to be questioning other people's intelligence while you do it.

Most telling of all, of course, is the lack of an apology...

:(

Dr J, do you have the figures?

It may be lower per head, but that's because GDP per head is $3k in China versus $48k in the US. If you're only making bedroom furniture and cuddly toys you're really not going to be emitting too much. I bet their emissions per head isn't in the ratio of 3:48 in which case the States is more efficient per dollar of wealth.

Dr J, i read your point, understood it, and was pointing out why it was irrelevant

it this too complicated for your dumb lefty brain? :D

Air travel accounts for a little under 0.3% of annual CO2 output.
Deforestation accounts for 18% of annual CO2 output. To put it into perspective, one year's deforestation output is equivalent to just about all the CO2 we have ever put into the environment in the entire history of aviation.

Tax wood if you must, but leave that lovely Michael O'Leary and Stelios alone.

masher-dont let facts get in the way of prejudice and leftie guilt.

Cows färting is about fifth too. We should attach pilot lights to all cows' ärses to convert the CH4 into CO2 (cue some gimp adding, "plus 2 H20 Sir).

leave your wifes flatulence out of this Goring

(sorry... bad taste, i know)

You've tasted my wife's flatus?

must have done if its responsible for a fifth of all emissions

anyway, we digress :D

For obvious reasons, the goal can only be to limit man-made CO2 output. Air travel accounts for a relatively high proportion of this.

Tackling deforestation, I agree, is a massive priority.

oh and Goring, that link i posted has figures such as CO2/GDP

and China indeed has a higher figure than the US

Dr J-so we alll must become veggies or have genitically modified not farting bovine?

noddys - and it still won't make much difference if the largest CO2 emitters (ie China) continue to increase their output at the current rate (ie approximately tripling in a 15-ish year period)

so if lefty dummies like Dr J have their way, Westerners will be living in caves and *STILL* have to suffer global warming since huge polluters like China will be hyper-industrialised economic superpowers and laughing themselves silly at the Wests stupidity

overboard...simple answer..go to france first...no silly green taxes there......alfie....plaet is 1 degree colder than 2000 years ago....so much for global warming.......african farmer...lol....i will go benidorm.

need the break ...from v.a.t ....bin taxes...speed cameras....crime waves....probably the african farmer growing roses and making a fortune.....dubai for his holiday.

StronglyFancied 04 Nov 09:30


Göring 03 Nov 16:36
Poor people shouldn't be flying anyway.

If only YOU were poor.
You might be less pious.

so how much co2 do the huge herds of widebeeste,zebras etc etc in africa produce ,should we start culling them to reduce co2 emmisions?

Lots of selfish Baby Boomers on this thread.

They must hate their children and grandchildren.

Such a shame to not know love.

Occam's Razor 04 Nov 19:28


Lots of selfish Baby Boomers on this thread.

They must hate their children and grandchildren.

Such a shame to not know love

Do you honestly believe all the sh1t you post. For every expert who says one thing you can find an expert who would say the opposite.

Well there are around 2 billion cows on the planet, I think we can safely say that they outnumber Zebras and Wildebeest.

Deforestation is also a huge problem of course- driven by wasteful use of paper and poor recycling, as well as the 'need' to clear forests to make space for grazing livestock. This problem could be mitigated if people reduced their meat consumption which at present is completely unsustainable (in developed countries at least) for a planet with 6 billion people. We simply don't have the resources or space required to grow living food (you can feed 7 times as many people from the same area of land if you grow crops instead of rearing animals).

And air travel is probably the most damaging thing an individual can do in terms of the environment. If you cycle everywhere, recycle all the time, don't eat meat and conserve as much energy as possible, you still create an unsustainable amount of CO2 just by taking one flight a year. Let's hope the world governments are strong enough to tackle this problem in December- I won't be holding my breath though.

an unsustainable amount of CO2

I love these MUG statements - keeps us non-believers in mirth for months.

subversion 04 Nov 17:44

oh and Goring, that link i posted has figures such as CO2/GDP
and China indeed has a higher figure than the US

Thanks for that, sub. So at least the septics are polluting with efficiency.

StronglyFancied 04 Nov 18:59

If only YOU were poor.
You might be less pious.

I might be, but I'd be wrong. I don't think I'd be wasting it on flying around if I didn't have much though.

If you cycle everywhere, recycle all the time, don't eat meat and conserve as much energy as possible,

It seems alf wants us to go back to some sort of Middle Age existence.

Just as well he's got a PC to get his message across

candles anyone? Up with the sun and off to bed when the sun goes down. Middle ages? That's the Dark Ages. Just out to stick £80 of petrol in the Merc. See you all later.

Mug statements? There is a estimated amount of carbon (ca. 2 tonnes a year) that each person can safely get through without raising temperatures above 2 degrees. One flight a year blows this out of the water.

It seems alf wants us to go back to some sort of Middle Age existence.

Just as well he's got a PC to get his message across

Well, I don't think they had bikes, recycling plants or energy conservation in the Middle Ages, but whatever...

Personally i'd like humans to live in a way that enables us to pass on the planet to our children and grandchildren for many thousands of years, in a similar state that we enjoyed it in. If you'd prefer not to do this and instead live unsustainably for the sake of 50 years of cheap holidays, unfettered resource wastage and Hummers, then i suppose the awkward questions will be yours to answer.

You always go on about Brown creating a ruinous legacy for our children but you're doing exactly the same, only this legacy can't be fixed by a few years of public service cuts and tax rises- it's permanent on any human timescale.

only this legacy can't be fixed by a few years of public service cuts and tax rises

Isn't that exactly what's proposed to limit CO2?

alf, apart from driving a car and flying 3 or 4 times a year I bet I use no more than you. You probably use public trabnsport far more than me so we're probably about level

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

You've got to love these lefties. Any lemon out there been sold and they are buying. :D

You've got to love these lefties. Any lemon out there been sold and they are buying.

With our energy supplies increasingly sourced overseas, and with urgent action needed to combat climate change, its time to rethink the way we supply and consume energy in Britain. We urgently need to move to a low carbon economy in order to strengthen our economy, help guarantee our energy security and protect our environment for future generations.

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Energy.aspx

So Cameron and the Tories are lefties now then?

energy supplies increasingly sourced overseas

Yup. As I said yesterday. It's not about CC, it's about no more cheap hydrocarbons.

Personally i'd like humans to live in a way that enables us to pass on the planet to our children and grandchildren for many thousands of years, in a similar state that we enjoyed it in. If you'd prefer not to do this and instead live unsustainably for the sake of 50 years of cheap holidays, unfettered resource wastage and Hummers, then i suppose the awkward questions will be yours to answer.

You always go on about Brown creating a ruinous legacy for our children but you're doing exactly the same, only this legacy can't be fixed by a few years of public service cuts and tax rises- it's permanent on any human timescale.

Cracking stuff, alfie.

The carbon legacy that we're bequeathing future generations makes Brown's £200bn debt look like chicken feed.

carbon ...lol

alf, apart from driving a car and flying 3 or 4 times a year I bet I use no more than you. You probably use public trabnsport far more than me so we're probably about level

I'm not really interested in comparisons.....but if you fly 3 or 4 times a year you use probably 5/6 times as much as me. I just think people should do as much as they can and, more importantly, put pressure on governments to work together and change- as individual action won't solve the problem. I don't want to preach (although it probably sounds like i do), i just find attitudes like yours depressing.

alf, how is my attitude depressing when I've pointed out that in reality you and I are in the same bracket ie we use an almost identical amount of energy?

I refuse to be concerned about things I have no control over, especially those things that are based on spurious claims.

And fwiw you do come across as preaching which is exactly what gets up my nose

Well we don't use an identical amount, you use much more than me because you fly 3/4 times a year- but this is irrelevant as we're not in a playground competition.

Your attiitude is depressing because too many people share it and you're preventing real change. History is full of examples of large masses of people mobilising for a cause and governments being forced to change- but while there are people happy to continue down this ruinous path while placating themselves by saying that they couldn't do anything to change things anyway, governments will continue to pay lip service to the problem- for example by introducing recycling schemes at the same time as campaigning for a 5th Heathrow runway. It's crazy to have such a blasé attitude given what's at stake.