Here Come The Carbon Taxes

[Mega]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6826794.ece

Mike

[acidreign]

Mike, I'm a lazy fecker and hence cannot be bothered to click on links. Anyone of the same attitude here you go

Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change.

Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel and ensure that carbon dioxide emissions from aviation fall back to 2005 levels, the Committee on Climate Change says. It believes that airlines should be forced to share the burden of meeting Britain’s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

The Times has learnt that it may challenge the Government’s decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow, suggesting that this would be inconsistent with that commitment.

The committee was established under last year’s Climate Change Act. It has a strong influence on government policy and proposed the 80 per cent target accepted by ministers.

It says that initially the cost per passenger of compensating for climate change would be small but would rise over time and eventually reach a level that would put people off flying.

Industry estimates suggest that the average passenger would pay less than £10 extra per return ticket when aviation joins the EU emissions trading scheme in 2012. This would depend on the price of allowances to emit CO2, which is expected to rise over time.

The committee proposes a global cap on aviation emissions, with airlines required to buy allowances, and that the revenue generated should be given to developing countries to help them to adapt to climate change — for example, by building flood defences to cope with rising sea levels.

In a letter to the Government published today, the committee says that an increase in global temperatures is inevitable and that developed countries must pay for the consequences. It says that the EU trading scheme does not go far enough and could result in airlines making windfall profits.

Under the scheme, airlines will be given free carbon permits covering 85 per cent of their emissions and will have to buy permits for the remaining 15 per cent. The committee says that they should have to pay for all their emissions. This would more than double the cost to passengers.

The Greenskies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups, estimates that the EU scheme would add £4 to the cost of a return ticket from London to Madrid and £18 for a round trip from London to Los Angeles. These would rise to £10 and £40 if the committee’s proposal was accepted.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: “A global scheme could raise tens of billions of pounds a year. You can still go on holiday abroad but there isn’t going to be room for massive increases in flying.â€

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6826794.ece

[XswampyX]

Wow, that was a lucky guess!

[OnlyMe]

share the burden of meeting Britain’s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

What are they planing to do to achieve this - kill off half the population of the country and tying the ankles of the other half together so they can't leave the confines of their abode?

Why is anyone taking any of this gobshite seriously still?

[Guest sillybear2]

share the burden of meeting Britain�€™s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

What are they planing to do to achieve this - kill off half the population of the country and tying the ankles of the other half together so they can't leave the confines of their abode?

Why is anyone taking any of this gobshite seriously still?

Because politicians are scientifically illiterate and 'expert commentators' are anything but. A politico in search of a cause is a dangerous thing, especially when they start inventing them.

Before the next decade is out the UK will experience widespread rolling power cuts and riots, after a few weeks of civil disorder the politicians will start questioning the sacrifice of living standards and security at the altar of the climate gods, but not until that crisis point. After the lights go out, all those condemned coal plants that are due to be retired over the next couple of years will be brought back in service as quickly as possible.

The energy crisis is as predictable as the banking crisis, but we're still in the denial phase.

As for flights, obviously the best way to help poorer countries is to cut off their supply of tourists and flow of trade

Edited September 8, 2009 by sillybear2

[OnlyMe]

As for flights, obviously the best way to help poorer countries is to cut off their supply of tourists and flow of trade

Yes, I did notice that tax on flights to LA were specifically mentioned.

[Three Pint Princess 2]

A regressive tax , should stop the poor from going on holiday but anyone else the % of a total flight

will remain nothing.

Bit like the congestion charge, or parking fees or road tax or rail fares.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Three Pint Princess 2

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

A regressive tax , should stop the poor from going on holiday but anyone else the % of a total flight

will remain nothing.

Bit like the congestion charge, or parking fees or road tax or rail fares.

It's just about restricting flight to the rich again like the goold old 1950s.

[crash2006]

no mention of a tax deduction, if airliners seek new lower fuel sources.

[nobody777]

Mike, I'm a lazy fecker and hence cannot be bothered to click on links. Anyone of the same attitude here you go

Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change.

Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel and ensure that carbon dioxide emissions from aviation fall back to 2005 levels, the Committee on Climate Change says. It believes that airlines should be forced to share the burden of meeting Britain’s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

The Times has learnt that it may challenge the Government’s decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow, suggesting that this would be inconsistent with that commitment.

The committee was established under last year’s Climate Change Act. It has a strong influence on government policy and proposed the 80 per cent target accepted by ministers.

It says that initially the cost per passenger of compensating for climate change would be small but would rise over time and eventually reach a level that would put people off flying.

Industry estimates suggest that the average passenger would pay less than £10 extra per return ticket when aviation joins the EU emissions trading scheme in 2012. This would depend on the price of allowances to emit CO2, which is expected to rise over time.

The committee proposes a global cap on aviation emissions, with airlines required to buy allowances, and that the revenue generated should be given to developing countries to help them to adapt to climate change — for example, by building flood defences to cope with rising sea levels.

In a letter to the Government published today, the committee says that an increase in global temperatures is inevitable and that developed countries must pay for the consequences. It says that the EU trading scheme does not go far enough and could result in airlines making windfall profits.

Under the scheme, airlines will be given free carbon permits covering 85 per cent of their emissions and will have to buy permits for the remaining 15 per cent. The committee says that they should have to pay for all their emissions. This would more than double the cost to passengers.

The Greenskies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups, estimates that the EU scheme would add £4 to the cost of a return ticket from London to Madrid and £18 for a round trip from London to Los Angeles. These would rise to £10 and £40 if the committee’s proposal was accepted.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: “A global scheme could raise tens of billions of pounds a year. You can still go on holiday abroad but there isn’t going to be room for massive increases in flying.â€

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6826794.ece

This is a stealth tax scam and it will be just one of many but in flights etc its the beginning of massive yoy inflation in air travel and theirs no point in moaning about it have you holidays now before they are too expensive or become a MP however the smart little man reading the should ask.

When airfairs become so expensive where will people go on holiday think blackpool or pontins or Scotland and invest now it may pay well.

Hotels in blackpool sell for peanuts today they probably well several fold as people stop flying to spain etc and it wont be good for Spanish props neither.

Beware of the bed tax though regarding blackpool hotels another stealth tax maybe a campsite near the beach could be safer things arnt good.

[dinker]

It’s your mess – now you pay for it.

That’s the message from African leaders to Western countries as they mull over a proposal to demand tens of billions of dollars in compensation – one figure muted is $67 billion a year – from developed countries for the effects of climate change.