Forum menu
Seems to me cookea's basic concept is pretty sound, however, there's clearly some elements that require a bit of refinement (unlike bunker fuel, eh chaps!!)
Fair points.
But frankly it doesn't matter who pays does it so long as they pay?
If withholding permission to offload at a port forces them to stump up then job done.
A simple mileage could never work because an empty ship sailing to a scrapyard would pay the same as a fully laden 20,000 teu container ship, carrying £250 million worth of cargo.
Well much like with the Aircraft suggestion, if you pay full whack per mile for sailing without cargo (i.e. not generating any revenue) same as you would fully laden then you start to make unnecessary journeys uneconomic...
I would propose the Tax for cargo shipping should be based on a vessels maximum cargo capacity, flat rate per mile makes it easier to administer and it's on the operator to make it financially viable...
The model is perhaps simpler for aircraft (passenger and cargo) than shipping but basing it simply on distance travelled rather than fuel or local interpretations of an international law/tariff makes sense.
If withholding permission to offload at a port forces them to stump up then job done.
That could never work. A lot of ports work too strict timetables, particularity container terminals. A 2 hour delay can have a big effect on the whole schedule.
Well much like with the Aircraft suggestion, if you pay full whack per mile for sailing without cargo (i.e. not generating any revenue) same as you would fully laden then you start to make unnecessary journeys uneconomic…
There are lots of vessels that have 1 single trade route and will deliver their cargo and return empty to pick another identical load. The operators don't do that for fun, they would much prefer to be earning money, there is simply nothing suitable to make the return trip with.
In principle your idea seems simple and possible. It would also be a very good thing. However, as you have no understanding how the global shipping industry works, you can't see how completely impracticable it would be in reality.
There are lots of vessels that have 1 single trade route and will deliver their cargo and return empty to pick another identical load
This. Oil is the obvious one, lots of ships go form the Middle East fully laden to Europe, drop their oil off and return empty. Oil tankers can't really carry anything else so it's not like you can throw a few containers on them for the return journey.
Surely there are checks on a ship's displacement, to see if there's any smuggling going on?
From that it'd be simple enough to have a flat rate per mile for all shipping, with an additional tariff applied depending on tonnage...
Yeah they weigh each and every ship to see if any pirate DVDs onboard
Arghhh! That's some impressive calibration right there me hearties...
You've failed to declare 3 grains of sugar, straight to the brig
Surely there are checks on a ship’s displacement, to see if there’s any smuggling going on?
Again, that will vary. Bad weather will mean they'll carry extra ballast for stability, good weather they'll carry less for efficiency. This will often change over the journey, they may start heavy then offload as the seas improve.
Ah, fair enough, so rather than a dynamic tonnage tax, just apply a banded multiplier tariff according to the ships net tonnage in addition to a flat mileage rate.
Mileage from where? Container ships are dynamic beasts with cargo joining and leaving at different ports. Do it by manifest?
how do you rate duty for certain items (eg. Aid or medicine)?
Who collects all this data and how do you protect it from falling into the wrong hands? (piracy, third actors etc.)
Since when was the UN a supranational tax collection agency?
Seems like your idea has grown so many arms and legs it can hardly move. Like I said, nice idea but in the real world horrifically complex.
Given that most governments would be quite happy to raise taxes which don't onbviously increase the rate of income tax, you might actually ponder the reasons behind the question: 'Why isn’t there tax on aviation (or shipping) fuel?'. The short answer is that it is too complex to raise.
The funny thing is, goods and passengers are already transported the world over and it all works fairly well...
Much of this alleged complexity is being blown out of proportion;
Rather than tie mileage too much to the goods on board, surely it'd be better to apply it purely to the ship itself, so each time it docks, a tax is charged relating to the fuel used since the last time it docked.
when it comes to duty on items, that has nothing to do with the fuel charge; duty (or indeed tax relief) is already dealt with by customs.
Data is no biggie; airports and docks cope well enough as is and the journeys of planes and ships are easy enough for all to see already:
The UN has it's own army of Peacekeepers, not to mention Weapons Inspectors (the most senior non elected employee of HM's government, Mark Sedwill, used to be a UN Weapons Inspector), so surely collecting tax would be easy enough, especially if it contributed to securing the future of the planet...
Yeah more tax to be passed onto the working man, yes I know it’s meant to save the world but as always those that can meat afford it will pay the price of airline costs go up
Rather than tie mileage too much to the goods on board, surely it’d be better to apply it purely to the ship itself, so each time it docks, a tax is charged relating to the fuel used since the last time it docked.
And we're back to a blanket tax based in no way on efficiency of the voyage. Are you proposing that a UN navy inspection team be present at every port in order to inspect each ships oil logs to determine bunker usage? How are you going to fund that? Or is it a fund that will fund the collection of the fund and, er...
The complexity is not being blown out of proportion, I was Merchant Navy in another life and the stuff myself abd others are bringing up are real stumbling blocks. Ships manifests are not public info for damn good reasons, pirates would have a field day as well as any other folk with a vested interest in it not reaching its destination, you would have to fund increased anti piracy measures and where needed naval protection.
Can you explain to me why the ship's manifest is so essential in all of this?
You know where a ship last docked, you know it's net tonnage; why do you need to know what it's carrying?
As for efficiency, surely there's enough info on a specific ship's build data give an idea of general efficiency and thus emissions?
Say we took up your idea of banning bunker fuel; how would you go about it and what alternative fuels are there?
What are the costs and how much improvement could we expect in terms of emissions?
Bunker fuel is banned in US and EU coastal waters as well as plenty of other LEZs (low emission zones) worldwide. The alternative is IFO (Intermediate Fuel Oil) or gasoil (kerosene) which are proper diesel fuels.
The improvement would be vastly reduced sulphur content, increased efficiencies from not having to heat, purify and process the fuel (meaning your generators don't need to power as much) and less sludge and ash being generated and requiring disposal.
To answer your other questions why wouldn't you want to know what a ship is carrying? Surely you wouldn't be taxing a ship carrying aid or essential supplies? How about a proportion of a shops manifest?
Look, end of the day you asked why this isn’t done, plenty of people have responded with reasons why not and why you couldn’t. You can choose to accept this or not but it really is in no way as simple as you seem to believe it is.
Hmmm... the whole aid and essential supplies thing can often be misused...
You only have to look at the Tennesee mules shipped out to Afghanistan by US aid agencies under Larry Crandall in collaboration with the CIA to see that...
Or the way Live Aid funds were spent on weapons.
Ah fuggit, maybe the human race ain't worth saving; shame about the planet mind...
"Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy"
By that logic most food is subsidised because it doesn't attract VAT.
You only have to look at the Tennesee mules shipped out to Afghanistan by US aid agencies under Larry Crandall in collaboration with the CIA to see that…
Ah....
Hi.
Hello there, can I help you flyboy?
Look, end of the day you asked why this isn’t done, plenty of people have responded with reasons why not and why you couldn’t. You can choose to accept this or not but it really is in no way as simple as you seem to believe it is.
I’m more than willing to accept that it’s tricky. It seems beyond doubt that’s it’s a complex thing.
I’m not willing to therefore conclude that it’s impossible to do, no matter now important, just because it’s hard. Nor that we shouldn’t try.
If “we” were serious about it, surely a global agreement and a carbon tax paid by whoever pays the fuel bill, to a global fund*. Used to do Good Things. Start it at a low rate. Make it higher later.
*I expect this never to happen.
In all honesty, I don't see it being a likely outcome...
It's pretty clear the UN is riddled with corruption; you only have to look at the history of Karen Pierce (and Matthew Rycroft before her) to see that.
Then of course there's the global tax avoidance industry, of which Britain is at the forefront, given the role of our head of state...
nowthen's post at the top of the page is a pretty good illustration of the bigger picture.
Another tax probably isn't going to be a vote winner; but I can't imagine a great many votes are won on taxpayers money supporting wahabist extremism or bombing kids in far flung lands, but that's not to say it doesn't happen...
Air passenger duty can be charged on local activity but ships and planes can game tax regimes by fuelling on other countries. Depending on the level of tax they can be unintentionally incentivised to make extra stops or use additional fuel in order to make the most of the arbitrage. Huge potential unintentional consequences.
For shipping, perhaps. For aircraft, airliners aren't capable of landing with full fuel tanks, therefore you have to take on fuel wherever you stop. It could just move the problem around, lead to short hops to other more favourable fuel tax regimes for long haul flights and associated potential increases in emissions overall.
It's something that bothers me about domestic power and gas, too - and it feeds into an exaggeration of the environmental benefits of EVs in people's perceptions (not that I don't think they're better than ICE vehicles with our current electrical generation mix, just that they're still not good enough).
So the consensus from those in the know is... Just don't bother?
Carry on along the trajectory we're on because it's a bit difficult to change things or impose any sort of governance or effective taxation on global shipping and transport and we wouldn't want to upset businesses...
I suppose the important question then becomes how does global capitalism survive climate change and rising sea levels?
So the consensus from those in the know is… Just don’t bother?
Carry on along the trajectory we’re on because it’s a bit difficult to change things or impose any sort of governance or effective taxation on global shipping and transport and we wouldn’t want to upset businesses…
<sarcasm>Yep that's exactly what we said. Got it in one.</sarcasm>
Of course it's not like that is the ONLY way we could have a positive effect on global transportation emissions that would actually be effective down to individual nations. But we wouldn't want to upset consumers would we?
Why is this discussion only about cargo vessels?
What about offshore support vessels?
What about tug boats?
There is talk about preventing inefficient and useless voyages, so are we going to stop cruise ships operating? A large cruise ship will produce about 80,000 kw of power, a huge amount runs just the AC. How pointless is that?
What about riding around in circles in the woods on a £4000 bicycle, built on the other side of the World? Is that also pointless?
Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you've raised...
What about riding around in circles in the woods on a £4000 bicycle, built on the other side of the World? Is that also pointless?
Oh for goodness sake, how dare you imply we're part of the problem!
Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you’ve raised…
Tax at point of sale.
"Holiday" tax on flights - easy.
"Airmail tax" - transit tax based on emissions.
"carbon fibre tax" - tax based on end of life use (or not).
"food mile tax" - stops fish landed in Grimsby making their way to supermarkets via Shenzhen.
These all address cargo and transport applications which is the vast majority of global emissions. The rest is a drop in the ocean though I'm sure more could be found. They can be applied and collected locally and either spent locally or else diverted to funds encouraging green energy uptake in developing nations.
The advantage is it encourages industry to shift (gradually) to more localised manufacturing and people stop taking global travel for granted rather than the privilege it is.
Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you’ve raised…
I can't think of any workable way to set up a global taxation system on fuel used for shipping. There are so many variables and ways to avoid it, that it simply isn't practicable.
For example, I think we can all agree that a cruise ship makes no sense from an environmental or climate change point of view. However, they are never going to be "banned". They will carry one with small improvements to their efficiency and to their relative emissions. However, they still use vast resources and energy to take rich people on their holidays.
All just another crazy part of the current global economy.
The problem isn't the cost of fuel the problem is consumerism.
That's not going to change over night, as others have said taxing fuels just makes everything more expensive, we buy less things, economies suffer, developing countries develope slower do take longer to clean up their industries. Developed countries can't afford the investment needed to switch to newer technology and actually can't even afford to maintain the living standards we have today....everyone's life gets worse.
The key is to move away from a product based economy and develop a service based economy. We pay more for services rather than products... Use less resources, need less energy but still keep the economy going. We probably also have to get to the point of not focusing on GDP growth so much.
Whilst a purely service based economy sounds like an interesting concept, I'd appreciate if you could explain it to me a bit more, to help me get my head around it;
What would be on the menu in restaurants?
You pay for someone to polish your car... what do they polish it with?
A service engineer is called out to fix a lift, which needs new parts... where do the parts come from?
Your missus goes to a Yoga Class, but fails to reach a zen state due to lack of incense, candles and essential oils, along with the hard floor where her Yoga mat isn't...
etc etc
We have a product based economy now. Services exist. The opposite can also be true. It is only the focus that changes.
Ok, it's not my idea by the way.... Obviously not everything can become a service rather than a product. We still need food and clothes etc. But do we really need to own all the possesions we have? Media has already become service based, when did you last buy music on a CD? Do you watch films via a streaming service?
Other things that probably need to change and already are... Stop owning cars, rent them.. there's already city car clubs. Stop owning bicycles, rent them. Same goes for pretty much any sport or activity. This would vastly reduce the quantity of products but money would continue to change hands. It has to become developed enough that it's not an inconvenience or prohibitively expensive.
It could even be extended to white and brown goods. We used to have radio rentals.... Theres just this week been a new law passed to make manufacturers support white goods longer with spares. So we could rent our fridge freezers and cookers etc with a service agreement. When they break they get repaired or taken away and striped for parts.
We may get pushed into it anyway once there's no such thing as cheap Asian manufacturing. When Asian developing countries catch up in terms of workers rights and wages everything will be more expensive so many people won't be able to afford to own half the stuff we do now.
Basically, we can't just tax fuel and expect that to fix the environment. The world needs to continue to be interconnected. We can reduce our consumption of products which would lead on to a reduction in energy and resource use but we will always need transportation. Technology has to be part of the answer for this and to create that technology we need a healthy economy. It's evolution not revolution.
There's any number of ways to fix the environment; there's certainly plenty of spare funds floating about...
https://twitter.com/IPS_DC/status/1176166758396420097
Well worth reading the whole thread, quite an eye opener!
However, in practical terms, how do you go about liberating those funds from the clenched fists of those rabid in their pursuit of wealth and power?
And how would you prevent those same issues under a service based economy?
One problem at a time! Human ambitions of wealth and power are as old as time.... I think the best we can hope for is to mitigate them. Create conditions where theres less justification for spending on defence etc.
Unfortunately things seem to be slipping in the opposite direction at the moment.
Maybe countries wouldn't own an army... Just rent one when they needed it. That's a joke by the way....
It's good joke 😄
Though of course, on top of the vast budgets (and huge carbon footprints) for official armed forces, there's also a huge industry in private contractors (basically mercenaries) like:
Aegis Defence Services
Control Risks
Dyncorp
Erinsys
Defion
KBR
Booz Allen Hamilton
GK Sierra
Academi
G4S
etc etc
More often than not, they are tied to the oil, gas and mining industries, along with aviation, transportation and banking interests...
And which country has the most ties to this murky industry?
There is corruption everywhere to some level. Linked to ambitions of power and wealth....
The "green revolution" is likely to be the next big thing for the power hungry to get their teeth into. If they haven't already taken a bite.
I work in the aviation industry (Airbus) and fully understand the effect it has on climate change, but am forced in some way to defend it, despite my personal choice to fly less, drive less, etc. Yes, aircraft emissions in the EU have increased by over 25% in he past 5 years, but passenger numbers have increased by over 35%. Net Co2 per kg has decreased substantially as airlines seek to use their aircraft more efficiently with more freight, less flights and higher capacity along with more efficient fuel usage and yes, better aircraft.
Electrification is not a solution for aircraft in their current guise. Combined energy density for propulsion and storage of an electric aircraft vs a kerosene powered one is approximately 1.5:10 in favour of Kerosene. Total CO2 production for a large electric aircraft would actually be substantially higher than for a modern A320Neo. If you then consider how fuel is used for load alleviation on aircraft structure into the equation, it rapidly becomes far far worse for electric.
So, tax. Whilst I agree that a huge, arbitrary tax would have a massive effect on both inflation, industry and the economy of places which rely on tourism, I still think there's a way it can be applied. You tax Landing Slots and business travel
Business travel accounts for only 12-15% of travel, but accounts for 75% of revenue and 30% of CO2. One of the main reasons for the proliferation of cheap air travel is the development\construction of new airports, with lots of cheap landing slots and heavy subsidies provided to the airlines in order to encourage hem to land there. A heavy levy on slots based on frequency of use would arrest this growth, stabalising it without killing off all travel.
One thing to also consider is that the current range of aircraft from Airbus and Boeing are not in any way optimised for the vast majority of missions they are often undertaking. When envisioned, Airbus was looking to sell a product which, in a single design, was capable of satisfying 90% of potential demand. This is due to the massive industrial and certification costs required to get a single design flying and the likelihood that those costs had to be recouped on sales of 500-1000 examples of the type.
But, and this is a testament to the versatility of the design, it is being used profitably on everything from routes of a few hundred miles to routes over 4000 miles. The less time it spends in cruise fight, the less efficient it becomes. Now with over 10000 built and 7000 on order and projections for new aircraft being 25000-40000 aircraft over the next 20 years....perhaps a multitude of products could be designed to meet demand, and perhaps only a ew of them would be so constrained as to need kerosene as primary fuel.
Your proposals open up avenues I was never aware of... sounds like there may be potential there;
Would it help reset the balance where domestic flights are cheaper than trains?
...certainly seems a key factor when you mention the relative efficiency of cruise flight
Also, when it comes to alternative fuels, what would the implications be for the release of water vapour?
The primary contributor to the greenhouse effect is clouds and water vapour:
Planes are a very efficient way of water vapour getting a free ride up to extreme altitudes...
The issue of contrails is interesting and one that could very well be addressed in the near future. Contrails are actually formed by ice formation around tiny soot particles from the engine exhausts. Soot is basiclly unburned fuel. This can be addressed by the much better combustion systems aero engines have these days that are tending towards lean burn and will achieve full lean burn within 10 years for new engine generations. Also fuel. There are significant developments in fuel that can significantly reduce the formation of soot particles to almost zero even without lean burn and this will basically eradicate contrails altogether. NASA is working on this in collaboration with many other countries aerospace administrations and with aircraft and engine companies and testing new fuels that deliver much reduced soot formation now. Give it a few more years and we could see new fuels hitting the skies reducing or eliminating contrails altogether.
Electrification is not a solution for aircraft in their current guise.
True and the real efficiencies are unlocked when the current design and configuration of aircraft is changed which more electrification will enable.
The current paradox is that in order to make aero engines more fuel efficient you have to increase the size of the fan. This makes it hard for airframers like Airbus and Boeing to really improve the aerodynamic design of the airframes because you have to hang these massive engines somewhere. This is largely why aircraft are the shape and configuration they are and haven't really changed. What electrification can do is mean you have much smaller and more efficient gas turbine cruise engines that are much more easily packaged in the aircraft, maybe buried in the fuselage, and for take off where you need additional thrust, you run some small electric motors running off batteries. These can then be shut down once you're in the cruise leaving it to the much smaller and cruise-optimised gas turbine engines to power the cruise.
Typically you're looking at upto 15% efficiency improvement from one aircraft generation to the next (roughly 10% from engines 5% from airframe) but by changing the configuration once we have hybrid technology this can suddenly unlock >20% efficiency improvement, maybe more.
All these concepts as well as alternative fuels are all being developed right now. Billions of dollars is being ploughed into the innovation by governments and companies like Airbus and Boeing and the engine manufacturers as well as a whole host of independent entrepreneurial companies and universities and the world of academia. Also we're looking at different ways airports and air traffic control can be changed and optimised to minimise the amount of time aircraft are in the air - more point to point flying rather than zig-zagging via beacons, less circling around congested airports. So much is being done and is delivering now with much much more to come in the coming years and decades, continually driving down the the growth rate in emissions relative to the growth in passenger traffic.
Another powerful thing is that aircraft lifespans are reducing. It used to be aircraft were in operation for 30 - 50 years, but now that is coming down to 20 years or even lower meaning the refresh rate of older less efficient aircraft with new significantly more efficient aircraft is increasing. This is being driven by Airline demand as such a large cost base of their businesses is fuel, so if you can save just half a percent of fuel costs it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually to an airline, so they are incentivised to refresh their fleets more often.
Anyone seen JHJ recently?
What does that have to do with the very serious issues of climate change and the impact of aviation and shipping?
Perhaps you're angling to cause a distraction, because you find it hard to justify your lifestyle?
Hmmm....
Daffy/ bms and wobbli good points there, and a number of things people forget is that efficient doesn't = less emissions its quite the opposite. I've recently been at a site looking at emissions a d look g at the data form burn curves and its been know for some time that at cruising speed aeroplanes produce more PN than they do at idle and full thrust, the same is similar for combustion engines.
The aviation and automotive worlds have come a long way, but there are some backwards steps due to media/political Intervention that have stalled progress.
Marine is the next big thing to fix, but when yoh change one thing you often have to change many others at great cost and not always with the intended consequences.