There’s been a fair few threads recently on how cheap flying is compared to other transport, especially considering its environmental impact…

So why does aviation fuel escape taxation?

What would the pros and cons be of tax being charged on aviation and shipping fuel, which are both basically untaxed?

Because political vote garnering.

There is Air Passenger Duty, maybe goes some way towards a tax on air travel. The Scottish Government was looking to reduce that but reversed that policy earlier this year over environmental concerns.

Thing is though, planes carry far more than just passengers!

And as for ships…

https://www.endingaviationfueltaxexemption.eu/

Sign the petition if you think it should be taxed!

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.

Which is why we need co-ordinated international action, just as we’ve seen with sulphur emissions from shipping

Can see there is potential for exploitation… however, though I’m not overly familiar with all the legal wrangling involved, surely there’s some means of ensuring a fairly level playing field internationally?

On the flipside, what positives could we expect?

surely there’s some means of ensuring a fairly level playing field internationally?

Given the current political attitude toward our neighbours, (not to mention how keen the current govt is to not tread on the toes of big business) how easy do you think parity will be to achieve?

Well, if Greta Thunberg can get such immense international media coverage in such a short space of time, you’d imagine it’d be pretty easy to apply the pressure required to make it happen…

Because political vote garnering.

This…

&

All food and goods would go up by the cost of the tax.

HTHs

So essentially, what we currently have is a subsidy on global transport…

As regards food going up, what if you shifted the subsidy from the transport, to the food itself?

Being as transport shifts far more than just food around the only planet we have, surely that’d mean an increase in funds to speed the transition to renewables?

Yeah, you just have to accept that literally every import will cost more. I can see that going well.

Banning bunker fuel would have a far greater impact. Would still cost more but would at least burn cleaner.

you just have to accept that literally every import will cost more

So it’s basically Brexit with reduced emissions?

So essentially, what we currently have is a subsidy on global transport…

No. We don’t have a tax.

Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy

Tax aviasion

I was surprised where it was taxed.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/05/10/exclusive-report-is-it-high-time-airlines-paid-tax-on-fuel/

Except it would be worldwide and probably get undermined due to economic pressures in the far east.

Ffs we already have one trip containers because its too much effort to load a ship going that way anyway.

Whilst what you propose is noble its also extremely unlikely to happen if it hampers the free flow of goods from east to west. You would literally have to restructure the entire planets economies and there are major powers that wouldn’t stand for that.

The reality is you’d significantly increase the cost base of airlines and cause almost all airlines to go bankrupt overnight as most are in a constant state of teetering on the brink of bankruptcy mainly due to the cost of fuel which accounts for about 75% of the cost base of an airline. This would significantly disrupt the global economy, probably triggering a global recession. All this isn’t going to do the overall cause of tackling climate change much good at all. The cost to tackle global climate change will be many many trillions of dollars, so maintaining a strong and growing global economy is key to dealing with climate change and every other issue that faces mankind, and must be maintained. And key to tackling global climate change is to drag impoverished nations up out of poverty and turn them into developed nations with educated affluent middle classes and the global aviation industry is key to this. The trick/challenge is to decarbonise the global economy whilst keeping it productive so we can fund the insanely expensive issue of tackling climate change.

The issue of tackling global climate change is not easy. It is going to require intelligent thinking and approaches. Not knee jerk reactions. It will happen though choice and not punitive taxes. If we destroy the global economy then how are you going to fund the technical innovation that will ultimately solve the problem?

Tax aviasion

Bravo 👍

So, you want massive inflation – go ahead.

Also, what happens to countries that are highly reliant on tourism? You’re just going to hang those out to dry?

I’m a liberal with a small and large L, but I find it increasingly hard to agree with people who claim to be the same, but want to excessively tax and control literally everything.

JP

Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy

Rather than demanding mass punishment of everyone why don’t you put some effort in doing something constructive yourself? I know it requires more effort than asking other people to do something, but you might find it rewarding.

It’s not a vote winner. It’s simple. No need to get all Environmental about it.

Those brexiteers who moved to Spain to retire on UK pensions only want to pay £49 to get back to the UK for Xmas and pay £47 to go back to Malaga.

They ain’t coming back (thankfully) to live in the UK, but want all the benefits without all those nasty foreign folks pissing about with their dwindling pensions..

Asking them to pay £61 is like… well…. Treason innit.

You’d better start thinking about other ways to “tax” airlines because it’s not going to change…

Ever.

As for Shipping?

Same, but this time it’s slightly more complex since the UK imports most of its food… and you don’t want to pay moar for your Israeli grown salad or pomegranates do you.

I’d tax LyingBloHard for all those flights he’s getting in to far off lands before he gets handed a very hard slap for lying to everyone.

Flying accounts for somewhere between 2 and 5% of global co2 emissions.

Energy production is the highest polluter. Chinese coal fired power generation being the worst.

Maybe flying isn’t as bad as charging your batteries or buying more cheap shit from China.

How does the stuff from China get here? (and everywhere else in the world)

CFH flies a lot….

I wouldn’t try rationalising it with him.

The answer is simple.

All countries ban their people from travelling, stop import and export.

Yes, I can see where that’s heading … 😃

Take back sovereignty eh…

How does the stuff from China get here? (and everywhere else in the world)

The vast majority on massive container ships:

Not got much idea how environmentally friendly they are but when you consider how much they carry, then per ton they’re probably not much different to an average lorry.

Perishable food you have to fly in but most stuff comes in by seafreight.

It may have escaped your notice but even small groups of countries who have good trading links and relationships aren’t particularly good at agreeing and sticking to universal models of taxation.

Even if the EU had a rate, what stops Jersey, the IOM, Turkey, Morocco, Norway etc suddenly becoming very attractive places to refuel? Even if you somehow persuaded every country to apply an equal level of duty you haven’t stopped a country opening ports/airports that are heavily subsidised by reinvesting the tax they get. Taxation as an economic driver to behaviour change only works if the net price changes and there is a credible alternative. Taxation as a way of raising money to reinvest in “green” tech only helps if those making the investment decisions have accepted the need, measure it against the right criteria and do so fairly. If you believe the whole world operates taxation and reinvestment fairly then I suggest you need to get out your bubble – perhaps by doing a bit of travelling…

Won’t really work and will have negative environmental consequences, as aircraft will just tanker fuel in from their previous destination, planned to touch down at their maximum landing weight. Roughly 10% of this extra fuel will be burned simply to carry it. Depending on how much the tax is, airlines might find it more economic to land in Europe and refuel there, or even not continue to the UK at all.

Even if the EU had a rate, what stops Jersey, the IOM, Turkey, Morocco, Norway etc suddenly becoming very attractive places to refuel?

How does the fuel get there in the 1st place?

How does the fuel get there in the 1st place?

It’s bought at international market rate and then brought in by ship. Any duty is paid on import, not export (assuming any oil producing countries would agree to taxing at source).

So being a (polluting) physical commodity, rather than just numbers on a computer screen, it’d be harder for heads of state (and other global capitalists) to exploit offshore tax havens?

Course, it’d increase the running costs of superyachts n suchlike too…

There is fuel duty (excise) on marine and aviation, but it is linked to personal use (pleasure craft, private planes), these is for all types of fuels, JET, Diesel, Marine diesel (same now anyway).

The reason it’s hard to Tax fuel on commercial flights is because of the rules around taxation, where tax is applied in the place that the product is consumed and you are not allowed to double tax (excise) energy products (VAT and import duty doesn’t count in this scenario). As the “vehicle” is likely to transit multiple tax authority jurisdictions, it would be impossible to part pay for the fuel used in that jurisdiction. Likewise, each country is able to set their own excise rates (there are minimum amounts in the EU) and this would lead to “opportunistic” enterprises springing up which may not necessarily be discouraged by that local jurisdiction. Yes a co-ordinated global agreement could fix that, but lets face it the globe has not been at odds with each other more than it is now for 30 odd years!!

Also, as has been said, adding the minimum €0.07/L that you in theory would need to charge in Europe to aviation would kill the industry and lead to a financial meltdown.

Not got much idea how environmentally friendly they are but when you consider how much they carry, then per ton they’re probably not much different to an average lorry.

They are way more efficient than lorries.

Yes they burn huge amounts of fuel, typically between 100 and 200 tonnes per day, depending on size and speed. But the biggest ones can carry over 20,000 containers. A lorry can carry 2.

Banning bunker fuel would have a far greater impact. Would still cost more but would at least burn cleaner.

This is very true, however, bunker fuel is basically a waste/by product of the oil refining process. What will happen to it if shipping doesn’t burn it?

I’m not a petro chemist and I have no idea if it’s possible to do anything else with it that wouldn’t pollute?

So trillions can be siphoned out of the system to offshore accounts, yet meanwhile, a tax (that’d inject money into the economy) to aid the transition from fossil fuels and reduce emissions (which would in turn impact the global transport of said fuels and reduce the incessant flow of disposable consumer goods that plunder resources, only to clog landfill and waterways) would crash the economy?

Crazy world, huh

Well, if Greta Thunberg can get such immense international media coverage in such a short space of time, you’d imagine it’d be pretty easy to apply the pressure required to make it happen…

Well she’s visible but is she really making a difference? I mean she’s missed even more school to berate world leaders but are they really taking much notice?

Anyway my own thought on implementing air emissions tax is that you can’t really rely on nation states or the Air industry I think it has to be driven from the “Top” so a UN body (under their Economic and Social Council?) imposing a global per mile tax based on an emissions assessment of each model of aircraft (from fixed wing prop-driven to 400+ seater passenger jets and all points in between) using filed flight plans (and thus distance travelled) as the basis for calculating the tax bill (per aircraft/operator/registered owner) paid direct to that UN body (in USD?).

They would be responsible for investing the derived revenues in their own operating costs and of course in climate control projects and subject to scrutiny/governance by the UN.

You can’t rely on individual countries to operate local emissions taxes as it will be corrupted by politicians trying to attract air transport business, the air industry can’t play poacher and game keeper either. It has to be a global body and there are only a few of those about.

As a tax all flight operators would have to bare, yes it would be passed on to customers but it should be proportionate to distance (being mileage based) so it’s a fixed and entirely forecastable cost for the airline.

By charging the aircraft operator directly you don’t have to rely on different regions/countries applying varying duties on say fuel, so they can buy their fuel where and when they like, and it’s only when they burn it to actually fly somewhere they incur a charge. It also serves to increase the relative cost of operating low/no occupancy flights so airlines might start to look at cutting the fat from their schedules…

Dunno how you’d apply it to military aircraft but something similar should be possible…

I would be in favour of a similar model for cars and shipping even trains, any transport that burns hydrocarbons…

Discuss.