Why isn’t there tax on aviation (or shipping) fuel?

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…

A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation.

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.

The primary contributor to the greenhouse effect is clouds and water vapour:

Sorry to be pedantic but I don’t think that’s strictly correct. Contrails are the contributer to global warming not normal clouds, normal clouds have a net cooling effect, at the moment. Maybe planes should fly lower!

Fair point, NASA scientists agree with you for the most part so I ain’t gonna argue.

Certainly a factor that could do with more publicity…

A more likely scenario, Burkhardt says, is that levels of soot and contrail cirrus clouds will continue to rise. That’s because most aviation regulations and pollution-reduction plans fail to consider the climate impact from anything other than CO2 emissions. A United Nations scheme, for example, requires all signatory nations to keep their CO2 emissions under a certain level, and report them annually, but says nothing about the climate impact from contrails.

Woohoo!

I’ve also read before that in pre clean air act days, due to the increased particulates in the atmosphere there were more clouds which increased the cooling effect. Having looked at the NASA report, it seems very complex so I’m not sure if the old report I read is accurate or not.

Talking about particulates, I saw something recently saying scientists think the reason for a sudden drop in global temperature a few hundred millenia ago was dust floating about near the asteroid belt dimming the sun, which later lead to an ice age. They also suggested humans could create some more dust up there to cool the earth…. You can see that going wrong and the whole place freezing solid….

Talking about particulates, I saw something recently saying scientists think the reason for a sudden drop in global temperature a few hundred millenia ago was dust floating about near the asteroid belt dimming the sun, which later lead to an ice age.

Maybe on Ceres…

Well I never, so ET’s hoover bag is potent enough to freeze the planet!!

Tried reading the report, but Birger Schmitz is clearly very clever indeed, so it’s a bit hard to get your head around…

However, it’s backed up by core samples going back 4 million years

(Worth noting that that article is from the good old days of New Scientist, before it was taken over by TI Media, which also owns MBR (Mountain Bike Rider), Cycling Weekly, Marie Claire, Womans Own, TV Times etc etc)

Sir Bernard Gray is highly relevant to all of this, given his deep ties to the defence industry

The Committee has been asked to advice on an application from Sir Bernard Gray. He would like to take up a new role with the New Scientist as Executive Chairman.

Sir Bernard was Chief of Defence Material (CDM) in Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) between 3 January 2011 and 30 November 2015. His last day in Crown service was 31 December 2015. As CDM Sir Bernard ran the MoD’s procurement organisation responsible for the vast majority of spend on new equipment and supporting existing equipment.

Not forgetting of course:

Fact #1: The U.S. military creates more carbon emissions than most entire countries do.

In fact, it's the single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. (2/8)

— Institute for Policy Studies (@IPS_DC) September 23, 2019

Space Dust Ice Age

NASA on Clouds – Even the experts aren’t sure

The unfortunate consequence of human nature is that the idea of just cutting America’s defence budget to combat climate change is a gross over simplification. As soon as America was seen to be weakened the vultures would move in upsetting the current balance and leading to an unstable and unpredictable period.

No matter the flaws of America as a global power, having some sort of stable world order actually allows countries to get on with other things, like tackling climate change. If that changes, if Russia saw the opportunity to roll it’s tanks into former Soviet countries, which Putin would love to do, if China saw the opportunity to stamp authority over south East Asia… The chaos that would follow would not be a benefit to anyone.

If you want an example of instability slowing progress just look at the constitutional wrangling that’s been going on in Scotland for the past decade, or the lost time that Brexit has created.

The thing that really concerns me is that as the debate over climate becomes more emotional, more fraught, the proposed solutions become more extreme. We could end up with some knee jerk reaction that creates very negative consequences.

I would say brexit is an example of emotion being used by leaders to influence public into a decision that wasn’t fully thought through and is leading to unforseen consequences. And then things just get more polarised, more partisan and it’s virtually impossible for a rational decision to be made.

Agree with much of what you’ve said there; Brexit to me seems like a perfect exercise in distraction, via a divide and conquer strategy, albeit with consequences they may not have foreseen from the outset.

However…

No matter the flaws of America as a global power, having some sort of stable world order actually allows countries to get on with other things, like tackling climate change.

Given the militarized nature of that power, this is paradoxical

On a more positive note Ireland just commited to planting 440 million trees!

Should probably start donating to Trees For Life.

Trees!

Yes it is a bit paradoxical…. Nothing is ever black and white. Empires, even if created by force, have generally always lead to stability that benefits the subjects/citizens when compared to the unstable situations before and after the empire. America is basically a new age empire.

I would suggest you read Sapiens if you haven’t already.

In many respects, trees do seem a good solution; in addition to reducing levels of CO2 and providing plenty of shade, I’d imagine they will also help reduce levels of water vapour (albeit not at 40,000 ft), though it’s wise to remain vigilant when it comes to PR spin…

If Each of Us Planted a Tree, Would It Slow Global Warming?

Ask a physicist: Just how much carbon could 7.5 billion new trees pull out of the atmosphere?

Also helps with soil erosion, biodiversity etc etc

You and your water vapour! 😉 What effect do e-cig vapers have on global warming then!

Yep, good on many fronts, but unfortunately, probably not good enough in isolation…

Probably not enough no. But if a small country like Ireland can plant 440 million….

The calculation for a comparable density of trees by land area for the whole globe is pretty incomprehensible. Something like 37615386 million trees.

Would be interesting to see a calculation of the net positive effect of trees to cost. That takes into account energy and resources required for planting… And then seeing this compared to other methods of reducing global warming

That’d certainly help with trail building… trees make a hell of a lot of difference when it comes to vegetation management; it’s been quite a shock trying to maintain our local riding spot with all that unimpeded photosynthesis going on.

If you wanna know the environmental effects of e-cigs, Ken Clarke would be the chap to ask; remember picking up a letter to him from British American Tobacco many moons ago when I was a bike courier in that there big smoky city

Of course, Ken Clarke is also well versed in many of the other matters raised in this thread, but we’ll leave that for another day…

Would it help reset the balance where domestic flights are cheaper than trains?

What about the cloud of black shit that a diesel train throws out every time it pulls out of a station? That concerns me more than CO2 emissions.

Or a point blank refusal from the government to consider investment in electrification of lines outside of London, or battery-powered trains, or emissions regulations, or driver training on efficiency, or new rolling stock, or sensible timetables at weekends, or…

Of course, Ken Clarke is also well versed in many of the other matters raised in this thread, but we’ll leave that for another day…

There are also problems closer to home – Prestwick

Good find!

Rumour has it that all sorts of dodgy business goes on all around the world with military aircraft…

But but before we stray too far off topic, in addition to the obvious conflict of interest of HMG’s arms procurer steering New Scientist, check out this new study from Scientists for Global Responsibility:

How fossil fuel and arms corporations finance professional engineering and science organisations

This report reveals a previously unrecognised pattern of financial links between the fossil fuel and arms industries on the one hand, and some of the UK’s leading professional engineering and science organisations on the other. The links revealed include funding and branding of school education programmes, sponsorship of prestige conferences and dinners, investments, major donations, and corporate membership. The professional organisations that received the most significant funding from these controversial industries were the Royal Academy of Engineering, EngineeringUK and the Energy Institute.

It shows that some of the most influential professional engineering and science organisations prominently and, at times, preferentially promoted the fossil fuel and arms sectors. This is despite these industries having serious ethical shortcomings, such as failing to take the necessary scale of action to reduce carbon emissions or continuing to export weapons that fuel conflict and human rights abuses.

The reality of that is a bit more mundane than the article makes out I think. It’s not at all surprising that large corporations use sponsorship to try and attract new talent. They all want the best new graduates to go and work for them, so if the likes of BAE, Babcock and BP are cooperating with universities, setting up placement programs, and working with professional engineering bodies I would consider that pretty normal.

These companies aren’t going to disappear over night and the engineering that they are involved with is cutting edge. It would be one of those knee jerk reactions I was talking about if we as a country tried to put them out of business. We should be collectively moving towards clean energy and we need these engineering companies to be on board. And we actually need fossil fuels to help us make that transition.

It’s not oil companies or arms companies that are the problem. It’s us, society. It’s just easier to point the finger at big bad corporations.

And one point I can’t resist… Arms companies selling weapons that fuel conflict and human rights abuses… what about arms used by peacekeeping forces? There’s always more than one side to the coin and articles like that are loaded with bias.

They all want the best new graduates to go and work for them, so if the likes of BAE, Babcock and BP are cooperating with universities, setting up placement programs, and working with professional engineering bodies I would consider that pretty normal.

However, those same graduates could be doing far more proactive careers in the sustainable and clean energy market, which for some reason doesn’t have anything like the funding, or corporate backing…

It’s by no means a knee jerk reaction when their largest markets are all heavily involved in the continued expansion of the oil industry, which is intrinsically tied to the ‘defence’ industry:

Fact #2: "For much of the past century, a major function of the military has been to secure access for US-based companies to fossil fuel resources in the Middle East and elsewhere."

Our military doesn't just burn through endless fuel, it does so to find more fuel to burn. (3/8)

— Institute for Policy Studies (@IPS_DC) September 23, 2019

In terms of it being a problem with us all, a big part of that problem is that there is not sufficient awareness, for whatever reason (The example of Sir Bernard Gray may give us some indication of why that might be).

Why do peacekeeping forces need arms?

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

Not necessarily have a watch of this for details on chilled/frozen produce transport. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0008zkc/what-britain-buys-and-sells-in-a-day-series-1-1-fruit-and-veg

Second programme is on tonight concerning fish.

Peacekeepers have arms because if they didn’t they would most likely get murdered. The world isn’t all smiles and cotton wool. And don’t say if we didn’t sell arms then the bad guys wouldn’t be able to murder the peacekeepers… When there’s a will there’s a way, unfortunately there’s a lot of bad will.

So are you suggesting countries like the US and UK should just shut down their military and stop all oil and glass operations immediately?

It is a pity there isn’t more opportunities for graduates in renewables, I’m sure that will change. The simple fact is oil and gas is more profitable so they can afford to sponsor universities and things.

So are you suggesting countries like the US and UK should just shut down their military and stop all oil and glass operations immediately?

Not at all, though in the long term, that would of course reap huge benefits for the entire planet and several species along with our own.

You may have noticed from the thread title that this is an exploration of some of the wider issues surrounding why there isn’t tax on aviation and shipping fuel, which is at the core of so many of the wider problems we all contribute to and even those not contributing still face.

Yes.. I am aware. But you keep on referencing things relating to arms companies, military and business people.

Clearly you have read something that’s suggesting a sinister link between these things. Where as I just see a supply chain and humans behaving like humans.

If you’re suggesting the reason theres no air or marine fuel tax is militaries use a lot of fuel… That’s paradoxical. Who collects tax? The government. Who pays for the military? The government.

And America pretty much supplies itself with oil and gas so they would just be taxing themselves.

If the US pretty much supplies itself with oil and gas, why the need for such an extensive global military presence?

Of course, assuming the best, it could be for humanitarian purposes, however, it never quite seems to work out that way, for whatever reason.

On top of that, let’s not forget that recently there’s been talk of escalation because a Saudi Oil Installation was attacked…

It’s fairly recent. One of the reasons Trump is so keen on fracking and oil exploration. No more reliance on the Middle East.

US oil

Western involvement in the Middle East is a complex thing, it’s been going on for longer than the oil industry but it’s always been about power, money and influence.

The global military presence is to project power, protect their interests, support their allies and ward off their adverseries. Because they’re protecting their status as the dominant nation and they don’t want someone upsetting the apple cart.

So in addition to being among the highest in both energy consumption and C02 emissions (in both absolute and per capita terms) the US is now a net oil exporter?

Wonder how they transport it internationally…

Fairies