There have been more rumblings in the aviation world lately about having airlines account for their carbon emissions. Last week, the EU announced their plans to begin instituting a carbon trading program for all flights coming into and out of EU airspace. If the plan is approved, Grist reports, "airlines will have to cut emissions 3 percent in 2012 and 5 percent per year from 2013 on."
Meanwhile Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Group put forth an interesting idea at the Global Humanitarian Forum last week: Make dirty businesses pay a carbon-emissions tax on their pollution. The AP has the details...
"If you run a dirty business — an airline business, a shipping business, ... coal business, you should pay for the privilege because you are doing damage," Branson said.
Former UN Secretary Kofi Annan concurred, seeking "climate justice" for the poor, who often bear the brunt of the ecological damage (see: the rice crisis facing many impoverished nations).
I think these are smart ideas. With all the confusion about carbon emissions and the best way to offset them, it stands to reason that the onus of paying for them should not lie only on the traveler (in the form of higher ticket prices, and extra fees). If the airlines were taxed and regulated based on their carbon output, there would be a lot more incentives for them to find cleaner ways to fly. That, and the carbon offsets would apply to all passengers, versus the two, or ten, or twenty who choose to voluntarily offset using a calculator of some kind.
But that's my opinion, I'd be interested to hear what you think. Let us know in the comments below.
Photo: Virgin America
The problem with businesses being charged a carbon tax is that the cost ends up coming out of consumers' pockets -- not the company shareholders or executives. Let's not pretend it's going to be a penalty for the company.
That being said, if people are using "dirty" services, then they should have to pay more. More for their gas-guzzling vehicles, more for their luxury homes, and more for their private jets.
Posted by: Eliza | July 02, 2008 at 03:12 PM
I'm complete agree. We should fight this situation.
Posted by: amosgitai | July 02, 2008 at 03:52 PM
I say tax them like the government tax cigarettes. If we're able to determine that cigarettes are bad for our personal health, when are people going to realize that carbon emission is bad for the planet? It took awhile to put the Surgeon General's warning on the packaging...let's see how long it takes to do something about the pollution.
Posted by: Mike | July 02, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Branson is right. Carbon tax on flights. Yes, Eliza, the airlines will push the cost down to consumers. But that's the point of a tax. To connect the people upstream to the damage downstream. If it produces less flying, well, that's less damage to the environment. That's how a well designed tax should work.
This assumes that you can put a price on offsets and that offsets work to infinity, rather than being only so effective for so long. I'm an economist, not a climatologist, so I don't know if that's a good assumption or not.
Posted by: ML Harris | July 03, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Why don't we all just stay home with the lights off and never go anywhere or make anything again? It would be SO GOOD for the environment! And we could just give all the money we aren't spending to the government, because they know best how to spend it...
This is the sort of proposal you make when you know you're rich enough to pay for airline tickets and cars and gas and computers and appliances and the energy to run them no matter how high taxes go.
Posted by: PearlsMom | July 03, 2008 at 01:28 PM
Perhaps a better way would be an environmental tax on people in the higher income bracket. This way the poor will still be able to use planes.
Posted by: Hotels in Amsterdam | July 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM