A 1000% tax on private jet flights would be nice too tho π€¨
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
164 points (96.6% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A carbon tax does a better job at incentivizing low-carbon alternatives at all scales, from trains and more efficient airplanes down to e-bikes.
the carbon tax for one kg should be set at 110% the cost to remove one kg, 100% to completely remove it, and 10% to help remove past emissions, which statistically the emitter probably emitted pre-tax anyways
The problem is that for fossil fuels, there is no good way to "completely remove" them. Most of the "carbon neutral" ads are plain greenwashing. But taxing it would be a good step nonetheless.
Put these taxes into research?
From what we know about physics and chemistry so far, it looks like there is no magical way to reverse this, that wouldn't require a huge amount of energy, resources and effort. Also, it's a bit to late to put money into research now. We know what to to do and how to "fix" things but we don't like the consequences so we (mostly) keep going as if nothing is wrong.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Most of the βcarbon neutralβ ads are plain greenwashing.
Well, there's some issues with carbon offsetting and the promises made by the involved companies. But that's more of a regulatory issue.
For now you can indeed offset your emissions very cheaply by paying NGOs like atmosfair (i.e. one of the NGOs that has working programs). What they do is finding issues where emissions can be avoided cheaply and then funding projects to avoid these emissions. Obviously, that wouldn't work if everyone (or even a large enough share) of people tried to offset their emissions, but right now and at the margin is a very efficient way to decrease emissions. Hence I wouldn't be too critical of it. Offsetting won't safe us in the long run, but it will buy us some time to implement sustainable solutions.
I don't know the details but how you describe it, it sounds like it doesn't reduce the emissions but shift them from one piece of paper to another one. Isn't that still exactly greenwashing? I pay someone to make a 3rd party reduce their emissions so that I can fill that gap again.
I pay someone to make a 3rd party reduce their emissions so that I can fill that gap again.
If you do that, sure, then we have a problem. But so do you, since you may end up in jail. If you call a product carbon neutral in your advertising, you'll need to have a reason to believe that all emissions from that product were offset, otherwise you're guilty of fraud. So - in the context of that product - there's no legal way to start emissions again. Obviously in practice there's a lot of wiggle room regarding what emissions can be attributed to your product and how well the offset works and you'll have in dubio pro reo on your side, but in principle offsetting actually erases the entire carbon footprint of a product.
We're not speaking about emission rights here. In those cases, yes, shifting them from one entity to another doesn't directly decrease emissions but it still helps since it makes emissions more expensive and therefore leads to companies looking for ways to avoid them.
Edit: The 3rd parties in case of emission offsetting don't tend to be limited by emission rights. We're talking about thing like giving solar cookers to farmers in the developing word. That example these people an option to avoid using coal and helps with the climate, but it also helps them avoid the health problems that come with coal fires.
You do not have linear costs of removal. Just letting nature be has no additional costs, but in the amount necessary extreme opportunity costs.
Technical systems might have a theoretical cost, but practically any energy put into removing CO2 from the atmosphere is much better put into not using fossil fuels to produce energy for a different purpose.
Meanwhile the cost estimates for the damages incurred are in regions of 200-500 β¬/tonne now. So unless we also properly tax imports and other countries also do carbon taxing, it will be the death to any industry.
An increasing carbon tax is an important instrument, but it can only be part of many measures, most importantly ramping up the renewable production by all means.
France is trying to set up something like that for electric vehicle.
They want to stop subsidizing electric car from China, but with European regulation they can't add a tariff according to the country.
So instead they the government will subsidize only electric vehicle that emitted less than X kg of CO2 for its production.
I think planes or to be precise their fuel aren't even taxed normally
We have the largest emission trading scheme in the world in the EU and it is actually working. The issue is that there are no taxes on international flights nor on kerosine. So flying is made artifically cheaper. That alone basicly would solve the problem.
The other big problem is that train tickets are not generally accepted across EU borders. That is a massive problem if one of your trains is delayed and you miss a connection due to that. You end up not being able to take an alternative train for free and do not get paid the normal fine from the train operator for long delays. There is some cooperation, so this is not the case for all international journeys, but still it is a problem.
The big oil companies support that because it would cost a lot of political capital. That means they can delay it as long as possible
That's true, but a carbon tax is politically more difficult to implement
What are they doing for the train interconnections and low price all over the union ? Nothing.
Oh nice
Instead of trying to lower prices for alternatives (e.g. trains), they just try to jack up prices for existing forms of transport, so that the other transports now seem cheaper. How about taxing the shit out of airlines and using that to get trains down to the price of what airlines charge now?
This is just again getting the mid- and low-income layers to pay for shit.
"I openly call for taxing polluting activities to invest in the ecological transition," said Beaune, adding that the government plans to increase the tax on flights departing France to fund rail investments.
I don't think it's entirely clear what he wants the EU to do, but it really seems like making other forms of transport cheaper is part the goal here.
Hence I think it's likely going to be a reasonable proposal. Making flights more expensive to pay for cheaper trains is a good way to go about it. The money for the trains to come from somewhere and flights are something people can live without.
Yes, if it is done in the right order. Make trains cheaper first, then add to the cost of airlines. Knowing politics it will be "We will now tax flights with an additonal X% and use that for alternative travels". Then, 10 years later, the "alternative travels" will be the same price but flying will be more expensive. I just do not trust politics anymore at all if they do not put the "lowering costs" part first.
Make trains cheaper first, then add to the cost of airlines.
Then you have a gap regarding financing. I.e. also a problem. Hence I really don't care about the order here. Both trains becoming cheaper and plains becoming more expensive are things that need to happen asap. I would prefer both to happen tomorrow, but if one happens later or not all all that's still better than nothing happening.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Who do you think they will pass on those costs? Basically all Airlines make their money on normal tickets and not on the class 1 tickets. What you really want are instead of 0% tax on Airplaine fuel, ridiculous taxes. That actually increases the COSTS of airlines and those do get passed on more to the rich as they travel a lot more inefficiently. They also can't evade costs, but they can taxes.
You might be misunderstanding my comment: They can increase costs if they want, but they should take the costs away elsewhere. I have no problem with a train ticket being 10β¬ and a plane ticket being 120β¬ instead of the other way around.
But this will lead to a plane ticket being (as an example) 80β¬ and the train ticket continuing to be 120β¬. While they do make more money off of 1st class and stuff, they still need to make a chunk of the cost off of 2nd class. Especially on more local (e.g. inside the country or just one over), where there often is just one class in the plane (And maybe there is business).
Is this secretly taxing the poorest again, while the richest feel no change?
The poorest don't fly at all
Poorest flyers.
So you want to price more people out of living good lives and being able to travel? What percentage of people do you want to be too poor to have a holiday?
view more: next βΊ