Aviation 'huge threat to CO2 aim'
Discussion
If the government target of a 60% cut in Co2 emissions by 2050 is to be met, all other activities in the UK will have to have ZERO CO2 emissions by that point due to the forecast expansion in air travel.
This reveals yet again the colossal hypocrisy of Labour 'environmentalism' if climate change is a priority for them why not tax aviation fuel, perhaps through an EU wide agreement to avoid making British airliners uncompetitive?.
Full BBC article below
Aviation 'huge threat to CO2 aim'
Aviation is blamed for causing much of the UK's pollution
If the rapid growth in air travel is not curbed UK households and businesses will have to cut carbon dioxide emissions to zero, a report has warned.
The action is needed if the government aim of reducing emissions by 60% before 2050 is to be met, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research argues.
It says ignoring aviation has led to a "serious underestimation" of what is needed to combat climate change.
Ministers say UK air passenger numbers will rise from 180m to 475m by 2030.
'International competitiveness'
The report warns that even halving aviation's current growth rate would leave huge cuts to be made elsewhere.
"If the UK government does not curb aviation growth, all other sectors of the economy will eventually be forced to become carbon neutral," said Dr Kevin Anderson, who led the research at the Manchester University research centre.
"It will undermine the international competitiveness of UK industry."
Under current rules, aviation and shipping are not considered part of a country's CO2 output, but the researchers urged ministers to change this.
Aviation is considered especially polluting because of the large amount of fuel used at high altitude.
Road transport
The findings are part of a five-year study by the Manchester University's Tyndall Centre into CO2 emissions over the next 45 years.
The report, Decarbonising the UK, describes ways of cutting CO2 emissions from road transport, housing, industry and coal-fired power stations.
It also looks at the role of renewable energy, nuclear power and hydrogen fuel in providing low carbon energy supply.
The government's target of a 60% cut in CO2 is based on the amount in the atmosphere that scientists say is safe to avoid dangerous climate change.
This reveals yet again the colossal hypocrisy of Labour 'environmentalism' if climate change is a priority for them why not tax aviation fuel, perhaps through an EU wide agreement to avoid making British airliners uncompetitive?.
Full BBC article below
Aviation 'huge threat to CO2 aim'
Aviation is blamed for causing much of the UK's pollution
If the rapid growth in air travel is not curbed UK households and businesses will have to cut carbon dioxide emissions to zero, a report has warned.
The action is needed if the government aim of reducing emissions by 60% before 2050 is to be met, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research argues.
It says ignoring aviation has led to a "serious underestimation" of what is needed to combat climate change.
Ministers say UK air passenger numbers will rise from 180m to 475m by 2030.
'International competitiveness'
The report warns that even halving aviation's current growth rate would leave huge cuts to be made elsewhere.
"If the UK government does not curb aviation growth, all other sectors of the economy will eventually be forced to become carbon neutral," said Dr Kevin Anderson, who led the research at the Manchester University research centre.
"It will undermine the international competitiveness of UK industry."
Under current rules, aviation and shipping are not considered part of a country's CO2 output, but the researchers urged ministers to change this.
Aviation is considered especially polluting because of the large amount of fuel used at high altitude.
Road transport
The findings are part of a five-year study by the Manchester University's Tyndall Centre into CO2 emissions over the next 45 years.
The report, Decarbonising the UK, describes ways of cutting CO2 emissions from road transport, housing, industry and coal-fired power stations.
It also looks at the role of renewable energy, nuclear power and hydrogen fuel in providing low carbon energy supply.
The government's target of a 60% cut in CO2 is based on the amount in the atmosphere that scientists say is safe to avoid dangerous climate change.
JagLover said:
If the government target of a 60% cut in Co2 emissions by 2050 is to be met, all other activities in the UK will have to have ZERO CO2 emissions by that point due to the forecast expansion in air travel.
That's a bit of a
er, exactly how long do they want us to hold our breath for? 
We just need the fat useless bu99ers in Whitehall and in the House (and all of their ilk worldwide) to keep their mouths shut for the next 5 years and that will reduce the hot air exhausting to the atmosphere and thus get rid of all the so-called CO² problem, then we can continue to burn up and down the autobahns and fly when and where we please 
I've thought for some time that it is absolutely stupid to allow people to fly around Europe for £10 when aviation is such a massive polluter.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
unrepentant said:
I've thought for some time that it is absolutely stupid to allow people to fly around Europe for £10 when aviation is such a massive polluter.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
I completely agree, the cost of aviation should reflect it's environmental impact.
unrepentant said:
I've thought for some time that it is absolutely stupid to allow people to fly around Europe for £10 when aviation is such a massive polluter.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
Might I be sold bold as to suggest that rather than equalising duties up, that petrol duty should be massively reduced as cars are not significant polluters.
And that governments have no business in controlling the movement of private individuals so to refer to people being 'allowed' to fly around Europe sends a chill down my spine. Perhaps we should have a Soviet style state where we need to apply for permission to leave the country?
Finally had you not noticed that tax taking off and landing taxes are a significant cost of flying? About £25 within Europe and £50 flying outside of Europe?
On a £10 flight taxes of £25 getting added, makes a 150% tax rate already, before the VAT is added.
JagLover said:
unrepentant said:
I've thought for some time that it is absolutely stupid to allow people to fly around Europe for £10 when aviation is such a massive polluter.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
I completely agree, the cost of aviation should reflect it's environmental impact.
So do I, BUT if the fuel was taxed then the result would be that it gets purchased abroad instead. The only way would be for an international level playing field which won't happen, so we're stuck
Edited to add - read posts fully before posting in future
>> Edited by RIchardD on Wednesday 21st September 11:39
RIchardD said:
So do I, BUT if the fuel was taxed then the result would be that it gets purchased abroad instead. The only way would be for an international level playing field which won't happen, so we're stuck
Which is why I suggested it should be done through an EU wide agreement.
unrepentant said:
I've thought for some time that it is absolutely stupid to allow people to fly around Europe for £10 when aviation is such a massive polluter.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
Agreed that putting residues high in the atmosphere is possibly worse than lower down BUT
do you really expect me to drive 13-14 hours to get to London in an efficient car burning x amount of fuel, or take longer in an inneficient train burning x² amount of fuel per bum/mile or in a relatively efficient plane at x-minus amount of fuel per bum/mile????? GET REAL!!!!!
JagLover said:
The government's target of a 60% cut in CO2 is based on the amount in the atmosphere that scientists say is safe to avoid dangerous climate change.
Total utter b*llsh*t.
The hyping of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect hypothesis into a tangible fact, which is then cynically used by politicians worldwide to excuse everything from industrial subsidies to stealth taxes is one of the most amazing examples of the misuse of statistics the world has ever witnessed.
JagLover said:
So do I, BUT if the fuel was taxed then the result would be that it gets purchased abroad instead. The only way would be for an international level playing field which won't happen, so we're stuck
Which is why I suggested it should be done through an EU wide agreement.
Which is in place anyway, so Lufthansa and Swiss flights drop down into the Ukraine to tank up before flying on back to base in the EU area?????????
I know, why don't we all throw away our nasty aeroplanes? While we are at it, we should get rid of those foul cars and motorcycles. Why don't we close down all industry, all fossil fuel production, all nuclear fuel production, ban internal combustion engines, grass over the roads and ban everybody from living in anything but one bedroomed flats. We must stop meat production, or the use of products derived from animals, so that they don't have to suffer. We definitely shouldn't allow our crops to be subjected to any form of fertiliser or pesticide.
These people won't be happy until humanity is returned to living in caves and eating berries.
These people won't be happy until humanity is returned to living in caves and eating berries.
Mon Ami Mate said:
I know, why don't we all throw away our nasty aeroplanes? While we are at it, we should get rid of those foul cars and motorcycles. Why don't we close down all industry, all fossil fuel production, all nuclear fuel production, ban internal combustion engines, grass over the roads and ban everybody from living in anything but one bedroomed flats. We must stop meat production, or the use of products derived from animals, so that they don't have to suffer. We definitely shouldn't allow our crops to be subjected to any form of fertiliser or pesticide.
These people won't be happy until humanity is returned to living in caves and eating berries.
And and on the basis of an unproven deeply flawed but popular hypothesis.
JMGS4 said:
I've thought for some time that it is absolutely stupid to allow people to fly around Europe for £10 when aviation is such a massive polluter.
We are hammered tax wise for the petrol we put in our cars and yet aviation fuel, which is far more damaging to the environment, is hardly taxed at all.
It's bonkers.
Agreed that putting residues high in the atmosphere is possibly worse than lower down BUT
do you really expect me to drive 13-14 hours to get to London in an efficient car burning x amount of fuel, or take longer in an inneficient train burning x² amount of fuel per bum/mile or in a relatively efficient plane at x-minus amount of fuel per bum/mile????? GET REAL!!!!!
I agree. I'm just saying that air travel should be priced realistically in comparison to other forms of transport. A friend of mine flew from Leeds to Exeter for £1 each way. That's mad. If airlines had to pay the fuel taxes that we pay for our cars they couldn't do that. If it means that a few less chavs can go to the costas then sobeit.
Mon Ami Mate said:
I know, why don't we all throw away our nasty aeroplanes? While we are at it, we should get rid of those foul cars and motorcycles. Why don't we close down all industry, all fossil fuel production, all nuclear fuel production, ban internal combustion engines, grass over the roads and ban everybody from living in anything but one bedroomed flats. We must stop meat production, or the use of products derived from animals, so that they don't have to suffer. We definitely shouldn't allow our crops to be subjected to any form of fertiliser or pesticide.
These people won't be happy until humanity is returned to living in caves and eating berries.
Many Lentilists have this agenda yes, but the scientists in question are simply pointing out that based on projected growth in air travel there is a severe problem for the government’s aim of reducing Co2 emissions. This affects all of us if cars are expected to make up part of the shortfall.
What is wrong with the principle of taxing aviation fuel at the same rate as Car fuel?
>> Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 21st September 11:51
JagLover said:
What is wrong with the principle of taxing aviation fuel at the same rate as Car fuel?
>> Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 21st September 11:51
The fact that the rate of tax on Car fuel is scandelous, and should be reduced rather than putting the tax on aviation fuel up to the same ridiculous level, that's what.
The proposed growth in air travel is highly optimistic at best......Mr Darling's white paper for the expansion of UK airports is overkill in most areas.....but if they want to shoot themselves in the foot with the lentlists....that's thier problem.....when they drop it on the shoulders of the airlines ,though.....see it filter down to you,Joe Public and wait for the inevitable crys of 'it's not fair' when you family holiday or stag party in Prague become financially unviable due to ticket cost and ultimately customer choice, down to lack of destinations because of cuts due to cost per mile/surcharges etc........I for one like an affordable holiday abroad.....but no doubt there a few affluent people who will always be there to say 'i'm alright Jack'...and ....'but at least we've cut CO2 levels,taxed those nasty airlines and got rid of the riff-raff element'
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff