A spin-off from the renewable energy thread, and a personal annoyance of mine: how does everyone think aviation fuel should be taxed, with respect to the tax on petrol?

Whilst a lot of attention is paid towards vehical milage, particularly that of 4x4s and other larger cars, it is often ignored that, for instance, a family plane holiday to Florida will cause the same amount of carbon dioxide in just two flights as their car produces over the rest of the year. However, at the same time, they'll be paying a significant rate of duty on the petrol for their car, but nothing on the fuel for their flight.

The luxury of flying to Florida, here, is not taxed; whereas the petrol for the daily commute, the school run, the shopping is taxed. This, to me, makes no sense. Cheap flights are only cheap because aeroplane fuel is duty-free: a train would use much much less fuel, but it's usually cheaper to fly from London to Scotland than it is to get the train.

Using oil-derived fuel is bad, whether it's in a plane, a train or in a car. What I would like to see is a flat-rate environmental-levy on oil-derived fuel - so much per litre - applied to aviation fuel, petrol for cars, the fuel used by trains and so on. That way, at least, there will be a financial deterrant in place on means of travel which are fuel-inefficient; rather than the current situation, where one of the least fuel-efficient means of travel is often the cheapest.

Studies also show that pollutants released into the upper atmosphere are disproportionately more damaging than the same volume released at ground level. A good story about Heathrow here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,,1676162,00.html .

agree. the problem is the wider economy.

at the price of pushing the planet still further from supporting humanity nothing will be done. if this tax were imposed airlines will go under, the 'tourist industry' will go into recession with thousands of jobs lost and perhaps forcing recession on an already delicate economy.

at present consumption, oil will run out in about 15-20 years. politicians are unlikely to slap on a control, having blind faith that the scientists will realise a practical alternative before then.

i'm no doom person, just realistic. to deny the reality is irresponsible even if it does support current business and market pressures. like we knew about climate change in the 1980s but it was prefereable for politicians to choose mouthpieces from the scientific community who could support their weird logic [that 'because there's no evidence to support something, we're safe'] than from those who supported caution.

I agree it makes no sense....environmentally or economically. I recently flew to Dublin for 1p each way!!! I think everyone would understand if flights were more expensive.

On a personal note, I'm thinking of putting aviation fuel in my car to save on the tax!

I agree YAP. Even though prices would rocket, I think it'd do good so people'd pay attention to what they're doing to the planet, burning aeroplane fuels..

I'd definitely agree with putting up the prices; would probably have to be very gradual so as not to suddely collapse the tourist industry. It's not that they should be felt sorry for: they're just having things too cheaply; but we do need to protect them from going bankrupt.

Given that we can't do it suddenly and quickly we need to make a start....

I totally agree too. Coupled with this thread our food needs to come from nearer to our homes! How much money is wasted by flying and driving produce around the world? Some fruit travels more than I do in a year. It's stupid. Let's get back to having seasonal fruit and veg produced locally.

not only that, if aviation fule was taxed the cost of "normal fuel" would go down. well it might do, i dont know

Not a bad idea: tax both at half the current rate on petrol. I'd go for that .

We can all be optimistic. Every major automobile manufacturer is looking into the feasibility of producing hydrogen powered vehicles. hydrogen powered vehicles require a refueling infrastructure and researchers in the UK, US and elsewhere are setting up standards for compatibility and safety.

Much has been said by naysayers regarding the "explosion" of the airship Hindenburg. the Hindenburg did not explode, it burned. Hydrogen is safe to use; safer than gasoline. It is simply a new ball game with different rules.

When will these vehicles be available to the general public? I do not know, but many are being driven in California on a regular basis to test design and convenience.

If anyone is interested in obtaining more detailed information regarding hydrogen, Dr. Addison Bain of NASA would be a good person to contact.

Ray Baldwin

YAP, a per-liter tax would still favour avfuel because it's more refined than petrol for cars - so one liter of avfuel represents a bigger volume of crude than 1 liter of petrol. And wouldn't you tax plastics too, or just fuels derived from oil?

Pollution at high altitudes is obviously a problem - it's becoming clearer now because we have more, and more sophisticated high-altitude weather balloons (which are a problem in themselves, but never mind that), but it's still more at the level of questions raised than answers given. Also noise control laws and increased air traffic have encouraged aircraft to fly at higher altitudes than they used to - not to mention the fact that passengers get a calmer ride, and to some extent the lower friction must increase fuel efficiency.

The other point is whether pollution per person carried is higher for air travel or surface travel, since planes typcially carry more people than most surface transport.

A lot of flying doesn't really come under the heading of luxury travel - it's not all trips to Disneyland - while equally, most of us could travel to school and work using public transport, bicycles, or shank's pony. Not that I recommend an average commuting time of 70-90 minutes each way as is the case in the greater Tokyo area (and as is the case for me, and soon for poor old Viohazard too), but obviously it's possible.

JohnS, isn't it ironic that affordable cars and rapid public mass transport is what has made cities so big that they no longer have enough arable land around them to be self-supporting? I've been discussing this issue with my horticulture students over the past few years, as the current trend for grower-to-door produce, which looks so homegrown and eco-friendly, has also promoted a huge increase in highly polluting diesel-fueled small trucks zipping inefficient loads of fresh organic veggies round the country.

Anyway, I must take my aviation hat off and go and put my general translator hat on!

Spotted the following in this morning's news


Chef Raymond Blanc has called on the government to promote organic, British-produced food.
Mass-produced, additive-packed food had "undermined" the family, creating more ignorance of cookery and causing bad behaviour in children.

Mr Blanc told BBC Two's The Daily Politics: "We are facing a nightmare."

He also called for tax to be levied on the airline fuel used to transport food to the UK from abroad, to encourage "a more sustainable form of farming".