Amazon.com Widgets

Should aviation fuel for domestic and international flights be taxed to combat climate change?

  • Tax all hydrocarbons

    Yes, it should be taxed. Tax all hydrocarbon fuels according to how much pollution (including CO2) they produce, this negates the commends about how this would encourage driving causing deaths/congestion/etc. In many cases flying is more fuel efficient compared to driving, so increasing taxes on both would actually incentivize flying where it is in fact the right choice. People arguing against climate change based on 'the facts' are inventing their own facts. Reference scientific consensus please and stop wasting our time, unless you have a relevant PhD.

  • Tax all hydrocarbons

    Yes, it should be taxed. Tax all hydrocarbon fuels according to how much pollution (including CO2) they produce, this negates the commends about how this would encourage driving causing deaths/congestion/etc. In many cases flying is more fuel efficient compared to driving, so increasing taxes on both would actually incentivize flying where it is in fact the right choice. People arguing against climate change based on 'the facts' are inventing their own facts. Reference scientific consensus please and stop wasting our time, unless you have a relevant PhD.

  • Tax all hydrocarbons

    Yes, it should be taxed. Tax all hydrocarbon fuels according to how much pollution (including CO2) they produce, this negates the commends about how this would encourage driving causing deaths/congestion/etc. In many cases flying is more fuel efficient compared to driving, so increasing taxes on both would actually incentivize flying where it is in fact the right choice. People arguing against climate change based on 'the facts' are inventing their own facts. Reference scientific consensus please and stop wasting our time, unless you have a relevant PhD.

  • Yes, like the fuel used for other means of transport

    The only reason it isn't taxed is because the airlines can play off countries against each other. Long haul operators from Europe often divert via the Middle East for this reason. Long standing international conventions are very hard to change but this distorts our whole lifestyle. It's cheaper to take a packaged holiday 2,000 miles away than one 100 miles away and that's crazy.

  • This is an obvious yes

    The vast majority of existing flights are arguably unnecessary, and those which are truly necessary can pay a price better representing the global impact of such travel.

    Given what we know today about climate change and its causes, it seems utterly irresponsible for the general population to afford traveling around the planet for short-term entertainment and overnight "business meetings", it's utterly insane.

    Spend the money on education and local business development, stop flying people around, make your local population valuable.

  • If other fuels are taxed why not aviation fuel?

    Aviation is a small but one of the fastest growing sector of fossil fuel use and global GHG emissions. Aviation is also the choice form of transport for the wealthier sectors of global society who are the most able to deal with climate change issues. To tackle climate change lifestyle choices must change and increasing the cost of the less efficient forms of transport should be a top priority. Increasing fuel costs for airlines would reduce flights thereby reducing emissions, reducing pressures to build new airports and provides further incentives for airlines and plane manufacturers to increase efficiencies. It makes very little sense to allow aviation to go untaxed when fuel for cars and other vehicles is often heavily taxed and the effects of burning that fuel is so much worse than the benefits gained.

  • I agree with this because Aircraft are the worst polluters.

    I agree that there should be more taxes placed on flights within or out of this country. A pilot had recently said on a flight that the airplane averages 1 mile to the gallon and for a flight lasting 600 miles, that's a lot of fuel burned and pollution going on.

    Posted by: BoundlessHomer49
  • I support taxation of aviation fuel, because consumers should be charged for the pollution they cause.

    Aviation fuel, as well as all other fossil fuels, should be taxed for their carbon content to combat climate change. Currently, greenhouse gases, mostly from carbon, are putting a hole in the ozone layer and are building up in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise. Reducing these emissions is critical for the environment. But, if consumers refuse to take more eco-friendly forms of transportation, a carbon tax should be implemented to endow bio-fuels research and other environment-protecting causes.

    Posted by: SmellyMorgan
  • Yes, climate change must be fought and a tax to reflect the costs of climate change is appropriate.

    Traveling by air, burning petroleum fuel, is a very carbon-intensive means of transportation, and this is an externally which is currently not reflected in the cost of the fuel. This cost should be imposed via taxation, which could reduce the usage of aviation fuel and provide funds which could be used to offset the effects of climate change or for research into carbon sequestration projects.

    Posted by: tacomoon
  • Aviation contributes a disproportionate share to climate change, so should pay accordingly.

    Flying is a very energetically inefficient method of travel, even with how tightly people can be packed. Aviation thus contributes a disproportionate amount of CO2. It also alters cloud formation in the upper atmosphere which has been changing local climate patterns (contributing to warmer nights, for instance) and puts additional pollutants into the air. We can't completely ban flying, but we could better equalize its paid cost (the amount people pay to fly or have goods shipped, which would be impacted by the airlines having to pay more for fuel) to its actual cost (increased flooding from climate change, etc...) to mitigate its effects somewhat.

    Posted by: waggyzoodog
  • Aviation is an important part of the economic system, and it should not be unduly punished with taxes.

    Aviation is a very important part of the world economy. If aviation fuel is unfairly taxed, then it will have negative side effects on economic activity that will hurt certain employees. You cannot tax the world into fighting global warming.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • I do not believe aviation fuel for domestic and international flights should be taxed, because it will only lead to a decrease in the appeal of traveling.

    Aviation fuel for domestic and international flight should not be taxed to combat climate change. Taxing aviation fuel will lead to an increase in flight prices. In a time where money is tight and people are looking for bargains, not many people will be willing to pay for higher flight tickets. If anything, this will lead to lower efficiency, because flights will go the same distance, use the same amount of fuel, but have less people on board.

    Posted by: PlausibleHerschel43
  • I oppose an additional tax on aviation fuel, because flying is often a superior and safer choice for travel.

    I don't think a surcharge on aviation fuel is a good idea because, ultimately, the cost will be passed on to consumers. I don't think we need any more factors that discourage flying as a form of travel. Air flight is safer than driving, so a surcharge could end up costing lives.

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • Aviation fuel for domestic and international flights should not be taxed to combat climate change, because there is no evidence to support that man is causing climate change.

    First, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that climate change is being caused by man. Climate change has always, and will continue to, happen on this planet. Secondly, taxation is just not a good idea. We all know when the government levees a new tax on a cooperation that it will always be passed down to the consumer in one way or another. The government needs to stop taking everyone's hard earned money.

    Posted by: SulkyEzekiel
  • I am against taxing aviation fuel to combat climate change.

    I am against taxes of any kind. I don't see how taxing aviation fuel will help fight climate change. Money is not going to combat climate change, but rather each individual can combat climate change by making small changes in their daily lives. Personally, I don't see climate change as a big problem, but even if I did, taxing aviation fuel would not be my choice of ways to combat it.

    Posted by: OrgyDressy
  • No, aviation fuel should not be taxed; flying is better than driving.

    If aviation fuel is taxed, airlines will simply pass the increased expenses on to the consumer, thereby reducing demand and encouraging consumers to drive instead of fly, which will do just as much to create climate change. Instead of an aviation fuel tax, we should impose an RV fuel tax, so people driving their football-field-long RVs across the country while towing their SUVs behind will think about flying next time.

    Posted by: R3ciP3Saye
  • No, this would be another cost that would be passed on to the consumer.

    Although it's a good idea to find a way to perhaps clean up the fuel and its emissions, taxing that fuel would just be another cost passed on to consumers and it wouldn't help anything. Taxing the fuel will not help the airline industry, it will hurt them because fewer people will fly but the flights will still run. People are getting sick of all of the hassles of flying; from restrictions on what they can bring to being charged for luggage, to delayed flights. It's too expensive already, and this would surely be passed on to the consumer/passenger.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • No, I don't believe that fuel for domestic and international flights should be taxed to combat climate change because that will cost consumers more money and will decrease revenues for airlines which in turn, will cause layoffs.

    I do not believe that aviation fuel for domestic and international flights should be taxed to combat climate change because that will be passed on to consumers in higher ticket prices which in turn will lead to decreased revenues for the airlines, which will lead to layoffs. Also, climate change/global warming is unproven, and I don't believe it is happening.

    Posted by: MycCra2ii
  • I oppose additional taxation of industry for climate change programs because I believe it is inherently wrong to tax for a fallacy.

    I don't agree with all of this excessive taxation of industries. It is not a proven fact no matter how well argued, that man made climate change exists. Just because governments and scientists seek to convince its peoples that it is so does not mean we should blindly follow its initiatives. Businesses are suffering as it is and it is wrong to look for any and all ways to seek to increase tax revenue because spending is not reined in. This is a global economy and it leads to businesses globally suffering the effects of all this burdensome taxation.

    Posted by: g0ggleslife
  • In many cases flying is much more efficient use of fuel than driving and therefore should be encouraged not taxed.

    Public airlines should not be taxed as it is a more efficient way to travel per passenger mile than private automobiles. Therefore, it should be kept affordable and encouraged. Private planes and corporate planes should, however, be taxed for the fuel they consume and that part of their expense should not be written off. Most likely the plane is a tax write off so they should pay something for the use of public air space!

    Posted by: vempyrik 66

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.