Getting in an airplane long ago ceased to be anything remotely resembling a luxury experience. But in recent years, it has become something else as well — a largely unavoidable form of “climate sin.” Although aviation is a relatively slim sliver of global carbon emissions — around 2.5 percent — at the personal level, it carries an enormous footprint practically unmatched by any other individual action. (Avoiding an international flight from New York City to London, for example, could save 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide from spewing into the atmosphere — about double the effect of going vegan for a year.) The climate activist Greta Thunberg once opted to take a high-speed racing yacht across the Atlantic rather than get in a plane; in her home country, Swedes have started using the word flygskam, which means “flying shame.”
But despite the efforts of activists and climate scientists, most people are unlikely to give up flying. A new report by the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation suggests another way forward: A global tax on those who fly the most — the proceeds of which could be used to fund research and development into emissions-free aviation fuels.
“We’re saying ‘If you want to fly more, that’s fine,’” said Sola Zheng, a researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation and the lead author of the report. “You’ve just got to pay a bit more.”
The report suggests a frequent flier tax that starts on the second flight each individual takes per year, at a rate of $9. It would then steadily ratchet up, reaching $177 for the 20th flight in a single year. (A “flight” in this case, is a single take off and landing — that is, half of a round trip.) For most Americans — who take two or fewer flights per year — the tax would cost about the same as buying a drink and a bag of chips at the airport. But business travelers and other frequent fliers racking up dozens of flights every 12 months would face steeper costs.
Such a tax, according to the study, could fully fund the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable aviation fuel. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization — the United Nations agency that coordinates international air travel — switching to sustainable fuels and making other aircraft efficiency improvements will cost around $121 billion per year until 2050. (Sustainable aviation fuels, which are biofuels made from things like corn, oil and grease, do exist but cost two to five times more than equivalent jet fuels made from fossil fuels).
It’s an elegant-seeming solution for what has, at times, looked like an intractable problem. Despite their large carbon footprints, medium- or long-haul flights (often defined as flights lasting more than three or four hours), have few viable alternatives. Unlike Thunberg, most people can’t snag a ultrafast yacht to cross the Atlantic Ocean. In the United States, swearing off flying entirely means consigning oneself to a life without much international travel and without the ability to easily visit family members across the country.
But flying is also highly unequal. In the United States, research has shown that just 12 percent of people take 66 percent of the flights. Globally, that picture is even starker: According to the ICCT report, low-income countries constitute 9 percent of the world’s population but only take 0.4 percent of the world’s flights.
Zheng says that the tiered tax has the benefit of allowing lower-income people, who generally fly less, to still be able to take one or two flights a year relatively cheaply. “It’s not trying to create an unbearable burden for anybody,” she said. Zheng argues that people in developing and poorer countries should still be able to fly cheaply, so that they can enjoy the benefits of air travel, like tourism and cross-cultural experiences.
According to the study, the top 10 percent of earners worldwide would account for 90 percent of the tax revenue. That is far better, Zheng argues, than something like a flat tax, which would charge every person around $25 per flight. Although the authors didn’t attempt to include private jet travel, due to a lack of data, Zheng said that including a similar tax for those using private jets could further shift the burden to the world’s wealthiest consumers.
And because the tax is levied per flight — instead of per mile traveled or per kilogram of carbon dioxide emitted — it also could have the added benefit of encouraging travelers to take trains or other forms of transportation for short-haul trips. Consumers might try to “save” their plane fares for longer trips, like transatlantic flights, where there are truly no good alternatives.
At the moment, the report is just an idea — not a full-blown policy proposal. The International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, only just announced its long-term goal for getting fossil fuels out of aviation, aiming to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Implementation of a global tax would be challenging, to say the least; it would require international coordination and a centralized system to track passports and other forms of identification to count how many times each person flies.
But Zheng says it shows a way forward that doesn’t rely on a complete halt to flying — and that doesn’t add to the burdens on low-income citizens. Some countries have already considered similar policies: The United Kingdom, for example, has a flat tax for short- and long-haul flights, but some climate groups have suggested that tax be replaced by a tiered frequent flier levy.
“If you wanted to raise money for decarbonization, this is one way to do it,” Zheng said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/10/10/frequent-flyer-tax-aviation/
2022-10-10 13:00:00Z
CAIiEL5j-fgEE1mawWMzVwc5LoQqGAgEKg8IACoHCAowjtSUCjC30XQw0fe8Bg
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Frequent fliers are a problem for the planet. Should they pay more? - The Washington Post"
Post a Comment