The Comittee on Climate Change (CCC) has released its Aviation Report with rather predictable conclusions. The aim of the report was to look at the implications for the aviation sector of the government’s target to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.
And the findings of the report? Basically, bio-fuels are a non-starter, technology will only have a limited impact and the only way the government will reach its target is through imposing “constraints” on passengers. This means looking at airport expansion and taxing passengers so much that some people won’t be able to afford to fly any more.
The most disappointing aspect of the report is that it recommends even more aviation taxes, but doesn’t look into the tax issue at all. The problem with imposing more taxes to combat emissions is that it is fairly futile if it is an action taken by the UK government alone. And yet it would be because too many other countries realise that constraining air travel also constrains the economy.
The report states that 66% of the UK’s aviation emissions come from long-haul flights. But look at the comments on an Australian weebsite regarding Air Passenger Duty:
If it would cost a family of 4 $700 more in the tax, how much difference would it cost for the same family to take the Channel Tunnel to Paris, and fly to Australia via Charles De Gaul ?
We Aussies can fly to Paris, or Frankfurt. Then take the train if we really want to go to the UK.
Simply fly from england to france and book another ticket to AU. Not that hard to work around when you think about it.
The UK is already starting to earn a reputation as a prohibitively expensive destination to fly to without even more taxes. Further taxation may reduce passenger numbers into the UK but if people just fly into Amsterdam or Paris and come on from there, how does that help the environment? It just damages the UK economy. It’s yet another expensive and thorough report funded by the tax payer with a bunch of inadequate recommendations.
