Air Passenger Duty for such a flight is currently £40, and will be £150 from November 2010, so it's currently about right, and the increase is not necessary.
Disagree. That price is already factored in. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere, this needs to be added on *top* of already existing duties.
I think tax is one of many strategies that could be use. I personally like cap-and-trade better, because it directly rewards firms that go beyond the absolute minimum, and directly limits the maximum output. It even lets those who wish to spend more to reduce carbon to do so (buy purchasing emission credits, and not using them.)
The simple fact is that to reduce carbon *will* cause some pain. To limit it to cars, either the population drives less, replaces current vehicles with ones that emit less carbon, or some combination. By definition, this is an economic harm.
I do agree that puritanism isn't the right answer unless we're dealing with an immediate catastrophe -- say, multiple meter sea level rises in 3-10 year timeframes.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-11 10:46 am (UTC)Disagree. That price is already factored in. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere, this needs to be added on *top* of already existing duties.
I think tax is one of many strategies that could be use. I personally like cap-and-trade better, because it directly rewards firms that go beyond the absolute minimum, and directly limits the maximum output. It even lets those who wish to spend more to reduce carbon to do so (buy purchasing emission credits, and not using them.)
The simple fact is that to reduce carbon *will* cause some pain. To limit it to cars, either the population drives less, replaces current vehicles with ones that emit less carbon, or some combination. By definition, this is an economic harm.
I do agree that puritanism isn't the right answer unless we're dealing with an immediate catastrophe -- say, multiple meter sea level rises in 3-10 year timeframes.