EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax(argusmedia.com)
argusmedia.com
EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax
264 comments
I'm pretty sure the significance of a proposed bill is rather different from the EU than in typical democratic countries like say the UK, US or Canada. In most democracies any elected politician can propose a bill, and so they often do purely as a form of showboating to the electorate even if there's no chance it'll get passed. Within the EU, only the small, powerful and very much non-elected European Commission can propose new laws, and they don't generally have anyone to showboat to - as a general rule, I think if they propose something it's done with the intention of it becoming law and it usually does unless there's some actual, strong, substantial objection to it from some other group with the power to stop it.
The commission proposes, then both council (= national governments) and the directly elected European parliament each develop their own position on this basis. Each of those two positions is already a compromise between the different national and political groups.
The three organizations then meet in trilogue and hammer out compromises ('trilogue') with the commission facilitating but ultimately having little say on the outcome, except to block where something violates the EU treaties.
Ultimately both Parliament and council (at minister level) have to vote and agree before it becomes law.
So indeed lots still to be done and this is likely an attempt to already offer a compromise and will be reasoned (e.g. exempting these might be a small sacrifice if it gets a compromise that covers 99.9% of flights) - but given how visible this is it seems unlikely to stay in as Parliament will rally against it. You can also expect some egalitarian and green countries (Sweden, Finland, if the greens fet into government in the coming election even Germany) to already kill this in the council position.
The three organizations then meet in trilogue and hammer out compromises ('trilogue') with the commission facilitating but ultimately having little say on the outcome, except to block where something violates the EU treaties.
Ultimately both Parliament and council (at minister level) have to vote and agree before it becomes law.
So indeed lots still to be done and this is likely an attempt to already offer a compromise and will be reasoned (e.g. exempting these might be a small sacrifice if it gets a compromise that covers 99.9% of flights) - but given how visible this is it seems unlikely to stay in as Parliament will rally against it. You can also expect some egalitarian and green countries (Sweden, Finland, if the greens fet into government in the coming election even Germany) to already kill this in the council position.
> very much non-elected European Commission
They are proposed by the elected governments of the member states, and approved by a majority vote from the directly-elected European parliament.
It is very misleading to suggest that the Commission is completely unelected, like the British House of Lords is for example (in the "typical democratic UK"). It's not comparable.
> some other group with the power to stop it
You mean like the directly-elected European parliament, that needs to vote on it?
They are proposed by the elected governments of the member states, and approved by a majority vote from the directly-elected European parliament.
It is very misleading to suggest that the Commission is completely unelected, like the British House of Lords is for example (in the "typical democratic UK"). It's not comparable.
> some other group with the power to stop it
You mean like the directly-elected European parliament, that needs to vote on it?
That's how it works in theory, according to the treaties.
In reality the head of the Commission has a lot of power over who the commissioners are and have developed a habit of placing many criteria upon national governments in whom they may appoint. The most obvious example of this is the way Jean-Claude Juncker illegally and secretly rejected candidates many times, against the treaties. This only became public because he bragged about it when telling countries that they would not be allowed to nominate conservative Euroskeptics to Commission jobs. He said:
“Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments”.
Note: this is totally illegal by treaty. As normal, nobody cares. The EU violates its own treaties regularly, this is just one more way.
This system has now become institutionalized. For example vDL has required that half the commissioners be women and have rejected individual countries proposals, in order to get that. There have been quotas for women in the past too, just less than 50%. In theory this is not possible, in practice it is.
As for the European Parliament, it's useless. It doesn't make laws, so elections to it devolve into pantomimes with candidates all explaining that their policy is either to strongly agree with whatever the Commission wants to do, or to just oppose everything. The level of democratic respect it garners was indicated by how it was totally bypassed last time - in theory, the head of the Commission is voted on by the EU Parliament. So what happens: they were given only one candidate on the list to vote for, vDL.
A puppet pseudo-Parliament in which parties cannot have any policies, is not a real check on anything. It is a form of makeup covering the uglyness within, nothing more.
In reality the head of the Commission has a lot of power over who the commissioners are and have developed a habit of placing many criteria upon national governments in whom they may appoint. The most obvious example of this is the way Jean-Claude Juncker illegally and secretly rejected candidates many times, against the treaties. This only became public because he bragged about it when telling countries that they would not be allowed to nominate conservative Euroskeptics to Commission jobs. He said:
“Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments”.
Note: this is totally illegal by treaty. As normal, nobody cares. The EU violates its own treaties regularly, this is just one more way.
This system has now become institutionalized. For example vDL has required that half the commissioners be women and have rejected individual countries proposals, in order to get that. There have been quotas for women in the past too, just less than 50%. In theory this is not possible, in practice it is.
As for the European Parliament, it's useless. It doesn't make laws, so elections to it devolve into pantomimes with candidates all explaining that their policy is either to strongly agree with whatever the Commission wants to do, or to just oppose everything. The level of democratic respect it garners was indicated by how it was totally bypassed last time - in theory, the head of the Commission is voted on by the EU Parliament. So what happens: they were given only one candidate on the list to vote for, vDL.
A puppet pseudo-Parliament in which parties cannot have any policies, is not a real check on anything. It is a form of makeup covering the uglyness within, nothing more.
I think this information is something more people should be exposed to.
> Private jets will enjoy an exemption through classification of "business aviation" as the use of aircraft by firms for carriage of passengers or goods as an "aid to the conduct of their business", if generally considered not for public hire.
> A further exemption is given for "pleasure" flights whereby an aircraft is used for "personal or recreational" purposes not associated with a business or professional use.
Surely they can afford it more than everyone else flying?
> A further exemption is given for "pleasure" flights whereby an aircraft is used for "personal or recreational" purposes not associated with a business or professional use.
Surely they can afford it more than everyone else flying?
I don't understand the business aviation exemption at all. Why does it matter that the flight is being conducted to "aid to the conduct of their business"? And how is that different from other passenger flights?
What about ICE, do companies also not have to pay the Ökosteuer (green tax) on gas in Germany?
What about ICE, do companies also not have to pay the Ökosteuer (green tax) on gas in Germany?
Unlike what the mass outrage here makes you believe, this is a reasonable exception. Because non-commercial flights (business and hobby) already pay local taxes like VAT and excise on the fuel.
The thing is that fuel commercial aviation is exempt from tax due to historic regulations. The EU is proposing to change that by taxing jet fuel for those users. So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax.
The thing is that fuel commercial aviation is exempt from tax due to historic regulations. The EU is proposing to change that by taxing jet fuel for those users. So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax.
"So it makes total sense that they exclude those that already pay tax on their fuel from this new tax."
How do the numbers compare?
How do the numbers compare?
Differs per country, especially excise can vary a lot.
The proposal is for a minimum tax on jet fuel for commercial flights to still start at zero and then increase the minimum tax every year. So I'm expecting it to be below VAT + excise.
The proposal is for a minimum tax on jet fuel for commercial flights to still start at zero and then increase the minimum tax every year. So I'm expecting it to be below VAT + excise.
So shouldn't they simply enumerate the exceptions that they want to remove instead?
That and it's also the most wasteful use of fuel, because you're lifting an entire jet and crew for more than likely a single rich jerk who feels too special to fly passenger jets like everyone else. On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst.
If the only ones allowed to emit net positive CO2 where those rich enough to afford private planes global warming wouldn't be an issue because there are not enough of them.
It is still a evil corrupt practice to except the rich like this though. The same laws need to apply to everyone, which means my time on an airplane counts for as much as anyone else even though I can only afford to fly at all because I buy one seat on a commercial plane once in a while. Either everyone can't fly, everyone can, or at least the same rules apply.
It is still a evil corrupt practice to except the rich like this though. The same laws need to apply to everyone, which means my time on an airplane counts for as much as anyone else even though I can only afford to fly at all because I buy one seat on a commercial plane once in a while. Either everyone can't fly, everyone can, or at least the same rules apply.
And it's not even about forbidding them to so it. It's just about paying a little bit of taxes.
Is the fuel taxes such a big part of the cost of flying a private jet?
Is it just that those people hate paying taxes on principle (and manage to lobby for it)?
Is the fuel taxes such a big part of the cost of flying a private jet?
Is it just that those people hate paying taxes on principle (and manage to lobby for it)?
In Europe, people flying private are overlapping with those sitting in the parliaments.
True but those people are usually not the ones paying for them anyway
It is either government, or C level executives in large companies. Nobody else can afford to fly private jets. Even if you fill your private jet with others it is still cheaper to fly first class commercial. I've looked into it, engineers can't afford it unless their company is paying for it.
I follow Formula One drivers on social media, and they regularly posts photos of themselves on private planes. Well technically these are charters, but at the end of the day it's just them and their friends/family on each of these flights.
Paid for by their sponsors.
Got a citation, or are you just being a know-it-all?
Sure, at the end of the day their paycheck is money that came from their sponsors, but I'm pretty sure they mostly pay for the flights themselves. Many drivers live in Monaco, so they've even shared a chartered private jet going to some races and back.
Or I've even seen a driver take his wife and kids to vacation from Switzerland to Finland, on a private plane, with no sponsors being tagged in the Instagram story (but well, let me guess, you're going to tell me I'm being advertised to in other ways).
Sure, at the end of the day their paycheck is money that came from their sponsors, but I'm pretty sure they mostly pay for the flights themselves. Many drivers live in Monaco, so they've even shared a chartered private jet going to some races and back.
Or I've even seen a driver take his wife and kids to vacation from Switzerland to Finland, on a private plane, with no sponsors being tagged in the Instagram story (but well, let me guess, you're going to tell me I'm being advertised to in other ways).
The know-it-all.
Though sports figures are more likely to take private planes in general. [When] They have the high income to support it, they also have a need to get between many different cities fairly quick, and not all those cities have good commercial connections.
Thus racers are rich enough to support private planes - via their sponsors. Most people don't have that kind of income.
Though sports figures are more likely to take private planes in general. [When] They have the high income to support it, they also have a need to get between many different cities fairly quick, and not all those cities have good commercial connections.
Thus racers are rich enough to support private planes - via their sponsors. Most people don't have that kind of income.
I'm fairly certain that dominating costs of a private jet besides the initial purchase price are the maintenance and employing a flight crew.
Fuel price is probably a rounding error in comparison (they get a few miles per gallon). Edit - some quick Googling suggests that jet fuel costs $1.96/gallon in the US at the end of last week.
Jets aren't cars, you can't just change the oil every 3 months and have it run for years.
Fuel price is probably a rounding error in comparison (they get a few miles per gallon). Edit - some quick Googling suggests that jet fuel costs $1.96/gallon in the US at the end of last week.
Jets aren't cars, you can't just change the oil every 3 months and have it run for years.
Fuel costs are a large component of private jet ownership costs. I found a great chart that breaks it all down: https://www.libertyjet.com/jet-ownership-costs.aspx?jetType=...
Interesting.
So, not a rounding error, but it's still only 20% of the cost. The fuel estimate I had in my comment was for a smaller jet though (7 or 8 passenger).
So, not a rounding error, but it's still only 20% of the cost. The fuel estimate I had in my comment was for a smaller jet though (7 or 8 passenger).
thanks for this, it's an interesting data point, but I would be willing to bet that the 99.9% who don't own private jets don't care because if you can afford a private jet you can afford the taxes for that private jet and should include them in your purchase decisions.
If you’re interested in having the same laws apply, airline fuel is already exempted from most taxes in most jurisdictions. (It is in the US.) I think this proposal is trying to align business aviation to the same taxation as commercial, not to give business aviation a specific tax break not enjoyed by others.
Private jets are completely irrelevant to global warming because there are not enough of them.
They’re a convenient distraction from the problem that actually curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class. Not just the super-rich.
They’re a convenient distraction from the problem that actually curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class. Not just the super-rich.
> Private jets are completely irrelevant to global warming because there are not enough of them.
They probably are irrelevant, so why exempt them?
> actually curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class. Not just the super-rich.
I'm of the impression that "middle class lifestyle" itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains. If we electrify industry and transport, the bulk of the problem goes away (as I understand it) and the effects on the middle class are pretty transparent apart from choices to fund the transition to clean energy (e.g., to what extent does the middle class pay for the transition rather than the super rich). In other words, the average middle class lifestyle isn't significantly impacted by whether their goods are manufactured, refined, transported, etc with clean energy or dirty energy.
I get the distinct impression that the "middle class lifestyles will change dramatically" is frequently a euphemism for "we must go full-vegan" by people who are anti-meat. But meat production in the US accounts for only 8% of (co2-equivalent) emissions and those emissions are largely methane and nitrous oxide which dissipate quickly relative to co2 (12 years for methane vs 300-1000 years for co2).
They probably are irrelevant, so why exempt them?
> actually curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class. Not just the super-rich.
I'm of the impression that "middle class lifestyle" itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains. If we electrify industry and transport, the bulk of the problem goes away (as I understand it) and the effects on the middle class are pretty transparent apart from choices to fund the transition to clean energy (e.g., to what extent does the middle class pay for the transition rather than the super rich). In other words, the average middle class lifestyle isn't significantly impacted by whether their goods are manufactured, refined, transported, etc with clean energy or dirty energy.
I get the distinct impression that the "middle class lifestyles will change dramatically" is frequently a euphemism for "we must go full-vegan" by people who are anti-meat. But meat production in the US accounts for only 8% of (co2-equivalent) emissions and those emissions are largely methane and nitrous oxide which dissipate quickly relative to co2 (12 years for methane vs 300-1000 years for co2).
> itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains.
Manufacture and supply chains (and services for that matter) that provide to the middle class. At least that's my interpretation of the parent's point.
Manufacture and supply chains (and services for that matter) that provide to the middle class. At least that's my interpretation of the parent's point.
Right, and my point is that the middleclass lifestyle doesn't care whether those industries/supply-chains are fueled by solar or fossil fuel.
You're right except, they will when the price goes up. I think that's the implication here - middle class would have to adjust their lifestyles to good/services that are no longer cheap.
That’s the “who pays for it?” political decision I was alluding to in my original post. Besides, today our economy is optimized around the assumption that pollution is free—as we learn to optimize around a carbon constraint, we will find some efficiencies here and there which will reduce the “cost” of sustainability (“cost” is in quotes because pollution is just cooking the books and it’s weird to characterize “not fraud” as a “cost”). Moreover, even if you’re of the persuasion that wealth redistribution doesn’t really work and the costs will still trickle down to the middle class, that’s still better than runaway warming.
No, they doesn't care, but "middleclass lifestyle" is only available for a fifth of the world, and the remaining four fifth want to partake to. And they slowly do.
The total installed renewable electricity capacity was greater than the totla installed fossil capacity for the first time in 2020. It was not replacing old fossil capacity, it was just added to the mix. And capacity != production, so i guess it's even worse than that.
The total installed renewable electricity capacity was greater than the totla installed fossil capacity for the first time in 2020. It was not replacing old fossil capacity, it was just added to the mix. And capacity != production, so i guess it's even worse than that.
It’s even worse than that because we not only need to replace existing electrical energy production but we need to electrify sectors that aren’t electrified at all i.e. heavy industry and transportation.
> They probably are irrelevant, so why exempt them?
Because not exempting them may make it harder to pass the bill?
Because not exempting them may make it harder to pass the bill?
This attitude is how corruption begins.
Honestly how much would this tax even affect the super rich? If you're rich enough to afford a private jet are you really scrutinizing your fuel bill?
A significant portion of the super-rich believe they are super-rich because they scrutinize bills and are thrifty/smart with money. "If only everyone else was as smart with their money they could be as rich as I am..."
Interestingly enough the reverse is true: not being aware about your expenses is a surefire way to make sure you don't get rich. But scrutinizing bills in itself is not sufficient that get rich.
I don't think this is even true. Lots of people get rich on luck, i.e., inheritance or other connections to wealthy people, or else they happened to come into stock (e.g., employed at a startup) that beat the odds significantly. Of course, one has to spend less than he earns to stay rich, but even that doesn't demand scrutinizing one's expenses--one could simply be content or conservative or minimalist.
I'm not aware of my expensive and i'm becoming rich, so i guess it isn't true if you work in tech.
Maybe I give them too much credit, but I have to think that this is a caricature of the super-rich. Specifically I have to think they understand finances enough or at least pay people who do to know that tax on their private fuel is negligible. Maybe I'm naive.
Flights from Paris to Munich are also irrelevant to global warming in isolation, but they don't get a special tax cutout.
Yes, they are probably irrelevant, but how people are going to accept to change their lifestyle when the wealthiest do not, the message sent to the population has not an irrelevant effect I think.
> Private jets are completely irrelevant
Every amount of pollution counts, otherwise we could also claim that a single individual makes 0 difference.
Every amount of pollution counts, otherwise we could also claim that a single individual makes 0 difference.
With 8 billion people, it's difficult to allocate responsibility in a way that doesn't round to zero. Worst kind of tragedy of the commons.
One person accounts for 0.0000000125% of humanity.
If we consider such number small enough to be rounded to zero we are implicitly allowing homicide.
If we consider such number small enough to be rounded to zero we are implicitly allowing homicide.
Fairness and the perception of fairness is not a distraction. If anything, behavior now, where the most privileged who can pay insignificantly more are given a pass, is terribly damaging.
It portends a future where only the lower classes shoulder the burden of reductions in quality of life to manage climate change.
Which is, of course, what's going to happen.
It portends a future where only the lower classes shoulder the burden of reductions in quality of life to manage climate change.
Which is, of course, what's going to happen.
Every single flight in isolation is completely irrelevant. So what?
I don't care, lead by example. We pay taxes on our fuel to be wage slaves for these muckety muck, the least they can do is not ask for handouts.
Its all the same CO2. Everyone has to do their bit.
Not at all the super-rich seems more like the intended trajectory.
> curbing global warming will require huge changes in the lifestyle of the global middle class.
Except it won't.
It will cause some large industries to cease to exist though.
Except it won't.
It will cause some large industries to cease to exist though.
But those industries make the stuff that makes our lifestyle possible.
If large industries will cease to exist it will cause big rise in unemployment. This will for sure affect lower and middle classes
Not necessarily. It might mean people just shift to different industries.
Maybe. But even if true, the shift wouldn't be instantaneous.
Hence, lots of lower-to-mid timeframe unemployment.
Hence, lots of lower-to-mid timeframe unemployment.
If we could put together a job retraining package and general middle-america bailout package together we could avoid that.
But the Democratic constituency is isolated now geographically and across occupations so that they don't get any votes from something like that, and the Republicans will be happy to allow the pain to happen while preventing any support and milking the resentment.
So yeah, that's probably what will happen because of our dysfunctional government, but by no means is that an economic certainty.
But the Democratic constituency is isolated now geographically and across occupations so that they don't get any votes from something like that, and the Republicans will be happy to allow the pain to happen while preventing any support and milking the resentment.
So yeah, that's probably what will happen because of our dysfunctional government, but by no means is that an economic certainty.
General aviation is essential to the aviation ecosystem, particularly for the training of pilots and technician. People rich enough to buy afford a jet wouldn't be phased by a jet fuel tax, but a tax affecting very small carriers and general aviation will reduce the available talent pool. Either directly by reducing a venue through which people learn to become pilots and technicians, limit their job opportunities in periods of downturn of the rest of the industry, but also indirectly by making the field even less accessible.
> On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst.
And the same people probably have several yachts that burn even more fuel per hour.
And the same people probably have several yachts that burn even more fuel per hour.
> On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst.
Were the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
Were the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
This just makes the per-person metric a useless metric. There's not a lot of space flights to even point it out as a issue.
[deleted]
Wait but rockets don’t use fossil fuels, do they?
Oh, but they do. New Shepard uses liquid hydrogen, which is not a fossil fuel per se, but in practice hydrogen is currently made from fossil fuels. SpaceShipTwo uses HTPB which is a hydrocarbon oligomer, basically synthetic rubber, definitely a fossil fuel. Falcon 9 first stage engines use RP-1, a fancy type of jet fuel. The Starship first stage uses methane, a fossil fuel (although it could be made renewably as well). The Atlas V core stage uses RP-1 and the boosters HTPB. The Delta IV and Ariane 5 core stages use liquid hydrogen.
A quick google says it took 2.90652E11 joules ~= 80MWh to get Saturn V to the moon. That seems like it'd actually be quite doable to do with renewables if you didn't need to fly too often.
I think that must be something like imparted kinetic energy rather than chemical energy of the fuel it burned. This puts Apollo 16 fuel at 4.19E13 joules:
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35155/what-rocket-...
Still doable with renewables though. Assume 11639 MWh of fuel energy and 60% efficiency converting electricity to fuel. About 19,400 MWh total. That's 8 days of output from a 300 MW wind farm operating at 1/3 capacity factor.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35155/what-rocket-...
Still doable with renewables though. Assume 11639 MWh of fuel energy and 60% efficiency converting electricity to fuel. About 19,400 MWh total. That's 8 days of output from a 300 MW wind farm operating at 1/3 capacity factor.
The energy in rocket fuel has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from renewables, it's probably from fossil.
For instance, most hydrogen production currently comes from heating up methane and steam for a CH4 + 2x H20 -> 4x H2 + CO2 reaction. So current hydrogen is just gas with extra steps.
For instance, most hydrogen production currently comes from heating up methane and steam for a CH4 + 2x H20 -> 4x H2 + CO2 reaction. So current hydrogen is just gas with extra steps.
[deleted]
> On a carbon-per-person metric, private jets are literally the worst.
Depends what you consider a "jet". There are a lot of aicraft in GA aviation that consume fuel at the same amount/km as a car, while not contributing to carbon emissions by sitting in traffic. Many of them also burn regular gasoline as fuel.
Depends what you consider a "jet". There are a lot of aicraft in GA aviation that consume fuel at the same amount/km as a car, while not contributing to carbon emissions by sitting in traffic. Many of them also burn regular gasoline as fuel.
Who talks about jets or crews? This doesn't affect billionaires, but private and recreational use of mostly small propeller planes. Flying is expensive, but it isn't a privilege of "rich jerks". You want to make it a privilege for the elite, then go ahead and tax it to death.
Small props use barely any fuel per nautical mile, the actual extra cost here for a recreational pilot is absolutely tiny. A large 4X4 has a slightly smaller tank than a Cessna 172 and has nowhere near the range.
The outrage is misdirected. We are talking about negligible increase in cost here for general aviation.
The outrage is misdirected. We are talking about negligible increase in cost here for general aviation.
GA in the EU is definitely the preserve of the rich.
It's mostly government regulations that made it that way. Small deregulated aircraft are a lot more affordable.
It’s really not that expensive, especially in eastern european countries like Romania.
Thank You. This makes a lot more sense. But I assume owner of recreational planes could be exempt and Private Jet, mostly for billionaires and business could still be taxed?
Or am I missing something?
Or am I missing something?
I tried to find numbers. This seems to give some context [1]: Look at page 8 and 9 and compare flight hours vs fuel consumption of single engine planes vs turbo-jet.
So there's a gray area that can be addressed in the future. Same goes for "should business build consumer electronics in Asia and fly it in" or "build it locally". But that wont change overnight either.
Nonetheless the regulation is a start, and as with any regulation I don't expect it to be perfect on day one or in cynical, bad faith.
[1]: https://download.aopa.org/hr/Report_on_General_Aviation_Tren...
So there's a gray area that can be addressed in the future. Same goes for "should business build consumer electronics in Asia and fly it in" or "build it locally". But that wont change overnight either.
Nonetheless the regulation is a start, and as with any regulation I don't expect it to be perfect on day one or in cynical, bad faith.
[1]: https://download.aopa.org/hr/Report_on_General_Aviation_Tren...
> [this affects] private and recreational use of mostly small propeller planes.
Private and recreational flying is explicitly exempted from the tax too. So I don't think it affects them.
Private and recreational flying is explicitly exempted from the tax too. So I don't think it affects them.
> Private and recreational flying is explicitly exempted from the tax too. So I don't think it affects them.
That was my point. Most of the comments hammer down on "oh, the corrupt elite wants to cheaply fly to Davos", ignoring that flying - while a very expensive hobby - is an aspirational and achievable endeavor for many people including an attached industry and jobs.
That was my point. Most of the comments hammer down on "oh, the corrupt elite wants to cheaply fly to Davos", ignoring that flying - while a very expensive hobby - is an aspirational and achievable endeavor for many people including an attached industry and jobs.
I know it is cool to hate on rich people these days but the amount of CO2 pollution created by handful of private jets is miniscule compared to the rest of the aviation industry which is still miniscule compared to general transportion, agriculture and meat industry.
Just keep the magnitude in context, I think it is still an issue but our focus needs to be appropriately allocated.
Should we also care that rich people take up more room in the airplane than the rest? Business class should be abolished?
Just keep the magnitude in context, I think it is still an issue but our focus needs to be appropriately allocated.
Should we also care that rich people take up more room in the airplane than the rest? Business class should be abolished?
Me dumping a bunch of tyres into a nearby river would be absolutely negligible compared to global pollution, yes it's still not allowed. A single private jet flight is incredibly polluting yet we allow it to be exempt from pollution tax because......on a grand scale it's nothing? Hmmmmmmm.
All of your points are valid.
I guess I struggle with the hypocrisy around that fact that if we really want to curb CO2, there is a bigger fish to fry. For example, millions of people travel for pleasure on airplanes. From one point to the otherside of the globe. No one gives a damn about that, but hey! Look, rich people on fancy airplanes.
Even just today, GitHub copilot Twitter thread was full of “Rich people (Microsoft apparently) get to ignore licenses but us poor plebs have to abide by them”
Christ. I feel like I’m witnessing a mob without reason, logic and rational.
I guess I struggle with the hypocrisy around that fact that if we really want to curb CO2, there is a bigger fish to fry. For example, millions of people travel for pleasure on airplanes. From one point to the otherside of the globe. No one gives a damn about that, but hey! Look, rich people on fancy airplanes.
Even just today, GitHub copilot Twitter thread was full of “Rich people (Microsoft apparently) get to ignore licenses but us poor plebs have to abide by them”
Christ. I feel like I’m witnessing a mob without reason, logic and rational.
I don't think anyone flies to the other side of the globe for fun anymore since Corona. And I don't think this activity will be back any time soon. Holidays where possible will be a lot more local.
> I don't think anyone flies to the other side of the globe for fun anymore since Corona. And I don't think this activity will be back any time soon. Holidays where possible will be a lot more local.
I disagree, people are very very eager to start traveling again. I know that a lot of people around me are literally going to bolt off the second they are allowed to, preferably to the farthest away destination possible. Not that there's anything wrong with that in any case (especially considering how good the vaccines are)
I disagree, people are very very eager to start traveling again. I know that a lot of people around me are literally going to bolt off the second they are allowed to, preferably to the farthest away destination possible. Not that there's anything wrong with that in any case (especially considering how good the vaccines are)
"Not that there's anything wrong with that in any case"
Except for climate change ...
But I also really would like to travel again, far away, so what to do.
Except for climate change ...
But I also really would like to travel again, far away, so what to do.
Well, most faraway places tend to be a lot worse off than we are on the vaccination scale. This is why I think it'll take much longer.
It makes sense to consider things on a per-capita basis as well as an in-total basis, because there needs to be some measure of fairness in how we do things.
People like when things are fair. To get those big wins you’re gonna have to either make things look fair or use force (i.e. guns). You won’t be able to change human society into a kind of minmaxing superintelligence.
Agreed, I want fairness as well. I’m not opposed to the taxes on private jets. I’m just opposed to the overwhelming “fuck the rich” mob tone.
Maybe I’m looking into this too much, but to me it’s unavoidable observation.
Maybe I’m looking into this too much, but to me it’s unavoidable observation.
I think the mob has started to notice every time a new burden is imposed on them with a notch carved out for the ultra-wealthy.
Especially when that wealth was achieved on the back of the labor, the consumption, and (increasingly) the attention spans of the mob.
Especially when that wealth was achieved on the back of the labor, the consumption, and (increasingly) the attention spans of the mob.
"For example, millions of people travel for pleasure on airplanes. From one point to the otherside of the globe. No one gives a damn about that, but hey! Look, rich people on fancy airplanes"
Erm, that is exactly the point of the "mob".
The common people do have to pay the tax, while flying crowded and therefore somewhat efficient - and the rich people with their own fuel wasting private jets should pay no tax at all AND have the privilege of luxery? Where is the reason for this?
"Christ. I feel like I’m witnessing a mob without reason, logic and rational. "
So maybe I am missing something, but the mob reaction seems to be very much based on logic.
Erm, that is exactly the point of the "mob".
The common people do have to pay the tax, while flying crowded and therefore somewhat efficient - and the rich people with their own fuel wasting private jets should pay no tax at all AND have the privilege of luxery? Where is the reason for this?
"Christ. I feel like I’m witnessing a mob without reason, logic and rational. "
So maybe I am missing something, but the mob reaction seems to be very much based on logic.
"So maybe I am missing something"
So what I was missing is, that apparently commerzial Airliners do benefit from tax free fuel - but private jets do not. They have to pay taxes and a lot more than this tax is going to be initially.
So it seems the whole thing is a weird backward way to take back a bit the tax excemption on tax free airliner fuel?
So what I was missing is, that apparently commerzial Airliners do benefit from tax free fuel - but private jets do not. They have to pay taxes and a lot more than this tax is going to be initially.
So it seems the whole thing is a weird backward way to take back a bit the tax excemption on tax free airliner fuel?
[deleted]
"When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/
Cash could be eaten at least. Try to eat a bitcoin...
The actual reason for the exemption is that they cannot impose the tax on non-EU operators, giving the non-EU operators a competitive advantage.
They can’t impose a tax on jets that use their airspace?
AFAIK that would require changes to the customs area, which might have consequences for other aspects like transiting goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_control#Customs_area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_control#Customs_area
Eurocontrol already has fees for ATC usage. This fuel tax is presumably in addition to that.
> They can’t impose a tax on jets that use their airspace?
Presumably they already signed aviation treaties that do not allow for this.
Presumably they already signed aviation treaties that do not allow for this.
Yes, there is a tangle of 5000+ Air Services Agreements which, as international treaties, supersede national laws. Almost all agreements include mutual tax exemptions on anything not unloaded at a destination, including fuel.
The UK does (including back in the good old days when we were still in the EU).
This doesn't appear to be the case (as of Oct 2019) ...
> members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), including the United Kingdom, are prevented from taxing international aviation fuel, or any proxies for fuel, under the Chicago Convention.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00...
> members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), including the United Kingdom, are prevented from taxing international aviation fuel, or any proxies for fuel, under the Chicago Convention.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00...
I think it might be time for an ~80 year old convention to be revamped if it kills the environment...
It's not on the fuel, rather the flights:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-allowances-for-air-pas...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-allowances-for-air-pas...
At what point will we stop acting as if the government legislates to represent the interests of the constituency who voted for the politicians and not the elites who fund its politicians?
It's not the government, at this stage it is just the EU Commission who are unelected. MEPs could still reject it.
I think it's basically "oh those poor rich private jet owners, overtaxed and underappreciated!"
To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while corraling the plebeians so that we won't use "their precious resources" or ruining their enjoyments.
The wealthy class are, presumably, wealthy enough to pay the carbon tax and still enjoy the perks and privileges of private jets though? It's not like they're being exempted from a ban on flying private jets, but rather a tax on them. Their wealth itself was already their ticket to perks and privilege, because it lets them pay the tax.
Wealth has a tendency to manage regulations to keep said wealth. Hence tax exemptions, subsidies, etc.
GP is right. The real point of carbon-tax (and the heavy promotion of global warming) is not to address the underlying issue but to extract wealth from the 99.9% and redirect it to the riches. Any other occasions will be used as such: for example recently the covid was used to kill small businesses and fed the big corporations, which stock rised hugely.
I hate this kind of rhetoric. Frankly that sounds like: "A proposed solution A to problem X has another problem Y, which proves that it was never about X, and consequently I will refuse to acknowledge problem X - if anyone doesn't like it, it's their fault for not being able to create a perfect solution that gets my approval."
Well, although taxes are usually effective, they affect more the low and middle classes than the rich, as they can opt to pay and enjoy life as usual. Exemption to activities that are mostly enjoyed by the rich is quite absurd.
People will be more thoughtful and less cynical when the rich take a serious attitude at ecology and inequality.
People will be more thoughtful and less cynical when the rich take a serious attitude at ecology and inequality.
You raise a good point, but I think one can criticize the proposed law without painting the whole endeavor as some kind of conspiracy.
Because, when you think about it, climate change will also affect the poor way more than the rich - so some unscrupulous riches do have a vested interest in keeping people cynical, because it's not they who will suffer the consequences - they can retire in some nice mansion in the Arctic.
Because, when you think about it, climate change will also affect the poor way more than the rich - so some unscrupulous riches do have a vested interest in keeping people cynical, because it's not they who will suffer the consequences - they can retire in some nice mansion in the Arctic.
Reminds me of https://marketresearchtelecast.com/the-minister-of-consumer-...
A few weeks ago the same Sanchez said that we Spaniards should eat way less meat by the year 2050. Obviously that won't apply to him.
A few weeks ago the same Sanchez said that we Spaniards should eat way less meat by the year 2050. Obviously that won't apply to him.
"more about control"
Control what though?
It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair).
But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.
Control what though?
It's a carbon tax on jet fuel. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt (even if unfair).
But I don't see anyone else paying any more or less under "control"... those folks are still going to travel.
> It's a carbon tax on jets. Makes sense to me that some folks with some connections could get themself exempt.
Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.
Hilarious, that's corruption, plain and simple.
Not sure why that's hilarious, it's kinda sad.
"some are more equal" (in this case - "CO2 emitted by some is less damaging"). Classic control.
The West has been consuming fossils to fuel their industrial revolution for centuries, but now that is time of the East to use energy and grow, we tell them that energy is bad for the environment and that they have to pay tax or buy expensive energy (renewables)
Where do you get the idea that renewables are expensive energy? Utility scale onshore wind and solar PV are the cheapest form of generation[1] by a long shot.
And because of this, 90% of the global electricity generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. There wasn't a single coal burning power plant built in the US last year, despite political support for coal - it's just too uneconomic. This isn't coercion, taxes or anything - it's simple economics and it's happening everywhere - developed and developing countries.
Using old/outdated technology doesn't fuel growth in developing countries. Just because the industrial revolution in the west was powered by coal and steam engines, doesn't mean it makes any sense for a modern developing country to start building steam engines to power a manufacturing base.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
And because of this, 90% of the global electricity generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. There wasn't a single coal burning power plant built in the US last year, despite political support for coal - it's just too uneconomic. This isn't coercion, taxes or anything - it's simple economics and it's happening everywhere - developed and developing countries.
Using old/outdated technology doesn't fuel growth in developing countries. Just because the industrial revolution in the west was powered by coal and steam engines, doesn't mean it makes any sense for a modern developing country to start building steam engines to power a manufacturing base.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Lazard's analysis is bad at best, but that is a separate discussion.
The main issue is that renewables have huge upfront capital costs combined with 0 storage &transportation capabilities (cannot put your wind energy in a tank). Of course these are not issues for the West, but I don't know how you can go to an isolated Indian village and tell them that they need to spit 20k per household to install solar panels.
Combustible fuels are pay as you go. Want heat tonight? Use some wood just for tonight. Want to move your motorcycle? You need only a jug of gasoline.
The main issue is that renewables have huge upfront capital costs combined with 0 storage &transportation capabilities (cannot put your wind energy in a tank). Of course these are not issues for the West, but I don't know how you can go to an isolated Indian village and tell them that they need to spit 20k per household to install solar panels.
Combustible fuels are pay as you go. Want heat tonight? Use some wood just for tonight. Want to move your motorcycle? You need only a jug of gasoline.
What do you mean the analysis is "bad"? It's widely referenced and they explain their methodology in detail and their data sources. If there's an aspect of the methodology you think is bad, I'd be interested in hearing it. Their results are pretty much in line with other independent studies of the same thing.
I don't understand why you'd compare the capital cost of utility scale electricity generation against that for a wood burning domestic stove or a small motorcycle. Isolated Indian villages are not expected to fund utility scale electricity generation? I mean you could try to argue that candles are better than solar-powered flash-lights, I guess? But I don't see the relevance.
The fact is that for utility scale electricity generation, the combination of solar PV or onshore wind with idling peaker natural gas capacity blows all the competition out of the water in terms of cost. The only thermal generation currently viable in the modern world is combined-cycle gas and even then it's unlikely to maintain touching distance in a world where wind turbines continue to fall in price by 10% a year while PV panels are falling at an even faster rate.
You just have to look at what's actually happening globally - both developed and developing world. Like I said 90% of worldwide newly installed grid scale generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. The simplest explanation for this is the one which agrees with all the analysis from various sources - it's happening because it's far cheaper.
I don't understand why you'd compare the capital cost of utility scale electricity generation against that for a wood burning domestic stove or a small motorcycle. Isolated Indian villages are not expected to fund utility scale electricity generation? I mean you could try to argue that candles are better than solar-powered flash-lights, I guess? But I don't see the relevance.
The fact is that for utility scale electricity generation, the combination of solar PV or onshore wind with idling peaker natural gas capacity blows all the competition out of the water in terms of cost. The only thermal generation currently viable in the modern world is combined-cycle gas and even then it's unlikely to maintain touching distance in a world where wind turbines continue to fall in price by 10% a year while PV panels are falling at an even faster rate.
You just have to look at what's actually happening globally - both developed and developing world. Like I said 90% of worldwide newly installed grid scale generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. The simplest explanation for this is the one which agrees with all the analysis from various sources - it's happening because it's far cheaper.
The analysis is completely wrong for a country that is not in the West.
Their first assumption is low interest rates for business loans and availability of investment capital. Again, we take these two for granted in the West, but they are not.
Second big assumption is the existence of distribution grid and storage. The fact is that we have almost 1 Billion people off grid and by making fossil fuels more expensive to them pretty much we decide that they need to stay impoverished for many generations to come.
Regarding your comment on renewable energy added in 2020, you failed to mention that the bulk of it comes from China, where the Party has made the strategic decision to do so regardless of cost.
Their first assumption is low interest rates for business loans and availability of investment capital. Again, we take these two for granted in the West, but they are not.
Second big assumption is the existence of distribution grid and storage. The fact is that we have almost 1 Billion people off grid and by making fossil fuels more expensive to them pretty much we decide that they need to stay impoverished for many generations to come.
Regarding your comment on renewable energy added in 2020, you failed to mention that the bulk of it comes from China, where the Party has made the strategic decision to do so regardless of cost.
It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects.
I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less.
Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also.
Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim.
I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less.
Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also.
Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim.
"It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects."
- I invite you as an investor to go to a developing country's bank and ask for a 10-million-dollar loan with <=10% interest rate to build anything. I don't know where they get these numbers (they conviniently say "Lazard estimates"). They are plain wrong.
"I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less. Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also. "
- Had they had the access to cheap capital (or any capital) to build a grid they would have done so.
What you propose is for them to starve for some generations until they can build a grid. And even when they do, you will want to sell them more expensive equipment (electric cars, batteries for their grid etc).
Fossils can work without a grid, and they can already improve dramatically life and productivity to enable later public investments to infrastructure.
It is renewables that require huge initial capital investment to work without a grid. Fossils are pay as you go. You only need for example fuel oil in winter to warm your house with a couple of heaters. That is a cost of < $500 USD / year. To run two electric heaters (~10kw), you will need a big enough solar panel and battery to keep it running at night. So now you are in the tune of $20,000 USD.
* " Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim." *
- Covered already.
- I invite you as an investor to go to a developing country's bank and ask for a 10-million-dollar loan with <=10% interest rate to build anything. I don't know where they get these numbers (they conviniently say "Lazard estimates"). They are plain wrong.
"I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less. Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also. "
- Had they had the access to cheap capital (or any capital) to build a grid they would have done so.
What you propose is for them to starve for some generations until they can build a grid. And even when they do, you will want to sell them more expensive equipment (electric cars, batteries for their grid etc).
Fossils can work without a grid, and they can already improve dramatically life and productivity to enable later public investments to infrastructure.
It is renewables that require huge initial capital investment to work without a grid. Fossils are pay as you go. You only need for example fuel oil in winter to warm your house with a couple of heaters. That is a cost of < $500 USD / year. To run two electric heaters (~10kw), you will need a big enough solar panel and battery to keep it running at night. So now you are in the tune of $20,000 USD.
* " Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim." *
- Covered already.
So we should be okay with the massive pollution now because they're entitled to it because we did it in the past? I think it would be better for developing countries to try and skip as much of the dirty bits as possible and leapfrog to the best we can get from modern technology.
I think that every country deserves a fair opportunity to grow with cheap energy. We took advantage of it, and in the process we created huge externalities. We should clean after our mess first and then try to lecture the developing countries.
By that exact same logic, the next generation of people in every country should be allowed to use as much polluting energy as the last one, because the established generation did so and they are the developing generation.
By the same logic, the next generation of people should have access to the same intact climate as the last one.
Obviously though, you can't have both. The difference here is that rich countries are rich, and can afford to take on the extra financial burden via the very same finances that they obtained via cheap energy.
Obviously though, you can't have both. The difference here is that rich countries are rich, and can afford to take on the extra financial burden via the very same finances that they obtained via cheap energy.
We don't tell them they have to pay, we tell everyone that we should all pay. Your reasoning is just "we benefitted from X bad thing in the past so now we should let others do it too".
Yes it's extremely unfair that the West used up what turned out to be the planet's entire carbon budget. But it doesn't change the fact that humanity has to stop emitting carbon.
The consequences don't really change regardless of how you read history.
It's control of the global commons. The elites (or "folks", lol) want to preserve their ability to engage in forms of consumption which put a burden on the climate's ability to absorb CO2 while excluding the rest of the world from it as much as possible.
I really doubt any 'elites' are worried about their access to jet fuel vs anyone else. Any 'elite' who thinks about that for a second or two knows they'd win that just by the nature of economics.
I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.
I think they (and those who take their money) would just rather not pay more if they don't have to.
Its been the same with lockdown. Enforce totalitarian restrictions and tracking on the plebes, whilst the rich and connected routinely ignore or are excluded from the rules.
Its possible that Lockdown is a ploy to distract from the trillions of dollars of money printing that has gone on during the pandemic, to suppress the inflation generated, as well as to normalise location and biological data collection and arbitrary interference in personal liberty and private businesses.
It seems unlikely that the motivation is really the health of the populace, when deaths and ill health from air pollution and obesity, and from the interrupted medical treatments during Lockdown itself, are routinely ignored.
You can follow the same logical pattern for all the other major issues of our time. Are the massive migration inflows of violent military-age males into Europe from MENA really about humanitarian aid, or about injecting cheap labour into the continent and providing justification for giant intelligence agencies, tracking and banning of encryption?
The same for critical race theory - is the goal the betterment of humankind, or to set the working class against eachother and to distract from insane wealth capture of the 1%?
Its possible that Lockdown is a ploy to distract from the trillions of dollars of money printing that has gone on during the pandemic, to suppress the inflation generated, as well as to normalise location and biological data collection and arbitrary interference in personal liberty and private businesses.
It seems unlikely that the motivation is really the health of the populace, when deaths and ill health from air pollution and obesity, and from the interrupted medical treatments during Lockdown itself, are routinely ignored.
You can follow the same logical pattern for all the other major issues of our time. Are the massive migration inflows of violent military-age males into Europe from MENA really about humanitarian aid, or about injecting cheap labour into the continent and providing justification for giant intelligence agencies, tracking and banning of encryption?
The same for critical race theory - is the goal the betterment of humankind, or to set the working class against eachother and to distract from insane wealth capture of the 1%?
I don't understand people who think that, at hundreds or thousands of municipal and state levels, political leaders were secretly in meetings with robes nodding excitedly over the opportunity to oppress the masses. Or that an unknown, highly contagious respiratory disease causing hospitals to overflow with no vaccine available didn't warrant some kind of mandates against public interactions.
It boggles my mind what kind of conspiratorial, Truman-Show-like mentality people must have to find bad faith so common in life.
It is the party of those in America who were against lockdowns, masks, vaccines, or any kind of precautions who are also against any kind of regulations or limits on the causes of obesity or climate change or pollution. So your comment about "why do 'they' care about the virus but not pollution" is moot.
It boggles my mind what kind of conspiratorial, Truman-Show-like mentality people must have to find bad faith so common in life.
It is the party of those in America who were against lockdowns, masks, vaccines, or any kind of precautions who are also against any kind of regulations or limits on the causes of obesity or climate change or pollution. So your comment about "why do 'they' care about the virus but not pollution" is moot.
I disagree with GP's conspiracy theory, but still I can see how it could be theoretically possible. Those "hundreds or thousands of municipal and state levels, political leaders" they are not necessarily a part of real elite. Instead, they are brainwashed during their college years to think what they masters need them to think. And then, when the actual pandemic happens they simply do not have enough critical thinking skills to reject the official narrative. Also, it is safer for their political careers to just go with the flow.
[deleted]
There was no hospital overflow. I live in Ukraine and even with a totally rudimentary health system and routinely ignored lockdowns, the health system functioned like any other flu outbreak. The temporary hospitals setup in the USA and UK were never used.
If anything I am quite sure that the few lockdowns we did have worsened the spread of COVID, or at least concentrated it over a shorter timeframe, since people were now packed into shopping centres at reduced hours, were forced to socialise in smaller 'speakeasy' venues, and had a greater interaction with grandparents given the closure of schools. Without lockdowns, the virus would have spread slowly and steadily, and been concentrated in younger groups who have more social interaction with eachother, like influenza each season.
Even under a 'best case' scenario for Lockdown, and using Sweden as an example, we have spent about 50 months in Lockdown in order to save 1 month of life - statiscally for someone of advanced age and with serious existing health problems:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...
Is there a health problem in the West? Yes, and its from obesity, which is heavily correlated to negative COVID outcomes:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
Sweden and Ukraine far below lockdown countries for deaths per capita: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Annual deaths in Sweden 2020 only 6% higher than 2018, and even then only after a weak 2019 flu/death season:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
The COVID death spike in Sweden basically aligns with a once-a-decade flu variant:
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...
So is this conspiratorial? I am using all of the available data to create this attitude.
If anything I am quite sure that the few lockdowns we did have worsened the spread of COVID, or at least concentrated it over a shorter timeframe, since people were now packed into shopping centres at reduced hours, were forced to socialise in smaller 'speakeasy' venues, and had a greater interaction with grandparents given the closure of schools. Without lockdowns, the virus would have spread slowly and steadily, and been concentrated in younger groups who have more social interaction with eachother, like influenza each season.
Even under a 'best case' scenario for Lockdown, and using Sweden as an example, we have spent about 50 months in Lockdown in order to save 1 month of life - statiscally for someone of advanced age and with serious existing health problems:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...
Is there a health problem in the West? Yes, and its from obesity, which is heavily correlated to negative COVID outcomes:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
Sweden and Ukraine far below lockdown countries for deaths per capita: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Annual deaths in Sweden 2020 only 6% higher than 2018, and even then only after a weak 2019 flu/death season:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
The COVID death spike in Sweden basically aligns with a once-a-decade flu variant:
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...
So is this conspiratorial? I am using all of the available data to create this attitude.
Well, you're factually wrong that hospitals weren't at the breaking point - several in the United States were, as well as healthcare systems in Italy. The relative lack of use out of notable expansion sites was due, IMO, to mis-steps in the bureaucracy and prep, not in the lack of help that additional beds could provide.
Just flipping through your source of "50 months of quarantine", and without (yet) reading the entire article, it is citing an extrapolated number from a hypothetical, which you cite as a statement of fact. Covid has been around for 18 months. You are being misleading, or English may not be your first language.
In any case, I'm not saying certain measures or lockdowns were overkill. I believe governments and experts, in a transparent fashion, should be discussing what went wrong and right at all levels, and how we can do better, quicker, safer the next time a pandemic hits.
I strongly reject the notion that this was a massive conspiracy to test the reach of government restrictions.
Just flipping through your source of "50 months of quarantine", and without (yet) reading the entire article, it is citing an extrapolated number from a hypothetical, which you cite as a statement of fact. Covid has been around for 18 months. You are being misleading, or English may not be your first language.
In any case, I'm not saying certain measures or lockdowns were overkill. I believe governments and experts, in a transparent fashion, should be discussing what went wrong and right at all levels, and how we can do better, quicker, safer the next time a pandemic hits.
I strongly reject the notion that this was a massive conspiracy to test the reach of government restrictions.
The governor of California was photographed holding a fundraising dinner during a phase of lockdown he put in effect.
It'd be hard to come up with a more obvious scenario.
It'd be hard to come up with a more obvious scenario.
Correct. That was wrong of him to do. However, do you think that because of that, it is impossible for the directive to limit public events was completely without justification or public health benefit? Could it be that he was a wanker, and it was a good decision?
Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened. I'm lucky enough to live in a country that didn't went with the lockdown madness (Japan), so I know for a fact an alternative way was possibly. It's sad to read people so brainwashed they defend the ruling class who robbed their liberties (and which didn't followed the rules themselves, as shown in France with ministers going to secret restaurants in Paris[1]).
[1] https://apnews.com/article/paris-europe-coronavirus-pandemic...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/paris-europe-coronavirus-pandemic...
Blog spam (edit: link now changed to something less clickbaity). The original source, anyway:
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/draft-...
The European Commission has drafted plans to set an EU-wide minimum tax rate for polluting aviation fuels, as it seeks to meet more ambitious targets to fight climate change, a document seen by Reuters shows.
...
Introducing the proposals could be politically difficult. Changes to EU tax rates require unanimous approval from the 27 EU countries, meaning a single state could veto them.
...
From 2023, the minimum tax rate for aviation fuel would start at zero and increase gradually over a 10-year period, until the full rate is imposed. The draft proposal did not specify what the final rate would be.
...
The minimum EU tax rate would not apply to cargo-only flights or to "pleasure flights" and "business aviation". That could include recreational use of an aircraft or a company using a plane, not for public hire, to conduct its business. Member states could choose to tax those flights' fuel on a national basis.
The draft proposal would also introduce minimum tax rates on polluting fuels used for waterborne navigation, fishing and freight transport within the EU.
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/draft-...
The European Commission has drafted plans to set an EU-wide minimum tax rate for polluting aviation fuels, as it seeks to meet more ambitious targets to fight climate change, a document seen by Reuters shows.
...
Introducing the proposals could be politically difficult. Changes to EU tax rates require unanimous approval from the 27 EU countries, meaning a single state could veto them.
...
From 2023, the minimum tax rate for aviation fuel would start at zero and increase gradually over a 10-year period, until the full rate is imposed. The draft proposal did not specify what the final rate would be.
...
The minimum EU tax rate would not apply to cargo-only flights or to "pleasure flights" and "business aviation". That could include recreational use of an aircraft or a company using a plane, not for public hire, to conduct its business. Member states could choose to tax those flights' fuel on a national basis.
The draft proposal would also introduce minimum tax rates on polluting fuels used for waterborne navigation, fishing and freight transport within the EU.
I'd be happy to see the link changed to the Argus article linked by jey earlier. The Reuters article buries the lede.
I'd say that part is pretty much taken care of with the post headline.
This seems to be the upstream source article: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...
Isn't this still a very .. unknown source to be using as basis for this type of outragy-clickbaity article?
I can't change the link itself, but I changed the HN headline to match the Argus article, which makes more clear that this is a draft proposal.
This is what Guido Fawkes ("order order") does. They are extremely right wing and hysterically anti-EU. Wait until a real outlet covers it.
Ok, we'll change to that from https://order-order.com/2021/07/07/eu-to-exempt-private-jets.... Thanks!
Much more substantive and less editorialized, thank you!
Although still a press article, anyone have a link to the actual draft?
A relevant video examining the potential alternatives to jet fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4
A TL;DW is that biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment than standard fuels. Hydrogen is not yet viable, and would require entirely new aircraft designs. Electricity will likely never be viable for all but the smallest low-range aircraft. E-fuels (fuel made using carbon capture) is not yet viable, but may be a viable long term option.
A TL;DW is that biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment than standard fuels. Hydrogen is not yet viable, and would require entirely new aircraft designs. Electricity will likely never be viable for all but the smallest low-range aircraft. E-fuels (fuel made using carbon capture) is not yet viable, but may be a viable long term option.
Since it's a 25 minute video (ugh): what's the tl;dw for why biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment?
Most of the worlds farmland is used to feed the worlds population and farm animals.
The worlds use of fuel is many times greater in terms of calories than use of food.
That means if we want to use farmland to grow fuel, we're going to need a lot more farmland. We already farm most of the land that's viable for farming. So there isn't really much more available without destroying a lot of ecosystems and chopping down rainforest...
The worlds use of fuel is many times greater in terms of calories than use of food.
That means if we want to use farmland to grow fuel, we're going to need a lot more farmland. We already farm most of the land that's viable for farming. So there isn't really much more available without destroying a lot of ecosystems and chopping down rainforest...
Counterpoint from a Swedish perspective:
https://www.svebio.se/en/our-mission/is-there-enough-land/
https://www.svebio.se/en/our-mission/is-there-enough-land/
The energy put into the process to grow and ferment the plants or algae is high enough to outweigh the offset use of fossil fuels. It's an energy negative process.
The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM
The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM
I love it. They don't even care now, do they? Private jets are the most obvious targets of carbon tax because they are completely unnecessary, and the politicians decided to carve out the tax only for them. The world we live in is truly wonderful.
Yeah, tell people to eat bugs and less meat but step out of the way of fast food industry, or those farms treating cows like bags of potato. Tell people to fly less or use the train and exempt private jets.
But honestly, we deserve worse, it's our fault. We let those fucks FLY ON PRIVATE JETS to davos CLIMATE summit, and accept an increased tax on plastic bags (which incidentally was show to make people use more plastic). Anyway, yeah we deserve worse. It's not their fault. It's ours. We are the ones letting them tell us what to do while they fuck around on private jets.
But honestly, we deserve worse, it's our fault. We let those fucks FLY ON PRIVATE JETS to davos CLIMATE summit, and accept an increased tax on plastic bags (which incidentally was show to make people use more plastic). Anyway, yeah we deserve worse. It's not their fault. It's ours. We are the ones letting them tell us what to do while they fuck around on private jets.
This is ridiculous. So you have to pay the carbon tax unless you emit 200x the amount. But yeah, we are all in the same boat
Every time shit like this happens, it destroys faith of ordinary citizens in the system. The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game and less likely to follow the law when noone is watching
> The more likely they are to conclide that this is a mugs game
This is one of the primary reasons I'm a pure libertarian. The more in depth research I did, the more I found it's nothing but a rigged game.
It truly is like the joke that's along the lines of:
"What's the difference between the government and the mob?"
"The mob didn't get 12,000 hours of schooling to convince you it's necessary."
This is one of the primary reasons I'm a pure libertarian. The more in depth research I did, the more I found it's nothing but a rigged game.
It truly is like the joke that's along the lines of:
"What's the difference between the government and the mob?"
"The mob didn't get 12,000 hours of schooling to convince you it's necessary."
Honest question from definitely-not-libertarian democratic-socialist. Isn't the main point of libertarianism a defense of private property, concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression?
I think libertarianism is quite self-contradictory, because if we assume completely fair starting conditions (they historically never were) and assume that people are renumerated fairly (which is subjective and disputable), the system as a whole tends to accumulate wealth in hands of smaller and smaller number of citizens, if nothing else then by just random chance, and since the property ownership is sacrosanct, there is no mechanism which could counteract the accumulation. Then these people might use the accumulated wealth to oppress others, as a kind of oligopoly. This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.
I think libertarianism is quite self-contradictory, because if we assume completely fair starting conditions (they historically never were) and assume that people are renumerated fairly (which is subjective and disputable), the system as a whole tends to accumulate wealth in hands of smaller and smaller number of citizens, if nothing else then by just random chance, and since the property ownership is sacrosanct, there is no mechanism which could counteract the accumulation. Then these people might use the accumulated wealth to oppress others, as a kind of oligopoly. This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.
> concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression?
But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention.
I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this.
I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt.
> This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.
And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.
But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention.
I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this.
I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt.
> This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.
And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.
> I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this.
Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started.
There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.
Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started.
There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.
> But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive.
Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt?
> I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt.
Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation).
And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.
Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt?
> I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt.
Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation).
And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.
libertarianism has some good traits like ending the drug war, respect for individual rights, and capitalism. Their approach swings to far in the other direction and believe that pure capitalism, a very sue happy populace, and minimal policing to protect property rights and individual rights is enough. They don't believe in regulations for the most part and only a very minimal military. Problems with this include minimal military->your country is over run within a generation or two, unlimited capitalism->money always flows up and the big guys don't give a damn about your rights and have the money to buy off the police. Very active judiciary to allow suing for infringement on property and individual rights --> the judiciary will be bought by the monopoly companies. It does not account sufficiently for all the money eventually working it's way up to the 1% and they essentially control everything and everyone else is a wage slave fighting over the crumbs of the 1% of wealth/pay left.
If you generalise the libertarian principle to all large organisations and powerful individuals rather than just governments then it starts to make a whole lot more sense.
The elephant in the room, what do you do with monopolies and cartels?
How 'pure' is pure libertarian? Do we allow private currencies to be issues by anyone, this used to be a massive problem?
Does someone in 'pure libertatian' society get a free defence attorney or school education? Do we have fire safety laws? We used to have entire cities burn down.
Do we regulate banks and financial markets at all? Do we have a regulator to stop ponzi schemes if the contract explains the mechanisms in fine print?
It feels like there would be a tidal wave of financial machinations where ordinary people would loose their shirts.
How 'pure' is pure libertarian? Do we allow private currencies to be issues by anyone, this used to be a massive problem?
Does someone in 'pure libertatian' society get a free defence attorney or school education? Do we have fire safety laws? We used to have entire cities burn down.
Do we regulate banks and financial markets at all? Do we have a regulator to stop ponzi schemes if the contract explains the mechanisms in fine print?
It feels like there would be a tidal wave of financial machinations where ordinary people would loose their shirts.
I'm not going to expound on all topics here. Instead I'll give you a resource that closely matches my thoughts on one of the subjects of concern.
> We used to have entire cities burn down.
https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departm...
This same resource hits nearly every one of your points with well reasoned alternatives to government intervention.
Instead of expecting an answer to every what if that immediately comes to mind, please research the viewpoint from credible libertarian sources like the Mises Institute.
Another research avenue--anything Murray Rothbard.
> We used to have entire cities burn down.
https://mises.org/library/development-municipal-fire-departm...
This same resource hits nearly every one of your points with well reasoned alternatives to government intervention.
Instead of expecting an answer to every what if that immediately comes to mind, please research the viewpoint from credible libertarian sources like the Mises Institute.
Another research avenue--anything Murray Rothbard.
Imagine how that would play out post Grenfell. No we can't put out your fire because your builder used the wrong cladding, you should have read the T's and C's. Tough luck.
It's always in the interest of insurance companies to pay out as little as they can get away with.
It's always in the interest of insurance companies to pay out as little as they can get away with.
What makes you think that rich and powerful private enterprises don't cause exactly the same kind of problems as state governments? They have the same coercive power, albeit through different means.
Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone.
Government is monopoly of violence.
For example, mono crop wheat is terrible, but the government uses its monopoly of force to coerce me into subsidies for foods I refuse to eat.
These subsidies are the reason it's healthiest to stick to the perimeter of the store. Without them, cheap cereal junk foods would at least not be so cheap.
This encouragement of low quality mono cropping directly supports big ag and companies like Monsanto. I'd much rather spend my money at a local farm.
Government is monopoly of violence.
For example, mono crop wheat is terrible, but the government uses its monopoly of force to coerce me into subsidies for foods I refuse to eat.
These subsidies are the reason it's healthiest to stick to the perimeter of the store. Without them, cheap cereal junk foods would at least not be so cheap.
This encouragement of low quality mono cropping directly supports big ag and companies like Monsanto. I'd much rather spend my money at a local farm.
The government is not a monopoly of violence. Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. In addition to this, if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights, then this doesn't eliminate government violence: it allows the wealthy to access it by proxy.
> Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this.
These organizations are either government sanctioned or considered criminal.
The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal.
> if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights
I don't support that. I think individuals should take the protection of themselves and their property seriously. And no, I don't just mean having a gun, but instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
These organizations are either government sanctioned or considered criminal.
The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal.
> if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights
I don't support that. I think individuals should take the protection of themselves and their property seriously. And no, I don't just mean having a gun, but instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
"paying for protection services as needed."
I can't wait untill we have two different "protection services" come into conflict because they are "protecting" different things and we have shootouts on the streets.
Much like the latest incident with Vigilante app, but imagine both entities had good for hire
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-inte...
I can't wait untill we have two different "protection services" come into conflict because they are "protecting" different things and we have shootouts on the streets.
Much like the latest incident with Vigilante app, but imagine both entities had good for hire
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-inte...
> The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal.
What count as initiation of force? If I walk into your house and take your things, am I initiating use of force? If I want to live somewhere where that is not the norm, how am I supposed to find that place? It seems very idealistic to me that such a place could exist without it being enforced somehow.
> instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
If that private entity makes that provision through the use of force, do they not then constitute a government of sorts? If they do not use force, then how do they manage to make that provision at all?
What count as initiation of force? If I walk into your house and take your things, am I initiating use of force? If I want to live somewhere where that is not the norm, how am I supposed to find that place? It seems very idealistic to me that such a place could exist without it being enforced somehow.
> instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
If that private entity makes that provision through the use of force, do they not then constitute a government of sorts? If they do not use force, then how do they manage to make that provision at all?
"Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone."
This us mental gymnastics.
Oh, customer's chose a network operator that sells their data. Nevermind that all 4 network operators sell your data! Or could have chosen to live without a phone and be like a hermit in the woods!
This us mental gymnastics.
Oh, customer's chose a network operator that sells their data. Nevermind that all 4 network operators sell your data! Or could have chosen to live without a phone and be like a hermit in the woods!
I think its pretty nice that they care enough about normal / poor people to be willing to try and prevent global warming as long as those same normal / poor people pay for it and the rich are not inconvenienced.
I'd be very reticent to take the source that OP has given. If it appears elsewhere, fine, but Guido and chums are not credible, especially on matters pertaining to the EU. They are ideological and partisan.
The only other outlets carrying this story are of suspect origins, too:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu+carbon+tax+private+jets&...
See: RT.
There is one more credible looking source though, which is this one:
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...
The key wording:
> The European Commission has proposed exempting private jets and cargo flights from the planned EU jet fuel tax.
It has proposed this. Which is to say that it can be amended with input from back channels from both Europarl _and_ the national governments. I would be surprised if this headline grabbing omission wasn't kiboshed totally.
As usual, Guido will take the opportunity to bash Europe without fairly portraying how it works. This is basic journalistic failure equivalent to slamming Westminster because of the publication of a green paper.
EDIT: Original link was to an awful source, the lovely moderators have changed it.
The only other outlets carrying this story are of suspect origins, too:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu+carbon+tax+private+jets&...
See: RT.
There is one more credible looking source though, which is this one:
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...
The key wording:
> The European Commission has proposed exempting private jets and cargo flights from the planned EU jet fuel tax.
It has proposed this. Which is to say that it can be amended with input from back channels from both Europarl _and_ the national governments. I would be surprised if this headline grabbing omission wasn't kiboshed totally.
As usual, Guido will take the opportunity to bash Europe without fairly portraying how it works. This is basic journalistic failure equivalent to slamming Westminster because of the publication of a green paper.
EDIT: Original link was to an awful source, the lovely moderators have changed it.
Exempting private jets seems dumb, but I guess it's important we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Taxing regular commercial passenger flights will have most of the impact, and should encourage more efficient planes, bootstrap the market for sustainable synthetic fuels or electric short-range aircraft, and encourage more travel by train for shorter journeys. If exempting business jets is what's required to make it politically acceptable to all 27 member states so it actually goes into force, so be it. Much better this than another decade of debate and no action. The loose ends can always be cleaned up later.
The EU has been completely bonkers for the last few years.
Just staggeringly stupid policy I mean look at them literally banning encryption and then this I'm confused but the ppl running the eu are more confused
They didn't ban or plan to ban encryption, that was just a super misleading headline / article. It wasn't even a proposal or a draft, just research into what are possible options to fight child pornography online. And I'd rather they do their research than implement random stuff.
I've noticed there's a recent trend of grossly mispresenting this stuff in the worst possible light. It seems if any EU whitepaper even just mentions encryption it somehow gets twisted into EU encryption ban being imminent.
I urge people to always read or at least glance at the actual documents when claims about new laws/proposals/etc. seem outrageous.
I've noticed there's a recent trend of grossly mispresenting this stuff in the worst possible light. It seems if any EU whitepaper even just mentions encryption it somehow gets twisted into EU encryption ban being imminent.
I urge people to always read or at least glance at the actual documents when claims about new laws/proposals/etc. seem outrageous.
The EU (especially the Eurozone) was designed when neoliberal paradigm was in fashion (1980s-1990s). That's why currently its core institutions are less democratic than they should be.
That is a very generous interpretation of the EUs action in this matter.
If the proposal regarding "pleasure" flights stands, then the EU is no better than UEFA or IOC.
Is that really the message that the EU wants to send i wonder.
It also reflects poorly on Slovenia that is currently holding the presidency, but i suspect they don't really care.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of...
EDIT:
Having read another source it doesn't seem clear that pleasure flights are exempt.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
If the proposal regarding "pleasure" flights stands, then the EU is no better than UEFA or IOC.
Is that really the message that the EU wants to send i wonder.
It also reflects poorly on Slovenia that is currently holding the presidency, but i suspect they don't really care.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of...
EDIT:
Having read another source it doesn't seem clear that pleasure flights are exempt.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
I would say the main deciding factor for that was the rejection of the Treaty for Establishing a Constitution for Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...), which would have given the European Parliament far more power, in plebiscites in Belgium and France, causing other countries to bail on theirs.
an ivory tower style structure like that of the EU can only end up on fascism, communism or an equivalently authoritarian system
How much EU policy have you actually paid attention to? Only the exciting (bad) proposals make headlines.
Just goes to show fighting climate change is nothing but a power grab that makes life more miserable for regular people and making them more dependent on the rich and government.
We're just lucky that the government just not fighting climate change is the obvious choice here.
Imagine if the world was just a little more complicated than that, and rich government elites were also representing the interests for downplaying climate change and doubling down on fossil fuels.
It might mean regular people died in unprecedented heat waves and got their houses burned down by wildfires. All while billionaires convince them that all carbon pricing is awful and corrupt, careful that they don't know too much about the option of revenue-neutral dividends.
Imagine if the world was just a little more complicated than that, and rich government elites were also representing the interests for downplaying climate change and doubling down on fossil fuels.
It might mean regular people died in unprecedented heat waves and got their houses burned down by wildfires. All while billionaires convince them that all carbon pricing is awful and corrupt, careful that they don't know too much about the option of revenue-neutral dividends.
js8(4)
[Citation needed]
It's called a history book in the section of "governments doing things for your own good".
I'm pretty disenchanted with government due to it being hijacked by those with 1%er money.
Anyway, couldn't the aristocrats (10%ers) writing this do a better job with trade-offs? Like exempt it, but force them to buy carbon credits at a set discounted price?
Pretty sure the 1% knows they can't get away with this without a compromise.
Anyway, couldn't the aristocrats (10%ers) writing this do a better job with trade-offs? Like exempt it, but force them to buy carbon credits at a set discounted price?
Pretty sure the 1% knows they can't get away with this without a compromise.
I can see a reason to exempt flights that are flying abroad.
For example, an EU airport could charge max(min(10%, tax rate of country you came from last), tax rate of country you're flying to next).
Thats to prevent an aircraft just filling up where it's cheap and carrying that fuel around the world unnecessarily.
The EU should then lobby other countries to introduce fuel taxes, and if they refuse, set fees for aircraft coming from those countries into the EU which is approximately equal to the taxes due on the fuel for those flights.
For example, an EU airport could charge max(min(10%, tax rate of country you came from last), tax rate of country you're flying to next).
Thats to prevent an aircraft just filling up where it's cheap and carrying that fuel around the world unnecessarily.
The EU should then lobby other countries to introduce fuel taxes, and if they refuse, set fees for aircraft coming from those countries into the EU which is approximately equal to the taxes due on the fuel for those flights.
Nothing less would be expected from the European Commission. Not once have they declined to brown nose big business.
Then they have the gal to accuse others of being corrupt.
Wow that defeats any reasonable point this could have had except to benefit larger corporations. The EU might be better off without the law entirely.
So, like TAX off-shoring, some airlines will just fill up outside this remit of tax, so your flight from EU to Australia as an example - may have enough fuel to hit the next refuel outside the EU and then carry on, saving lots of money for the airline in what will be a completely legal avoidance move.
Turkey will love this - as they are not an EU member and have just built the biggest airport in the World.
Turkey will love this - as they are not an EU member and have just built the biggest airport in the World.
I've lost any and all faith I had in the EU after how it handled coronavirus. Nothing will surprise me now.
[deleted]
Come on EU, can't you do proper accounting?
Tax the fuel, and give certain groups a subsidy when you think it is necessary. That way, accounting is fully transparent, and we don't end up in weird discussions about why some groups of people pay tax and others don't.
Tax the fuel, and give certain groups a subsidy when you think it is necessary. That way, accounting is fully transparent, and we don't end up in weird discussions about why some groups of people pay tax and others don't.
We need carbon tax asap everywhere where it's possible otherwise the humanity is doomed.
I struggle to find one (1) reason for this exemption but political leverage. Embarassing.
Historically, EU aviation fuel was tax free and applied no VAT. Many US states don't tax jet fuel.
Air traffic causes 2.5% of all CO2 emissions globally. In rich countries about 3%.
Air traffic causes 2.5% of all CO2 emissions globally. In rich countries about 3%.
Come now, people. How else will these poor oligarchs afford to fly to davos if they have to abide by the same rules they want to push on the plebs?
I very much doubt that that kind of exemption will survive into the actual law.
(If it even exists now, I haven't seen the actual draft)
(If it even exists now, I haven't seen the actual draft)
I am wondering how these exemptions can be used as a loophole.
Private drivers were one, why not private jets now ?
Quoting from https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-... (thanks jey)
> The commission is worried that taxing fuel for cargo-only flights would adversely affect EU carriers.
Adversely affecting the aviation industry is kind of the whole point you gits.
> The commission is worried that taxing fuel for cargo-only flights would adversely affect EU carriers.
Adversely affecting the aviation industry is kind of the whole point you gits.
Their point was a bit more subtle, it meant that EU carriers would effectively be penalized relative to non-EU carriers operating in the EU, because other agreements precluded applying the tax to those (non-EU) carriers.
Means they need another tool.
The exception for private jets seems hard to defend though, whether business or pleasure.
Means they need another tool.
The exception for private jets seems hard to defend though, whether business or pleasure.
[deleted]
Brussels eurocrats might enjoy comfy flights.
Exactly. Taxes for thee, not for me... they are one of the most privileged class in Europe. Unbelievable amount of privileges even most local politicians or bureaucrats do not have.
Ohhh I thought it was the other way around..
It's called TPT aka The Pleb Tax.
ok course, who would fund their ad campaigns on pushing carbon tax?
Now, the wall simply reads, “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL / BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”Can't even read the article without JS enabled.
This probably why they goto Davos
So... Socialists taxing the rich... Right? Right?
Somebody thinks of Davos
What a crock of shit
I’m okay with the events that are unfolding currently.
[deleted]
Bear in mind the author of this piece [0] is a crazy brexiteer somewhere on the far far right...
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines
I agree with the exemption for Cargo. Some things do depend on quick transportation and plane is the way to go.
Now, for Private Jets? Yeah that's ridiculous.
Now, for Private Jets? Yeah that's ridiculous.
If some things need air freight, and can't offset the carbon tax, why are we bothering? Maybe flying short-date crops from tropical climates shouldn't be a thing. If you really want those sugar snap peas, get ready to pay to ship them.
The exemption for cargo appears to be because they lack the means to enforce it for carriers operated by non-EU carriers within the EU, due to other existing agreements.
If some things depend on quick transportation, I think it's fair that they cost a bit more.
Ultra-rich don't have to pay any taxes, perfectly legally, according to recent ProPublica files: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
So why would they pay jet fuel tax, too? This has nothing to do with global warming, it's all about tax avoidance, it fits the pattern.
So why would they pay jet fuel tax, too? This has nothing to do with global warming, it's all about tax avoidance, it fits the pattern.
The wealthy certainly enjoy special tax advantages, but this article should come as no surprise. You pay taxes when you sell your stock. So not selling any stock for a year and not taking a salary means you pay no taxes. That’s just like everyone else. Of course you can’t spend your money or diversity without selling, either, so it’s really more of a delayed tax.
Sure, it's the same law for everybody, just like everybody can just travel with their own personal jet for a "business purpose", right?
Special interests rule the world, except where a recent revolution happened. Special interests by definition have a stronger desire than the general population for certain policies, and thus get them installed even when it harms most citizens. Thomas Jefferson said that a nation needs a revolution once a generation to keep it's freedom. Either that or there needs to be a constitutional clause that automatically sunsets all government legislation and agencies every seven or ten years.
Or maybe the country just needs more democracy? To be fair to Jefferson, though, he was more in favor of it than some of his coworkers, like Hamilton.
There was a nice study from Cato institute (somewhat surprisingly), a comparison between different U.S. states, that showed that tax measures established by direct democracy (referendums) have less loopholes than the ones established by representative democracy.
There was a nice study from Cato institute (somewhat surprisingly), a comparison between different U.S. states, that showed that tax measures established by direct democracy (referendums) have less loopholes than the ones established by representative democracy.
Proposed bills usually go nowhere - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
On HN, there's no harm in waiting - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...