The BBC reported this week that British MPs are calling for a massive tax hike on air travel to punish the air industry for increased co2 emissions.
The MPs say that transport is the only sector of the UK economy where emissions have actually increased since 1990, with air travel emissions doubling.
I think that its wonderful that the government is recognizing the reality of Global Warming and is attempting to do something about it, but they are taking the wrong approach altogether.
First off, I, myself, am an active environmentalist, which is the part of me that agrees with this tax proposal.
I am, however, an advocate of social equality, which is the part of me that disagrees.
Raising air tax five-fold, as the MPs are proposing, will do nothing but punish the poor.
There are many budget travellers out there, myself included, who may be priced out of the air-travel market, and these are the wrong people to punish.
I liken it to countries with a two-tier health care system.
Governments are unable to keep up with the rising costs of health care, so what do they do? They force the poor to wait in queues, use out of date equipment, and rely on inferior doctors, whilst the rich enjoy private health.
The same rings true here.
Do you think that wealthy retirees and business people whom have their travel expenses picked up by their company will start travelling less? Of course not, what's a few extra pounds to them? If anything, its these people who should be forced to travel less and pick up the expense.
The rich are responsible for far more co2 emissions than the poor as they own cars, do not use mass transit, and must heat and power bigger homes.
Now, I understand the government's theory here.
They are really trying to force the airlines to take measures to reduce their emission, i.
e.
purchase more modern and efficient planes, but I feel they need to go about it in a different way.
To me, when it comes to attacking global warming, industries should not be individualised.
Instead, a broader picture needs to be looked at in order to do in a more effective and socially responsible way, which this air tax is not.
It should be assessed by who is profiting off global warming, who is contributing to it unnecessarily, and who are just trying to live their lives.
The ones profiting are industries in general.
Oil companies, automobile manufacturers, airline companies, and uh-oh, governments.
Of course these are just examples, I'm sure I could fill a small novel with others.
These are clearly the ones that need to be punished through increased taxes, required quality improvement, and in some cases, massive restrictions.
Obviously there will be some economic impact, so that will also have to be considered, but we're fighting a bigger battle here.
Those who contribute to global warming to live more luxurious lives need also to be punished, which are the upper and much of the middle class.
Why does a single man drive a massive 4 wheel drive SUV? Why does anyone for that matter? Taxes on such vehicles are nowhere near to the level they should be.
They are not a necessity unless it is being used for commercial purposes.
If you have a family, there are plenty of five passenger smaller cars.
If you like to go out to the country and 4X4 through the woods, hire one for the weekend.
Another luxary is driving altogether.
It's easy to say that to deter people from driving, fuel taxes should go higher.
But, we run into the same controversy as the air tax.
The poor will be priced out and the rich will just charge it to their Platinum Visa.
Now, I'm not saying we should stop driving altogether, because of course people need to get to work but do they really need to drive? Mass transit in most cities are reliable, affordable, and get you to any location you want.
Millions of people world-wide snubb this environmentally friendly mode of transportation for no reason except laziness, but they must be encouraged to make the switch.
If everyone used transit even once a week, automobile co2 emissions would be slashed by 20 percent.
Two days a week, 40%, and so on.
So how do we do encourage them? As mentioned before, increased costs such as fuel taxes, inner-city charges, and parking hikes will only eliminate the poor.
So maybe restrictions are necessary but I won't begin to suggest any.
Of course heating, cooling, and powering of a home is a necessity, but, excessiveness is occurring.
First off, many homes, especially older ones, are not energy efficient by usage of old hot-water heaters, air leaks, water systems, light bulbs, and old appliances.
These homes need to be upgraded.
Also, it is not necessary to leave the air conditioning, lights, and a computer running all day whilst you are at work.
I feel that each home should be individually assessed as to what its average monthly energy consumption should be, and be heavily taxed on any amount used over the assessment.
So the government has collected millions from industry taxes, SUV taxes, excess home energy use, and whatever solution a clever person comes up with to curb inner-city traffic.
Now where does this money go? First, subsidies on things such as very fuel-efficient cars, even more on the SmartCar electric model, transit passes, bicycles and motor scooters, solar and wind power of homes, and energy-efficient light bulbs.
Second, assistance to struggling industries, such as airline companies, to become more environmental friendly.
Also, to reward home owners for improving the efficiency of their homes.
Third, to improve transit systems.
I'm sure you can conceive many more good uses for this money.
In conclusion, I know there are many flaws in my theory, especially economically, and I certainly don't believe it to be perfect.
Its more of a first draft to be reviewed and adjusted.
I also don't claim to be the first to think such things, I'm sure many a government has considered these ideas before and have not instituted them for whatever reasons, probably economics.
I only hope that when governments finally decide to step up and tackle this problem head on, that they do it a socially responsible manor, unlike the proposed UK air tax hike.
I'd also like to conclude with a mention that Sweden is the only country to vow to cease its reliance on fossil fuels and I think we should all push for our country to be the next one to do the same, because when the rest of the world decides to jump on board, we will already be miles ahead.
The MPs say that transport is the only sector of the UK economy where emissions have actually increased since 1990, with air travel emissions doubling.
I think that its wonderful that the government is recognizing the reality of Global Warming and is attempting to do something about it, but they are taking the wrong approach altogether.
First off, I, myself, am an active environmentalist, which is the part of me that agrees with this tax proposal.
I am, however, an advocate of social equality, which is the part of me that disagrees.
Raising air tax five-fold, as the MPs are proposing, will do nothing but punish the poor.
There are many budget travellers out there, myself included, who may be priced out of the air-travel market, and these are the wrong people to punish.
I liken it to countries with a two-tier health care system.
Governments are unable to keep up with the rising costs of health care, so what do they do? They force the poor to wait in queues, use out of date equipment, and rely on inferior doctors, whilst the rich enjoy private health.
The same rings true here.
Do you think that wealthy retirees and business people whom have their travel expenses picked up by their company will start travelling less? Of course not, what's a few extra pounds to them? If anything, its these people who should be forced to travel less and pick up the expense.
The rich are responsible for far more co2 emissions than the poor as they own cars, do not use mass transit, and must heat and power bigger homes.
Now, I understand the government's theory here.
They are really trying to force the airlines to take measures to reduce their emission, i.
e.
purchase more modern and efficient planes, but I feel they need to go about it in a different way.
To me, when it comes to attacking global warming, industries should not be individualised.
Instead, a broader picture needs to be looked at in order to do in a more effective and socially responsible way, which this air tax is not.
It should be assessed by who is profiting off global warming, who is contributing to it unnecessarily, and who are just trying to live their lives.
The ones profiting are industries in general.
Oil companies, automobile manufacturers, airline companies, and uh-oh, governments.
Of course these are just examples, I'm sure I could fill a small novel with others.
These are clearly the ones that need to be punished through increased taxes, required quality improvement, and in some cases, massive restrictions.
Obviously there will be some economic impact, so that will also have to be considered, but we're fighting a bigger battle here.
Those who contribute to global warming to live more luxurious lives need also to be punished, which are the upper and much of the middle class.
Why does a single man drive a massive 4 wheel drive SUV? Why does anyone for that matter? Taxes on such vehicles are nowhere near to the level they should be.
They are not a necessity unless it is being used for commercial purposes.
If you have a family, there are plenty of five passenger smaller cars.
If you like to go out to the country and 4X4 through the woods, hire one for the weekend.
Another luxary is driving altogether.
It's easy to say that to deter people from driving, fuel taxes should go higher.
But, we run into the same controversy as the air tax.
The poor will be priced out and the rich will just charge it to their Platinum Visa.
Now, I'm not saying we should stop driving altogether, because of course people need to get to work but do they really need to drive? Mass transit in most cities are reliable, affordable, and get you to any location you want.
Millions of people world-wide snubb this environmentally friendly mode of transportation for no reason except laziness, but they must be encouraged to make the switch.
If everyone used transit even once a week, automobile co2 emissions would be slashed by 20 percent.
Two days a week, 40%, and so on.
So how do we do encourage them? As mentioned before, increased costs such as fuel taxes, inner-city charges, and parking hikes will only eliminate the poor.
So maybe restrictions are necessary but I won't begin to suggest any.
Of course heating, cooling, and powering of a home is a necessity, but, excessiveness is occurring.
First off, many homes, especially older ones, are not energy efficient by usage of old hot-water heaters, air leaks, water systems, light bulbs, and old appliances.
These homes need to be upgraded.
Also, it is not necessary to leave the air conditioning, lights, and a computer running all day whilst you are at work.
I feel that each home should be individually assessed as to what its average monthly energy consumption should be, and be heavily taxed on any amount used over the assessment.
So the government has collected millions from industry taxes, SUV taxes, excess home energy use, and whatever solution a clever person comes up with to curb inner-city traffic.
Now where does this money go? First, subsidies on things such as very fuel-efficient cars, even more on the SmartCar electric model, transit passes, bicycles and motor scooters, solar and wind power of homes, and energy-efficient light bulbs.
Second, assistance to struggling industries, such as airline companies, to become more environmental friendly.
Also, to reward home owners for improving the efficiency of their homes.
Third, to improve transit systems.
I'm sure you can conceive many more good uses for this money.
In conclusion, I know there are many flaws in my theory, especially economically, and I certainly don't believe it to be perfect.
Its more of a first draft to be reviewed and adjusted.
I also don't claim to be the first to think such things, I'm sure many a government has considered these ideas before and have not instituted them for whatever reasons, probably economics.
I only hope that when governments finally decide to step up and tackle this problem head on, that they do it a socially responsible manor, unlike the proposed UK air tax hike.
I'd also like to conclude with a mention that Sweden is the only country to vow to cease its reliance on fossil fuels and I think we should all push for our country to be the next one to do the same, because when the rest of the world decides to jump on board, we will already be miles ahead.