Finally. It's really frustrating to see how heavily subsidized airlines, plane fuel and airports are and how big of a tax breaks they get when they come to a city.<p>At the same time people are shamed for buying salad in a plastic bag when the big lever is somewhere completely different. Had the same thought yesterday when I saw:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1148317244893597696" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1148317244893597696</a>
The UK already taxes flights in a similar way.
Whilst this does feel like progress, it would be much better to tax the fuel instead of the passengers. Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt.
The problem with taxing passengers instead of fuel include:<p>- it doesn't encourage improving the efficiency of planes<p>- airlines can't fill their planes with really cheap seats, and empty seats seem like a ridiculous waste<p>- freight isn't taxed<p>If you tax fuel too much there's a risk that planes will fly in with enough fuel to fly out again, but that could be fixed by legislation or (better) by a standardised fuel tax across a large area.
I am actually surprised that short-distance flights aren't taxed more in Western Europe. The train infrastructure in France is world class and can get you from Paris (North-Central part of the country) to Marseille (Southeast), a distance of about 500 miles, in 3 hours.<p>For Americans, this would be roughly equivalent to go from Boston to Washington D.C. (a trip that takes 7-10+ hours)
Why are they taxing flights rather than fuel?<p>There's nothing wrong with "flying"! What's wrong is how they get their airspeed, namely by burning fossil fuel.<p>Also those prices are insulting. There is no jet fuel tax in the EU. This gimmick tax is less than what people driving cars pay in taxes on their fuel for a tank of gas. Governments want to increase tax on car fuels (hence the yellow jacket movement) but still give airlines a break!
I don't really understand what the purpose of this tax is. There's no alternative to burning fuel by energy density on an airline, so why go after flights? What do they expect them to do? If you're taxing petrol cars you'd expect electric cars to become more economically viable.<p>Either way I disagree with carbon taxes. They're regressive, and ignore the fact that regular people are being badly hurt by them whereas the rich won't even feel it.
They say it will "help support the environment", which could mean through funding of greener initiatives, R&D or level the playing field (although the tax is really low/symbolic, in my opinion).<p>It makes sense to tax flights in order to subsidize rail for short-distance trips. I would have expected a higher tax on flights outside the EU, so that people change their habits (although then you need a carbon-tax sort of scheme, not to penalize low-income people who visit their family once a year).
As subsidies and taxes can be used to incentivize and disincentivize behavior, I’m happy about this. Flights have truly large ecologic costs, and flyers need to be aware of that, trying to minimize travel if not necessary. I’m particularly happy that it’s not a flat tax but based on ticket class.
I think the gov went in the wrong direction here, the tax for flights within France should have been the highest, to give more incentives for using the train, which is quite good (and very good when travelling to/from Paris).
> Want to do something about climate change? Start with yourself<p>I really dislike this line of thinking. I don’t manufacture millions of tons of concrete or millions of single-use plastic shampoo bottles. Our current path is irreversible if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon.
Here are the ways I see airline industry produces pollution:
* The airports are built (clearing so much green land, using so much concrete)
* How flights taxi when on airport
* How much time they spend in air due to congestion or weather
* How far airports are located from city population centers and transportation between them.
* Amount of time people spend at airports waiting - hence need large facilities to host them with food, entertainment (shopping) etc with air-conditioning.<p>I can imagine ways of switching over to alternate fuels, optimizing the process flows to reduce fuel needed or avoid certain step entirely through innovation and drastic changes.<p>But huge segment of travel generated pollution can be completed avoided by replacing in-person business meetings with alternate equally rich and rewarding experiences.<p>In the future, some day, I hope there will be holographic rooms that one can use to holographically teleport to another location and do meetings as if they are there in person. This would consume way less energy and hence reduce pollution. Imagine "holo-portation" hotel rooms that you can rent for doing meetings.
It's surprising the government didn't start with that instead of abruptly raising gas prices. Both are eco-friendly moves, but this one targets the rich more than the poor. Maybe it would have prevented months-long Yellow Vest protests.
> A round-trip plane ride from New York to London costs another three square meters or so of Arctic sea ice. [0]<p>It sounds like it wasn't a high enough tax. And perhaps we need to do more at the individual level to discourage international travel.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-co2-sea-ice-20161103-story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-co2-sea...</a>
I'm getting to the point where I think 'tax incidence analysis' should be a required course, perhaps required every few years throughout ones life just to ensure it's not forgotten[0]. It would improve the political discourse substantially.<p>[0] Actual implementation of this would be very difficult on many axes and perhaps impossible without introducing more problem than it solves, but I think it's worth it to try to figure out.
I wonder if this will roil the working masses like the planned gas taxes did. Maybe it will take a while until the work stoppages and lay offs kick in.
French government, unlike German one, is a lot smarter, and didn't kill its nuclear industry, adding more coal burning emissions. Surely this will pay in the long term. And a lot.
Some of the posts here amuse me because they're based on the idea that everything that exists now somehow must exist forever.<p>The train, or electric car, or boat, or other less polluting option from A to B, may well take a lot longer.<p>That might make certain things impractical. Like, say, me wombling down to Heathrow and taking a weekend in Krakow.<p>That may well just be the way it has to be. It may be temporary due to technological advancement; it may not.<p>Just as it may be the case that, in fact, there is no suitable alternative to say, plastic wrap on food. And maybe we'll have to change our diet.<p>I make no claim that any of the above is true; but if it is; such is life. We will have to adapt.
Isn't the title misleading? From the article: "The new French tax will be 1.5 euros for flights within France."<p>Unless "out of France" simply means originating in France, regardless of whether the destination is in France or not.<p>Either way, the original title is better, I would keep it: "France to tax flights from its airports"
About time. Traveling is killing the planet. One of major causes of climate change. We need to take it seriously. I'm glad France is willing to take a bold and brave step to support the environment.
Why are Americans so obsessed with religion, devil and sins?!<p>Taxes exist to capture money and finance the externalities that are ignored by corporations. If corporations were more responsible countries would not have to tax these issues.<p>In this case France is using the money to improve an already pretty good rail system. Compare this to the US and the California train line?
I've flown through a French airport once - Paris Charles de Gaulle and since have gone out of my way to not fly through it again. It was a hot mess. They lost the luggage, it was hard to find gates, parts of it looked outdated, customer service sucked. A year after, the ceiling at its _new_ terminal collapsed killing several people (<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-de-gaulle-airport-terminal-collapse-3972251" rel="nofollow">https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-de-gaulle-airport-terminal...</a>).<p>Maybe it was just me having a bad luck, but it was certainly enough to convince me to stay out French airports even if it means longer flights, delay or changing the duration of my stay.
It's nice how you can rename any tax to an "eco tax" and suddenly everyone's delighted. Kudos for the social engineering.<p>(there is absolutely no indication that this will somehow help the environment. I 'm heavily against flying , but i m also appalled by the level of gullibility here)
This is simply rent seeking. It won't reduce flights, it's too small to incentivize any fuel efficiency changes, it's passed on to the consumer so it won't alter airline behavior, and while the article claims the revenue will go towards financing trains, it doesn't state how that will be implemented. Are they going to reduce fees on trains accordingly? Are they going to improve train efficiency? Are they going to build additional infrastructure? It's possible that they could do all these things and cause a tiny shift away from air travel toward less-polluting options, but it's more likely just another general tax revenue source that's politically easier to acquire because it's easy to demonize airlines. I'm not defending airlines; they pollute a lot. I just don't see how this helps.