Cap on individual plane travel

[theprestige]

It's an interesting idea, but redundant: I have already put a cap on my plane travel. I don't really need the government to do the same again. Thanks, though!

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I think it's a bad idea for many reasons that have already been brought up.

Just curious though: why single out air travel? I'd guess any "cap" on just air travel would have a miniscule effect, if any, on global warming. You could just as easily propose we cap... how much meat people eat, or how many miles they drive in their car, or how much electricity they use or... etc.

 

[corplinx]

A rise in gas prices nearly killed the airlines. That same rise in oil prices tipped an economic crash as well.

As much as I think carbon taxes might be a good idea on paper, they seem foolish when I look at the actual impact and the delicate nature of fossil fuel based economies.

I'm not sure capping air travel makes any sense at all however, even on paper. I can't figure out any supporting reason for it to sanely rebut.

Do we really need to tax carbon heavily or just subsidize alternatives heavily? Since carbon taxes won't actually offset the pollution of a coal plant, there isn't much of a difference there except you don't create a new recession.

 

[funk de fino]

What do you think of a cap on the amount a single individual can fly per annum?

Crap idea. Some of us fly 10's of thousands of airmiles each year for our job.

 

[Puppycow]

Crap idea. Some of us fly 10's of thousands of airmiles each year for our job.

Like airplane pilots. What would happen when the pilots use up their quotas?

 

[geni]

Like airplane pilots. What would happen when the pilots use up their quotas?

We have computers that can handle the flying bit. Sure they have issues when things go wrong but that should keep the amount people actualy want to fly down.

 

[KingMerv00]

A carbon tax on the airlines? What stops them from raising the costs though?

You can only raise prices so much. At some point the ticket price would become prohibitive and the company would have to absorb some of the cost.

 

[corplinx]

If pollution from airplanes is enough to worry about, the only way to truly solve the issue is to nationalize the airlines or force them to become a monopoly again. Then you can redo the flight schedules and routing at all the airports so eliminate as many flights as you can.

Of course, when the government steps in to do something like this.... well, look at Jack Murtha's boondoggle airport. Any reduction in waste would probably be offset by an increase of waste by funding more pork-belly loss-center airports and the inefficient flights to them.

The airline industry has already been cutting left and right to reduce fuel consumption since the big oil bubble of 08. Older planes like the MD-80 are phased out. Fedex just got its first 777 so they can fly transpacific without making a stop.

Of course, we have had more efficient planes on the way but they have been held up in bureaucratic red tape from various governments for the longest time as well. Airbus and Boeing have to perform so many gymnastics to make a new plane, that I am surprised its even economically feasible.

 

[geni]

Of course, we have had more efficient planes on the way but they have been held up in bureaucratic red tape from various governments for the longest time as well. Airbus and Boeing have to perform so many gymnastics to make a new plane, that I am surprised its even economically feasible.

It isn't. Neither however ultimately answer to market forces.

 

[lionking]

Crap idea. Some of us fly 10's of thousands of airmiles each year for our job.

Same here. And it would kill the idea of aussies flying to Europe and vice versa - yeah, I know that's a plus in some people's eyes.

 

[popscythe]

Well come of us are climate lobbyists and we need governments to interfere in the private market because otherwise we would be out of a job. Ever think of that, Mr 10,000 miles? Hmmm?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Like airplane pilots. What would happen when the pilots use up their quotas?

And what about the AGW lobbyists, and politicians, and climate scientists that need to regularly fly around the world. What happens when they can't do their jobs any more?

 

[The Painter]

This is cap and trade. I will just buy someones unused travel credits. Then I can travel all I want. Just like polluting. See?

 

[funk de fino]

We have computers that can handle the flying bit. Sure they have issues when things go wrong but that should keep the amount people actualy want to fly down.

Don't tell the truthers that.

 

[funk de fino]

Same here. And it would kill the idea of aussies flying to Europe and vice versa - yeah, I know that's a plus in some people's eyes.

Not in my eyes. I love it when you come over and get spanked in the Ashes.

 

[funk de fino]

Well come of us are climate lobbyists and we need governments to interfere in the private market because otherwise we would be out of a job. Ever think of that, Mr 10,000 miles? Hmmm?

10's of thousands. Maybe you need to do your job better then?

 

[geni]

Don't tell the truthers that.

The current computers would try to prevent most of 9/11 (untill they were switched off). They know planes can't fly through buildings and the pentagon is not a runway.

 

[Dr. Lao]

I have a novel idea, how about the gov't butt out and let the free market decide.


Free markets, free minds, freedom. What a concept!

 

[WildCat]

Just out of curiosity, is the carbon footprint of air travel significantly higher than travel by bus?

I imagine the intent of the proposal is to encourage travel by train rather than air. If that's so it would be more efficient to build, support and promote the rail infrastructure (something pretty weak in the U.S.).

Oh god no!

It costs more to take the train, and that's with heavy government subsidies hiding the trrue cost.

Have you ever checked Amtrak's fares?

 

[Puppycow]

Wouldn't that unfairly hit the poorest % of the population though?

Actually a carbon tax could be fully refunded. In this case, it could actually benefit the poor.

For example, all proceeds from the carbon tax are equally divided and each legal resident gets one share. Assuming that the poor would use less carbon per capita on average, they would receive more than they pay in carbon taxes. Because what you pay depends on how much carbon you personally use, while what you recieve back depends on how much carbon the average person uses. If you use less than the average person, you make money. Use more, and you pay more.