Well they would, wouldn\’t they?

Scrapping the controversial tax, which applies to all passengers flying from a UK airport, would deliver a 0.45pc boost to GDP within 12 months and could generate 60,000 jobs by 2020, according to a report commissioned by British Airways, easyJet, Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic.

APD adds £13 to the cost of a short-haul flight, up from £5 in 2007, and as much as £92 in the case of long-haul. Airlines argue it acts as a major barrier to both tourism and potential investment in Britain.

It is rather too high though. London Lisbon return (one of the longer shorthaul flights around) is about 0.4 tonnes CO2. At Stern\’s $80 a tonne that\’s £20 odd. Rather than the £26 being charged. The overpayment is too high, obviously, for shorter flights.

6 comments on “Well they would, wouldn\’t they?

  1. Stern’s $80 per tonne is all very well. However, priced at today’s latest price (LSE:CARB) of Euro 3.53, it would be about £1.22 – even allowing for the plummetting Pound/Euro rate.

    I think you’ll find that the price is ludicrously high for all types of flights.

  2. Be interesting to know how the carbon burden of flights is calculated. It certainly shouldn’t be based on a miles per gallon figure, in the same way surface transport is.
    Each individual aircraft has a ‘sweet spot’ of speed/altitude/mass which is the most efficient. It actually changes during the flight due to the fuel load decreasing, which is why aircraft change cruising altitude between the beginning & end of a journey. At the sweet spot, they’re very efficient but much less so climbing to altitude, in the landing pattern or constrained to non-optimum altitudes. Hence, short haul flights are very much less fuel efficient because the high consumption phases are a much greater proportion of the flight.

  3. Is APD really related to the amount of carbon dioxide produced? If it were surely it would vary according to the number of people on the plane (more people presumably more efficient)?

  4. “Well they would, wouldn’t they?”

    Why yes, they would. And most of the time so would this blog. It frequently points out that if you tax something you get less of it.

    But since APD has “environmental credentials” we get a smarmy, Ritchie style response with a deviation into mentioning that Stern’s tax on civilisation would be better.

    Which just goes to show that greenism rots your brain.

  5. @”PJF // Feb 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    “Well they would, wouldn’t they?”

    Why yes, they would. And most of the time so would this blog. It frequently points out that if you tax something you get less of it.”
    We need some taxes. Therefore why not tax pollution as opposed to income? Of course the problem is that we still have high taxes on everything else.
    Also it is possible that the benefits of getting rid of APD have been exaggerated and the disadvantages diminshed.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>