Cocksuckers at the Committee on Climate Change

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change.

Have none of these fuckwits actually read the Stern Review? We should tax emissions, internalise the current externalities.

Great, and the cost we are covering is that $80 a tonne CO2.

Fine, so what should the tax on a flight be then? Yes, it should be $80 per tonne CO2 emitted times the number of tonnes of CO2 emitted. And do we already have a tax that does that? Why, yes we do, it\’s called Air Passenger Duty.

It\’s a little rough and ready to be sure but it is at about the correct level (note that it was doubled just after the Stern Review came out to make it accord with the Stern Review estimates). So that\’s it, we\’re done. Nothing else need be developed, we have internalised to market prices the cost of the pollution generated.

Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel and ensure that carbon dioxide emissions from aviation fall back to 2005 levels, the Committee on Climate Change says. It believes that airlines should be forced to share the burden of meeting Britain’s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.


The committee proposes a global cap on aviation emissions,

Nooooooo… God you\’re ghastly little cocksuckers, aren\’t you? We do not want to cap emissions by sector at all!

Cap total emissions perhaps (or tax emissions at the harm they do) but we absolutely want emissions to be tradeable across sectors. For we want to use whatever emissions we\’re allowed in whatever manner provides us with the greatest value. It might be that we prefer steak and the methane emissions to flying: or flying in preference to steak. But if we cap agricultural emissions separately from the cap on aviation emissions then we cannot make that choice, can we?

Setting cap and trade limits by sector obviates the very reason to have cap and trade: for you\’re not allowing trade between sectors, which is the very thing we damn well want from a cap and trade system.

Somehow it just isn\’t a surprise that the weapons grade cock end Adair Turner is involved with this.

8 thoughts on “Cocksuckers at the Committee on Climate Change”

  1. Are you saying that current taxes on air travel represent its true cost or that this is what the Stern Review said ?

    Tim adds: Willing to go with both.

  2. This whole exercise has been done by the Department for Transport:

    Turns out, taxes on flights are already way too high relative to aircraft emissions.

    This is the problem with the approach of creating Departments and Committees all about Climate Change. The staff are composed of people who really care about climate change, not experts in each policy area affected. That means they aren’t able to carry out any kind of critical assessment and just spout nonsense.

  3. I wonder if we should petition the government to set up a committe to rid the encironment of that perncious and frequently lethal chemical, dihydrogen monoxide?

    It’s about the general level of scientific literacy displayed by these “concerned” types.

  4. I like the way Tim talks about externalities .Exactly the same people , like me , who detest the imposition of other people’s rules are equally incandescent at fly tipping , by scum bag pikey bastards who fuck the place up and leave everyone else to clear up the mess
    If the whole environmental issue was re- framed not as an excuse for a world government of collectivists but as a crack down on cheats , it would play a lot better. I am not at all sure the banking industry has not been guilty of dumping costs , after all the market would have put the lot of them on Margate pier flipping burgers .

  5. “So that’s it, we’re done. Nothing else need be developed, we have internalised to market prices the cost of the pollution generated.”

    This is an argument that you repeat often, but I confess I feel I’m missing something in my understanding.

    Consider the analogy of a village with a beautiful park that the locals like to use for barbecues. Some locals pick up all their litter and some prefer to leave it scattered across the park. So the high sheriff institutes a ticketing system. Tickets are free if you take your litter home, and some cost (which was determined to be the price equivalent of the damage caused by the litter) if you intend to strew your rubbish across the verdant sward.

    According to your argument as I understand it, the litter problem is now solved. Yet the money raised is not spent on cleaning the park, it is the act of charging it which solves the problem.

    Or something.

    Could you crack open my skull and pour in a little enlightenment?

    Tim adds: Sure.

    Littering causes damage to those who do not like litter. Picking up litter causes a cost to those who do not like to take their litter home.

    So, what is the optimal amount of litter to have? How do we try and make sure that the cost of picking up litter is equal to the benefit derived from that litter being picked up?

    We find out what the damage caused by the litter is. We then enact your tax. Thus the only litter that will be left is the litter that does less damage than the cost of taking it away would be.

    Note, we’re not trying to “solve the litter problem” in the sense of making sure there is no litter. We’re attempting to balance the cost of having no litter against the cost of not littering.

    This basic thought is subject to a number of caveats: the first is the calculation problem of working out how much litter costs. In this example it’s probably not worth doing that at all, better perhaps to have simply a man shouting at people.

    Secondly, the structure of the tax itself has costs. As with Coase and transaction costs, sometimes those costs will be too high for any benefit possibly gained wso that we should again just have a man shouting.

    But this rather comes into its own with huge and expensive problems like climate change. For example, some poor bastard in Banlgadesh is going to see his rice paddy drown if too many people drive their cars. But driving an ambulance to the ER has a value. So how many ambulances should we drive to the ER? Up to the value of that paddy field in 100 years time.

  6. …and if the villagers who prefer their green tidy want to, they can go and pick up the litter. The tax paid by the litterers will compensate them for either putting up with the mess or for cleaning it up – whichever they prefer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *