SIA chief warns of 'green tax' risk to travel

[Megatop]

Deleted

[LionCity]

I am for the "green tax". It is inevitable that it will come and Climate Conference in Copenhagan, Denmark might new measures for air and sea transportation. Just not sure if premier cabin passenger will have to pay more.

[jjpb3]

'Discriminatory' -- funny term to use on a non-flat tax. I translate that to mean, 'It hits our priority customer segment particularly hard'.

The awakening environmentalist in me agrees with the premise of a green tax. The public finance amateur economist in me wonders whether thinking of travel in terms of environmental cost is too narrow a perspective for policymakers.

[scooby5]

There are other much larger poluters out there than the airlines and motorists but those are the two targets first as the humble consumer never has a choice.

[SQ238]

There are other much larger poluters out there than the airlines and motorists but those are the two targets first as the humble consumer never has a choice.

I totally agree with you scooby5.

The SIA Chief wasn't to worried about the poor old traveller paying to much for his/her ticket, when SIA continued to gouge on the fuel surcharge because of a bad bet against the oil price.

SQ238.

[jjpb3]

The SIA Chief wasn't to worried about the poor old traveller paying to much for his/her ticket, when SIA continued to gouge on the fuel surcharge because of a bad bet against the oil price.

I agree, he was basically saying: 'Don't muscle in our turf [surcharges]'.

[N_Architect]

There are other much larger poluters out there than the airlines and motorists but those are the two targets first as the humble consumer never has a choice.

Couldn't agree more on this as well...

[dcflyer]

I agree with the tax. The less poor people can afford to travel the better I say.

[SQflyergirl]

I agree with the tax. The less poor people can afford to travel the better I say.

The more people travel (poor and rich alike), the more people's minds are opened up to different ways of life.

Already too much blood is spilt in wars over idealogy and religion, especially when the tenets and concepts one might hold to are diametrically opposite from someone else's.

Ignorance kills - and I have to say, saying that poor people shouldn't travel very clearly has that attribute.

[phaleesy]

I agree with the tax. The less poor people can afford to travel the better I say.

Does the skin come off your nose when poor people travel?

Unfortunately I'm a poor civil servant based at LHR!

[KeithMEL]

There are other much larger poluters out there than the airlines and motorists but those are the two targets first as the humble consumer never has a choice.

And also the fact that these targets are more politically visible.

[inix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the way I'm reading this is correct, I'm thinking that this can cause a significant traffic distortion. I mean, how will the taxes calculate a Passenger doing SIN - Heathrow via CDG?

If its a Asia - Europe tax, it would probably require the airline / the French authorities to release data. Would they? If they don't would the customer end up paying only the France to UK tax?

[fone]

what is green tax? Does it make it more energy efficient if the loads were less than full? Any additional passenger is just a fraction of the entire plane / fuel weight and fuel is required to fly the metal itself. So it would be more green to fly a full plane than a plane with just a few passengers. Why is the whole green industry not taking off, it is because much of the efforts were spent in the wrong way.

[scooby5]

Why is the whole green industry not taking off, it is because much of the efforts were spent in the wrong way.

Because too much money is spent on research, research and more bl@@dy research. The hacking into the University of East Anglia's Climate Reaearch Unit only goes to highlight more how much is wasted and counter wasted in trying to prove the theory of Climate Change.

Now I'm all for efficiency, using less natural resources like wood, oil and copper etc. to then improve recycling and renewable energy ONLY because it in itself is morally correct to use less, waste less, to obtain the same result.

It's not that we should be taxing CO2 emissions because that's not the cause of climate change, but we should be improving our efficiency. We need to move a great chunk of the money spent on research into actually doing something to do this instead.

The only downside...... watching Gore get more super-rich from the whole thing

[Cashsuds]

Because too much money is spent on research, The only downside...... watching Gore get more super-rich from the whole thing

Too true.. We all knew that all along didn't we?? It's another "get rich scheme" Maybe there's a lot more jumping on the bandwagon than what we think...

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
By Judi McLeod
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
To read the whole article see

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm