Changing the air passenger duty so it’s charged per flight rather than passenger makes sense. Previously if a plane took off with just one passenger it would attract a tiny duty but still emit large amounts of carbon. This way the airlines will be encouraged to fly fuller planes (which is good as fewer flights in total might be required).
However, the industry is rightly angry that it’s paying vast sums (BA alone will pay £400m) under a so called ‘green tax’ and does not know what the money is being used for (it could be totally unrelated to the environment for all we know).
The government will never build trust with the industry if it is not more transparent. BA has gone further by saying that the amount they pay in APD could offset all their flights four times over (by buying carbon offsets on the open markets). While I have some sympathy with this they miss the point (or choose to ignore it) that what the Government is really trying to do is make us fly less by putting the price up. Here they are right – just because we can offset emissions does not mean that we go on polluting more and more. We must first strive to emit less carbon (fly less) and then offset the rest.
So in summary, yes it’s a step forwards. The big step forward is deciding whether emissions trading or taxation (difficult due to international law) is the best way to manage aviations’ emissions.
By Justin Francis, responsibletravel.com 
Bookmark or Share
