When a friend casually asks why some politicians want to tax aviation

Summary

The article discusses the rationale behind taxing aviation, emphasizing the industry's significant contribution to carbon dioxide emissions and the need for immediate net-zero plans to align with climate goals.

Abstract

The article addresses the casual inquiry into why some politicians advocate for taxing aviation. It highlights that while domestic flights contribute less to the problem, long-haul flights (over 1500 km) make up the majority of aviation emissions. The growth in aviation emissions is a concern due to the industry's plan to offset growth with carbon credits, many of which are considered ineffective. The article underscores the urgency for all nations to reach net-zero emissions, as per the Paris Agreement and IPCC reports, which necessitates the artificial drawdown of all emissions produced. The author suggests that even aiming for a 2°C temperature rise, which is already a challenging scenario, requires immediate net-zero plans and no emissions growth beyond 2020. Aviation emissions in the EU have doubled since 1990 and are expected to double again, prompting the likelihood of EU taxation and other measures to curb this growth, ensuring fair climate policy and avoiding social unrest similar to the Yellow Vests movement.

Opinions

The author believes that the aviation industry's growth in emissions is a significant issue, particularly with the industry's reliance on questionable CDM credits for offsetting.
There is skepticism regarding the effectiveness of current offset mechanisms, with many CDM credits being considered as "total junk."
The author interprets the scientific framing of mitigation as requiring every nation to achieve net-zero emissions, with no room for emissions growth post-2020.
The article suggests that aiming for a 2°C temperature rise is already a severe scenario, implying that the current trajectory is even more dire.
The author expresses that taxation and other measures are likely to be implemented by the EU to address the rapid growth in aviation emissions.
There is a concern that without fair climate policy, there could be significant social backlash, as seen with the Yellow Vests movement.
The author is somewhat optimistic about the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) as a solution for personal transportation, viewing them as a superior product with more models soon to be available.

When a friend casually asks why some politicians want to tax aviation

“Domestic aviation is not the biggest problem, the problem is global growth. 80 % of aviation is 1500+ km. (A certain Nordic airline) will have some electric planes on short routes in ten years to my knowledge.

The reason why aviation is being discussed is the cumulative growth out to 2050: it will produce a massive additional amount of carbon dioxide emissions per year, while e.g. the European Union should be completely decarbonized by then and Nordics certainly earlier.

There are also other problems with jet turbine emissions, namely the high-altitude burning and certain other effects which make the process twice to three times as harmful to the climate as the mere carbon dioxide (2 % of global carbon dioxide emissions would be the size of Germany — Japan). The industry plan is to “off-set the growth” with CDM credits which quite frankly do not produce emissions reductions, some >90 % are total junk. E.g. Brazil has those as stranded assets and they want to get them moving.

Now, the Paris Agreement and consensus science (IPCC reports like the 1.5°C one which is now nearly impossible to accomplish) require every nation to be at net-zero emissions as the scientific framing of mitigation. Net-zero means that there cannot be any carbon dioxide emissions which a certain country produces (on top of this you have consumption accounting which is even harder to decarbonize) that cannot be drawn down artificially.

(That’s my reading of it at least, there are of course various ways to not deliver on that framing but some other political/economic target)

I think it is reasonable to try to aim for 2°C still and fail spectacularly (2°C is already *censored*) which means that all OECD-countries need to have net-zero plans immediately and begin implementing right away.

That means that there cannot be any (ANY) emissions growth past 2020.

Aviation emissions have doubled in the EU from 1990, and are set to double again shortly. What will likely happen is that the EU will put in place taxation and other measures to cut off the excess growth because aviation and shipping have to be taxed if you also want to increase the price of driving. If you don’t have fair climate policy you’ll instantly get Yellow Vests on the street.

I’m somewhat a little less worried about personal cars, EVs are a better product and there will be new models shortly.”