Right. So the planet is warming and it's at least partly our fault. I'm no climate expert but I can sign on for this in theory and principle. Smart people seem to think so and it makes a certain amount of sense to me.According to various statistics, aviation accounts for anything up to 5% of the world's carbon emissions. In response to this, the government has introduced taxation policies designed to act as 'Economic disincentives' to keep people out of the sky.
Let's examine the phrase 'Economic disincentive' aka, the government's excuse for presenting the aviation industry and by default, us with tax bills on flights that can be anything up to 100% of the cost of the flight.
This is grim but bearable if you're trying to get from London to Dublin. This disincentive might encourage you to get a ferry, but what about further afield?
Here's an example. As a pale and interesting Scotsman, I make a relatively recent and strange addition to London's Caribbean Community. (It still takes a couple of attempts for me to spell Caribbean) However, by extension of my beautiful lady, I find myself part of a family still largely based on the island of St Lucia.
St Lucia is 4,222 miles from London.
So let's examine our economic disincentives again. The best fare, assuming you can book well in advance currently rebounds around the price comparison websites at £376. Not bad I hear you say. More than a few would pay that to escape our winter and bask in an average daily temperature of 27 degrees.But here comes the tax, crashing in at a whopping £220 bringing the total cost up to around the £600 mark. This is, it must be emphasised, the best case scenario. (Fly tomorrow and expect to pay double that.)
My question is, how can a disincentive work in this case? It's a long swim to St Lucia. In my experience, the main reasons an average-income family goes home are to see family, attend weddings and in the case of my girlfriend's family, funerals.
My girlfriend's mum has had to bury her sister-in-law and her own mother within three months and has consequently given the tax man the best part of £500. The second time, we went with her and gave him another £500. In each case, she had no choice but to fly, no choice but to travel in peak time.
Ergo, inflated air travel taxation cannot help but punish the people who have no alternative but to travel. It is disproportionately hard on people with family abroad - ethic minorities being an obvious part of this.
It strikes me that this policy has been designed primarily for the government to:
A. Line its own pocket
B. Be seen to be 'doing something' about climate change whilst doing very little about industry and agricultural emissions (which make up a far higher percentage of global emissions) and failing to secure stronger international agreement
C. Continue to transfer responsibility for carbon emissions away from the state and onto the individual to cover the fact that the state does very little to change things
D. Demonise the aviation industry (A fun game we can all enjoy)
E. Try to create some sort of bizarre alternate reality where flying in a plane, rather than being an everyday reality of our globalised, multicultural society is in fact a luxury enjoyed by carefree, voyeuristic, middle-class holiday makers who must be made to see how selfish they're being through the bleeding of their pockets in the hope that they learn the error of their ways.
It is true that some airlines offer 'Bereavement deals', which discount the fare, but these are often only available on business class tickets and in effect cost more than the economy fare. And though stretched by increasing fuel prices and a recession, airlines are at least forced to keep their prices in check by competition.
The government has no such compulsion.
So you have a situation where because of the taxes nominally designed to make fewer people fly, a daughter must either stay away, or go into debt so she can fly home, alone, to bury her mother. In most cases, she'll find a way to fly anyway, rendering the policy barbaric and pointless.
A solution?
Lower aviation taxes on economy flights and come up with a strategy to fight global warming that doesn't ground people on low incomes. Perhaps counter this with an according rise in tax on business and first class fares. As a proportion of a fare, this effects people less and would only strike those who can either afford it, or are on business in which instance the tax can be claimed back in any case.And if that cannot be done...
Perhaps the government, in line with the baby steps the airlines are making could introduce a system whereby people can at the very least claim back the aviation tax on bereavement flights for immediate family members.
And please stop guilting us for travelling! Its the 21st century after all...
http://www.nickbain.co.uk/
