I believe that we need Tax to Save The Environment (TASTE). I have offered two already. One is VAT on food products made from cattle, sheep and goats. The other is a higher rate of VAT on consumer goods that are designed to have limited life.
Now let me turn to a contentious issue, which is increased tax on air travel. This, of course, would be politically contentious. As yet people remain dedicated to their summer holiday in the sun. And to challenge that would be hard. So let's not take on impossible odds like that right now and let's instead deal with the real hard-core problem flyers.
These are those who travel a great deal (and on occasion I am guilty of this, and I am aware of it). These travellers fall into two groups. One is those who travel for business. Most people, I think, presume they are the big problem. Research shows that they are not. The real problem travellers are the second homeowners who have properties in two countries where air travel is required to get between the two.
The problem is that the second homeowner travels frequently, and has massively increased demand for short-haul travel in Europe, in particular. Their carbon footprint vastly exceeds that of most in society. Their persistent days in the sun are bought at cost to generations to come.
So how to solve this? The answer was promoted a while ago, but I have heard little of it of late. It is a progressive airline usage tax. Each person can, of course, be readily identified when travelling. They have to use a passport. And few have more than two passports so evading using multiple passports is hard (and can be legislated for, with very big penalties attached). Then what should happen is that when a person books a flight they should be asked for their passport number, and depending on the number of flights they have already taken in a year they should be charged a progressively more expensive rate of tax on their ticket.
The first flight will be tax-free: the holiday in the sun will continue, at least for now.
But thereafter the rate will rise, and probably after three flights quite significantly.
This could quite rapidly change behaviour. And that is exactly what it would be designed to do. Taxes to Save The Environment have that as their objective.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You touch on the great problem we have with tax – that no one wants to pay it. The reason a tax on everyone’s air travel would be politically contentious is that people object strenuously to tax increases.
Part of this is that it’s been the political project of the Right since 1945 to attack both the Left and the State for its taxation. This has become utterly entrenched in modern British political culture. The media is full of spending watchdogs like Andrew Neil asking “but who’s going to pay for all that.”
Two of PM May’s notable failures have been on tax. Her attempt in 2017 to place the burden of social care upon the families of those that needed it was immediately branded a “dementia tax” and even though the policy was withdrawn it probably contributed to the Tories’ unexpected bad showing in that election. Earlier Phil Hammond had tried to increase NI contributions for self-employed people and that had to be withdrawn after outrage.
We have to get beyond an instinctive aversion to being taxed. We all want the NHS, want our streets to be policed and our rubbish to be collected. It’s just childish to expect it all to be paid for someone else, as if bills are just a matter for mummy and daddy.
By all means if we can get this TASTE proposal into law that would be great both for the money it raises (which I don’t have to pay) and for the behaviour it discourages. But measures like this cause me frustration because they just dance around British expectations that they deserve all the benefits of a generous state while not accepting the burden of paying fair taxes. When people on the Left dance around taxing people because it would be politically contentious it seems we have accepted and internalised the Right wing arguments that taxes are bad and the state should be small.
Have you read what I have actually written this morning – most especially the first post on this issue? Or my book The Joy of Tax?
And where on earth have I done what you suggest in the final para?
Why not engage with what I have actually said instead of your caricature of it?
Apologies, Richard, I didn’t mean for a moment to suggest that you personally don’t get it.
Richard,
I’ve read you comments policy.
Re: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/04/17/renewable-energy-could-fuel-the-planet/
I spent 2 hours yesterday composing a further response to your silly assertions re nuclear power as risking “burning our planet”.
And two other posters mentioned me by name that I had intended to respond to too.
But you chose to not publish my post with its links designed to educate you and your readers on other perspectives on the issues you raised in the blog, but and have closed the comments on that post, giving the impression your irrational fears “burning our planet” has somehow prevailed.
I think you are afraid to continue dialogue with me in front of your other readers, as you have an irrational position – and a wealthy friend / colleague in your GND campaign – to defend.
Shame, as your MMT work is first class.
Fine. Its your blog. But I shall not bother posting on your it again.
Regards
Natasha
I did publish your comment, in full
Not as a blog post, I agree
But this is my blog and you have no right to demand that
And I close all comments automatically – otherwise I am inundated by commnents and have a life of my own to lead as well
And based on your comment now, I am rather pleased I did not do more: I doubt any rational debate would have been possible
You made some unwise assertions with respect to renewables (the amount of land needed). For clarity – I’m not against nuclear – I am against subsidies to the likes of EdF or Areva. Off-shore wind is the UK’s main renewable resource with a minimum of 600GW than can be exploited – furthermore, off-shore in terms of costs (ditto on-shore) is at parity with UK wholesale prices. Whats’s not to like? & the capacity factors for wind in general and off-shore in particular are around 70 to 80% in winter – just when power is needed.
Moving back to the subject inder discussion. Spot on Most flights out of Heathrow and (as far as I can see) most EU airports are for………..holidays. I have reached the point where I would rather drive a nail through my hand than use an airport in the holiday season – that said – it does not seem much different outside of the holiday season. Carbon allowance, then 1st additional tonne of CO2 is 10 Euroos, next 20 and so on. Cue screaming by: airlines, holiday companies, Airbus and Boeing.
I have not flown in holiday for 9 years
And only twice in 2 decades
I didn’t ask Richard for my deleted comment to be a blog post in its own right – just that it was not deleted – since a) it contained over 2 hours of work reading the links I gave to support my claims, b) I didn’t keep a copy so am pissed off at wasting my time, c) it challenged the idea that a non nuclear power solution to CO2 emissions by Big Fossil has such big trade off’s as to render it a non-solution, (e.g. political objection to land use – there are others – e.g. efficiency, failures to take into account embedded CO2 in construction & maintenance, mining materials, concrete production etc, but I didn’t elaborate) and d) it challenged Richard’s suggestion that nuclear power will axiomatically lead to a risk of “burning our planet”. Nuclear weapons, all going off at once, maybe, but then Richard would be falling for another logical fallacy, since we are debating power generation not weapons control. Here’s a very good recent piece showing how humans are immersed in logical fallacies, often we don’t even realise ourselves, so we must always be observant and vigilant of our own failures!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-20/caitlin-johnstone-debunks-all-assange-smears
Mike Parr, in that deleted comment I included a link to some data to support the land use claim I made that between a quarter and a half of the land in the UK would need to be set aside for civilian renewable energy generation without nuclear in the mix and without a copper wire to the Sahara desert.
Sustainable Energy – without the hot air 2009 – page 215
https://withouthotair.com/
And please check out PRISM a gen4 nuclear power solution that burns the remaining 98% of the energy left in gen3 PWR waste with NO upfront public plant commissioning costs: GE/Hitachi will make their £ selling the electricity generate from burning the gen3 waste enough for 500 years or so of all UK power. Also Gen4 plant could have a chemical plant attached and produce CO2 neural ICE fuel. etc.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/prism-project-a-proposal-for-the-uks-problem-plutonium/
http://prismsuk.blogspot.com/
My aim engaging here (again despite saying I wouldn’t) is that I feel like a turkey in a shed with all the other turkeys cheering me on to celebrate Christmas, when the data, looked hard and cold, unlike the multi million £ Solar Century’s anti-nuclear axe grinding – very strongly suggests the quickest way out of C02 climate collapse must include nuclear – and time messing about with 100% renewables is not something we have. A point the Chinese, Russian, and Indian governments have fully taken on board.
Regards
I am not aware I deleted your post
But I dislike your style and your argument and your pettiness re Jeremy Leggett
So I have posted this – but unless you change your style will not be doing so again
Your have been warned
This is an interesting idea, and very sensible, although I fear way to rational to be politically possible. But I’m interested in how you know “The problem is that the second homeowner travels frequently, and has massively increased demand for short-haul travel in Europe, in particular. Their carbon footprint vastly exceeds that of most in society.” Does the ONS count any of these (second homeowner travel, particularly short-haul flights in Europe)?
I am nit sure what you are driving at
From the planet’s point of view it makes no difference if 66 million people take 1 return journey by air per year, or 11 million people take 6 return journeys and every body else stays in the UK, videoconferences, or travels by bike.
But more than that, the problem with the proposition is how you bring other countries on board. An assymetric carbon tax deals with that in a way in which a progressive consumption tax can only dream of.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the green neoliberal ideas coming from the science and Nobel prize winning communities have got the right idea.
Oh yes?
Like what?
And how do you make them into practical transformation?
Neil you are right that “From the planet’s point of view it makes no difference if 66 million people take 1 return journey by air per year, or 11 million people take 6 return journeys”. (Though the actual numbers are less. Half of us took no flights last year.)
But politically the difference is real. Tax increases that effect 11 M people are easier than those affecting 66M.
[…] Read here […]
If higher VAT on products that don’t last as long as they could is too much of a political hot potato, perhaps we could introduce minimum warranty periods under consumer protection law.
Start at two years for consumer electronics like smartphones, or five years for appliances like washing machines. Every five years, ratchet the minimum warranty up by six months.
Consumable items like batteries would be exempt, but only if they’re user replaceable without tools or special knowledge. Built-in batteries would be subject to the minimum warranty of the device they’re in.
Make manufacturers build things to last.
I like that
Neil, that’s an excellent idea, like many on here I’ve lived through the ever shortening, and decreasing repairablity, of white goods. These are mechanically very simple and little altered in essence. It’s the electronics and sealed units approach that’s done the damage. I also reckon they’ve reduced size/quality on things like bearings.
I must admit that this wasn’t my idea; I’ve seen it suggested from time to time for a few years now. Unfortunately, I’ve no idea who first came up with it so I can’t credit them for it.
You’re right about the way modern designs are sliding towards lower reliability and reduced repairability. Large electronic circuits that are only available as a unit are kryptonite for this, because you can end up paying hundreds of pounds to replace a circuit board where the fault might only be down to a single part worth 10p.
Just as an example, our oven is about 14 years old and would cost about £200 today. The fan oven heating element failed after 8 years, but I was able to replace it for about £20. Six more years for £20 is a bargain. Far more sustainable than buying a whole new oven, even if the old one got properly recycled, which isn’t always the case.
Our washing machine is the same age, would cost about £300 now and needed a new main electronics board after 10 years. That board cost £200. Still better than buying a complete new machine, but a lot of people would say “well, something else might break before we get our money’s worth on that £200. Let’s just buy a new machine, it’ll come with a manufacturer’s guarantee.”
In fact, we still have another two and a half years to go before we actually get our money’s worth on the £200! It’s just that we like the machine, we wanted to keep it because it’s nice and simple to use, so we were willing to take the risk that the £200 repair might not pay off.
I know someone who has an oven and hob with all-touchscreen controls. She’s a really good cook, so she actually has a use for a 12-mode oven with a display worthy of the starship Enterprise, but the vast majority of us simply don’t need these things. (The all-touchscreen system is also a usability disaster for blind people who can’t see it, but that’s a discussion for another thread.)
The main electronics board in something like that will be the lion’s share of the manufacturing cost. If it ever fails, the economically rational thing for the owner to do in today’s economy really is to just throw it out and buy a new one, no matter the waste of resources.
Most of us would be fine with a couple of knobs and a power switch, but the manufacturers seem to have this peculiar need for complexity in the name of what they call progress. They could easily keep a basic model or two for people who are happy with them, like the lower cost and appreciate the sustainability, but it just doesn’t seem to happen.
Now that I think about it, I would actually be very interested to see how a compulsory minimum warranty system would affect that. Would manufacturers bring back more basic models which would be cheaper for them to repair in the event of a warranty claim, or would they develop ways to make their complex designs more reliable in order to sidestep some of those repair costs?
Thanks for the contribution
We used to like Bosch equipment but not anymore – we call it ‘Botch’ now – their dishwashers seem to break down routinely every 2-3 years. We have had too many of their washing machines too. It seems Miele is the way to go now. A shame.
To what extent do you think these kinds of policies are actually meaningful in the fight against climate change? As you said earlier tipping points are an important part of this debate, and even tax to reengineer consumption in a more renewable direction across the EU would be unlikely to save us from the tipping points if the rest of the world keeps burning.
To what extent do you see the GND as about supplying a green future not just domestically but exporting it, affordably, to the world? This seems to me to be the only way to bring the whole world with us, as is necessary now.
I think we have to explore all routes to transition
Are you saying we don’t?
And I happen to think tax can help
I do not say it will solve everything. I don’t think that. But right now I am open to all possibilities
I’d certainly agree that tax can help, and that any approach must be multifaceted. I just wonder how we can use tax along with GND spending to not just transform the UK but the whole world.
If we can build low cost energy generation and storage methods then I don’t see why not, but fighting against countries (governments) who have based their whole economies around oil may be a difficult task.
This is a harder mission that just achieving a GND with jobs in every constituency. We need jobs in every country and to either (i) get every country onside or (ii) engineer a global supply system that makes renewables the best option even for a government with no overtly-environmental objectives. Otherwise the world will keep on drilling and keep on burning.
Angus
We have no choice but try is my only answer
I don’t really care that the odds appear hopeless, and they do
I just think we have no choice but promote the change we need anyway that we can
And for that reason I greatly admire the Extinction Rebellion protestors
They are delivering the message
Richard
This sounds like the Frequent Flyer Levy. The FFL was proposed as a replacement for Air Passenger Duty and I note that you say “The first flight will be tax-free”. So if FFL replaces APD then everyone’s first flight in a year will become cheaper. I hope you don’t mean that as its a terrible idea. It would encourage more people to fly or to start flying.
FFL could be additional to APD or could be set at the APD rate for first flights and rise thereafter. Either way would be strongly progressive without penalising once-per-year flyers any more than now.
In the long – or even medium – run that’s not enough but it would be a start.
OK – pitch at current tax rates then
But I am trying to find ways of creating real political possibility
And I think that important
This sounds like a good idea. I haven’t taken a flight in about 4 or 5 years, can I get a green tax rebate please?
So, extra taxes to discourage certain behaviours – that is the stick, do we have a carrot? And where do the extra taxes go – what are they used for? One of the big problems with continually increasing taxes is that it affects certain demographics more than others – and in general we see our taxes being badly managed and put towards increasing the wealth of the already wealthy – not much incentive there for people to pay more for getting less.
What if these extra taxes went directly to funding research on alternative modes of transport – it’s a bugbear of mine that the consumer is continually blamed for consuming while it wasn’t the consumer that created this world, or the way we are all restricted to consuming the way business and governments force us too – I am sure you remember glass milk bottles, that were returned, or even the waxed cardboard milk cartons – but now we have plastic cartons – was that consumer preference? Or was that business finding a cheaper easier way to store milk – we DID have plenty of circular economy things going on in living memory in the past, and it’s not the consumer that stopped them. So, instead of punishing those that have no choices in the matter – create alternatives, and regulate the bad things, people will adapt easily and will be willing to if there are equivalent alternatives. The consumer is going to be charged a ton more for all the ‘new’ fancy milk cartons and these alternatives as it is, I’m not sure taxation is going to help – unless it is shown to go directly to enhancing our lives.
I would agree with you that tax is not the only way to do this – it’s far from it, in fact
But tax can signal the economy and society that we want – and that is its role here
Regulation and other reform will be essential as well
If I were rich and owned a second home abroad I’d simply pay any higher tax and continue flying as now.
Surely the solution is to cap the number of air miles each person is allowed to fly each year?
Maybe it will be
But getting what I suggest through will be hard enough
Good luck with your plan
But if mine can first yours is much more likely to succeed
Tax is signalling the change we need here
We flew last year to Sicily via Ryan Air.
Every flight was late. The aircraft was more like a cramped bus with wings and all the aircrew were east European and we could not understand their English. One little toilet to the front of the aircraft of how many people?
All I could think of was that people thought that this was normal? It would have been £200 cheaper to go by overnight train it turns out.
People are paying for shite in my view.
If we are to achieve negative carbon (zero carbon is not enough), I believe flying must become a thing of the past for most people. And the sooner the better. There’s a war on. The risks are astronomical. I can’t believe we’re still talking about carbon budgets when scientists can’t keep up with the accelerating catastrophe overtaking us all.