An appropriately high tax on jet fuel would price the airline industry out of business.
Obviously they’re going to resist that, so what’s the solution?
Obviously they’re going to resist that, so what’s the solution?
Why would it? Looking around it looks like fuel makes up 30% of airline's expenditures. Disregarding profits, that means $300 of a $1000 plane ticket is for fuel. The current world wide price for jet fuel is $3.76/gal, and burning a gallon of jet fuel produces 9.57kg of co2. One source says carbon needs to be priced at least $100/tonne[3], which is in line with current prices in the EU. With that price, the price of carbon is expected to add $0.96 per gallon, or a 26% increase in fuel costs. However, it would only raise overall expenditures by 7.7%. I doubt that's doubt that's going to bankrupt airlines. Consumers will probably fully absorb the cost.
[1] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/
[2] https://impactful.ninja/the-carbon-footprint-of-aviation-jet...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/carbon-needs-cost-least...
That's why I said an appropriately high tax. Any tax that can easily be absorbed by consumers, will not reduce emissions fast enough.
[1] https://www.showyourbudgets.org/?country=united_states_of_am...
Taxing the fuel allows the industry to evolved towards an optimal solution. Regulating it does not.
Just look at how government regulation of the production, distribution, and price of infant formula resulted in mass shortages, as the manufacturers are unable to adapt.
A carbon tax high enough to basically kill off all ICE cars and fossil fuel power plants would modestly impact airfare costs. Airlines are convenient and take very direct routes while getting extreme fuel efficiency per passenger.
And airlines have been flying empty planes during the pandemic. That's ridiculously wasteful.
In normal operations they are about 100 passenger miles per gallon of fuel and that’s straight line paths with 80% full aircraft.
As for the fuel efficiency, this says 58mpg. Business class or first class are much worse, of course. And private jets simply shouldn’t exist…
The only global number was: “In 2018, CO₂ emissions totalled 747 million tonnes for passenger transport, for 8.5 trillion revenue passenger kilometres (RPK), giving an average of 88 gram CO₂ per RPK.[2] A 88 gCO₂/km represents 28 g of fuel per km, or a 3.5 L/100 km (67 mpg‑US) fuel consumption.”
Anyway that’s not measuring direct fuel consumption in flight but estimating fuel used by the industry to transport passengers. Sort of like including fuel transportation costs to gas stations as part of a cars fuel efficiency. It’s also using US numbers to do so which likely overstate fuel consumption.
> In 2018, the US airlines had a fuel consumption of 58 mpg‑US (4.06 L/100 km) per revenue passenger for domestic flights
We should take a system-wide view. The relative efficiency of any particular plane is irrelevant if the entire system depends on other, wasteful aspects. Let's consider the energy required to run an airport, including the infrastructure leading to the airport.
Also just like road, rail, and boats aircraft don’t get to fly hypothetically ideal paths from origin to destination. Actual MPG is distance traveled / fuel used not distance from the origin to destination / fuel used.
Not to mention most commercial flights are also moving freight on those same aircraft but that’s secondary.
Unsustainable business are unsustainable and we can't exterminate humanity to make some CEOs happy.
The problem is, I don't have any say in the matter, while corporations have a lot of power, and rich people depend on airlines.
So, it's unlikely that the beneficiaries of an unsustainable industry will voluntarily decide to drive it to extinction.