| |
Your report that Gordon Brown needs to find more money to balance the books presents a golden opportunity for the government to kill two birds with one stone (Brown will have to raise another £10bn, July 29).
The chancellor could raise some of the extra revenue he needs by starting to remove the £9bn effective subsidy received every year by the aviation industry, which pays no tax on the fuel it uses and little VAT. It is this subsidy that is underpinning the runaway growth of cheap flights by making "fly to Malaga for a fiver" deals possible. This in turn is fuelling huge rises in carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector, which threaten to make the UK's long-term climate change targets virtually unachievable. Letters
Tax cheap flights Monday August 1, 2005 Your report that Gordon Brown needs to find more money to balance the books presents a golden opportunity for the government to kill two birds with one stone (Brown will have to raise another £10bn, July 29).
The chancellor could raise some of the extra revenue he needs by starting to remove the £9bn effective subsidy received every year by the aviation industry, which pays no tax on the fuel it uses and little VAT. It is this subsidy that is underpinning the runaway growth of cheap flights by making "fly to Malaga for a fiver" deals possible. This in turn is fuelling huge rises in carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector, which threaten to make the UK's long-term climate change targets virtually unachievable.
In the long run, fair taxation of aviation could mean taxing fuel or charging VAT on domestic flights, but the chancellor can make a good start by announcing in his pre-budget statement in the autumn that he is putting up air passenger duty as an interim measure. As well as raising revenue, this would signal that there is some substance behind the government's rhetoric on climate change. Tony BosworthFriends of the Earth
The agreement between the US, Australia and other countries on research into technologies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions appears to be a tactic on the part of the US and Australia to delay action to reduce emissions (Report, July 29).
While the implication that the US recognises the existence of man-made climate change is welcome, the clear distancing of the US and Australia from efforts by other countries to set a framework to tackle climate change is regrettable.
Of course the development of technologies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is necessary, but they will not be used on a large scale if they cost more than existing fossil-fuel technologies unless there is agreement on a framework setting limits to each country's emissions.
The US is still a party to the UN framework convention on climate change, which is responsible for negotiating a framework to ensure that the effects of climate change are limited, and the UK must ensure that all parties negotiate within the UNFCCC on an agreement to follow Kyoto.
If the US does not accept meaningful emissions-reduction targets and thereby gains economic advantages, other countries would be within their rights under WTO rules to impose economic sanctions. Martin QuickArchitects and Engineers for Social Responsibility.
|
|
|
