[ad_1]
When the French Ministry of Transport announced this week that it was going to launch an "eco-tax" on flights, it also evoked a burgeoning debate in European aviation: the time has come to tax jet fuel?
Under a global agreement reached after the Second World War, it had become customary not to tax fuel on international flights in order to encourage commercial aviation – as opposed to fuel taxes used for trucks and cars. (The same is true for international shipping.) The practice is still in effect today, but the French government fired another salvo on Tuesday in an attempt to thwart it.
France has declared that the "eco-tax" would be composed of 1.5 euro ($ 1.69) of charges on inter-French economic flights per pbadenger and of 3 euros ($ 3.38) for flights out of the EU, with higher fees for business travelers. And, alongside the Netherlands, he called on the European Commission to finally end the tax exemption on jet fuel, known as kerosene. This tax on jet fuel would be a separate additional tax adding to the eco-tax, but both would have the same objective: to reduce emissions.
The jet fuel tax must be difficult to implement – requiring multilateral cooperation, so that only one country bears the consequences – not to say costly.
Tax as a dull tool
Even the minimum tax on fuel would raise the price of a theft in the European Union by about 10%, according to a report released by the European Commission in June.
At the same time, emissions would decrease: they would be reduced by 11%, which would bring the aviation sector closer to reducing net emissions under the Paris Agreement.
Taxing jet fuel is undoubtedly a direct tool to solve a thorny problem: while aviation accounts for just over 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, the growing demand for low-cost flights makes the sector the most difficult transit route to decarbonize, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
A financial incentive
To be clear, operators are already strongly encouraged to consume less fuel: their cost.
Even without taxes, jet fuel represents a huge expense, accounting for nearly 24% of the costs incurred by operators in 2018, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the global trade body. As recently as the first quarter of this year, Lufthansa and Air France-KLM both attributed losses partly to high fuel costs.
As a result, between 1968 and 2014, the fuel efficiency of new commercial aircraft increased by an average of 1.3% per year thanks to new and improved models, according to a study by the International Council on Transport. own.
Alternative fuels have also gained ground, from hydrogen to biofuels, which are now available in a handful of airports but do not yet offer price advantages, says the report. # 39; IEA.
Can not follow
However, even rapid advances in technology and efficiency can not keep pace with the recent growth of mbad air travel; it has increased by 140% since 2000.
A direct way to reduce emissions is therefore to respond directly to this demand: if the cost of flights is less affordable, the number of pbadengers will decrease (as will aviation jobs), and emissions will follow.
Whatever the form of the demand, an eco-tax, a fuel tax, the cost of low-carbon fuels, or even just the cost of replenishing lighter jets and better quality, the days of the flights low-cost Europeans could be numbered. If this is the case, it may be worthwhile to use an even less carbon-intensive option and start booking trains.
More stories to read absolutely Fortune:
"Switzerland's clash in stock trading with the EU offers insights into life after Brexit
-The Bahraini conference: what experts and the media have forgotten
– Ford's new plan for Europe: fewer jobs, more SUVs
-The costs of the British royal family are skyrocketing. here's why
-Listen our new audio briefing, Fortune 500 DailyCatch up with Technical sheet, Fortunedigest daily about the business of technology.
Source link
