parapente wrote:This is also true with some US airlines who use 20+ years old aircaft. Clearly using old rust buckets outweighs the fuel Penalty.So simply tax them to sharpen their thought process'!
Side benefit -build more new aircaft!
Except that building new aircraft doesn't exactly come with zero impact on the environment -- from carbon dioxide emissions created by aluminum production to emissions from planes which carry fuselage parts around the world.
dtw2hyd wrote:Still, we want to classify Tesla Model 3 as a luxury car.
A $50,000 vehicle is a luxury car. Perhaps if they ever bring the $30,000 version to market, we can start to talk about it not being a luxury car.
dtw2hyd wrote:Not easy for developing countries with 1.2 Billion to feed to join the eco-friendly bandwagon, still they are doing lot more.
Actually, it's really easy for developing countries to "join the eco-friendly bandwagon" by not implementing eco-unfriendly practices to start with. Why don't they? It's cheaper to pollute!
Aesma wrote:A carbon tax solves two problems simultaneously.
A carbon tax is ultimately unworkable unless it is truly global or very nearly so. Otherwise carbon-intensive industries simply migrate to locations without carbon taxes.
Dieuwer wrote:If you are concerned with Climate Change re: taxes, then you really should accept that pig farmers in Holland will need to be taxed per pig as well, as pig farming is one of the most warming-gas producing industries on earth.
Perhaps the Dutch also ought to consider outlawing the air shipment of tulips and other agricultural products given the outrageous amount of emissions produced.