
What if everyone had an air-mile allowance? - Freak_NL
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng-interactive/2020/aug/15/mona-chalabi-what-if-everyone-had-air-mile-allowance-cartoon
======
gilstroem
Alternatively, put much higher taxes on flights, and fund train/coach travel
to make it more afforable, so more people can take lower impact, near home
trips.

I’ve lived in north western Europe my entire life, and enjoy travelling by
train/ferry and explore neighbouring countries - there is more than enough to
see for a life time. It is astonishing to me how many people find it
neccessary to fly to the other side of the globe to feel like they are on
vacation (or more likely.. for vanity.)

~~~
3327
Much better solution.

These marketplace schemes never work in reality. except for creating a bunch
of marketplace middleman saas that makes money.

~~~
0xfaded
The problem is that the tax would need to be super-linear. There are two
effects going on.

First, with a fixed quota, the value of a credit is bid up by people wanting
to fly, not dissimilar to the Norwegian butter crisis where a stick of butter
cost upward of €40.

Second, with a credit transfer system, people selling their credits receive a
"negative" tax, while people buying credits pay a positive tax.

This system ensures everyone still has access to a basic level of air travel
at today's prices, but is also super-linearly incentivize to travel less.

A linear (fixed) tax on travel will just price out the lowest class, and a
linear tax means nothing to those on top of a power-law wealth distribution.

------
ajuc
Just include externalities in the oil taxes. It doesn't matter if it's 10
plane trips a year or driving 100 miles to work each day - both are bad and
both should be taxed into unaffordability.

~~~
hansvm
One argument is that externalities aren't usually linearizable or localizable,
so any attempt to tax them will result in loopholes that are patched
with...you guessed it, more laws with their own loopholes growing into an
insurmountable lovecraftian horror.

Elaborating on the nonlinearizability, on a global scale it doesn't matter if
a single person (or an entire city) drives 100 miles to work each day. In
isolation their decision to drive has an externality of approximately $0 (wrt
carbon). It's only a problem because of the global scale involved -- as an
extremely simplistic (and wrong) model for the sake of fitting into a HN
comment, there's a fuzzy cutoff point in total carbon production rates below
which externalities are small and above which they're devastating and grow
rapidly (and superlinearly). Adopting the obvious scheme of dividing total
costs by total production, adding a healthy margin to further disincentivize
carbon, and assigning that value as an externality tax (which gets updated
periodically to never be too inaccurate) won't actually suffice to keep carbon
production below the critical threshold because the marginal taxation of
externalities for a unit of carbon is substantially less than the marginal
externality itself.

Underlying the above example is something that should be obvious to
programmers -- not all problems can be efficiently solved by assigning a local
value function to autonomous agents. In the case of people we value autonomy
as a right in and of itself independently of its ability to benefit the whole,
so many potential global optimizations are left on the table, but at the point
where we need to enact taxes or legislation to prevent a global problem (e.g.
the carbon issue) the illusion of autonomy no longer exists, and we might as
well go straight for a solution that has a chance of working (e.g. carbon
credits could work if implemented correctly) rather than handicapping
ourselves with attempts to adjust our local reward function like trying to tax
the externalities.

~~~
ajuc
If your tax is linear whole classes of loopholes stop working (it doesn't
matter how you split the usage - the total is still the same).

> on a global scale it doesn't matter if a single person (or an entire city)
> drives 100 miles to work each day. In isolation their decision to drive has
> an externality of approximately $0 (wrt carbon)

That's such a disingenuous argument. Their emissions add up. That's like
saying at individual level gravity doesn't work because you don't feel a
gravity from 1 atom.

If you add oil tax the global consumption falls, it's only a matter of
choosing a number big enough to make the total consumption fall below the
threshold. I don't understand why you're trying to make it so complicated - we
don't only have 1 try, we can introduce tax, look at effects, make
corrections.

Opening a valve in your tap isn't linear. But you can pretty easily choose the
proper level after a few corrections.

~~~
hansvm
> That's such a disingenuous argument. Their emissions add up. That's like
> saying at individual level gravity doesn't work because you don't feel a
> gravity from 1 atom.

I probably could have phrased it differently to make it more clear, but my
argument is _not_ that individual contributions don't add up. Rather, they do
add up, and after a certain "critical" threshold they add up to produce
superlinear negative externalities and that attempting to price all carbon
equally to add up to the sum of those externalities is potentially gameable
and still allows for sufficiently profitable activities to effectively ignore
them and push global climate change beyond acceptable levels.

> If you add oil tax the global consumption falls, it's only a matter of
> choosing a number big enough to make the total consumption fall below the
> threshold.

That's roughly true enough. It's subject to a form of "externality arbitrage"
though. Let's say we're outputting enough carbon that externalities grow
quickly as a function of carbon output rate. Legislators set a price on carbon
based on how bad it currently is. Many activities are still profitable with
respect to that tax and are still performed while others are axed. Assume that
an agent scales up some profitable carbon-emitting activity, and to make the
math simple they personally double global carbon output. By virtue of the fact
that we're in a superlinear externality regime they now have to pay $N in
taxes while causing damage much greater than $N.

> we don't only have 1 try, we can introduce tax, look at effects, make
> corrections.

Yes, eventually regulators step in and pick a bigger number, and presumably
there are limits to any such profitable carbon-producing activity, so you're
right that eventually we could level off total carbon output, but the large
slope on that graph of externalities with respect to carbon production rate
and the timescales involved in updating the tax code leave plenty of room for
exploitation -- it's not an especially stable system that has a natural
solution at our desired global output.

> I don't understand why you're trying to make it so complicated

It's...not thaat complicated? If your goal is to limit carbon production to a
rate that leads to acceptable levels of climate change (which doesn't have to
be your goal, but it's a central assumption in everything I've written, along
with the notion that we can address carbon independently from other problems)
then the most straightforward way to do that is to set a cap at the level you
don't want to exceed and divvy out the credits as you see fit. You could tax
those too if you'd like, or sell them, or whatever you want to do, but the
critical piece is that to avoid exceeding your desired limit you just set the
limit and ban exceeding it. Allowing a theoretically unbounded amount of
carbon to be released and trying to manage a quickly-changing economic reality
by imposing a flat tax to disincentivize the undesirable behavior is
moderately more complicated and has likely, predictable failure modes. Flat
externality taxes are not necessarily a bad idea in the abstract, but for the
concrete case of carbon and global warming they don't seem like a good fit, at
least not by themselves.

~~~
ajuc
> Assume that an agent scales up some profitable carbon-emitting activity, and
> to make the math simple they personally double global carbon output. By
> virtue of the fact that we're in a superlinear externality regime they now
> have to pay $N in taxes while causing damage much greater than $N.

I don't understand why you focus so much on "who gets the total above the
threshold". It's not a valid question, because you can rearrange the actors
and then it would be someone else who tops it off. It's a meaningless
question.

Let's say you have 10 agents with emissions e(1)=e(2)=...=e(8)=1 and
e(9)=e(10)=4.

Threshold is 10.

If you add up going from 1 to 10 - the 9th agent crosses the threshold.

If you add up going from 10 to 1 - the 6th agent crosses the threshold.

By changing the order of the addition you can blame the externalities on
anybody you want :)

> the most straightforward way to do that is to set a cap at the level you
> don't want to exceed and divvy out the credits as you see fit

It's an independent system that needs to be maintained and supervised,
meanwhile we already have tax office and the whole system of state
institutions focused on making sure people pay taxes. Besides measuring
emissions is hard, measuring fuel usage is easy (we already do it for taxing
purposes).

> to avoid exceeding your desired limit you just set the limit and ban
> exceeding it

Then you have to somehow decide who gets how much. It turns a self-tuning
economic system into a centrally planned economy and introduces politics into
it.

> the timescales involved in updating the tax code leave plenty of room for
> exploitation

I see no problem with changing oil tax weekly in the transition period. I
doubt we'll need more than 5 corrections.

~~~
hansvm
> I don't understand why you focus so much on "who gets the total above the
> threshold".

I don't care about that ordering at all. Assume N actors are each producing on
average a mass M of carbon (in some unit time). We set a carbon production tax
based on that. Some combination of actors scales up production so that the
total volume being produced is 2NM -- we don't care which ones. Total taxes
double while total externalities more than double (potentially greatly so).

> It's an independent system that needs to be maintained and supervised

That's a fair point. We have similar systems elsewhere for, e.g., fishery
maintenance, but it would require something above and beyond what we have now.

> Besides measuring emissions is hard, measuring fuel usage is easy

Eh. Dealing with trace pollutants and particulates would be harder but for
carbon you could easily just add up the major sources and sinks on the supply
side rather than trying to actually measure the output. As I'm writing that
though, I'm being swayed to your side a bit and agree that's bookkeeping the
average household probably wouldn't want to have to consider (so...we're
allowed X gallons of gas as long as we don't buy any coal or....).

> Then you have to somehow decide who gets how much. It turns a self-tuning
> economic system into a centrally planned economy

Potentially. Or you could open up an auction and treat the proceeds as a form
of tax.

> and introduces politics into it.

That's going to be a problem with any solution.

> I see no problem with changing oil tax weekly in the transition period.

Is there any tax anywhere that changes faster than yearly? Where does it get
applied? Do gas station owners in the middle of nowhere have to keep track of
probably wild swings in taxes? Do we apply portions of it at several places in
the supply chain and run the risk of somebody creating a more streamlined
supply chain around the current tax law?

> I doubt we'll need more than 5 corrections.

I doubt we'll get more than 5 corrections. I bet we would need them.

------
LatteLazy
We've decided as a species to do nothing about climate change. So what is the
point of discussing various proposals for climate change action? This is like
me telling you about all the different diets and all their upsides\downsides
while continuing to eat 3000 calories a day of junk food.

~~~
Tepix
> We've decided as a species to do nothing about climate change.

I see a lot of changes happening. They are overdue, but indeed things are
changing. We will suffer from climate change for at least a century or so
(depending on whether we will master massive scale carbon sequestration or
not), but it's not like humankind isn't trying to reduce CO2 emissions at all.

~~~
LatteLazy
We're not trying at all. Co2E globally continues to rise. None of this is
rocket science. And to be clear, it needs to have basically stopped ALREADY.

Right now, all we've done is make non binding "commitments" and then missed
them...

------
epanchin
I love taking the train but it’s so expensive. I’ve booked on the day flights
to Edinburgh from London cheaper than an on the day train. Flying is usually
cheaper than taking a full car full of people through the Channel tunnel. Last
time I flew to Vancouver I returned to London from New York and flew from
there rather than flying direct because it was cheaper.

That’s what needs to be fixed. Cheaper trains and more direct flights that are
cheaper than flying indirect.

To allow airlines to fly less people and remain solvent, ticket prices need to
rise. This solution doesn’t address that at all. A minimum cost per mile could
work, but needs global implementation.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_To allow airlines to fly less people and remain solvent, ticket prices need
to rise._

We can't really solve climate change without some industries shrinking
massively or even disappearing. I don't know whether airlines are in that
category but expecting to fix it without some pretty big changes isn't
realistic.

~~~
alpineidyll3
The miracle of the price discovery process is that efficiency (such as
electric planes) can often be found if there is market pressure.

The reason we do nothing about climate change is that subconsciously we
believe it's hopeless.

------
sukilot
This is carbon tax but with extra steps.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
More precisely, its a carbon fee and dividend scheme with more steps.

As that also has the effect of rewarding those who choose not yo fly with
money from those who do fly, but eothoit the middleman and with the benefit
that it applies to everything.

------
computerphage
So, cap and trade but only for one type of consumption?

~~~
Freak_NL
Basically. Although I wonder if the trade-part can be kept fair and accessible
for people willing to part with their air-miles (the majority of people on
Earth I think).

------
SamReidHughes
Aviation is responsible for 2.4% of CO2 emissions. A tiny fraction of overall
transportation, electricity, and other sources.

This is just a bitter journalist training the Guardian-reading climate change
freakout crowd to hate the rich.

~~~
cagenut
This is a case of someone use a "technically correct" fact to make a
misleading statement (at least in tone), and then following it up with a
'kill-the-messenger' political snipe at journalists. This is textbook
contrarian reactionary misdirection.

#1 - C02 emissions account for only about half of the overall GHG emissions
impact of air travel. Anytime you see someone specifically isolating just the
CO2 emissions you know they are either poorly informed or deliberately
misleading you.

#2 - It doesn't actually matter. If something is 2.5% of X or 5% of X and X
needs to get to 0 then the distinction is without a difference. Its only the
tone of phrasing that makes this sound like a counterpoint, when it is in fact
not.

#3 - unlike much of the other 95 percent of emissions airline travel is by far
the most uniquely isolated to very wealthy (globally speaking) people. If you
believe in any basic notion of "progressive taxation", and you apply that to
GHG emissions, then getting rich (again globally relatively rich) people to
stop flying or fly less is by far the most blatant outlier to address quickly
and early.

~~~
SamReidHughes
No, the purpose of the piece isn’t any sort of real policy proposal. It’s to
adapt climate change hysteria to make readers hate the rich.

And capping total prosperity is nothing at all like progressive taxation.

~~~
cagenut
Reducing the GHG emissions of <sector> to zero/near-zero/net-zero is not
"hysteria". It is the mathematically simplest possible form of understanding
the published climate science.

Whats "hysteria" is trying to turn that into a political/social-beliefs debate
about "prosperity" or "hating the rich" instead of a simple numbers analysis.

~~~
SamReidHughes
> Reducing the GHG emissions of <sector> to zero/near-zero/net-zero is not
> "hysteria".

I didn't say that was hysteria, so why are you pretending I did?

The actual purpose of the Guardian piece is to give its readers more reasons
to hate the rich.

------
imagine99
Many comments here (and elsewhere) argue for an "allowance", bans,
prohibition, prohibitive taxation etc. which all boil down to the same thing.

I find it difficult to understand why intelligent people (such as those on HN)
who have themselves profited greatly from freedom and choice, who are often of
a progressive and liberal [1] mindset adopt such a reactionary stance when it
comes to dealing with climate change.

It is utterly clear from our history that prohibiting or banning something has
never really stopped us. If anything, people have invested all their
brainpower to finding and exploiting loopholes and the more difficult and
illegal something is, the more enticing and attractive it becomes to many.

Wouldn't it be much better to throw our combined brainpower into developing
ways to deal with climate change that come without curtailing, prohibiting and
banning stuff?

By all means, throw billions of dollars towards fundamental research to create
breakthroughs in science and technology, such as airliners powered by
renewable energy, methane-free meat production and large-scale carbon capture!

We've done amazing feats before, we put people on the moon, we will probably
put them on Mars, why shouldn't we be able to solve climate change and in the
process advance our civilization to the next level?

Personally, I'm convinced this will be the easier way compared to artificially
limiting ourselves and others which is something that truly has never been
sustainable in our history. Telling others what they can and cannot do has
always ultimately led to bloodshed and fuelled sectarian and anti-democratic
tendencies, always.

I credit incredibly cheap and highly available international travel (for
everyone from broke students, business travellers to seniors) with the peace
and almost unprecedented level of cooperation between nations and people we
have seen in places like Europe and elsewhere. Think of it this way: You are
unlikely to vote for someone to go to war with countries you fly to on holiday
every year, you are unlikely to want to bomb places with whom you have
extensive and intertwined trading and manufacturing relationships, you're
unlikely to join the army and go shoot people with whom you've broken bread
and gotten drunk on your "incredibly cheap" international road trip with a no-
frills airline on your gap year before college.

Force everyone but the rich (who will ALWAYS be able to afford travelling
internationally, no matter how high you tax it) back to rarely or never
leaving their country, state or hometown and you'll grow a generation of
reactionary hillbillies who get all their information second- or third-hand
from the media if at all and whom you can rile up to go to war with "Oceania"
or "Eastasia" or "throw out those pesky immigrants" with a little propaganda
at any time. You'll throw civilization back a hundred years.

If you, on the other hand, foster international relationships, exchange ideas
and people freely, then you will spark innovation, ideas and cooperation and
ideally you will get progress and better conditions almost as a by-product of
international exchange.

Smallmindedness, backward thinking and limited horizons have never benefitted
humanity or any larger group of people in the long run.

Innovators, inventors, internationally collaborating scientists and, yes,
merchants and traders with an international focus are those who have brought
us everything we have today.

Stepping out of the (allegoric [2]) cave was once the first step to advance as
a species. I'd argue that in many ways international travel and freedom of
movement is us stepping out of our caves again today. Into a bigger world of
knowledge, cooperation and scientific advancement.

Limiting our horizons (by whatever means) is not the solution.

\--

[1] not in the political meaning of these words as commonly used in the US,
but to mean forward-thinking and open to progress

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave)

------
mattinsydney
How about a plastics allowance?

