Opinion — Heavy Carbon Taxes on Air Travel

Aviation has become one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gases, and it is now argued that every ticket should carry a steep carbon levy even if this puts flying beyond the reach of ordinary people. I largely agree that air travel must be taxed for the damage it does, but I do not accept that pricing average families out of the sky is either fair or necessary.

The case for taxation is strong because ticket prices currently fail to reflect the true cost of flying. Kerosene is untaxed in most countries, so airlines pass on none of the environmental harm they cause, and passengers make choices on artificially cheap fares. A well-designed levy would internalise the environmental cost and shift demand towards less damaging alternatives. France, for instance, banned short domestic flights on routes served by a train journey of under two and a half hours, and traffic moved to rail without the economic collapse the industry had predicted. Decades of evidence suggest that voluntary restraint simply does not work without a price signal.

Where I part company with the statement is the idea that flying should become prohibitively expensive for everyone. A flat charge on every ticket is a blunt instrument that punishes the family taking one holiday a year while barely troubling the wealthy minority who fly dozens of times. A frequent-flyer levy, rising with each additional trip in a year, would cut emissions more sharply precisely because it targets the heaviest users, while preserving access for those who fly rarely. The revenue should then be ring-fenced for sustainable fuels and high-speed rail.

In conclusion, I agree that flights must be taxed heavily for their emissions, but the burden should fall in proportion to how often someone flies rather than equally on every passenger.