Cleaning up Europe’s busy skies

Date: 26/05/05

Two MEPs give different views on whether a tax on aircraft fuel is the right way to cut airlines' emissions

Punishing passengers with a tax on air fuel will only damage business in the transport sector, says Karl-Heinz Florenz

I do not think it is possible to have a fuel tax or a kerosene tax in Europe in reality. I know a lot of people talk about it but it doesn't achieve the goal of reducing emissions from aircraft. It is a financial instrument to get money for the finance ministry but more money in their pockets does not solve the problem.

A kerosene tax does not help if the current amount of air traffic continues. To punish passengers with a € 10 tax will not change anything. I think it will damage business and it does not fulfil our goals. It does nothing to change the mentality of the transport industry.

A better way would be to include air transport in a carbon dioxide emission trading scheme. This would be much more successful if we have to achieve lower emissions. It is not a punishment instrument like a tax. Instead it motivates companies to cut emissions by getting airlines to buy new cleaner aircraft and new engines. It means we have to try to find other alternative forms of technology. This would have a real impact on climate change.

The airline industry is not very happy about any costs. If it is not in the airlines' interest to buy another type of engine we need to motivate industry to produce them. Airline costs should be related to carbon dioxide emissions, to buying other technology that will in reality bring a reduction in carbon dioxide levels. This is a better way of spending money than on taxes. More money for the government will not help.

We have to include air transport within this system to have an effect on worldwide traffic. We can set an example in Europe. It is very simple. If China and India increase their economic growth as Europe has over the last 20 years they will buy more than 1,000 aircraft each. This is only an example. The question is how could we reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. We can influence the type of planes they are able to fly. We have to motivate European companies like Airbus to develop cleaner engines. They will then be able to sell these engines to Chinese or Indian airlines. We do not need worldwide laws when we have an important economic instrument.

I have been fighting for this and writing about this in the German media. It is winning more support in the general discussion against a tax in Germany. A lot of people say this would be a better way. It is better to motivate than to bring in new tax laws.

• German Christian Democrat MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz is chairman of the Parliament's committee on the environment, public health and food safety.

A tax on aircraft fuel would have the desired effect of cutting emissions, argues Eva Lichtenberger

You should look closely at the situation at some of Europe's regional airports. For example, if you look at the airports in the mountains we have about 100 decibels of noise almost 20 times a day over the city of Innsbruck. The no-frills airlines are very attractive but this fuel tax would not affect only them but also the others so there is no distortion of competition.

The sharp increase in air traffic also leads to a sharp increase in the effects of climatic problems in the highest parts of the stratosphere. Some scientists say the effects of pollution there are much more harmful than in the lower regions so this has to be also considered when you are talking about climate protection and climate change. So you cannot only introduce measures for industry or for energy saving at home. You have to look at transport.

If you only see the short-term profits, you have to favour the growth rates of transport. If you think in the long-term for our children, then you have to consider also the long-term effects of measures like that.

A 10 euro fuel tax, if it were introduced in the right way, would have a real effect. If this tax applies to every flight it would not be any distortion of competition. It would hurt the big airports and the small. In some airports the low-cost airlines are privileged. This is a distortion of competition because someone has to pay. I do not see any reason for giving advantages to the low-cost carriers so I think the best thing would be to have no distortion of competition and a tax that applies to all equally. You cannot justify subsidies to airports when you see climate change problems.

Creating combined transport modes would be a much better solution. I have to fly to Brussels from Austria because I cannot spend 14 hours on the train twice a week. If I had a night train I would use that. You have to have good offers and good services to have a change in transport possibilities. When I am going to Strasbourg I have a good train connection so I use it.

More research is needed on the impact of emissions on the stratosphere and we should have more research to clarify the whole situation. If it is proved true we need more suggestions. I am not sure including air transport in a carbon emission-trading scheme would be the right solution. It would be very difficult as it is much easier to supervise limits in industry. There should be some measures but I am not sure this would be the right way to do it.

• Austrian Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger is a member of the Parliament's committee on transport and tourism.

Two MEPs give different views on whether a tax on aircraft fuel is the right way to cut airlines' emissions.

• Primary Source