04-18-2021, 08:52 PM
(04-18-2021, 06:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(04-18-2021, 08:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm confused, you ay that it isn't any worse for the climate, then you explain how it is worse for the climate?
On a per-pax basis, it's likely a bit better than a full-service airline. But if the pricing substantially increases air traffic, it's worse.
But there are a ton of assumptions in those two statements.
The right way to fix that is with an appropriate carbon tax. A correctly set carbon tax can replace all other government-led carbon mitigation strategies by fully internalizing the cost of emitting carbon dioxide.
Of course in practice a 100% carbon tax approach may not necessarily be the best approach; for example also explicitly funding public transit is a good idea for many other reasons and including it in the carbon dioxide mitigation strategy then makes sense as well.
I’m not sure where this leaves airport expansion. With the correct carbon tax in place, air travel prices will be higher than without the carbon tax, which means quantity traded will be lower, which might by itself change the economic feasibility of a proposed airport expansion; but on the other hand airport expansion is an action explicitly planned by government so it is reasonable to look at societal goals, not just the immediate business case, when doing that planning.