[bkor]

> I don't know how to feel about the meme that governments should target big corporation rather than small consumers.

That's not what was stated. The objection is that hardly anything is done regarding big corporations.

E.g. only in 2020 shipping will have to use low sulphur fuel (max 0.50%). However, companies are allowed to install scrubbers. These devices allow for the environmental impact to continue. This as they take out the sulphur at the detection point, then dump the sulphur in e.g. the water. This is way cheaper than actually using low sulphur fuel. Interestingly enough, there is no availability of 0.50% sulphur fuel. There's 3.5% and 0.10%. They get to 0.50% by mixing the fuel! They've (International Maritime Organization) should've gone for 0.10% and not allowed any scrubbers.

Airline industry: Heavily subsidized, fuel has almost no tax on it. Taking a plane is often way cheaper than a train, while the environmental impact is quite in favour of the train.

[pjc50]

> Airline industry: Heavily subsidized, fuel has almost no tax on it.

This desperately needs to be fixed, but because it's enshrined in a treaty that's very hard.

[dzhiurgis]

Why? Airport, security theater and airspace use taxes eat up most of your ticket costs anyway.

[pjc50]

Per parent: "Taking a plane is often way cheaper than a train, while the environmental impact is quite in favour of the train."

Until we get synthetic jet fuel, we need to impose some kind of carbon tax on it in order to correctly reflect the environmental impact of different modes of transport.

[abyssin]

I agree with your points, and my comment lacks precision.