[wiz21c]

Taxing it means : the rich will be able to continue to fly while the poor, not being able to travel anymore because of the tax, will support the burden of climate adaptation. That's not justice.

And that's the issue : climate change requires a global effort and if we want to have the masses to adapt, then we must have the elite to adapt equally.

[corney91]

A frequent flyer tax would help here. Everyone gets a tax-free flight, then a low tax for the next one, and it keeps increasing for more flying. ~23 minutes in this podcast describes it and explains how it'd make a huge impact: https://www.cheerfulpodcast.com/rtbc-episodes/fair-miles

The key stat is it'd be enough to reach the UK's target on carbon emissions from flying by 2050, at a cost of 0% for the first flight and 9% on the second (going up steeply from there). Of course, other countries may have different data but the principle should be the same.

[QasimK]

The rich will support the burden of climate adaptation because the income from the tax can be used directly to help mitigate climate change.

The vast majority of flights are taken by a small minority of people; they're taken by the richest. Take the United Kingdom as an example: 70% of all flights were taken by 15% of people [0]. It certainly isn't the poorest taking these flights.

So taxing flights will have less direct impact on the poorest than one might think.

Having said that, I think a charge on carbon is more fair than taxing flights directly.

[0]: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/

[_Algernon_]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

>A carbon fee and dividend or climate income is a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming. The system imposes a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and then distributes the revenue of this tax over the entire population (equally, on a per-person basis) as a monthly income or regular payment.