Tbh, I like it - only 25% of the population flies, and it's the top tier (mostly).

My biggest problem is it's so low. 1.5/3 Euro for EU/non-EU travel.

And that sucks. More freedom is good. More taxing won't help more people travel.

That is, of course, the intention here. But that's not a solution, its pretty regressive.

What kind of freedom are we talking about?

Every kg of CO2 you contribute to pushing out in the atmosphere is a little bit of freedom taken away from the generations coming after you that will have to deal with the consequences.

If airplane flights are inappropriately priced compared to the externalities they cause - which I’d argue is the case, as with any industry powered by fossil fuel - then taxes are a great way to deal with that.

What alternate solutions do you propose?

Negative externalities suck worse, especially when they are destroying our planet.

Assuming you have a $150 ticket, this would be 1% of the cost, and seems unlikely to change behavior.

Flying takes a pretty heavy toll on the environment, it should be discouraged as much as possible.

If people want to travel, the continent's already covered with roads and rail.

Is 3 euros, round trip, really going to incent different behavior?

The reactions in this thread really show why I'll never want to become a politicians. Half of the reactions here are "that's a regressive tax that'll kill our freedom", the other half being "that's not nearly expensive enough".

Which road do you take to Iceland or NYC from Paris?

Which definition of "discouraged as much as possible" means "prevented entirely"?

We may be at the point where we have to choose between the freedom to fly and the freedom to live on an inhabitable planet.

Generations from now, people will, if there are any left, look back on these bourgeois luxuries as a kind of grotesque oppulance, utterly out of whack with ecological reality.

That's something you just can't predict. No one knows what people will be thinking "generations from now". You seem to be projecting strongly.

The fact that airplane fuel wasn't as heavily taxed as gas was actually one of the arguments of the gilets jaunes. "We're poor and we can't buy gas to go to work, meanwhile rich people fly to the Caribbeans with subsidized fuel."

Keep in mind that, AFAIK, traveling by plane is significantly more mainstream in the USA (probably due to the huge distances and lack of viable alternatives) than it is in Europe and specifically in France.

Why?

The protest that originated "gilets jaunes" was because the increase in gasoline price would affect low wage workers for which their car was one of the main tools for their job.

I cannot imagine many low wage workers that depend on international flights to take home some bread...

I think the powerful french farming lobby had more to do with it

Regardless of the origin, it was a clearly a protest that resonated with a significant part of society.

I find it hard to compare with a tax that will mostly affect people flying abroad for tourism and expenses-paid business travelers.

It's the first time I hear that, and that would be quite surprising since farmers do not pay taxes on the diesel they use.

Precisely at some point (duty free fuel for farming) that has to go and it was a pre-emptive flexing of the faming lobby's muscles.

Not only workers, also unemployed, retired, etc But yes, defending low-income population

Not really the same population... I honestly don't think it will get much pushback

I think Yellow Jackets won't mind so much because they are defending the poor people, against raising fuel price just to save 0.001 degree in 100 years. I don't think they will perceive this as hitting the population they defend.