I'd argue it's a bit of both -- it's a sin tax, and a pigovian tax. Sin taxes _are_ meant to cut down on use, while pigovian taxes aren't meant to cut down on use, rather, make up for external damage (such as to the environment).

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

Sin taxes are pigovian taxes?

And if you're contending they're different I assume one is supposed to cut down use.

Ah yep, I had a typo there. Sin taxes are meant to cut down use indeed, unlike the pigovian ones.

I have a problem with that definition, pigovian taxes are obviously going to cut down use. So the choice of label seems to be a political one.

I suppose a better definition would be that sin taxes are meant to cut down on personal use, while pigovian are meant to offset external factors which the use of the product/service causes. Of course, each of these taxes are going to end up cutting down use, as it would lower demand due to a higher cost, but the idea is that a pigovian tax is successful even if the use doesn't go down significantly, as the tax proceeds would be reinvested in offsets from the negative activity. A sin tax could do this, but it doesn't always do this.

"but the idea is that a pigovian tax is successful even if the use doesn't go down significantly"

That's why I said its political. If you're pro $TAX you say its pigovian and even if it doesn't 'work' you can claim its not supposed to. Whereas if you're anti $TAX, or want to appear tough on X, you say its a sin tax.

I suppose you could argue a pigovian tax would have an upper bound, whereas a sin tax isnt bounded by anything, but for the types of things either label is used for, the externalities are so far removed and open to interpretation that you could still argue whether $TAX more than offsets/comes nowhere near offsetting X.

Long story short, I don't think you could say definitively whether a tax is sin or pigovian.

"as the tax proceeds would be reinvested in offsets from the negative activity."

Both Pigouvian & sin taxes usually go into general revenue and are rarely targeted.

What's the alternative to flying?

At least for flights around Europe, taking the train. Flight in Europe are very cheap. It's actually cheaper to fly from London to Newcastle than it is to get the train, and it takes roughly the same time.

For all flights the alternative is just not to go. Instead of flying to the Caribbean for a holiday, go some place closer and take the train, instead of flying for a business meeting, just call in. If it's worth that much for you to fly, then paying a little tax on top should be fine. Flyers still aren't paying fully for the damage they do to the environment.

As much as I worry about global warming, this antagonizing view doesn't help

"Paying for the damage" is this some kind of joke? What about all the other polluters? Shipping? Coal plants?

Macron got the Yellow Jackets by hating on people that depend on cars to do their job, because wow, if you don't live in a place with public transport and already pay a substantial amount of tax in everything else and earn less than the people in the capital you should pay more right? You're the bad guys

Wow pat yourself in the back for not taking a straw and taxing those "big bad" travelers. Then wonder why your tax revenue goes down every year or people hate you.

"Oh but sleeper trains" yeah, also known for the constant robberies and lawlessness inside them.

> because wow, if you don't live in a place with public transport and already pay a substantial amount of tax in everything else and earn less than the people in the capital you should pay more right? You're the bad guys

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, there is no nice way out of our unsustainable lifestyles, we're all going to take a blow.

> What about all the other polluters? Shipping? Coal plants?

We have 4 coal plants in france and they're about to close. As far as I know most industries pay taxes for pollution (carbon tax, eco tax, &c.)

> "Paying for the damage" is this some kind of joke? What about all the other polluters? Shipping? Coal plants?

So, until we have a unified front for addressing climate change, that doesn't exclude a single source of pollution, we should sit on our hands?

The climate doesn't care where the pollution comes from. Any reduction is a win.

> "Paying for the damage" is this some kind of joke? What about all the other polluters? Shipping? Coal plants?

Right – tax them too, and distribute the revenue back to households. That way it's not a regressive tax, but a wealth transfer from heavy polluters to regular folks who are bearing the indirect costs of the climate crisis.

This sounds like a better plan, too bad it won't happen

This tax will just go to cover deficit or to pay the exceptional privileges of the government employees including French railways which go on strike more often than not.

But surely, alienating the common people is the way to go...

I don't know about France, but this model is now reality in (at least part of) Canada, and the US has a bill before the House [0]. It's the only politically viable way of implementing carbon pricing.

[0] https://energyinnovationact.org

> This tax will just go to cover deficit or to pay the exceptional privileges of the government employees

"just", well france is the definition of a welfare state so if it "just" helps cover the deficit mostly caused by our social security system it's already quite good.

Let's not fool anyone here, europe is plagued with low cost airline companies, the vast majority of flights are for leisure. The alternative to slowly destroying the world for leisure related flights is to not travel.

I can buy TWO berlin<>mallorca round trips for the same price as a single taxi trip from berlin to the airport.

https://www.google.com/flights?hl=en#flt=/m/0156q./m/0jwz5.2...

Using another means of transport or doing without travel (eg conducting your business remotely, hiring someone local, etc )

Trains, buses, cars and not traveling.

Falling comes to mind :)

I guess that's why the tax is on take-off, so everyone can afford landing!

Bad jokes aside France has a huge highspeed rail network.

When people say they're scared of flying, I tell them they should be worried about the sudden lack of flying instead. It doesn't seem to help.

Not traveling?

Using a train.

When was the last time you took a train from Paris to New York?

When was the last time you had no choice but to fly from Paris to New York?

Not taking the flight at all can also be an option. If you really need to, well contributing 18 euros to support less polluting infrastructure such as trains is not that big a price to pay.

> When was the last time you took a train from Paris to New York?

Right after I sold my beachfront house in Arizona.

Surely for the joke to work you'd have to suggest that sea levels were much lower, not higher.

Eg: 'When I sold my Manhattan mountain lodge.'

The beachfront Arizona joke is usually not about rising sea levels but rather about earthquakes in California causing that state to break off from the continent.

It's a line from an old country song and it's a joke about the fact that AZ has no coastline.

Usually it's used to imply something is obviously false and impossible. While there is no song about a train from NYC to Paris the similarity should be obvious.

Also, see the plot from the 1978 Superman movie.

Traveling less far, or taking longer to get there, using a slower alternative.

Sailboats

Hmm… Perhaps dirigibles too?

Sounds rather wonderful to travel across the oceans in a luxury airship. Perhaps throw in the excitement of a murder mystery solved by a cunning Belgian detective with a funny moustache as well?