So it's incentive for someone to not take a flight? I would assume travel has a certain degree if inelasticity in demand which would cause the tax to be much less effective in actually reducing emissions. The only way for this to actually reduce emissions is if someone decided to not travel at all and just stay home. If they decided to go by car, I assume that would be worse (180 passengers don't take a flight but drive instead). I mean if you have to go to your grandmother's funeral 5 states away, you gotta go. If you have to go on a business trip, you have to go. What's the estimated percentage of carbon emissions would an 8% tax reduce? I guess this is aimed at leisure travel primarily.

This seems like one of those things that sound right on a macro level, but doesn't take into account the inelastic demand of travel. For it to actually reduce emissions (the goal), the tax would probably need to be much, much higher to the point where you just don't go to grandma's funeral.

Honestly, for me, the TSA and the actual flight experience in the US as kept me from flying at all since about 2006. I can't stand any part of it. I don't care much for driving either and only put around 2000 miles a year on my vehicle. Most of this is because I can work at home. I guess I've got a pretty low footprint.

> For it to actually reduce emissions (the goal), the tax would probably need to be much, much higher to the point where you just don't go to grandma's funeral.

Nah, you just need enough pressure to move people onto electric cars.

A plane might be one of the last holdouts on fossil fuels, but even then renewable fuel shouldn't be that expensive in bulk.