World's First Green Fuel Levy To Add Almost $32 To Air Fares (theedgesingapore.com)
- Reference: 0180028796
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/11/10/1927209/worlds-first-green-fuel-levy-to-add-almost-32-to-air-fares
- Source link: https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/aviation-engineering/worlds-first-green-fuel-levy-add-almost-us32-air-fares
> Travelers flying in economy and premium economy, as well as those on short-haul routes, will be charged far less. Those customers will pay an additional S$1 for trips to Southeast Asia, and S$10.40 for flights to the Americas, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore said Monday. Business and first class travelers will pay four times more, it said. [...] The funds collected from passengers will go to the centralized purchase of sustainable aviation fuel -- typically made from waste oils or agricultural feedstock -- as Singapore looks to achieve a SAF adoption rate of 3% to 5% by 2030.
[1] https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/aviation-engineering/worlds-first-green-fuel-levy-add-almost-us32-air-fares
It won't last. (Score:2)
'Carbon tax" generally faisl to stimulate a lot of investment in so-called renewable technology because there's no long term assurance that the tax will continue "forever". So an investment with a long term payback potential that could suddenly become a loser if the government changes or someone overhauls their tax policy has to provide a premium return to make investors take on the additional risk.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for posting your extensive, fully researched and well-reasoned argument.
We are thankful for your valuable contribution to this discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
This has zero to do with investment, it has to do with eliminating insanely cheap holidays through taxation, and funding the purchase of SAF. It's a direct tax on customers, not on companies and it's not one a customer can avoid by doing anything other than not taking a plane. The duration of the taxes existence is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
The objective is to purchase "sustainable" aviation fuel, and thereby increase the demand for same.
That will require investment in the construction of additional capacity to create that fuel, unless there's a large surplus of unused fuel laying around somewhere. If there is, I'm not currently aware of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Whale oil?
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to go would be to keep burning jet fuel but purchase bricks of carbon from a sequestration company that captures it from the air.
I know there are more efficient types of carbon credits, like investing in cleaner energy in the first place, or increased efficient at the point of usage such as insulation, or preserving rainforest that would otherwise be developed.
The problem is all that gets complicated and thus subjective. Maybe carbon credits could work if it is based on a new type of 'coin'
Absurdity (Score:2, Insightful)
> city-state locks in a key step in its effort to cut the aviation industry's emissions.
As if this pimple on the ass of the world could ever have enough air traffic for such a measure to have any impact whatsoever.
This nonsense does two things only:
1. More money for the government.
2. Less poors on Singaporean flights.
Individual airlines already do this (Score:3)
e.g, Finnair has a "sustainable aviation fuel" fee as a line item it its tickets: [1]https://www.finnair.com/en/sus... [finnair.com]
[1] https://www.finnair.com/en/sustainable-travel/sustainable-aviation-fuel
I don't support growing fuel (Score:2)
There are already enough dependencies between food and energy production without intentionally making the problem worse.
Well... (Score:2)
Looks like the S$ in the currency symbol(s) could be a good indication of what type of people pushed this legislation through.
World's first? (Score:2)
Hasn't the UK been doing this for years? Levying a fee based on total distance of your journey?
Re: World's first? (Score:2)
The Air Passenger Duty tax is significantly more expensive: [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-air-passenger-duty-rates-from-1-april-2025/air-passenger-duty-rates-from-1-april-2025-to-31-march-2026
Good Solution for Singapore, Bad Priority for USA (Score:2)
Context is Everything! Before people start going off about how dumb of an idea this is, this is about SINGAPORE.
In the US, light-duty trucks (pickup trucks) emit nearly 5x the total annual GHG than commercial air travel and a huge proportion of those pick-up trucks are vanity vehicles. This airline levy isn't nor should it be a high-priority levy for the US.
For Singapore, where it's very difficult to own a car ($20k/yr + fuel + parking), vehicle emissions aren't really their focus and commercial air is.
Costs more? Whaaaa? (Score:1)
I keep being told the energy transition away from petrochemical derived fuels will be better, faster, and cheaper.
What gives?
$32... for first and business class airfares (Score:3)
Only $8 for premium economy on a long haul flight across the Pacific.
In terms of relative prices, a economy flight from LAX might be $900, premium economy $1,500 and business class is more like $12,000 and first class is $20,000
So less than 1% tax. 0.5% for premium economy and 0.16% for first class.