Tome it looks like the PR bods of the British and Euro aviation industry are doing a good job; they concede concerns about environmnet and talk willing to be taxed on fuel but look to get concessions eslewhere. But then someone says: "'A tax on aviation fuel places additional costs on the aviation industry but provides no incentive to improve environmental performance.'"
Pardon? If the tax is on fuel is there not an incentive to cut fuel use? -isn't that part of the point? Doesn't that 'incentivise' improved environmental performance? For example not using as much paint on the planes saves fuel and therefore tax [it's surprising how heavy a coat or two of paint is], investing in more fuel-efficient engines saves fuel AND tax ....
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Airlines warn of fuel tax meltdown:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
No comments:
Post a Comment