• Ready! Player 31@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has good intentions but all this will do is make it so low income people can’t travel, and not really affect the rich who are mostly the problem here.

    • bremen15@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is such a vague and unspecific statement that it can’t be wrong. It also agitates.

    • aupag@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This assumes that flights are the option of choice for low income people to travel, but in fact low income people rarely fly with over 50% never flying and 31% flying less than once a year as opposed to high income households where only 50% never fly or fly less than once a year (https://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/archive/pdf/MiD2017_Tabellenband_Deutschland.pdf, p. 74, I’ve seen similar things for other countries, will probably be much less for the top 1%). Poor people are more likely to choose closer destinations and choosing their own car, long-distance busses (common in eastern europe) and travel less in general, not only due to the time cost and cost of transport, but also the high cost of accommodations.

      Flying is one of the few areas where the distribution of flights taken is so strongly slanted by income that even a flat per flight tax would cost (by income) the 50% income percentile roughly as much as the top percentile worldwide (https://theicct.org/aviation-fft-global-feb23/ fig. 1).

      If even the cost of flying can’t be touched because of concerns about disadvantaging poor people, nothing can, because flying is truly one of the things the things that is most strongly tied to income (of relevant emissions ,https://www.carbonbrief.org/richest-people-in-uk-use-more-energy-flying-than-poorest-do-overall/).