Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

moonshy2022

For note, Dutch government just suspended their flight cap for Schiphol.

donkey balls

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347146#Comment_121347146

Same lad that had shares in the large petroleum companies.

Bussywussy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121368755#Comment_121368755

Can't wait for the greens to be wiped out. If they care that much get off the planet.

Noxegon

For what it's worth, I do think that an absolutely punitive environmental tax on fuel for private jets would be a good idea if it could be agreed by enough countries. That's something the European Union could do.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370119#Comment_121370119

Taxing the fuel is a nice idea but might be somewhat hard to enforce fully - the jets filling up in non-compliant nearby countries instead, or using dodgy fuel on the ground etc.

A more foolproof method would probably be just extremely high landing fees for private jets, across the entirety of the EU (and ideally the other G7 countries too). Theres no way to get around that.

A big reduction in private jet traffic would seem to be a winner for everyone - better for the environment, better for commercial airlines selling more first/business class seats, better for economy fliers getting lower fares as a result, and better for governments through increased tax revenue. The megawealthy will presumably disagree though.

Captain_Crash

Turkeys don’t vote for xmas

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370119#Comment_121370119

This is populist nonsense at its worst. Private jets use a tiny proportion of aviation fuel. A tonne of CO2 is equally damaging no matter who or what emits it.

EchoIndia

How do you define "private jet" anyway?

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372170#Comment_121372170

Anything that Prince Harry uses??

Noxegon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371906#Comment_121371906

Private jets spew far more CO2 per passenger than commercial passenger aircraft.

If it's populist to adopt a polluter pays principle, then I'm populist and proud.

EchoIndia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372508#Comment_121372508

That would suggest that all commercial aircraft (and by implication their customers) should pay as well, then. Anything else is just gesture politics. If we are honest, the explosion in air travel relies to a large extent on people making what are discretionary rather than essential trips. Of course it is not popular to say that but if pollution is the concern, most of us are contributing to it and at some point public policy is likely to shift towards damping down demand.

Noxegon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372892#Comment_121372892

I think there is (or should be) a difference between taking a (relatively) efficient journey to a location versus emitting 10x (or more) of the CO2 to get there on your own schedule.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371906#Comment_121371906

"The number of private jet flights in Europe increased by 64 per cent last year, and resulting carbon emissions more than doubled compared to 2021, according to research commissioned by Greenpeace.

A similar pattern occurred in Ireland with 6,671 private jet flights departed from Irish airports last year, up 159 per cent on 2021, its analysis shows – this caused 67,900 tonnes of carbon emissions; up 246 per cent on the previous year.

On average, private jet flights from Ireland emitted 10.2 tonnes of CO2 per flight, the same as emitted by a petrol car being driven 40,000km – equivalent to the Earth’s circumference."

https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/climate-crisis/2023/03/30/carbon-pollution-from-european-private-jet-flights-doubled-in-2022-says-greenpeace-report/

Its not as small a proportion as you'd think, and is growing rapidly.

Even if it is compartively small though its the same principle as taxing a Ferrari higher than a Toyota Yaris - sure there are far fewer Ferraris on the roads, but they emit far more per capita emmissions than the more reasonable alternative, so we tax them punitively. The fact the very wealthy polluter can afford to pay the high tax bill also helps hugely. The exact same should be done for private jets.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375087#Comment_121375087

You compare private jet activity in 2022 with 2020 and 2021. Big increases are meaningless as the early years were severly hit by Covid restrictions. Also you cite research done my Greenpeace: I would not rate them as an objective source in this respect.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375102#Comment_121375102

It doesn't matter which year its compared to though, or if you doubt the levels of co2 cited - the hard facts are its still approaching 7000 private jet flights departing Ireland yearly, 14,000 flights when arriving and landing are taken into account, and growing rapidly.

Taxing those flights punitively would raise more taxes for the state, would reduce our co2 emissions, and would use fewer of our limited state aviation resources (runway slots / ATC time). And would sell more first / business class seats on commercial airlines, both increasing the viability of more routes out of Ireland and reducing the costs for economy passengers (ie most Irish taxpayers).

The policy is an easy win for everyone aside from the tiny number of very wealthy people using private jets.

EchoIndia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375142#Comment_121375142

But does very little for climate change. This would get laughed out of any serious policy analysis.

Where is the CO2 data for the airlines?

Any serious public policy needs to define what it is trying to achieve and to what extent measures proposed will contribute to same.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375440#Comment_121375440

14,000 yearly private jet flights are the equivalent of almost 7% of DUB's total aircraft movements. When theres mounting pressure from the public to cut aviation emissions over the next few years it would make far more sense to start there.

They're the flights with by far the highest passenger km emissions, and the most capacity to pay extra taxes. Its far more equitable than targeting the commercial flights that ordinary people take.

Captain_Crash

So a smidge over 6.5k “private” flights in 2022 emit as much CO2 as driving a car around the world….. just once?

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375958#Comment_121375958

14,000 flights may be 7% of ariicraft movements, bit you are equating the emissions of a 10 to 15 seat biz jet with those of an airliner with perhaps 10 times the weight. A tonne of CO2 has the same effect whether it is emitted by a n ordinary guy on a trip to the Canaries or a business executive on a trip to Frankfurt.

Its not just all about the rich, its also not shooting yourself in the foot and becoming a less attractive place to do business.

There are sensible ways to tax aircraft emissions via taxation, and thsse proposals are a distraction from really effective measures.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121376018#Comment_121376018

Per flight, so 6,500 cars once - or one car 6,500 times

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121376365#Comment_121376365

If the Irish state brings in a rule that DUB needs to reduce emissions by 5%-10% by 2030, how would you propose this is achieved so? Because we're extremely likely to see mandatory measures like this the closer we get to 2030 and the more desperate our governments become to meet environmental targets.

Or if infrastructure limits on the number of aircraft movements at DUB are implemented (another policy being debated currently), which thousands of flights do you think should be cut instead of private jet flights, and why?

Targeting private jets does by far the least economic damage to tourism/business, the least amount of damage to Irish voters and employers, is the least sensitive to taxation mode of air travel, and reduces usage of DUB's already overloaded ATC and runway infrastructure the most per passenger impacted. Thats why its the best option.

Ben D Bus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375142#Comment_121375142

Just thinking about this, if all the private flyers moved to business/first thus making more commercial routes viable, could this have the unintended consequence of increasing emissions?

Similar to how increased fuel efficiency, rather than reduce gross emissions, actually reduced prices to the point so many more people started flying that total emissions increased?

Now that's all very well and egaltarian but it won't have any environmental benefits.

Captain_Crash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121376552#Comment_121376552

Yes you’re right, I knew something didn’t add up!

bilbot79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121375440#Comment_121375440

Cutting greenhouse gases from the planet will be by a thousand cuts. Each cut is small, but each matters.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121377056#Comment_121377056

Not sure what you are arguing with here. If your concern is environmental benefits then presumably you would be in favour of a cap on number of flights generally?

Several benefits from reducing the number of private flights have been given, not sure why you are focusing on environmental benefits when you'd probably dismiss them if a reduction in flights was proposed.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121377056#Comment_121377056

No. Thats like asking if 80 people stop driving their own cars to work, and so one extra bus is required on a route instead, does this raise emissions. Large scale transport is always more efficient than individual transport.

Private jets by their very nature of having very small numbers of people on the plane, and an extremely high staff:passenger ratio, are incredibly inefficient in their use of all resources - financial, fuel, airport infrastructure etc. Having those passengers flying on 777s/A330s or similar in first/business class is an order of magnitude more efficient.

Cookiemunster

There is way more low hanging fruit tackle before stopping private jets. If every plane on the planet was grounded forever tomorrow, then we'd still have to deal with the other 98% of the worlds carbon emissions. Aviation is an easy target, but it's nowhere near the top of the list.

moonshy2022

Jeez Louise 🤦🏻‍♂️

If you want to talk endless circles about the environment and aviation, would you mind starting a separate topic.

Ben D Bus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121379781#Comment_121379781

Only if they're all on the same plane. If they are spread across numerous new commercial routes that became viable because of them quitting their private jets, then the net result may be environmentally negative.

My argument is that banning private jets may not have much value. It's a vote winner, doesn't hurt most people, great optics, but environmentally pointless.

It does however reduce aircraft movements, which may help keep an airport within it's limits (although not if those limits are about passenger numbers rather than aircraft numbers!)

Noxegon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121379845#Comment_121379845

Given where the world is right now, I'd suggest that we should be dealing with as much of the fruit as possible in parallel - low hanging or otherwise.