Why should there be 0% VAT on international aviation fuel?

There is an international treaty that prohibits tax on fuel for international flights. However, there is nothing preventing any state in implementing other taxes, e.g. departure / arrival taxes, steep airport charges, aircraft registration taxes, etc.

The should of course be carbon taxes, etc.

Article 14 (b) exempts any fuels used for commercial aviation from Excise duties, but it does include a provision that allows a member state to restrict this exemption to Jet fuel only (i.e. Jet Kerosene).

Given the carbon tax on transport fuels is typically deemed to be another element Excise duty, it means that Ireland would likely be challenged through the EU Courts if we tried to bring in carbon tax on jet fuel.

VAT on aviation fuels is covered by the EU VAT Directive, Article 148(e), which grants a general exemption to "the supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes"

The EU is currently looking at making changes to these rules via the "Taxonomy" processes - but it's been very slow.

Ultimately, Ireland can't place excise or VAT directly on jet fuel without EU-level changes. And we cannot place VAT on international air travel in general without an EU change also. It doesn't however, stop us placing passenger-level taxes on departures or arrivals to try and get the same impact.

The EU is working to change it - but when it comes to changing the tax directives the EU always works incredibly slowly.

They've other carbon measures already in though - ETS applied to the aviation section since 2019

The EU exemptions have zero reference to the Chicago Convention - it's a separate EU-level decision that was originally driven, as I understand it, but the desire to promote free movement within the union. There's a similar EU exemptions on fuel for commercial international shipping.

Do you really want to pay higher airfares?

I think that the Russian fuel spec was a bit different from the Western spec. At least that's the impression I had at the time.

There are slight differences in Jet-A1 in different countries. The fuel in the US has a higher waxing temperature than that in Europe. Sometimes means aircraft who refueled in the US have to fly faster and/or lower to prevent waxing during winter at northern lattitudes.

The US uses Jet-A whereas most of the rest of the world uses Jet-A-1.

Wiki:

Differences between Jet A and Jet A-1
The differences between Jet A and Jet A-1 are twofold. The primary difference is the lower freezing point of Jet A-1 fuel:

Jet A's is −40 °C (−40 °F)
Jet A-1's is −47 °C (−53 °F)
The other difference is the mandatory addition of an antistatic additive to Jet A-1 fuel.

Can you outline the details of this?

They are still one of the highest polluters globally.

Sustainable means what?? Give some hard numbers about how they are helping stop climate change? People are being taxed out of driving petrol and diesel vehicles and using fossil fuel heating.

Why should airlines be exempt? I thought this was an emergency and we are legally bound to follow suit.

We’re all paying higher taxes for everything else because of carbon taxes. Why should airlines get away with paying their share?

Aviation has looked at various technologies and operational changes to reduce emissions.

Sustainable fuels.

Zero emission planes.

Then there was the suggestion on formation flying across the Atlantic.

Others are CCO (continuous climb) and CDO (continuous descent).

TBO (time based operations ⇒ years away)

Even if there was VAT it would likely be reclaimable as VAT is on diesel for the majority of businesses.

People are not being taxed out of driving petrol and diesel vehicles or using fossil fuel heating.

Carbon taxes are minimal. We're getting money because there's an election on the way.

As one of only three island nations in the EU, we'd be mad to either come up with our own aviation tax e.g. departure tax, or support or permit the taxation of aviation at an EU level.

We can't just hop onto a train or coach if we have to travel to another EU state. It would be a huge disincentive to do business in this country and hit our tourism industry expecially hard. Our relative geographical isolation is already a huge factor in the cost of living / doing business here and we'd be mad to make it worse.

Vat would be reclaimable anyway - just as any vat registered business can reclaim vat on diesel or kerosene if used in connection with the business.

So would simply be an accounting exercise

Excise duty is a different matter

Only people pay tax.

If a firm must pay more more tax, then the incidence of the tax falls on one of the following:

(1) the customers

(2) the staff

(3) the shareholders

The problem is that for aviation there is no path to carbon neutrality. Sustainable aviation fuel that is price competitive to todays jet fuel and electrification are so far away that that are not worth considering. The only real way to reduce aviation emissions in a meaningful way currently is to reduce demand. And the only way to do that is to increase it's cost or directly ration it. Unlike other industries, there isn't a true technical solution available.

This creates a problem for policymakers since every other industry will point to aviation and the pass it gets and complain that they have to make more expensive changes because that sector is not doing enough.

To force demand reduction I could see certain flights being prohibited especially ones where high quality rail alternatives exist.

Ultimately though if you want to see aviation reduce its emissions then the passenger will have to pay more. Is that what people want? I think not.