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

we have to be very careful with SAF. Absent controls around the world we will see virgin oils such as palm being declared as if they were waste oils to capture the subsidy. A recent U.K. report stated that 25% of their waste tyres could produce the level of SAF to which they are committed. Up until now they have been exported to places with likely lower regulation.

Carbon offsets through genuine methods of seeding forests etc could provide some additional scope but it’s unlikely that all aviation fuel could be sustainable just as 100% renewable generation without some carbon use (whether back up, manufacturing of renewables technology etc) is pie in the sky thinking.

Airlines won't pay it,you will.

Im happy enough with airfares not going through the roof and having the option to get off this rain sodden rock a couple of times a year.

EU wide rule - zero VAT and zero excise on supplies (not just fuel) to ships conducting international commercial voyages

This would be a dont know,dont care situation on my end.

Everything is so expensive, I'm happy to be able to take a few holidays a year and not get completely shafted in the airfare.

I'm not sure why anybody would be pining for more taxes.

I don't know about you but Im in the cohort that pays through the nose in taxes .

I'm certainly not looking to pay any more,maybe you are? I find it a weird enough stance to have.

Both aviation and maritime mandatory exemptions in the energy taxation directive look likely to remain in the revised Energy Taxation Directive - with reviews scheduled around 2035.

EU Working Party on Tax Questions is due to meet on Wednesday 23rd October and confirming this is on their agenda

And you have stated your views over and over again and should have understood by now that others do not share your views that additional taxes on fuel for a form of transport where no other form of fuel is available is not desirable.

I apologize. You've convinced me. How wrong I was. Tax the b@stards in to the ground.

If I was paying just carbon tax at €100 per ton(which is the Irish Government target for 2030) for my flight I'd be paying considerably less than is currently paid for Carbon Trading, SAF blend and Aviation TAX which is blended in to the price of my ticket. You haven't got a clue about any of this so you are just regurgitating a report from a lobby group.

I am not in favour of the Carbon tax because people like you would still demand the VAT, Aviation Taxes and SAF blends and Carbon trading on top of all this because disciples of the Green Party don't think independently and just follow Dogma.

If the Green Party did get a carbon tax of €100 per ton in Aviation then they would start lobbying for €500 and then €1000 and then €10000 because everything has to be carbon neutral. even 1g is too much for them.

On top of that Eamon Ryan has said we should have to compensate for "more vulnerable countries"…that is an open line of credit for the world.

If you want to engage in some attention seeking go and open a can of Tomato Soup and throw it on Leinster House. Get arrested for your misguided "principles" please.

…oh, you want vat as well. which VAT 15%, 19%, 23%, 27% applied on top of the Carbon credits airlines will be forced to buy.

Welcome to the world of tankering in that case.

https://www.globalvatcompliance.com/globalvatnews/vat-rates-in-europe-2021/

If you want to see how Crazy the Greens can be then translate this article below.

Greens mandate use of PowerToLiquid fuel but PtL hasn't got out of the Laboratory and in to mass production yet while at the same time Nuclear plants are shut down which is the only source of plentiful carbon free electricity with which to produce PtL.

This is the calibre of zealots we are dealing with.

"Airlines are supposed to use fuels that do not yet exist. This is causing a Coalition Parties dispute: Transport Minister Volker Wissing (FDP) points out legal violations to Steffi Lemke (Greens) - but the Environment Minister remains stubborn. The Condor boss announces that he will take the matter to court if necessary."

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article254059224/Luftfahrt-Krise-Die-Kerosin-Quote-der-Gruenen-wird-zum-naechsten-Standortnachteil.html

If there is VAT/Tax on fuel for cars, buses, lorries, rail and ship, of course there should be tax on aviation fuel

Other transport can't go elsewhere quite as easily.

If Ireland were to increase the price of jet fuel significantly the airline operators wouldn't refuel here. Increase the cost of doing business in this pathetic little market and the planes will go elsewhere, as it wouldn't be worth it.

Yes Ireland can shoot itself in both feet if it wants to, but the rest of the world isn't going to care.

You are always personally free to express your environmental concerns by not flying anywhere ever, just like George Monbiot /s

Carbon taxes would not reduce CO2 emissions from planes, only planes not flying or being less heavily laden would do that. Carbon taxes on aviation fuel is not going to reduce the CO2 generated in a Plane flying from Ireland to the US - no one is going to say 'thats a bit expensive, think I'll cycle instead'. Only the plane not making the journey at all will reduce emissions.

So instead of this disingenuous 'concern' for a lack of tax on jet fuel, how about rephrasing your concern honestly and just state that you think people are flying too much and express the wish that they wouldn't?

Mario Draghi has recently been very critical of the over-regulation in the EU and how it's stifiling and severely hampering businesses, competitiveness and trade.

You have a large number of exorbitantly paid civil servants jobs whose main raison d'état is to produce restrictive and life-complicating and costly legislation - without end. No one seems to have a clue about how bureaucracies function. They are like cancers or parasites and you need a sanity check to stop them going too far and killing off the host. I think the EU lacks such a mechanism.

I wouldn't be too quick to congratulate the EU, I am certain they are working hard to try and find a way to do what the OP wants.

The EU Commission is effectively insane when it comes to CO2 concerns and 'green' measures. They have completely lost the plot.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-commission-urges-france-to-raise-renewables-target-to-at-least-44/

The EU’s energy commissioner, Kadri Simson, has urged France to raise its renewable energy target to “at least 44%” by 2030, warning it would consider taking “steps” at EU level in case of persistent shortcomings.

Paris has until now refused to put forward a renewables target for 2030, pushing instead for a wider “decarbonised” energy goal, which combines nuclear power and renewables.

With a June deadline looming for EU countries to submit their final National Energy and Climate Plans, the European Commission is becoming increasingly confrontational with the French, insisting that they make their fair contribution to the EU’s renewable energy goals. 

According to Brussels’ calculations, France needs to achieve at least 44% renewables in its gross final energy consumption by 2030 in order to contribute to the EU target of 42.5% set out in the Renewable Energy Directive, which was updated last year.

What's wrong with that, you might wonder?

France has an effectively net-zero energy grid right now, never mind 2030 or 2050. Last year they produced more zero CO2 electricity than the total electricity the country consumed. The rest they export to prop up the struggling renewables centric grids like Germany and Denmarks.

As a technical aside; they generate a bit over 70% of their total electricity from nuclear, but it theoretically could at times be 100% because the gross capacity of their reactors exceeds demand, but some are usually down for maintainance. A few more reactors so a few are in reserve making even more of a mint from exports and they could be 100%. They burn a relatively tiny trickle of gas to keep turbines spinning for grid stability reasons, something renewables could not replace because they are not reliable.

France's sin is to have set a bad example by being a quarter century ahead of every other EU member state and achieving 2050 emissions targets right now, using nuclear instead of renewables.

Imagine if schools punished students for getting 100% in exams because they were smarter than other students?

That's great. I wouldn't think it impossible for that to be recinded, given how it came about, by a member state trying it's best to get expelled from the EU:

The compromise was drafted by Hungary, which holds the EU's rotating presidency and therefore chairs negotiations among EU countries until the end of the year. A spokesperson for Hungary's representation to the EU did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Still, I hope you remain correct and that it holds.