Airlines to charge passengers ‘climate taxes,’ says report

Airlines will soon be charging passengers higher rates for “decarbonization,” says a report.

Bloomberg reported last week that the aviation industry aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. With about 25,000 commercial planes burning approximately 100 billion gallons of kerosene fuel a year, the industry will need to spend an estimated $4 trillion to achieve its 2050 goal. The estimate was provided by McKinsey & Co in a report sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

But while carbon neutrality is not a goal passengers chose, it is one they will likely be funding.

“Airlines say the financial blow will be far too heavy to bear on their own,” writes Bloomberg. 

“There’s just no way around it,” said International Air Transport Association (IATA) Director General Willie Walsh. The IATA is the industry’s main global lobby group.

The International Council on Clean Transportation, a policy and research think tank, has proposed a $25 climate tax on passengers, or a sliding scale that might charge passengers $177 for their 20th flight.

But no matter the method, the transition to cleaner fuels is expensive enough to “put the democratization of flying into reverse, leading to higher fares, and fewer routes and airlines,” says the report.

A reduction in air travel has been a major objective set by globalist leaders under the pretext of “climate change.” The C40, a conglomerate of global mayors who have pledged to implement the World Health Organization’s Air Quality Guidelines, has pegged aviation as one of six key categories which require “consumption intervention.”

“Reducing flights and adopting sustainable aviation fuels could collectively avoid $70 million in damages from air pollution that would impact human health, buildings, infrastructure and agricultural production,” explains a C40 report.

But reducing flights is significantly more effective at cutting carbon emissions than sustainable fuels, says the report, which is why getting people to fly less is the more “ambitious” objective.

“In the ambitious scenario, reducing flights is more effective at cutting emissions than further increasing the use of sustainable aviation fuels; the former reduces emissions by 11% and the latter by just 1%.”

Therefore, “46% of C40 cities’ residents would need to reduce the number of trips, compared to their 2017 levels” in order to have the desired effect on the climate.