THE travel industry cannot avoid responsibility for the environmental impact of tourism and should accept green taxes and regulation, according to sustainable tourism experts.
A tax on flying is inevitable, Travel Research International director Graham Todd told a Toward Europe forum this week. “The aviation industry must be forced to pay the true cost of air travel,” he said.
The Travel Foundation chief executive Sue Hurdle, who previously worked for Thomas Cook, argued a tax across the board would not damage airlines. She even suggested flying could be rationed, with passengers granted carbon allowances, placing a limit on how often or how far each could fly. The Travel Foundation is backed by the industry.
Airlines point out air travel contributes only about 4% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is the fastest- growing source of warming gases and UK passenger numbers are expected to treble by 2030.
A green tax would mean a significant rise in the cost of a family holiday. Simply offsetting the carbon emissions of a flight – giving money to projects to compensate for the additional carbon released into the atmosphere – costs £5 per person for a return trip to the Mediterranean, £15 to Orlando, £20 to Bangkok and £36 to Sydney.
But increasing numbers of travellers appear to want to see the costs offset. Travel management company Portman Travel Group launched a scheme this week for business travellers to offset carbon emissions, after commissioning research that found 62% of corporate travellers believe their companies should pay to minimise the impact of flying.
The Portman Forest scheme allows firms to pay to compensate for emissions as they book, with a range of fees from £1.50 to £36 depending on the destination.
The airline industry hit out at the proposals. IATA director general Giovanni Bisignani told an environment summit in Geneva this week: “Increasing industry costs does nothing for the environment.”
He argued airlines had cut emissions per passenger by an average 5% over the past two years and were responsible for just 12% of all emissions from transport. Bisignani said the high price of fuel would increase pressure to improve efficiency, as the oil price hit $75 a barrel.
A spokeswoman for EasyJet said: “We want to see an end to the persecution of airlines and are calling on governments not to slap on an environment tax. It could affect demand. We don’t want a reversion to the old elitism of air travel.”
She added: “EasyJet is less damaging than airlines with old fleets. We fly practically full, and our aircraft are less polluting than older aircraft.”
The main political parties have sought to stiffen their green credentials in the run-up to next week’s local elections. However, a green tax on flights is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Firstly, it would depend on a cross-border agreement between governments. There is currently no consensus on the issue within the European Union, or between Europe and the US. The airlines are expected to lobby against it.
Secondly, the Government has already proved unwilling to raise fuel taxes. It has frozen a planned increase in duty on petrol since the fuel protests of 2000, and recently froze Air Passenger Duty on flights for a fifth successive year – drawing criticism this week from MPs. Yet Hurdle said consumers could become so concerned about the issue, they would refuse to fly, and air travel could become as frowned upon as smoking.
She warned: “Travel could be something people feel guilty about. Consumers may avoid companies viewed as wasting resources.”
We want to hear your views on what the travel industry should do to go green and protect its image. Join the debate at travel.weekly@rbi.co.uk or on the Travel Weekly forums.