And taxing aviation fuel will make the rich pay trough the nose for their „privilege“. Which is good.
What do you propose?
What do you propose?
So, if you're refueling an A380 super-jumbo or a 777, your fuel tax is very low, because those planes need a LOT of fuel. If you're refueling a 737, it'll be significantly higher, to penalize short routes. If you're refueling a small private jet, it'll be huge.
Basically, big jets that carry hundreds of passengers will get the lowest fuel tax this way, and airlines will be forced to prioritize moving people as efficiently as possible.
My whole point here was to devise a taxation strategy to discourage passengers and airlines from flying short routes, and leave those to trains instead, reserving airplanes for the much longer routes where they're much less avoidable, and also to encourage more centralization of air travel from large cities and their airports, so that larger numbers of passengers are funneled onto a smaller number of very large jets for those intercontinental trips. Passengers would then just have to take trains to/from the smaller cities. Larger planes are far more efficient in terms of fuel per passenger per mile; much of the fuel burned in a flight is used on take-off and getting to altitude anyway, so maximizing distance and plane size means minimizing fuel per passenger-mile.
If we want to fight pollution big time, ultimately we have to reduce amount of traveling. At least till we get nuclear fission working and batteries with good energy density. Entirely new ways to make trains and planes themselves.
You know there's lots of things to do outside without flying tens of thousands kilometers, right?