Cycling climate activists chased by police after blocking private jets with bikes (includes video)

ride2smile wrote:

Bloody cyclists. Think they own the runways!

Bet not one of them had paid a penny in runway tax, freeloaders.

mattw wrote:

No sympathy from me, I'm afraid. I have no more patience for this than I do for our own domestic idiots - ER and all the rest.

Greenpeace, having decided decades ago that they are entitled to ignore the law because they are so important, now whine like a labrador denied sausages when the law is enforced on them. 

It feels like a sad bit of opportunistic attention seeking, given that the Dutch Government are committed in their Coalition Agreement to treble Air Passenger Duty (NL version of) in 2023.

I doubt that someone using private planes is going to be at all affected by tripling of their passenger duty.

From: https://blog.privatefly.com/air-passenger-duty-on-private-jet-flights

Quote:

How much does APD add to a private jet charter cost?

Let’s consider a typical short European flight in a Citation XL medium jet, from London to Paris with a payload of 3 passengers (see average passenger numbers and other stats in our quarterly Private Jet Charter Trends report).

The current APD payable on this flight is £26 per person, so a total of £78 for the journey. This represents around 2% of a typical one-way charter price of £3,200.

For the Higher Rate (larger jets) the tax ranges from £78 per passenger on a short flight, to £438 per passenger on a flight of 2000 miles or more. So APD has a greater impact here.

For example if 8 people are travelling in a Gulfstream G400 from London to New York, the tax payable is £3,504 (£438 per person). This equates to around 6% of an average one-way price of £59,500 on this aircraft for this route.

Whatever the tax liability, at PrivateFly this is always included in the quoted charter price from the outset, so there are no surprises later. The only exception being if passenger numbers change, as APD is payable per passenger.

That's an older blog, so those charges are likely to be out of date, but the principle seems to be that if you're rich, you can pollute with impunity. Also, as the cost is applied per passenger, it will have minimal affect on those travelling alone.

I think it is about time that airplane fuel is taxed.

Hmmm. That £438 is now £554.

I think you're missing the important bit though. For NL this is a sea change after being APD refuseniks for more than 25 years, which may make a more orderly implementation possible in the EU. 

For us, I think the The Tories introduced APD in the UK in 1994, and NL did *nothing* until about 2020.

Lack of APD has been a lever to increase business at Schipol, as it has for Dublin. There are something like 1-2 million passengers who transfer out of UK airports to go via ROI. I don't have the numbers for tax-avoinding transfers to Schipol. Including an a big chunk of extra, unnecessary landings / takeoffs. That's a big gain available, if someone pulls their finger out.

I'm not sure if anyone has the numbers for how many people make an extra flight or train journey all the way to Inverness to aviod APD, but it's not a few.

>I think it is about time that airplane fuel is taxed.

The "how" is the important question there. That's what Ken Clarke wanted to do in 1994, but he couldn't because it was all tied up by international agreements

I think that APD is a move in the right direction, but charging per passenger seems flawed to me. A jet carrying one person is likely to use almost as much fuel as one carrying two or three people, or at least the difference is going to be minor, so charging per flight seems more appropriate.

It's a shame that international agreements stand in the way of trying to penalise heavily polluting flights - what's needed is for different countries to work together which is only logical when we all share the same planet. Unfortunately we share the planet with people who are determined to grab every last bit of money they can before the climate becomes too inhospitable to support current society, and they relentlessly push the fossil fuel agenda using their considerable financial weight.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think that APD is a move in the right direction, but charging per passenger seems flawed to me. A jet carrying one person is likely to use almost as much fuel as one carrying two or three people, or at least the difference is going to be minor, so charging per flight seems more appropriate.

It's a shame that international agreements stand in the way of trying to penalise heavily polluting flights - what's needed is for different countries to work together which is only logical when we all share the same planet. Unfortunately we share the planet with people who are determined to grab every last bit of money they can before the climate becomes too inhospitable to support current society, and they relentlessly push the fossil fuel agenda using their considerable financial weight.

or just charge per litre of fuel

I'm having trouble keeping up; which iteration of which troll is this?

A Different Opinion ≠ A Troll.

Rich_cb wrote:

A Different Opinion ≠ A Troll.

Absolutely.

As a helpful guide, I attempt to not reply to any poster that demonstrates clear trolling behaviour (i.e. posting inconsistent nonsense just to get a response and an argument).

.

Oh, but on here it does, Rich.

.

Indeed - and "contrarian" is also not quite the same IMHO.  OTOH there are similarities, especially apparently seeking negative attention as much as positive.  Even if your contrarian is challenging others because they really have beliefs which they feel they are correct and that everyone else they're challenging is mistaken / ill-intentioned / a fool.

I like "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".  Then we can just argue about the evidence!

Internet though so at least as much for knockabout as exchange of information.  There is some truth in what nicmason said sometime back - without irritation it could become old men nodding over their beer; a bit boring.  Certainly doesn't generate as many clicks...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Indeed - and "contrarian" is also not quite the same IMHO.  OTOH there are similarities, especially apparently seeking negative attention as much as positive.  Even if your contrarian is challenging others because they really have beliefs which they feel they are correct and that everyone else they're challenging is mistaken / ill-intentioned / a fool.

I like "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".  Then we can just argue about the evidence!

Internet though so at least as much for knockabout as exchange of information.  There is some truth in what nicmason said sometime back - without irritation it could become old men nodding over their beer; a bit boring.  Certainly doesn't generate as many clicks...

I'm pretty sure we can have lots of different opinions on topics without needing contrarians just spewing illogical nonsense. Incidentally, there hasn't been a helmet row for a while.

I'm not convinced that it can be. I really think that we are f***ed, and everything from now on is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic with our fingers in our ears, whistling a happy tune...

brooksby wrote:

I'm not convinced that it can be. I really think that we are f***ed, and everything from now on is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic with our fingers in our ears, whistling a happy tune...

It is not too late but most of what is being proposed and done by governments is "just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic with our fingers in our ears, whistling a happy tune..." 

I fully support non-violent direct action to highlight the urgency with which we need to act, not only for the future but also for the reality of what climate change means now for some of the poorest communities on our planet, who have done nothing to cause the problem in the first place. 

I do think that from time to time, but isn't hope one of the main human strengths (or weaknesses, depending on how you interpret the story of Pandora)?

vthejk wrote:

I do think that from time to time, but isn't hope one of the main human strengths (or weaknesses, depending on how you interpret the story of Pandora)?

Hope for what, though?  Some sort of Green dictatorship and world government to get everything back in line, or hyperintelligent godlike aliens turning up with a widget which will fix things?

Based on evidence from the last 30 years, I'd suggest that that process has been in place for a long time already, and this kind of activism does nothing but undermine it.

There is an argument for the Netherlands that the place is excessive mercantilist, however this feels like a publicity stunt to maintain the profile of the couple of organisations involved, as (as I pointed out in my other comment) further significant measures are already being taken under the current Govt in NL.

If these peeps must make an exhibition of themselves, it would be better targetted at say Shannon Airport, where there is no / minimal Air Travel Tax. (Unless it has changed again).

"further significant measures are already being taken under the current Govt in NL."

What measures? The numbers from Peter's comment above are pretty convincing that tripling the Air Passenger Duty tax won't have an effect.

mattw wrote:

Based on evidence from the last 30 years, I'd suggest that that process has been in place for a long time already

Is "that process" the deckchair rearrangement or the whistling?

The climate change problem has been known about since at least the late 1970s. You could just count on humanity to do hee-haw about it because none of the actions satisfy greed.

Actually, I think that it was known from the 50's/60's.

But as you've said, addressing the issue cuts into profits.

1959.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-...

There seems to be no way on this to report comments. So I very much hope an editor reads that and you're banned.

marmotte27 wrote:

There seems to be no way on this to report comments. So I very much hope an editor reads that and you're banned.

You can try emailing info [at] road.cc

Same old style. They have to write absurd statements to get attention.

Get In Touch details on each webpage of the site.

Even more disturbing that 3 people "liked" that comment. don't you just despair sometimes?