Much has been written in the international media re: the UK’s decision to a) retain the APD (Air Passenger Duty) and b) increase the amount progressively and incorporate a distance factor. Put simply, longer distance trips will attract a higher duty. New Zealand and Australia are obviously concerned.
John Macilree has done some ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculations which I more-or-less replicate below. I then expanded on these and include estimates relating to CO2-e (radiative forcing) and the relationship to the (potential) price of carbon.
The following assumptions can be made:
1. A distance of 18355km for LHR to AKL, resulting in 1,342 Kg of CO2 (from the ICAO carbon emissions calculator)
2. A price of carbon at £13.36 (or €15.70) per tonne of CO2
The result is a liability to the passenger of £17.93. This is significantly less than even the current APD of £40 (which is the reduced rate for carriage in a lower class), let alone the proposed levy of £55 from 1 November 2009 and £85 from 2010.
The ICAO calculator only covers CO2 and does not take into account the radiative forcing (RF) aircraft emissions. Although not known exactly, work by Sausen et al (2005) indicated that a RF factor range of 1.9 – 5.1 is possible. For our immediate purposes, a (reasonable?) factor of 3 can be used. The resulting CO2-e footprint becomes 4.03 tonnes and the passenger liability rises to £54. This is closer to what is proposed for the APD as of 1 November 2009.
Another issue worthy of consideration is the price of carbon. In order to justify the APD rise to £85 in 2010, there would need to be at least a 60% increase in the price of carbon on the global market if a radiative forcing factor of 3 is used. If a radiative forcing factor is not used (i.e., if just CO2 emissions are calculated), the price of carbon will need to at least treble over the next 11 months to match the APD rise to £55 on 1 November 2009.
Not surprisingly, this issue is generating quite a bit of attention in the aviation community. IATA has called the decision a mistake, the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) deplores the decision to reverse earlier considerations of a per-flight tax, and the US Air Transport Association has noted its strong opposition.