You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There's been a fair few threads recently on how cheap flying is compared to other transport, especially considering its environmental impact...
So why does aviation fuel escape taxation?
What would the pros and cons be of tax being charged on aviation and shipping fuel, which are both basically untaxed?
Because political vote garnering.
There is Air Passenger Duty, maybe goes some way towards a tax on air travel. The Scottish Government was looking to reduce that but reversed that policy earlier this year over environmental concerns.
Thing is though, planes carry far more than just passengers!
And as for ships...
Air passenger duty can be charged on local activity but ships and planes can game tax regimes by fuelling on other countries. Depending on the level of tax they can be unintentionally incentivised to make extra stops or use additional fuel in order to make the most of the arbitrage. Huge potential unintentional consequences.
Which is why we need co-ordinated international action, just as we've seen with sulphur emissions from shipping
Can see there is potential for exploitation... however, though I'm not overly familiar with all the legal wrangling involved, surely there's some means of ensuring a fairly level playing field internationally?
On the flipside, what positives could we expect?
surely there’s some means of ensuring a fairly level playing field internationally?
Given the current political attitude toward our neighbours, (not to mention how keen the current govt is to not tread on the toes of big business) how easy do you think parity will be to achieve?
Well, if Greta Thunberg can get such immense international media coverage in such a short space of time, you'd imagine it'd be pretty easy to apply the pressure required to make it happen...
Because political vote garnering.
This...
&
All food and goods would go up by the cost of the tax.
HTHs
So essentially, what we currently have is a subsidy on global transport...
As regards food going up, what if you shifted the subsidy from the transport, to the food itself?
Being as transport shifts far more than just food around the only planet we have, surely that'd mean an increase in funds to speed the transition to renewables?
Yeah, you just have to accept that literally every import will cost more. I can see that going well.
Banning bunker fuel would have a far greater impact. Would still cost more but would at least burn cleaner.
you just have to accept that literally every import will cost more
So it's basically Brexit with reduced emissions?
So essentially, what we currently have is a subsidy on global transport…
No. We don’t have a tax.
Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy
Tax aviasion
I was surprised where it was taxed.
https://airqualitynews.com/2019/05/10/exclusive-report-is-it-high-time-airlines-paid-tax-on-fuel/
Except it would be worldwide and probably get undermined due to economic pressures in the far east.
Ffs we already have one trip containers because its too much effort to load a ship going that way anyway.
Whilst what you propose is noble its also extremely unlikely to happen if it hampers the free flow of goods from east to west. You would literally have to restructure the entire planets economies and there are major powers that wouldn't stand for that.
The reality is you'd significantly increase the cost base of airlines and cause almost all airlines to go bankrupt overnight as most are in a constant state of teetering on the brink of bankruptcy mainly due to the cost of fuel which accounts for about 75% of the cost base of an airline. This would significantly disrupt the global economy, probably triggering a global recession. All this isn't going to do the overall cause of tackling climate change much good at all. The cost to tackle global climate change will be many many trillions of dollars, so maintaining a strong and growing global economy is key to dealing with climate change and every other issue that faces mankind, and must be maintained. And key to tackling global climate change is to drag impoverished nations up out of poverty and turn them into developed nations with educated affluent middle classes and the global aviation industry is key to this. The trick/challenge is to decarbonise the global economy whilst keeping it productive so we can fund the insanely expensive issue of tackling climate change.
The issue of tackling global climate change is not easy. It is going to require intelligent thinking and approaches. Not knee jerk reactions. It will happen though choice and not punitive taxes. If we destroy the global economy then how are you going to fund the technical innovation that will ultimately solve the problem?
Tax aviasion
Bravo 👍
So, you want massive inflation - go ahead.
Also, what happens to countries that are highly reliant on tourism? You're just going to hang those out to dry?
I'm a liberal with a small and large L, but I find it increasingly hard to agree with people who claim to be the same, but want to excessively tax and control literally everything.
JP
Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy
Rather than demanding mass punishment of everyone why don’t you put some effort in doing something constructive yourself? I know it requires more effort than asking other people to do something, but you might find it rewarding.
It’s not a vote winner. It’s simple. No need to get all Environmental about it.
Those brexiteers who moved to Spain to retire on UK pensions only want to pay £49 to get back to the UK for Xmas and pay £47 to go back to Malaga.
They ain’t coming back (thankfully) to live in the UK, but want all the benefits without all those nasty foreign folks pissing about with their dwindling pensions..
Asking them to pay £61 is like... well.... Treason innit.
You’d better start thinking about other ways to “tax” airlines because it’s not going to change...
Ever.
As for Shipping?
Same, but this time it’s slightly more complex since the UK imports most of its food... and you don’t want to pay moar for your Israeli grown salad or pomegranates do you.
I’d tax LyingBloHard for all those flights he’s getting in to far off lands before he gets handed a very hard slap for lying to everyone.
Flying accounts for somewhere between 2 and 5% of global co2 emissions.
Energy production is the highest polluter. Chinese coal fired power generation being the worst.
Maybe flying isn't as bad as charging your batteries or buying more cheap shit from China.
How does the stuff from China get here? (and everywhere else in the world)
CFH flies a lot....
I wouldn’t try rationalising it with him.
The answer is simple.
All countries ban their people from travelling, stop import and export.
Yes, I can see where that's heading ... 😃
Take back sovereignty eh...
How does the stuff from China get here? (and everywhere else in the world)
The vast majority on massive container ships:
[IMG] https://images.app.goo.gl/emdehScg2ccsvsvM6 [/IMG]
Not got much idea how environmentally friendly they are but when you consider how much they carry, then per ton they're probably not much different to an average lorry.
Perishable food you have to fly in but most stuff comes in by seafreight.
It may have escaped your notice but even small groups of countries who have good trading links and relationships aren’t particularly good at agreeing and sticking to universal models of taxation.
Even if the EU had a rate, what stops Jersey, the IOM, Turkey, Morocco, Norway etc suddenly becoming very attractive places to refuel? Even if you somehow persuaded every country to apply an equal level of duty you haven’t stopped a country opening ports/airports that are heavily subsidised by reinvesting the tax they get. Taxation as an economic driver to behaviour change only works if the net price changes and there is a credible alternative. Taxation as a way of raising money to reinvest in “green” tech only helps if those making the investment decisions have accepted the need, measure it against the right criteria and do so fairly. If you believe the whole world operates taxation and reinvestment fairly then I suggest you need to get out your bubble - perhaps by doing a bit of travelling...
Won't really work and will have negative environmental consequences, as aircraft will just tanker fuel in from their previous destination, planned to touch down at their maximum landing weight. Roughly 10% of this extra fuel will be burned simply to carry it. Depending on how much the tax is, airlines might find it more economic to land in Europe and refuel there, or even not continue to the UK at all.
Even if the EU had a rate, what stops Jersey, the IOM, Turkey, Morocco, Norway etc suddenly becoming very attractive places to refuel?
How does the fuel get there in the 1st place?
How does the fuel get there in the 1st place?
It's bought at international market rate and then brought in by ship. Any duty is paid on import, not export (assuming any oil producing countries would agree to taxing at source).
So being a (polluting) physical commodity, rather than just numbers on a computer screen, it'd be harder for heads of state (and other global capitalists) to exploit offshore tax havens?
Course, it'd increase the running costs of superyachts n suchlike too...
There is fuel duty (excise) on marine and aviation, but it is linked to personal use (pleasure craft, private planes), these is for all types of fuels, JET, Diesel, Marine diesel (same now anyway).
The reason it's hard to Tax fuel on commercial flights is because of the rules around taxation, where tax is applied in the place that the product is consumed and you are not allowed to double tax (excise) energy products (VAT and import duty doesn't count in this scenario). As the "vehicle" is likely to transit multiple tax authority jurisdictions, it would be impossible to part pay for the fuel used in that jurisdiction. Likewise, each country is able to set their own excise rates (there are minimum amounts in the EU) and this would lead to "opportunistic" enterprises springing up which may not necessarily be discouraged by that local jurisdiction. Yes a co-ordinated global agreement could fix that, but lets face it the globe has not been at odds with each other more than it is now for 30 odd years!!
Also, as has been said, adding the minimum €0.07/L that you in theory would need to charge in Europe to aviation would kill the industry and lead to a financial meltdown.
Not got much idea how environmentally friendly they are but when you consider how much they carry, then per ton they’re probably not much different to an average lorry.
They are way more efficient than lorries.
Yes they burn huge amounts of fuel, typically between 100 and 200 tonnes per day, depending on size and speed. But the biggest ones can carry over 20,000 containers. A lorry can carry 2.
Banning bunker fuel would have a far greater impact. Would still cost more but would at least burn cleaner.
This is very true, however, bunker fuel is basically a waste/by product of the oil refining process. What will happen to it if shipping doesn't burn it?
I'm not a petro chemist and I have no idea if it's possible to do anything else with it that wouldn't pollute?
So trillions can be siphoned out of the system to offshore accounts, yet meanwhile, a tax (that'd inject money into the economy) to aid the transition from fossil fuels and reduce emissions (which would in turn impact the global transport of said fuels and reduce the incessant flow of disposable consumer goods that plunder resources, only to clog landfill and waterways) would crash the economy?
Crazy world, huh
Well, if Greta Thunberg can get such immense international media coverage in such a short space of time, you’d imagine it’d be pretty easy to apply the pressure required to make it happen…
Well she's visible but is she really making a difference? I mean she's missed even more school to berate world leaders but are they really taking much notice?
Anyway my own thought on implementing air emissions tax is that you can't really rely on nation states or the Air industry I think it has to be driven from the "Top" so a UN body (under their Economic and Social Council?) imposing a global per mile tax based on an emissions assessment of each model of aircraft (from fixed wing prop-driven to 400+ seater passenger jets and all points in between) using filed flight plans (and thus distance travelled) as the basis for calculating the tax bill (per aircraft/operator/registered owner) paid direct to that UN body (in USD?).
They would be responsible for investing the derived revenues in their own operating costs and of course in climate control projects and subject to scrutiny/governance by the UN.
You can't rely on individual countries to operate local emissions taxes as it will be corrupted by politicians trying to attract air transport business, the air industry can't play poacher and game keeper either. It has to be a global body and there are only a few of those about.
As a tax all flight operators would have to bare, yes it would be passed on to customers but it should be proportionate to distance (being mileage based) so it's a fixed and entirely forecastable cost for the airline.
By charging the aircraft operator directly you don't have to rely on different regions/countries applying varying duties on say fuel, so they can buy their fuel where and when they like, and it's only when they burn it to actually fly somewhere they incur a charge. It also serves to increase the relative cost of operating low/no occupancy flights so airlines might start to look at cutting the fat from their schedules...
Dunno how you'd apply it to military aircraft but something similar should be possible...
I would be in favour of a similar model for cars and shipping even trains, any transport that burns hydrocarbons...
Discuss.
A Panama Flagged, Marshall Islands shell company owned container vessel, that takes fuel in Singapore, collects cargo in China and delivers that cargo to Rotterdam... where exactly and to who, do they pay tax?
A Panama Flagged, Marshall Islands shell company owned container vessel, that takes fuel in Singapore, collects cargo in China and delivers that cargo to Rotterdam… where exactly and to who, do they pay tax?
Like I said divorce the whole thing from nations/states. In your example they can pay the UN directly seeing as they've landed in Rotterdam they could pay via the UNECE perhaps? Or wire transfer it anywhere they like, flat rate mileage based tax (in the case of shipping mileage could be verified via GPS tracking maybe?) same tarrif globally wherever the ship is registered, fuelled, sailing to or from paid directly to the UN.
Ports might choose to require that any emissions tax bill for the vessel is settled before cargo can be offloaded...
It really wouldn't be that complex...
It really wouldn’t be that complex…
Why yes, yes it would.
Cookea, who is “they” who will pay? The ship owner, which happens to be JP Morgan via a finance deal directly with the shipyard? The ship owning company, which is just a paper company? The charterer of the vessel maybe, in Shanghai? But how will you get the Chinese government to force them to follow an EU directive? Ah by the way, the charterer of the vessel doesnt actually even own the fuel been consumed, because its provided to the vessel on 45 days credit by a trading house based in Geneva.... its not quite so simple!
Also, how much tax will they pay?
Is it based on vessel size?
Quantity of cargo carried?
Value of cargo carried?
Type of cargo carried?
A simple mileage could never work because an empty ship sailing to a scrapyard would pay the same as a fully laden 20,000 teu container ship, carrying £250 million worth of cargo.
Seems to me cookea's basic concept is pretty sound, however, there's clearly some elements that require a bit of refinement (unlike bunker fuel, eh chaps!!)
Fair points.
But frankly it doesn't matter who pays does it so long as they pay?
If withholding permission to offload at a port forces them to stump up then job done.
A simple mileage could never work because an empty ship sailing to a scrapyard would pay the same as a fully laden 20,000 teu container ship, carrying £250 million worth of cargo.
Well much like with the Aircraft suggestion, if you pay full whack per mile for sailing without cargo (i.e. not generating any revenue) same as you would fully laden then you start to make unnecessary journeys uneconomic...
I would propose the Tax for cargo shipping should be based on a vessels maximum cargo capacity, flat rate per mile makes it easier to administer and it's on the operator to make it financially viable...
The model is perhaps simpler for aircraft (passenger and cargo) than shipping but basing it simply on distance travelled rather than fuel or local interpretations of an international law/tariff makes sense.
If withholding permission to offload at a port forces them to stump up then job done.
That could never work. A lot of ports work too strict timetables, particularity container terminals. A 2 hour delay can have a big effect on the whole schedule.
Well much like with the Aircraft suggestion, if you pay full whack per mile for sailing without cargo (i.e. not generating any revenue) same as you would fully laden then you start to make unnecessary journeys uneconomic…
There are lots of vessels that have 1 single trade route and will deliver their cargo and return empty to pick another identical load. The operators don't do that for fun, they would much prefer to be earning money, there is simply nothing suitable to make the return trip with.
In principle your idea seems simple and possible. It would also be a very good thing. However, as you have no understanding how the global shipping industry works, you can't see how completely impracticable it would be in reality.
There are lots of vessels that have 1 single trade route and will deliver their cargo and return empty to pick another identical load
This. Oil is the obvious one, lots of ships go form the Middle East fully laden to Europe, drop their oil off and return empty. Oil tankers can't really carry anything else so it's not like you can throw a few containers on them for the return journey.
Surely there are checks on a ship's displacement, to see if there's any smuggling going on?
From that it'd be simple enough to have a flat rate per mile for all shipping, with an additional tariff applied depending on tonnage...
Yeah they weigh each and every ship to see if any pirate DVDs onboard
Arghhh! That's some impressive calibration right there me hearties...
You've failed to declare 3 grains of sugar, straight to the brig
Surely there are checks on a ship’s displacement, to see if there’s any smuggling going on?
Again, that will vary. Bad weather will mean they'll carry extra ballast for stability, good weather they'll carry less for efficiency. This will often change over the journey, they may start heavy then offload as the seas improve.
Ah, fair enough, so rather than a dynamic tonnage tax, just apply a banded multiplier tariff according to the ships net tonnage in addition to a flat mileage rate.
Mileage from where? Container ships are dynamic beasts with cargo joining and leaving at different ports. Do it by manifest?
how do you rate duty for certain items (eg. Aid or medicine)?
Who collects all this data and how do you protect it from falling into the wrong hands? (piracy, third actors etc.)
Since when was the UN a supranational tax collection agency?
Seems like your idea has grown so many arms and legs it can hardly move. Like I said, nice idea but in the real world horrifically complex.
Given that most governments would be quite happy to raise taxes which don't onbviously increase the rate of income tax, you might actually ponder the reasons behind the question: 'Why isn’t there tax on aviation (or shipping) fuel?'. The short answer is that it is too complex to raise.
The funny thing is, goods and passengers are already transported the world over and it all works fairly well...
Much of this alleged complexity is being blown out of proportion;
Rather than tie mileage too much to the goods on board, surely it'd be better to apply it purely to the ship itself, so each time it docks, a tax is charged relating to the fuel used since the last time it docked.
when it comes to duty on items, that has nothing to do with the fuel charge; duty (or indeed tax relief) is already dealt with by customs.
Data is no biggie; airports and docks cope well enough as is and the journeys of planes and ships are easy enough for all to see already:
The UN has it's own army of Peacekeepers, not to mention Weapons Inspectors (the most senior non elected employee of HM's government, Mark Sedwill, used to be a UN Weapons Inspector), so surely collecting tax would be easy enough, especially if it contributed to securing the future of the planet...
Yeah more tax to be passed onto the working man, yes I know it’s meant to save the world but as always those that can meat afford it will pay the price of airline costs go up
Rather than tie mileage too much to the goods on board, surely it’d be better to apply it purely to the ship itself, so each time it docks, a tax is charged relating to the fuel used since the last time it docked.
And we're back to a blanket tax based in no way on efficiency of the voyage. Are you proposing that a UN navy inspection team be present at every port in order to inspect each ships oil logs to determine bunker usage? How are you going to fund that? Or is it a fund that will fund the collection of the fund and, er...
The complexity is not being blown out of proportion, I was Merchant Navy in another life and the stuff myself abd others are bringing up are real stumbling blocks. Ships manifests are not public info for damn good reasons, pirates would have a field day as well as any other folk with a vested interest in it not reaching its destination, you would have to fund increased anti piracy measures and where needed naval protection.
Can you explain to me why the ship's manifest is so essential in all of this?
You know where a ship last docked, you know it's net tonnage; why do you need to know what it's carrying?
As for efficiency, surely there's enough info on a specific ship's build data give an idea of general efficiency and thus emissions?
Say we took up your idea of banning bunker fuel; how would you go about it and what alternative fuels are there?
What are the costs and how much improvement could we expect in terms of emissions?
Bunker fuel is banned in US and EU coastal waters as well as plenty of other LEZs (low emission zones) worldwide. The alternative is IFO (Intermediate Fuel Oil) or gasoil (kerosene) which are proper diesel fuels.
The improvement would be vastly reduced sulphur content, increased efficiencies from not having to heat, purify and process the fuel (meaning your generators don't need to power as much) and less sludge and ash being generated and requiring disposal.
To answer your other questions why wouldn't you want to know what a ship is carrying? Surely you wouldn't be taxing a ship carrying aid or essential supplies? How about a proportion of a shops manifest?
Look, end of the day you asked why this isn’t done, plenty of people have responded with reasons why not and why you couldn’t. You can choose to accept this or not but it really is in no way as simple as you seem to believe it is.
Hmmm... the whole aid and essential supplies thing can often be misused...
You only have to look at the Tennesee mules shipped out to Afghanistan by US aid agencies under Larry Crandall in collaboration with the CIA to see that...
Or the way Live Aid funds were spent on weapons.
Ah fuggit, maybe the human race ain't worth saving; shame about the planet mind...
"Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy"
By that logic most food is subsidised because it doesn't attract VAT.
You only have to look at the Tennesee mules shipped out to Afghanistan by US aid agencies under Larry Crandall in collaboration with the CIA to see that…
Ah....
Hi.
Hello there, can I help you flyboy?
Look, end of the day you asked why this isn’t done, plenty of people have responded with reasons why not and why you couldn’t. You can choose to accept this or not but it really is in no way as simple as you seem to believe it is.
I’m more than willing to accept that it’s tricky. It seems beyond doubt that’s it’s a complex thing.
I’m not willing to therefore conclude that it’s impossible to do, no matter now important, just because it’s hard. Nor that we shouldn’t try.
If “we” were serious about it, surely a global agreement and a carbon tax paid by whoever pays the fuel bill, to a global fund*. Used to do Good Things. Start it at a low rate. Make it higher later.
*I expect this never to happen.
In all honesty, I don't see it being a likely outcome...
It's pretty clear the UN is riddled with corruption; you only have to look at the history of Karen Pierce (and Matthew Rycroft before her) to see that.
Then of course there's the global tax avoidance industry, of which Britain is at the forefront, given the role of our head of state...
nowthen's post at the top of the page is a pretty good illustration of the bigger picture.
Another tax probably isn't going to be a vote winner; but I can't imagine a great many votes are won on taxpayers money supporting wahabist extremism or bombing kids in far flung lands, but that's not to say it doesn't happen...
Air passenger duty can be charged on local activity but ships and planes can game tax regimes by fuelling on other countries. Depending on the level of tax they can be unintentionally incentivised to make extra stops or use additional fuel in order to make the most of the arbitrage. Huge potential unintentional consequences.
For shipping, perhaps. For aircraft, airliners aren't capable of landing with full fuel tanks, therefore you have to take on fuel wherever you stop. It could just move the problem around, lead to short hops to other more favourable fuel tax regimes for long haul flights and associated potential increases in emissions overall.
It's something that bothers me about domestic power and gas, too - and it feeds into an exaggeration of the environmental benefits of EVs in people's perceptions (not that I don't think they're better than ICE vehicles with our current electrical generation mix, just that they're still not good enough).
So the consensus from those in the know is... Just don't bother?
Carry on along the trajectory we're on because it's a bit difficult to change things or impose any sort of governance or effective taxation on global shipping and transport and we wouldn't want to upset businesses...
I suppose the important question then becomes how does global capitalism survive climate change and rising sea levels?
So the consensus from those in the know is… Just don’t bother?
Carry on along the trajectory we’re on because it’s a bit difficult to change things or impose any sort of governance or effective taxation on global shipping and transport and we wouldn’t want to upset businesses…
<sarcasm>Yep that's exactly what we said. Got it in one.</sarcasm>
Of course it's not like that is the ONLY way we could have a positive effect on global transportation emissions that would actually be effective down to individual nations. But we wouldn't want to upset consumers would we?
Why is this discussion only about cargo vessels?
What about offshore support vessels?
What about tug boats?
There is talk about preventing inefficient and useless voyages, so are we going to stop cruise ships operating? A large cruise ship will produce about 80,000 kw of power, a huge amount runs just the AC. How pointless is that?
What about riding around in circles in the woods on a £4000 bicycle, built on the other side of the World? Is that also pointless?
Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you've raised...
What about riding around in circles in the woods on a £4000 bicycle, built on the other side of the World? Is that also pointless?
Oh for goodness sake, how dare you imply we're part of the problem!
Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you’ve raised…
Tax at point of sale.
"Holiday" tax on flights - easy.
"Airmail tax" - transit tax based on emissions.
"carbon fibre tax" - tax based on end of life use (or not).
"food mile tax" - stops fish landed in Grimsby making their way to supermarkets via Shenzhen.
These all address cargo and transport applications which is the vast majority of global emissions. The rest is a drop in the ocean though I'm sure more could be found. They can be applied and collected locally and either spent locally or else diverted to funds encouraging green energy uptake in developing nations.
The advantage is it encourages industry to shift (gradually) to more localised manufacturing and people stop taking global travel for granted rather than the privilege it is.
Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you’ve raised…
I can't think of any workable way to set up a global taxation system on fuel used for shipping. There are so many variables and ways to avoid it, that it simply isn't practicable.
For example, I think we can all agree that a cruise ship makes no sense from an environmental or climate change point of view. However, they are never going to be "banned". They will carry one with small improvements to their efficiency and to their relative emissions. However, they still use vast resources and energy to take rich people on their holidays.
All just another crazy part of the current global economy.
The problem isn't the cost of fuel the problem is consumerism.
That's not going to change over night, as others have said taxing fuels just makes everything more expensive, we buy less things, economies suffer, developing countries develope slower do take longer to clean up their industries. Developed countries can't afford the investment needed to switch to newer technology and actually can't even afford to maintain the living standards we have today....everyone's life gets worse.
The key is to move away from a product based economy and develop a service based economy. We pay more for services rather than products... Use less resources, need less energy but still keep the economy going. We probably also have to get to the point of not focusing on GDP growth so much.
Whilst a purely service based economy sounds like an interesting concept, I'd appreciate if you could explain it to me a bit more, to help me get my head around it;
What would be on the menu in restaurants?
You pay for someone to polish your car... what do they polish it with?
A service engineer is called out to fix a lift, which needs new parts... where do the parts come from?
Your missus goes to a Yoga Class, but fails to reach a zen state due to lack of incense, candles and essential oils, along with the hard floor where her Yoga mat isn't...
etc etc
We have a product based economy now. Services exist. The opposite can also be true. It is only the focus that changes.
Ok, it's not my idea by the way.... Obviously not everything can become a service rather than a product. We still need food and clothes etc. But do we really need to own all the possesions we have? Media has already become service based, when did you last buy music on a CD? Do you watch films via a streaming service?
Other things that probably need to change and already are... Stop owning cars, rent them.. there's already city car clubs. Stop owning bicycles, rent them. Same goes for pretty much any sport or activity. This would vastly reduce the quantity of products but money would continue to change hands. It has to become developed enough that it's not an inconvenience or prohibitively expensive.
It could even be extended to white and brown goods. We used to have radio rentals.... Theres just this week been a new law passed to make manufacturers support white goods longer with spares. So we could rent our fridge freezers and cookers etc with a service agreement. When they break they get repaired or taken away and striped for parts.
We may get pushed into it anyway once there's no such thing as cheap Asian manufacturing. When Asian developing countries catch up in terms of workers rights and wages everything will be more expensive so many people won't be able to afford to own half the stuff we do now.
Basically, we can't just tax fuel and expect that to fix the environment. The world needs to continue to be interconnected. We can reduce our consumption of products which would lead on to a reduction in energy and resource use but we will always need transportation. Technology has to be part of the answer for this and to create that technology we need a healthy economy. It's evolution not revolution.
There's any number of ways to fix the environment; there's certainly plenty of spare funds floating about...
https://twitter.com/IPS_DC/status/1176166758396420097
Well worth reading the whole thread, quite an eye opener!
However, in practical terms, how do you go about liberating those funds from the clenched fists of those rabid in their pursuit of wealth and power?
And how would you prevent those same issues under a service based economy?