Airline flights should be taxed much higher than they already are

"Changing something in favor o something that isn't wildly accepted is ridiculous. "Thing is, most Americans (1), 85% to be precise, do beleive that global warming is real. The USA is a democratic country, which means that the majority rule- therefore initiating something due to global warming is not, as you say, "ridiculous". Although slightly lower in the UK, (83% beleive in global warming) (2), it is still a majority- and the UK is also a democracy. Just because Americans may think climate change is exagurated, by no means do they beleive it isn't real and that they don't accept it as a concept!So yes, changing something in favour of something which isn't widely accept is unneccesary, thing is- global warming is widely accepted!"Raising Taxes on Airlines Would Push People to Drive "Yes- if they were flying a driving distance. Assuming that all flights could be replaced by a car drive is ridiculous! What if I wanted to fly from the UK to China, or from Cape Town to Egypt? Although theoretically these flights could be make by car, it would take weeks and people don't have that kind of time! Yes, trains do take longer than flights- but this is just a small sacrifice we need to make. Besides, it doesn't take that much longer! A train from London to Austria takes about 3 days on train and one day on the plane. I'm not saying that trains are the most convenient form of transport out there, but for too long people have been doing what is most convenient, and look what's happening to our planet."no one is going to take a train instead of flying they would instead turn to the most widely used source of travel in the United States: the car."Yeah... because when opposed with a car which you have to drive yourself for several weeks and pay seriously high petrol rates for, a faster, cheaper transport which they don't have to drive themselves would NEVER be picked! Please think through these things more carefully, and a survey or poll would be much better than empty opinions about which form of transport people would take. Mine logically makes sense as it is cheaper, faster and less tiring."According to two sources there are roughly 90,000 flights a day [2] [3] while there are 254 million passanger vehical"" If all 250 or so passangers per flight go back to their cars you haven't done anything to reduce pollution."You've broken the rule which says all stats and facts must be sourced. If you can show me a calculation that shows me that 250 people travelling by car is more or equally polluting than 250 people travelling by plane, I'd be happy to accept your argument. Until then, your argument is invalid."By implementing your tax plan people will not only continue to damage your precious environment"See my response to your last quote."The price of goods and services will rise because businesses will have to pay more for goods to be shipped and for their business agents to travel. "I apologize for not stating at the beginning, but this debate is about people flying and not flying goods over. Of course you can still argue your "goods need to be flown" theory as I didn't state this in the acceptance round. I'm not attempting to introduce this as a new rule, just explaining why I'm not rebutting this."The demand for flying would not really go down because flying is so essential and instead the economy would be damaged for no reason"It is true that flying is sometimes neccesary and cannot be fully replaced, but putting a tax on it will make people consider whether they really need it or not! If they really need it, they should pay the extra price. If they don't want to cough up, they don't need it that much and therefore that flight wasn't that neccesary in the first place.1. http://environment.about.com...;2. http://www.guardian.co.uk...;