Cheap flights have made international travel possible for millions of people, but aviation produces large amounts of greenhouse gases. It has therefore been proposed that flying should be taxed much more heavily. I agree with this proposal, although the way such a tax is designed is crucial.
The strongest argument in favour is that the current price of a flight does not reflect its true cost. When a passenger buys a ticket for a weekend city break, they do not pay for the damage that the flight's emissions cause to the climate. As a result, flying is often cheaper than taking a train for the same journey, even though the train is far less polluting. A higher tax would correct this imbalance. Some short trips that are currently taken simply because they are cheap would be replaced by rail travel or not taken at all, and airlines would have a stronger reason to invest in more efficient aircraft.
Critics argue that such a tax would be unfair, because it would make flying a luxury that only the rich could afford. This concern is valid, but it can be addressed. Rather than adding the same charge to every ticket, governments could introduce a tax that rises with the number of flights a person takes each year. A family flying once a year to visit relatives would pay little extra, while frequent business travellers would pay much more. In addition, the revenue could be spent on faster, cheaper rail services, giving people a realistic alternative.
In conclusion, I believe heavier taxes on flying are justified because the environmental cost of aviation is currently ignored. If the tax targets frequent flyers and funds cleaner transport, it can reduce emissions without unfairly excluding ordinary travellers.