Yes – Aoife O’Leary
The argument for why we need to tax the aviation sector can be summed up very simply: it’s a highly polluting sector that doesn’t pay its fair share.
Aviation greenhouse gas emissions amount to around 10 per cent of Ireland’s total and have increased 500 per cent since 1990, while the population grew just 44 per cent.
But to get the full picture, let’s start by looking at where aviation does pay. Every flight that leaves Ireland for another European destination is included in the EU (or UK) Emissions Trading System (ETS). This puts a cap on emissions for which airlines pay a price. This accounts for the €833 million Ryanair paid in environmental taxes in 2023.
However, Ryanair is the most polluting airline in Europe. And no airline in Europe pays a cent for the pollution on flights going outside of Europe – which account for 70 per cent of emissions. When aviation was originally added to the ETS, it included international flights. But the airline industry fought against that and the EU caved.
Jack Chambers endures silent tsunami of schadenfreude in the Dáil
Dick Cheney was the most influential and consequential US vice-president in living memory
Ireland’s housing crisis to last another 15 years, Department of Finance predicts
‘That’s the Irish upbringing’: Man who stopped UK train attacker says he’d do it for anyone
Luckily, the inclusion of international flights in the ETS is back on the agenda next year when the Irish Government will have the presidency of the EU, giving Ireland a chance to drive climate ambition on aviation forward across the EU.
But let’s state the key point again clearly so we can all marvel at it: even with everything we know about the climate crisis in 2025, you can fly from Dublin to New York and the price you will pay for that pollution is zero. Wow.
Furthermore, every time Michael O’Leary fills up his planes with kerosene, he pays no tax on that fuel. I can only imagine how delighted drivers in Ireland would be if the taxes were removed from the price of petrol or diesel. Surely airlines should be paying fuel taxes if drivers in Ireland are doing the same?
In addition, aviation pays no VAT. So, if I’m considering buying an Irish-made good versus purchasing a flight, that flight looks 23 per cent cheaper because of VAT. This is why the UK brought in the Air Passenger Duty back in 1992. Putting an equivalent tax on Irish flights would raise €6.3 billion over five years. We have calculated that revenues from just the first year could fund energy-efficient retrofits for more than 12,800 homes, saving households €20.7 million in energy bills annually.
The aviation industry will tell you it brings growth and jobs, which is vital to Ireland’s tourism industry. There might be truth in some of this, but there are two important caveats.
One is that correlation does not imply causation – i.e. just because somewhere has economic growth and also a booming aviation industry, it doesn’t mean the aviation industry caused that growth. Indeed, there is emerging evidence it might well be the other way around. And yes, tourists coming to Ireland contribute to the economy. But the Central Statistics Office shows that Irish people flying abroad spend more on their holidays than tourists in Ireland do. So, for every plane that brings in tourist money, we send Irish money abroad to be spent.
Aviation is highly polluting. What is the Irish Government’s plan to tackle this?
Lifting the passenger cap on Dublin Airport? Restarting flights to Derry (which incidentally failed because they made no money)? Leaving the sector untaxed?
I often get accused of wanting to take away everyone’s fun. And for sure, flying is fun.
Before I looked closely at the terrifying climate science, I flew to Australia and swam in the coral reefs. But if we don’t pay for the pollution that aviation causes now, there won’t be any coral reefs for the next generation to enjoy. I am simply, reasonably, saying aviation should pay for the damage it does.
Who could argue with that?
Aoife O’Leary is CEO of Opportunity Green, an environmental law and policy organisation
No – Conor Pope
In a news release issued by Opportunity Green last Sunday calling for the introduction of levies on air travel, the word “passenger” appears only once. This is relevant because it’s the passengers who will pay dearly for any such moves.
The NGO instead talks of “making the sector pay fairly for its pollution” and focuses on how much money aviation taxes “could” bring in and what the money “could” be used for.
So, what “could” the money be spent on?
Opportunity Green suggests we might look forward to the subsidised retrofitting of thousands of homes, more support for people in energy poverty, cleaner, better public transport and more money for poorer countries transitioning away from carbon-emitting fuels.
It sounds great and only a fool would stand against it. But it’s a fantasy. The reality is a tax on the aviation industry is a tax on Irish consumers.
Opportunity Green is basing its model on the UK. Kenneth Clarke imposed the tax in 1994, when he was British Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, suggesting he was motivated to do this by environmental concerns is simply nonsense. Rather, the Tory minister wanted what he called “prosperous” people to pay more for their high-flying leisure pursuits. As a result, British people have paid and paid and paid.
As it stands, the passenger tax is between £13 (€14.80) and £18 (€20.50) per short-haul flight, rising to between £90 (€102.60) and £216 (€246.30) for longer distances. It will climb higher next year.
Direct passenger taxes are only part of the picture, with other proposed taxes on the industry sure to add to the cost consumers face. Will Michael O’Leary happily absorb taxes on greenhouse gas emissions rather than passing them on to passengers?
Affordability isn’t the only issue. Does anyone think the revenue raised will be ring-fenced and spent wisely on measures aimed at offsetting the consequences of the climate crisis? Our spendthrift Government routinely misses climate change targets and is woefully inadequate in support of even meagre environmental measures.
And then, of course, there is the fairness – or lack of fairness – of it all. While our cousins in Germany, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain have more alternatives to flying if they wish to leave their country, our options are limited by geography. Similarly, anyone who wants to visit Ireland must fly. Ferries do operate to a handful of countries, but they are a slow and impractical alternative for most travellers.
The financial benefits are questionable too. In 2021, an ESRI report examined the impact of potential aviation taxes and found that “because of the lack of adequate substitutes for an island nation, the decrease in demand in reaction to increased prices is limited”.
It noted that any such tax would lead to “decreased spending by tourists, resulting from a decrease in arrivals”. The ESRI added that while “aviation taxation outweighs the decrease in other tax revenue in the medium run . . . in the long run, this relationship is reversed and the decreased taxation resulting from decreased economic activity dominates, resulting in decreased tax revenues”.
So, it penalises people leaving and coming to Ireland more than other Europeans and its financial benefits are questionable. And then there is the question of where we stop. Aviation is an easy target but not the only one. What about the textile industry, which causes even more environmental harm? Can we expect climate levies on clothes? And on foods that generate harmful emissions?
This is not to downplay the existential crisis we face, or to deny the urgent need for more climate action. But taxes people can ill afford simply alienate broad sections of the community, therefore rarely achieving their aims. Such taxes lack imagination. They’re just another example of too much stick and not enough carrot.
Conor Pope is Consumer Affairs Correspondent for The Irish Times
