QF's carbon offset - one of the cheapest ways to spend on QF services?

Discussion in 'Qantas Frequent Flyer Program' started by kyle, Sep 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource!
Our site contains tons of information that will improve your travel experience.
Joining AFF is fast, simple & ABSOLUTELY FREE -  join now by clicking on the JOIN NOW button, and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.
Once registered, this box will disappear. And you will see fewer advertisements :)
  1. kyle

    kyle Active Member

    Mar 8, 2006
    783
    87
    MEL
    Has anyone tried it? Is the payment processed on the QF merchant account?

    This might help ppl who have yet to spend on those credit cards with bonus points for QF services.
     

  2. Mal

    Mal Enthusiast

    Dec 25, 2004
    12,227
    1,309
    London
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Yeah was just looking at it myself.

    Rockhampton to Mackay is 65c.

    Not bad for a Qantas spend if it goes through properly.

    Personally I feel carbon offsets are a joke and won't be supporting this initiative though.
     
  3. Ari Gold

    Ari Gold Active Member

    Jan 16, 2007
    797
    139
    SYD
    Just ran a lazy $1.80 thru it.

    If my AMEX shows up as QANTAS AIRWAYS MASCOT NSW then we've hit the jackpot.
     
  4. Soundguy

    Soundguy Member

    Jun 15, 2006
    323
    3
    Rudd's Banana Republic
    Me too, but (the socialist leaning) Malcolm Turnbull is suggesting this payment will become mandatory in a few years, so the joke is turning sour real fast.
     
  5. Ari Gold

    Ari Gold Active Member

    Jan 16, 2007
    797
    139
    SYD
    On my AMEX today:-

    18 September QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD CARBON OFFSET PRGM $1.94

    Doesn't look like the standard QF merchant account :(
     
  6. ColinP

    ColinP Member

    May 1, 2006
    459
    15
    Adelaide
    I was going to try the same thing. Buy a carbon offset for an existing booking to get a Qantas purchase on to my Amex for this year. My one year anniversary was a couple of weeks ago and I'd like to grab my two QP passes ASAP. With no QF purchases in the near future this sounded like a great idea but I couldn't get to the payment page -- just got a blank red screen. perhaps it's not worth persisting if it doesn't show up on the Qantas merchant account:(.

    I booked an award flight last week KIX>BNE>MEL>ADL hoping that would get my passes but that showed up as a purchase from the QF Tokyo office:shock:
    I guess the fact that the "taxes" were showing in Japanese yen should have given me a clue:oops:
     
  7. AnonymousCoward

    AnonymousCoward Established Member

    Dec 5, 2005
    3,199
    2,461
    Sydney, Singapore
    At the risk of dragging this thread off topic: there's nothing socialist about ensuring that the cost of producing a product is fully reflected in the price paid by the consumer. That's the only efficient way to ensure a product is properly priced (whether that product generates pollution or otherwise).

    You only need to look up "the tragedy of the commons" [1] to see what happens to communal resources (e.g. the atmosphere) when the benefits accrue to one group (underpriced airfares) but the costs are borne by others (people who live on earth)

    By forcing the cost of the good to accurately reflect the cost of inputs the product is no longer subsidized, and thus not under priced and over consumed.

    I'm pretty sure that's in every first year economics text. Nothing to do with socialism. In fact, probably the exact opposite - more efficient free markets.


    [1] Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  8. simongr

    simongr Enthusiast

    Jul 10, 2006
    14,229
    1,742
    True in parts. For a start Government intervention in the market through the imposition of market adjusting factors is not in the spirit of free market economics. Secondly - airfares are the only "goods" that are the target of carbon offset taxes rather than little things like tower blocks made of massive amounts of concrete that is one of the other big CO2 producers that people dont like to talk about.

    This is NOT free market economics - this is tinkering with a political winning strategy - not that many people fly enough to be significantly affected by the tax and thus a greater proportion of voters can sit in their Holden Commodores spewing filth into the amosphere as they drive into their concrete McMansions happy that the government is doing something about global warming by taxing all those nasty fliers.

    Air tarvel is not the issue - human beings are the issue.
     
  9. simongr

    simongr Enthusiast

    Jul 10, 2006
    14,229
    1,742
    How the hell do the benefits of the atmosphere accrue to only one group (the "underpriced" airfares payers")? Do you breathe, drive, live in a house, own a computer, read a paper (online or not online - the cost is potentially no different)?

    Do not blame fliers for global warming - blame your parents (well blame your parents if they are european) for theirs wars and reconstruction and booms of the 70's/80's that have moved us to this position. Blame India and China for their massive expansion in the pas few years for sustaining this.

    Global warming is not the fault of the 50J/14F pax on a 744 - it is everyone's fault and the focus on fliers is detracting from the bigger issue.

    For god's sake they are building and unnecessary desalination plant from concrete (again) in Sydney and polluting the bays - and people target fliers...

    Gah

    Sorry - fliers are an easy target that wins votes but doesnt fix a problem - the fundamental flaw in democracy and allowing people to vote (and don't get me started on the waste generated through the election process).
     
  10. straitman

    Moderator

    Apr 27, 2003
    16,604
    4,757
    SE Oz (Sale)
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Why not say what you really mean :?:

    Vic is getting a 'bonus' desalination plant also & without an environmental impact report!
     
  11. simongr

    simongr Enthusiast

    Jul 10, 2006
    14,229
    1,742
    What annoys me is that Global Warming is potentially a catastrophic human event and the focus is not on fixing the problems - it is about taregting those with cash.

    I am personally researching straw bales for house construction and lime instead of concrete but because I fly I am a pariah - and pilloried by peope driving to school in their 4x4 (which I admit to having) to pick up their kids when kids used to walk to school.
     
  12. mbeder

    mbeder Member

    Jul 3, 2002
    205
    19
    Sydney
    Can't imagine that my $1.28 (before merchant fees) on a Sydney-Melbourne flight is going to do much to help solve global warming. It may give me the warm & fuzzies, but that's about it.... :rolleyes:
     
  13. Mal

    Mal Enthusiast

    Dec 25, 2004
    12,227
    1,309
    London
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    This was what I posted at FT last night. It still applies, and I still have no reason to retract my comment:

    "Ok, based on everything I've read, the money raised seems to be going towards several of the projects listed here:

    Greenhouse Friendly - Approved Abatement Projects


    Now why can't I get onto the Gravy Train? Maybe I'd better start preparing my business case and planting some trees, converting rubbish into compost, or donating energy efficient light bulbs to households!"
     
  14. AnonymousCoward

    AnonymousCoward Established Member

    Dec 5, 2005
    3,199
    2,461
    Sydney, Singapore
    That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what free market economics is all about.

    Governments should correct market failures (e.g. by providing for underproduced commodities like collective defense, by legislating around market failures such as information asymmetry in insurance situations).


    Don't let your political agenda cloud your economic judgement here.

    If someone wants to put sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, that costs *everyone else*.

    But as long as everyone else are paying the costs of SO2, then the polluter is getting a subsidy. Whatever they produce is underpriced, and will be over consumed. THere isn't an efficient allocation of resources.

    What should happen is that either everyone should be allocated property rights to the atmosphere (currently not feasible as far as we know) and charge the polluter. Or the government can impose a tax on pollution equivalent to whatever it is costing everyone else.

    This is *bog standard* free market economic orthodoxy. It's taught in just about every first year economics class.

    Market failure is the issue. The full cost of production is not being internalised by the producer.

    Correting market failure is *not* socialism (which is the point I was trying to make before you turned it into some other debate about politics)

    EDIT: Let me be clear here. I'm not advocating taxes on flyers. I'm advocating taxes that internalise the cost of production (the other way to do it would be cap-n-trade schemes, but they are far more subject to political pressure from those affected). We have taxes on all sorts of other pollutants, and a carbon tax would help more properly reflect the cost of producing something.

    If consumers still wish to consume, even though they are contributing to pollution, then they can do so. But the cost that they pay will reflect the cost to everyone else of their consumption. If they can still afford it, and still wish to consume, then that's their free market choice. It's how we deal with just about every other resource allocation issue, and it has produced the incredibly wealthly world we live in where millions of people somehow collaborate to put a television in your living room for less than what someone makes in a week in Australia. I find the entire system amazing.
     
  15. simongr

    simongr Enthusiast

    Jul 10, 2006
    14,229
    1,742
    I agree this is not about socialism - carbon offsets are a way of avoiding the fixing the underlying problems. I don't have a political agenda for this topic in any way.

    I actually think that we agree generally - the polluter pays principle is great. My problem is the targetting of particular groups because they are easy visible politically safe targets. I don't think that we can justify carbon offsets under the polluter pays principle because it seems to be tinkering with the edges of the market rather than fully considering the full cost of the carbon emmissions.
     
  16. Soundguy

    Soundguy Member

    Jun 15, 2006
    323
    3
    Rudd's Banana Republic
    Compelling people to eg pay a carbon tax or use only CF lamps by law (a la Turnbull) is pure socialism as it is based on an ideology alone (BTW the latter is also unconstitutional as you cannot ban things which have not proved to be dangerous in any way). In this case the green faith has claimed that CO2 is a pollutant and those that produce it must pay - a claim which is entirely false scientifically, not to mention that very little of the payment does much to reduce CO2 anyway of course. It is a means of wealth redistribution and thus it is socialism at work.

    I am proud of the CO2 I produce each day as it is very beneficial to flora and thus to the environment, so I choose not to pay a 'carbon tax' but I am happy for others to pay it if they freely choose to do so. If you look at global temperature record there has been no global warming trend here in the southern hemisphere and the recent warming in the norther hemisphere stopped about 8 years ago with temperatures dropping since then. But a moderate amount of warming is beneficial to the environment anyway. The environmental problem in China is simply one of pollution (smog, toxic chemicals etc) not CO2 production.

    Sorry but I am personally not interested in paying for nothing; it's not like it is a worthwhile cause such as a charity either.
     
  17. thadocta

    thadocta Active Member

    Would you care to point out the section of the constitution which deals with this?

    Thanks in advance.

    Dave
     
  18. AnonymousCoward

    AnonymousCoward Established Member

    Dec 5, 2005
    3,199
    2,461
    Sydney, Singapore
    Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production (land, resources, labour).

    Forcing people to use a particular type of product isn't socialism. We have bans on all sorts of things (lead based paint, aerosols on planes and putting mercury in the water supply). None of these are socialist.

    Well, I did constitutional law at Uni, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Constitution itself that says such as thing, nor any case law either. Care to elaborate?

    OK - now you're just making things up. From a scientific point of view alone (let's lead aside all the political and economic value judgements) the best scientific evidence we have is that the globe is warming, and we are contributing to that.

    There is something known as having "too much of a good thing"

    a) I don't know what temperature trends you are looking at, but obviously not what everyone else is looking at
    b) Temperatures overall have not recorded much of an increase over the past few years, but there are good reasons why that is the case. Temperature is determined by *many* factors, some of which are temporary, and some of which are longer term.

    You need to start reading some actual scientific research if you wish to talk about scientific issues. Rather than getting your "facts" from pundits.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a good place to start.
     
  19. AnonymousCoward

    AnonymousCoward Established Member

    Dec 5, 2005
    3,199
    2,461
    Sydney, Singapore
    Yes - to the extent that fliers are being targetted because it's politically easy, there's definately an issue there. I agree with you.

    A broader based approach is required that targets the entire CO2-equivalent emission of pollution is required.
     
  20. acampbel

    acampbel Member

    Oct 31, 2005
    351
    2
    Flying is being targeted because although airplanes contribute 3.5% of total carbon emissions, they deliver it in the worst possible place. Also, why is it OK for airlines to pay little or no tax on avgas (slugging us for most of it in fuel "taxes"), but it is not OK for governments to put a price on the damage it does to the environment? A large proportion of fuel price in this country is government tax, and I would support any moves to increase it that fed into environmental action.

    Is this socialism? Some people on this forum seem to think that it is - in which case it must be a very good thing. Please note that in that case it is quite ridiculous to call Malcolm Turnbull a socialist. He is the current (and future) government minister against the environment.


    Cheers,

    Andrew

    .
     
Loading...

Share This Page