Search

A tax on sugary drinks can make us healthier. It’s time for Australia to introduce one

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-geraghty-1530733">Jessica Geraghty</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Sugary drinks cause weight gain and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00627-6">increase the risk</a> of a range of diseases, including diabetes. The <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792842">evidence shows</a> that well-designed taxes can reduce sugary drink sales, cause people to choose healthier options and get manufacturers to reduce the sugar in their drinks. And although these taxes haven’t been around long, there are already signs that they are making people healthier. It’s time for Australia to catch up to the rest of the world and introduce a tax on sugary drinks. As our new Grattan Institute <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/sickly-sweet/">report</a> shows, doing so could mean the average Australian drinks almost 700 grams less sugar each year. <h2>Sugary drinks are making us sick</h2> The share of adults in Australia who are obese has tripled since 1980, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/mapping-australias-collective-weight-gain-7816">10%</a> to more than <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/waist-circumference-and-bmi/latest-release">30%</a>, and diabetes is our <a href="https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/about-diabetes/diabetes-in-australia/">fastest-growing</a> chronic condition. The costs for the health system and economy are measured in the billions of dollars each year. But the biggest costs are borne by individuals and their families in the form of illness, suffering and early death. Sugary drinks are a big part of the problem. The more of them we drink, the greater our risk of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00627-6">gaining weight</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963518/">developing type 2 diabetes</a>, and suffering <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/31/1/122/5896049?login=false">poor oral health</a>. These drinks have no real nutrients, but they do have a lot of sugar. The average Australian consumes <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/apparent-consumption-selected-foodstuffs-australia/latest-release">1.3</a> times the maximum recommended amount of sugar each day. Sugary drinks are responsible for more than one-quarter of our daily sugar intake, more than any other major type of food. You might be shocked by how much sugar you’re drinking. Many 375ml cans of soft drink contain eight to 12 teaspoons of sugar, nearly the entire daily recommended limit for an adult. Many 600ml bottles blow our entire daily sugar budget, and then some. The picture is even worse for disadvantaged Australians, who are more likely to have <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/diabetes/latest-release">diabetes</a> and <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/waist-circumference-and-bmi/latest-release">obesity</a>, and who also consume the most sugary drinks. <h2>Sugary drink taxes work</h2> Fortunately, there’s a proven way to reduce the damage sugary drinks cause. More than <a href="https://ssbtax.worldbank.org/">100 countries</a> have a sugary drinks tax, covering most of the world’s population. <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792842">Research</a> shows these taxes lead to higher prices and fewer purchases. Some taxes are specifically designed to encourage manufacturers to change their recipes and cut the sugar in their drinks. Under these “tiered taxes”, there is no tax on drinks with a small amount of sugar, but the tax steps up two or three times as the amount of sugar rises. That gives manufacturers a strong incentive to add less sugar, so they reduce their exposure to the tax or avoid paying it altogether. This is the best result from a sugary drinks tax. It means drinks get healthier, while the tax is kept to a minimum. In countries with tiered taxes, manufacturers have slashed the sugar in their drinks. In the United Kingdom, the share of products above the tax threshold <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025">decreased dramatically</a>. In 2015, more than half (52%) of products in the UK were above the tax threshold of 5 grams of sugar per 100ml. Four years later, when the tax was in place, that share had plunged to 15%. The number of products with the most sugar – more than 8 grams per 100ml – declined the most, falling from 38% to just 7%. The Australian drinks market today looks similar to the UK’s before the tax was introduced. Health benefits take longer to appear, but there are already promising signs that the taxes are working. Obesity among primary school-age girls has fallen in <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004160">the UK</a> and <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2786784">Mexico</a>. Oral health has also improved, with studies reporting fewer children going to hospital to get their teeth removed in <a href="https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/6/2/243">the UK</a>, and reduced dental decay <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33853058/">in Mexico</a> and <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(23)00069-7/abstract">Philadelphia</a>. One <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(23)00158-7/fulltext">study from the United States</a> found big reductions in gestational diabetes in cities with a sugary drinks tax. <h2>The tax Australia should introduce</h2> Like successful taxes overseas, Australia should introduce a sugary drink tax that targets drinks with the most sugar: <ul> <li>drinks with 8 grams or more of sugar per 100ml should face a $0.60 per litre tax</li> <li>drinks with 5–8 grams should be taxed at $0.40 per litre</li> <li>drinks with less than 5 grams of sugar should be tax-free.</li> </ul> This means a 250ml Coke, which has nearly 11 grams of sugar per 100ml, would cost $0.15 more. But of course consumers could avoid the tax by choosing a sugar-free soft drink, or a bottle of water. Grattan Institute <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/sickly-sweet/">modelling</a> shows that under this tiered tax, Australians would drink about 275 million litres fewer sugary drinks each year, or the volume of 110 Olympic swimming pools. The tax is about health, but government budgets also benefit. If it was introduced today, it would raise about half a billion dollars in the first year. Vested interests such as the beverages industry have fiercely resisted sugary drink taxes around the world, issuing disingenuous warnings about the risks to poor people, the sugar industry and drinks manufacturers. But our new report shows sugary drink taxes have been introduced smoothly overseas, and none of these concerns should hold Australia back. We certainly can’t rely on industry pledges to voluntarily reduce sugar. They have been <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/trends-in-sugar-content-of-nonalcoholic-beverages-in-australia-between-2015-and-2019-during-the-operation-of-a-voluntary-industry-pledge-to-reduce-sugar-content/EE662DE7552670ED532F6650C9D56939">weak</a> and misleading, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/10/sugar-increase-in-fanta-and-sprite-prompts-calls-for-new-tax-on-australia-food-and-drinks-industry">failed to stick</a>. It will take many policies and interventions to turn back the tide of obesity and chronic disease in Australia, but a sugary drinks tax should be part of the solution. It’s a policy that works, it’s easy to implement, and most Australians <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e027962">support it</a>. The federal government should show it’s serious about tackling Australia’s biggest health problems and take this small step towards a healthier future.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228906/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-geraghty-1530733">Jessica Geraghty</a>, Senior Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tax-on-sugary-drinks-can-make-us-healthier-its-time-for-australia-to-introduce-one-228906">original article</a>. </div>

Food & Wine

Australian churches collectively raise billions of dollars a year – why aren’t they taxed?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-boccabella-15706">Dale Boccabella</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ranjana-gupta-1207482">Ranjana Gupta</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/auckland-university-of-technology-1137">Auckland University of Technology</a> There’s a good reason your local volunteer-run netball club doesn’t pay tax. In Australia, various nonprofit organisations are exempt from paying income tax, including those that do charitable work, such as churches. These exemptions or concessions can also extend to other taxes, including fringe benefits tax, state and local government property taxes and payroll taxes. The traditional justification for granting these concessions is that charitable activities benefit society. They contribute to the wellbeing of the community in a variety of non-religious ways. For example, charities offer welfare, health care and education services that the government would generally otherwise provide due to their obvious public benefits. The tax exemption, which allows a charity to retain all the funds it raises, provides the financial support required to relieve the government of this burden. The nonprofit sector is often called the third sector of society, the other two being government and for-profit businesses. But in Australia, this third sector is quite large. Some grassroots organisations have only a tiny footprint, but other nonprofits are very large. And many of these bigger entities – including some “megachurches” – run huge commercial enterprises. These are often indistinguishable from comparable business activities in the for-profit sector. So why doesn’t this revenue get taxed? And should we really give all nonprofits the same tax exemptions? <h2>Why don’t churches pay tax?</h2> The primary aim of a church is to advance or promote its religion. This itself counts as a charitable purpose under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00100/asmade/text">2013 Charities Act</a>. However, section five of that act requires a church to have only charitable purposes – any other purposes must be incidental to or in aid of these. Viewed alone, the conduct of a church with an extensive commercial enterprise – which could include selling merchandise, or holding concerts and conferences – is not a charitable purpose. But Australian case law and <a href="https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/role-acnc-deciding-charity-status/legal-meaning-charity#:%7E:text=Taxation%20Ruling%20(TR)%202011%2F,set%20out%20in%20taxation%20rulings.">an ATO ruling</a> both support the idea that carrying on business-like activities can be incidental to or in aid of a charitable purpose. This could be the case, for example, if a large church’s commercial activities were to help give effect to its charitable purposes. Because of this, under Australia’s current income tax law, a church that is running a large commercial enterprise is able to retain its exemption from income tax on the profits from these activities. There are various public policy concerns with this. First, the lost tax revenue is likely to be significant, although the government’s annual tax expenditure statement does not currently provide an estimate of the amount of tax revenue lost. And second, the tax exemption may give rise to unfairness. A for-profit business competing with a church in a relevant industry may be at a competitive disadvantage – despite similar business activities, the for-profit entity pays income tax but the church does not. This competitive disadvantage may be reflected in lower prices for customers of the church business. <h2>What about taxing their employees?</h2> Churches that run extensive enterprises are likely to have many employees. Generally, all the normal Australian tax rules apply to the way these employees are paid – for example, employees pay income tax on these wages. Distributing profits to members would go against the usual rules of the church, and this prohibition is <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00100/asmade/text">required</a> anyway for an organisation to qualify as a charity. Some churches may be criticised for paying their founders or leaders “excessive” wages, but these are still taxed in the same way as normal salaries. It’s important to consider fringe benefit tax – which employers have to pay on certain benefits they provide to employees. Aside from some qualifications, all the usual <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-and-paying-your-workers/fringe-benefits-tax/how-fringe-benefits-tax-works">fringe benefit tax rules</a> apply to non-wage benefits provided to employees of a church. Just like their commercial (and taxable) counterparts, the payment for “luxury” travel and accommodation for church leaders and employees when on church business will not generate a fringe benefits taxable amount for the church. One qualification, though, is that a church is likely to be a <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-and-paying-your-workers/fringe-benefits-tax/fbt-concessions-for-not-for-profit-organisations/fbt-rebatable-employers">rebatable employer</a> under the fringe benefit tax regime. This means it can obtain some tax relief on benefits provided to each employee, up to a cap. <h2>We may need to rethink blanket tax exemptions for charities</h2> Back in an age where nonprofits were mainly small and focused on addressing the needs of people failed by the market, the income tax exemption for such charities appeared appropriate. But in the modern era, some charities – including some churches – operate huge business enterprises and collect rent on extensive property holdings. Many are now questioning whether we should continue offering them an uncapped exemption from income tax, especially where there are questions surrounding how appropriately these profits are used. Debates about solutions to the problem have focused on various arguments. However, more data may be needed on the way charities apply their profits to a charitable purpose, particularly those involved in substantial commercial activities. An all-or-nothing rule exempting the whole charitable sector may no longer be fit for purpose if it fails to take into account the very different circumstances of different nonprofits.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/228901/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-boccabella-15706">Dale Boccabella</a>, Associate Professor of Taxation Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ranjana-gupta-1207482">Ranjana Gupta</a>, Senior Lecturer Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/auckland-university-of-technology-1137">Auckland University of Technology</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-churches-collectively-raise-billions-of-dollars-a-year-why-arent-they-taxed-228901">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

Stamp duty is holding us back from moving homes – we’ve worked out how much

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-garvin-1453835">Nick Garvin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> If just one state of Australia, New South Wales, scrapped its stamp duty on real-estate transactions, about 100,000 more Australians would move homes each year, according to our <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stamp-duty-effects-on-purchases-and-moves.pdf">best estimates</a>. Stamp duty is an unquestioned part of buying a home in Australia – you put your details in an online mortgage calculator, and stamp duty is automatically deducted from the amount you have to contribute. It’s easy to overlook how much more affordable a home would be without it. That means it’s also easy to overlook how much more Australians would buy and move if stamp duty wasn’t there. The 2010 Henry Tax Review found stamp duty was <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-10/afts_final_report_part_2_vol_1_consolidated.pdf">inequitable</a>. It taxes most the people who most need to or want to move. The review reported: "Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases." But does stamp duty actually stop anyone moving? It’s a claim more often made than assessed, which is what our team at the <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stamp-duty-effects-on-purchases-and-moves.pdf">e61 Institute</a> set out to do. We used real-estate transaction data and a natural experiment. <h2>What happened when Queensland hiked stamp duty</h2> In 2011, Queensland hiked stamp duty for most buyers by removing some concessions for owner-occupiers at short notice. For owner-occupiers it increased stamp duty by about one percentage point, lifting the average rate from 1.26% of the purchase price to 2.27%. What we found gives us the best estimate to date of what stamp duty does to home purchases. A one percentage point increase in stamp duty causes the number of home purchases to decline by 7.2%. The number of moves (changes of address) falls by about as much. The effect appears to be indiscriminate. Purchases of houses fell about as much as purchases of apartments, and purchases in cities fell about as much as purchases in regions. Moves between suburbs and moves interstate dropped by similar rates. With NSW stamp duty currently averaging about <a href="https://conveyancing.com.au/need-to-know/stamp-duty-nsw">3.5%</a> of the purchase price, our estimates suggest there would be about 25% more purchases and moves by home owners if it were scrapped completely. That’s 100,000 moves. Victoria’s higher rate of stamp duty, about <a href="https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/rates-taxes-duties-and-levies/general-land-transfer-duty-property-current-rates">4.2%</a>, means if it was scrapped there would be about 30% more purchases. That’s another 90,000 moves. <h2>Even low headline rates have big effects</h2> The big effect from small-looking headline rates ought not to be surprising. When someone buys a home, they typically front up much less cash than the purchase price. While stamp duty seems low as a percentage of the purchase price, it is high as a percentage of the cash the buyer needs to find. Here’s an example. If stamp duty is 4% of the purchase price, and a purchaser pays $800,000 for a property with a mortgage deposit of $160,000, the $32,000 stamp duty adds 20%, not 4%, to what’s needed. If the deposit takes five years to save, stamp duty makes it six. A similar thing happens when an owner-occupier changes address. If the buyer sells a fully owned home for $700,000 and buys a new home for $800,000, the upgrade ought to cost them $100,000. A 4% stamp duty lifts that to $132,000. Averaged across all Australian cities, stamp duty costs about <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stepped-on-by-Stamp-Duty.pdf">five months</a> of after-tax earnings. In Sydney and Melbourne, it’s six. <h2>Stamp duty has bracket creep</h2> This cost has steadily climbed from around <a href="https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Stepped-on-by-Stamp-Duty.pdf">six weeks</a> of total earnings in the 1990s. It has happened because home prices have climbed faster than incomes and because stamp duty has brackets, meaning more buyers have been pushed into higher ones. Replacing the stamp duty revenue that states have come to rely on would not be easy, but a switch would almost certainly help the economy function better. The more that people are able to move, the more they will move to jobs to which they are better suited, boosting productivity. The more that people downsize when they want to, the more housing will be made available for others. Our findings suggest the costs are far from trivial, making a switch away from stamp duty worthwhile, even if it is disruptive and takes time.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225773/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-garvin-1453835">Nick Garvin</a>, Adjunct Fellow, Department of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stamp-duty-is-holding-us-back-from-moving-homes-weve-worked-out-how-much-225773">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

"There's no way": Man receives $52 billion tax bill

An American man has been left confused after receiving a letter from the government claiming he owed $52 billion in unpaid taxes. Barry Tangert got two letters in the mail from the state of Pennsylvania, opening the first to find a refund check from the federal government for over $900. His joy was short-lived though as he opened the second letter to find the income billing notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue claiming that he owed a jaw-dropping $52,950,744,735.28 ($34,576,826,561.47 AUD). “I knew it was an obvious blunder. I don’t even make over $100,000 a year, so there’s no way I could owe anywhere near that,” Barry Tangert told local outlet News 8. The total sum was so large it didn’t even fit on a single line on the document. Tangert immediately knew it was a mistake, with the astonishing number being more than triple the $11 billion America’s richest man Elon Musk says he owed the government in 2022. How the error made it all the way to his doorstep is still a mystery to Tangert. “I don’t know if it was a computer glitch in the transmission or if it was an input error from my tax preparer,” Tangert said, noting that his tax preparer filed an amendment after noticing an error on his 2022 return. He reached out to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue’s customer service line, which also provided little help to the baffled man. “The first thing he said was, ‘You had a good year.’ And I said, ‘I wish,’” Tangert said. Fortunately, the state department has since resolved the issue, which it chalked up to wrong numbers simply being put into the system. Image credits: WGAL News 8

Money & Banking

What to expect from the federal budget

There's just three weeks left until Treasurer Jim Chalmers unveils the federal budget. With the cost of living crisis still a major issue across the country, we can expect to see some policies aimed at alleviating the pressure. Some policies, have already been announced and here are a few others that we can expect to hear from Chalmers on May 14. Stage 3 cuts announced in January, will form a key part of this year's budget, which will direct more benefit towards low- and middle-income earners – although Australians on high salaries will still receive a tax cut. The decision was made to alleviate the cost-of-living pressures and partly address the bracket creep. The cuts lower the threshold for the lowest two brackets (so they pay less tax on that income), and raise the threshold for the highest two brackets (so they need to earn more to be taxed at a higher rate). This means that someone with average income of around $73,000 will get $1504, but how much you actually receive will depend on your income. The new version of the stage 3 cuts will come into effect on July 1. Superannuation will be paid on government-funded parental leave, with the change due to kick in for parents with babies born after July 1, 2025. They will receive a 12 per cent superannuation on top of their government-funded parental leave, with around 180,000 families expected to benefit from it. The figures will be included in the May 14 budget. Although nothing has been officially announced, there will likely be HECS-HELP debt relief for current and former students. "I think there's a range of areas where we need to do much better with the younger generation, and HECS is one of them," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on radio on April 18. "We've received a review of that... and what that has said is that the system can be made simpler and be made fairer. "We're examining the recommendations and we'll be making announcements pretty soon on that. We, of course, have a budget coming up." There have also been some hints from the government that energy bill relief will continue in this year's budget. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," Albanese said, citing the existing policy that gives eligible families up to $500 off their power bills and eligible small businesses up to $650. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," he said. "That's why the energy bill relief package I negotiated with the states and territories delivered up to $650 in savings for around 1 million small businesses, along with 5 million families. "And as we put together next month's budget, small businesses and families will again be front and centre in our thinking." Energy bills are also set to go down, or remain stable for the most part from July 1. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

Survey unveils Aussies thoughts on tourism tax

Earlier this year, Bali launched a controversial tourism tax, which meant that every traveller entering the island would have to pay a $15 fee, which the Indonesian province have said will be used for environmental and cultural projects. Now, Aussies have shared their thoughts on introducing a similar system here, and survey results have revealed that many are keen for the tourism tax to be introduced here. Travel provider InsureandGo conducted the survey and found that 60 per cent of Australians would support the government introducing a tax to combat the rising environmental toll of tourism. "Tourist taxes are a relatively new concept, but as travel demand swells, we are seeing more countries adopt the levy," InsureandGo Chief Commercial Officer Jonathan Etkind said. "What's heartening is that only a minority of 37 per cent of respondents don't support tourism taxes, demonstrating just how many Australians support the concept of sustainable travel." The response comes amid increased sustainability concerns on our flora and fauna, which are being threatened by over-tourism. The tax is particularly supported by younger Aussies aged between 18 to 30, with 73 per cent of them saying yes to tourism taxes. Etkind said that this may be because younger Aussies are typically more aware of the environmental impacts of travel compared to the older generation, who may be less accustomed to the tax. Along with Bali, other cities and countries have started introducing similar fees to combat overtourism, with Venice set to charge day-trippers a fee of 5 Euros ($8.20) per visit. Amsterdam, Netherlands has the highest tourism tax in Europe, with the former 7 per cent hotel tourist levy rising to 12.5 per cent this year. New Zealand also charges international visitors excluding Aussie citizens and permanent residents $25 levy ($32.64 AUD) to address the challenges created by tourism in its conservation areas. Image: Getty

International Travel

Politicians slam Albanese's "hypocritical" private jet use

Anthony Albanese has been urged to consider his carbon footprint after his controversial usage of a private jet. A group of independent MPs have asked the Prime Minister to offset his carbon usage after it was revealed that he and two other ministers chartered two private planes to attend the same clean energy event in the NSW Hunter Valley. Albanese was joined by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic to fly to the region from Canberra on Thursday to announce a $1bn to support Australian manufacturing in solar technology. Teal MP Zali Steggall urged the leaders to offset their carbon emissions from the short journey when it was revealed that the three men flew separately in two separate Royal Australian Air Force jets. “I certainly hope they were offsetting the emissions of those two jets with companies, like Green fleet and other places like that where you can offset the emissions of your travel,” Ms Stegall told Sunrise. “I certainly hope and I call on the Minister for Climate Change to do that. Look, as a lowly independent, we don’t get the luxuries of flying in the ADF jets.” Private jets have a dramatically higher carbon footprint per passenger than commercial planes, with the average private jet emitting two tonnes of carbon an hour. Mr Bowen defended the use of the planes, saying the use of two private jets was a decision made by the airforce for safety reasons. “The Prime Minister has a large jet available to him and that would normally be what we take,” he said on Monday. “The runway at Scone wasn’t strong enough to take a large jet so the air force … decided for two jets.” Opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie said the government should consider “jet pooling” and should make a conscious effort to cut down on the harmful use of private jets, which emit more carbon per passenger than commercial planes. “I fail to see why these guys, when they’re leaving from the same place on the same day, within 30 minutes of each other, couldn’t have either shared the plane or indeed, some of them, if they couldn’t all fit, use the commercial options that were available to them to fly direct from Canberra to Newcastle to make the announcement,” Senator McKenzie said. “It’s quite incredible.” Image credits: Getty Images

Travel Trouble

Tax boost announced for 1.2 million people

Low-income earners will receive a tax boost with the Medicare levy threshold set to rise. The income threshold at which taxpayers will have to pay a two per cent Medicare levy will increase by 7.1 per cent, in line with inflation. Currently single people who earn below $24,276 do not have to pay the levy. Under the changes, the two per cent levy only has to be paid by anyone earning over $26,000 The Medicare levy threshold for seniors and pensioners will increase to $41,089, up from the initial benchmark of $38,365. For families, this threshold has increased to $43,486 up from the previous $40,939. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said that the increase was part of the broader measures taken to relieve the increase in cost-of-living. “This will ensure people on lower incomes continue to pay less or are exempt from the Medicare levy,” he said on Tuesday. “It means 1.2 million Australians get to keep a bit more of what they earn.” The boost in the Medicare levy threshold was announced alongside changes to income tax cuts, with those earning under $150,000 set to receive greater benefits. “This is about doing what we responsibly can to ease some of the pressure being felt by Australians right around the country, but especially for people on lower incomes, young people, seniors and women,” Chalmers said. This comes just days after Medicare celebrated it's 40th anniversary, with an exhibition launched at Parliament House. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

To avoid the worst of climate change we have to change how we travel

In September last year I embarked on a 5 week trip throughout Italy and France. We swam in the waters of Cinque Terre, ate the best pizza we’d ever had in Naples, and walked blisters into our feet through the streets of Paris. The marvels of modern aviation meant I completed my 32,000 km round trip in roughly 24 hours each way. But while I budgeted for the monetary costs associated with the trip, I neglected to consider another crucial one – the carbon cost. Humans are changing the Earth’s climate. It is estimated our activities have caused about 1°C of additional atmospheric warming since the industrial revolution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">crossing a 1.5°C threshold</a> will unleash devastating climate change impacts on human life and ecosystems. To keep global warming to below 1.5°C, as called for in the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Paris Agreement</a>, emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest, halve by 2030, and reach net-zero as soon as possible before 2050. The <a href="https://www.unwto.org/the-glasgow-declaration-on-climate-action-in-tourism" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action in Tourism</a>, launched at <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">COP26</a>, commits the tourism sector to these goals. So, what will global tourism look like as it begins to decarbonise? Will it necessitate changing the way I approach travel in the coming decades? Paul Peeters, a professor of sustainable transport and tourism at Breda University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands is one of the principal authors of a report released last year that seeks to <a href="https://pure.buas.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/27136592/Peeters_Papp_EnvisionTourism_report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">envision tourism in 2030 and beyond.</a> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tourism and emissions: how big of a contributor is it?</h2> Tourism is a major contributor to climate change. According to Peeters, at least 5% of global CO2 emissions come from tourism and travel, with some estimates as high as 8-11% if you include indirect (supply chain) emissions. These emissions are inequitable, about half of the global tourism footprint is caused by travel between the richest countries. If global tourism continues unchanged, it’s predicted to increase emissions by 73% by 2050, compared to 2019. In this scenario, the sector will use over 66% of the world’s remaining carbon budget between 2023 and 2100. Peeters says this is not a viable way forward. But it doesn’t mean that tourism will cease to exist, or that we must stop flying altogether. Instead, the modelling he presents finds there is a plausible decarbonisation pathway that allows tourism to continue with similar levels of growth in global revenue, trips, and guest nights compared to 2019, while also achieving net-zero emissions, by 2050. This model is called the Tourism Decarbonisation Scenario (TDS) and it requires us to re-think how we travel. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">How do you put tourism emissions into a holding pattern?</h2> “If you look at the division of the [emissions from] different parts of travel, then in general… transport takes about 75-80%, 20% goes to the accommodation sector,” says Peeters. That 20% also includes activities, like visiting museums or amusement parks. “And then within transport, you see that about more than half of the emissions come from aviation, while at the same time aviation serves about a quarter of all trips,” he says. Each country party to the Paris Agreement – a legally binding international treaty on climate change – is required to establish a <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/all-about-ndcs#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20an%20NDC%2C%20or,and%20adapt%20to%20climate%20impacts." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nationally Determined Contribution</a> (NDC). An NDC is an action plan to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts, updated every 5 years. Most of tourism – like accommodation and on-ground transportation – falls within the Paris Agreement and these NDCs and will decarbonise through changes already happening in the legislation of each country. For instance, the transition to electrified forms of travel and accommodation powered by renewable energy. So, as a tourist, I won’t need to change my behaviour there. “But it’s not true for aviation. And the problem is that aviation, in terms of governance, has got an exemption,” says Peeters. Aviation emissions are much harder to reduce. The International Civil Aviation Organization – ICAO – governs international aviation. It has a long-term aspirational goal for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and to achieve these goals is pursuing improvements to <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/engineering/hydrogen-fuelled-planes/">aircraft technology</a>, <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/energy/from-refinery-to-biofuel-reactor/">sustainable aviation fuels</a>, and <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/climate/carbon-offsetting-right/">carbon offsets</a>. But Peeters’ modelling says this won’t be enough. “The final technology is low or zero emission aircraft technology,” he says. “But that takes decades to develop and then decades to replace the whole fleet – you are not buying a new aircraft every year like a car. “That technology will come […] much faster actually than 10 years ago, but still it’s at a pace that we will have it by the end of the century fully implemented, not before. “We need an international body that governs the growth of aviation that actually stops it for the next couple of decades, to create a timeframe for the technology we need.” So until sustainable aviation technology can be fully implemented, the key is to slow the rate of growth of aviation. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Further does not equal better</h2> In 2019, nearly all long-distance travel over 16,000 kms return trip was by air. These trips, equivalent to flying return Shanghai to Sydney or further, made up just 2% of all trips in 2019. But they were the most polluting – accounting for 19% of tourism’s total carbon emissions. My roundtrip from Australia to Europe sits in this bracket. I estimate my seats on those planes probably came with a carbon footprint of about 6.4 tonnes of CO2 altogether. To put that in perspective, the average Australian emits 15 tonnes per year, according to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ourworldindata.org</a>, and I emitted almost half that in just 48 hours. Failing to curb the growth of these longest-haul trips means they will make up 4% of all trips but account for a massive 41% of tourism’s total emissions by 2050. To prevent this, the TDS says we need to cap them at 2019 levels – about 120 million return trips per year. In this scenario, shorter distance trips up to 900km return – that’s roughly equivalent to flying from Rome to Milan in Italy – and those by car, rail, coach, and ferry, would increase to 81% of all trips by 2050. Longer distance trips (return journeys of more than 7,000km, roughly equivalent to return flying Sydney to Perth and further) would also grow less quickly than current rates and account for 3.5% of all trips by 2050 (down from 6.0% in 2019). This could have flow-on benefits, especially for local tourism. “So, you keep the number of trips, and you keep the number of nights – you could even increase that a little bit as a compensation maybe for not being able to travel so far, then you can travel deeper. And that means the total revenues in the sector can grow as we are used to because the number of trips and the number of nights generate most of the revenues,” explains Peeters. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">What curbing the aviation industry could look like</h2> So, what will this mean for my travel habits in the coming years, if further isn’t better? It will likely involve a switch in mindset to consider whether an alternative, less carbon intensive mode of transport exists to reach the destination I have in mind. According to Peeters, even 1 fewer person sitting in an aircraft’s seats can measurably change its emissions. “Aircraft are quite lightweight, half of the weight of an aircraft taking off is not its structure. But it means that if you remove 100 kilograms, even off an Airbus A320, you can measure the difference in fuel consumption. It will save, I calculated it for flights, just a 1,500 km flight, already up to 10 kilograms of CO2,” says Peeters. Compare that to a different mode – adding an additional person to an already incredibly heavy train will add perhaps half a kilogram in emissions at most, probably less. It’s a little embarrassing to admit that I’ve never considered the idea of an interstate road trip, taking the car across the border or opting for a coach or train instead of flying, as a viable option for domestic travel in Australia. But it has for other people. <a href="https://flightfree.net.au/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Flight Free Australia</a> encourages us to stop flying, and people have already taken their pledge to swear off air travel – whether for the next 12 months or until it’s ‘climate safe’ to do so again. As for Europe… Well, Peeter’s report predicts that ticket prices will increase, with the cost of flying increasing to 0.18 $/pkm in 2050, from 0.06 $/pkm in 2019, caused mainly by mandates for sustainable aviation e-fuels. Entire families have event attempted to make it from one end of the world to another without setting foot on a plane – a months-long journey ultimately <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-22/british-family-travel-australia-without-flying-carbon-footprint/103256280" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">foiled</a> by cyclones north of Darwin. Whether the changes outlined in the Envisioning Tourism in 2030 and Beyond report are made to the aviation industry, already my perspective on flying is changing. Why would I reduce my carbon footprint in other areas of my life, but turn around and negate those efforts by jumping on a plane? It doesn’t mean that I have to give up travel, just change my perspective on what makes a worthy destination. “You see a growing number of people, particularly young people, that say, ‘I stopped flying, whatever happens, I never go anymore’,” says Peeters. “And it makes your life so much easier. You don’t have to choose every time ‘should I fly?’. No, if you can’t get there by train, car, or whatever, you don’t go. And then you go somewhere else, of course, you’re not sitting at home. And you discover that somewhere else is also beautiful.” <div> <noscript data-spai="1"><img decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-198773" src="https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/spai/q_lossy+ret_img+to_auto/cosmosmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Cosmos-Catch-Up-embed_728x150-1.jpg" data-spai-egr="1" alt="Sign up to our weekly newsletter" width="600" height="154" title="to avoid the worst of climate change we have to change how we travel 2"></noscript> </div>  <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=294884&title=To+avoid+the+worst+of+climate+change+we+have+to+change+how+we+travel" width="1" height="1" loading="lazy" aria-label="Syndication Tracker" data-spai-target="src" data-spai-orig="" data-spai-exclude="nocdn" />  <div class="share-syndicate-wrapper margin-top-1"> <div class="article-sharing"> Image credits: Getty Images </div> </div> <div id="contributors"> <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/synergy/to-avoid-the-worst-of-climate-change-we-have-to-change-how-we-travel/">This article</a> was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/imma-perfetto/">Imma Perfetto</a>. </div>

Travel Trouble

Stage 3 stacks up: the rejigged tax cuts help fight bracket creep and boost middle and upper-middle households

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> The winners and losers from the Albanese government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/tax-cuts-government-fact-sheet.pdf">rejig</a> of this year’s Stage 3 tax cuts have already been well documented. From July 1 every taxpayer will get a tax cut. Most, the 11 million taxpayers earning up to A$146,486, will also pay less tax than they would have under the earlier version of Stage 3, some getting a tax cut <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-tax-plan-will-give-average-earner-1500-tax-cut-more-than-double-morrisons-stage-3-221875">twice as big</a>. A much smaller number, 1.8 million, will get a smaller tax cut than they would have under the original scheme, although their cuts will still be big. The highest earners will get cuts of $4,529 instead of $9,075. But many of us live in households where income is shared and many households don’t pay tax because the people in them don’t earn enough or are on benefits. The Australian National University’s <a href="https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/research/policymod">PolicyMod</a> model is able to work out the impacts at the household level, including the impact on households in which members are on benefits or don’t earn enough to pay tax. <h2>More winners than losers in every broad income group</h2> We’ve divided Australian households into five equal-size groups ranked by income, from lowest to lower-middle to middle to upper-middle to high. Our modelling finds that, just as is the case for individuals, many more households will be better off with the changes to Stage 3 than would have been better off with Stage 3 as it was, although the difference isn’t as extreme. Overall, 58% of households will be better off with the reworked Stage 3 than they would have under the original and 11% will be worse off. Importantly, there remain 31% who will be neither better off nor worse off, because they don’t pay personal income tax. <hr /> <iframe id="0CWXE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0CWXE/4/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> But it is different for different types of households. In the lowest-earning fifth of households, far more are better off (13.5%) than worse off (0.2%) with the overwhelming bulk neither better nor worse off (86.3%). <hr /> <iframe id="KC5zy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KC5zy/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> In the highest-earning fifth of households, while more than half are better off (54.4%), a very substantial proportion are worse off (42.3%). Very few (only 3.1%) are neither better nor worse off. <hr /> <iframe id="WSkSL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WSkSL/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>But high-earning households go backwards on average</h2> In dollar terms, the top-earning fifth of households loses money while every group gains. That’s because although there are more winners than losers among the highest-earning fifth of households, the losers lose more money. The biggest dollar gains go to middle and upper-middle income households with middle-income households ahead, on average, by $988 per year and upper-middle income households by $1,102. The highest-income households are worse off by an average of $837 per year. As a percentage of income, middle-income households gain the most with a 1% increase in disposable income. Lowest income households gain very little, while the highest-income households go backwards by 0.3%. <hr /> <iframe id="kAPmC" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kAPmC/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> <h2>The rejig does a better job of fighting bracket creep</h2> And we’ve found something else. The original version of the Stage 3 tax cuts was advertised as a measure to overcome <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-2-main-arguments-against-redesigning-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-are-wrong-heres-why-221975">bracket creep</a>, which is what happens when a greater proportion of taxpayers’ income gets pushed into higher tax brackets as incomes climb. We have found it wouldn’t have done it for most of the income groups, leaving all but the highest-earning group paying more tax after the change in mid-2024 than it used to in 2018. The rejigged version of Stage 3 should compensate for bracket creep better, leaving the top two groups paying less than they did in 2018 and compensating the bottom three better than the original Stage 3. <hr /> <iframe id="YG0cT" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YG0cT/1/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Not too much should be made of the increase in tax rates in the lowest income group between 2018 ad 2024 because some of it reflects stronger income growth. We find that overall, the redesigned Stage 3 does a better job of offsetting bracket creep than the original. It is also better targeted to middle and upper-middle income households. Having said that, the average benefit in dollar terms isn’t big. At about $1,000 per year for middle and upper-middle income households and costing the budget about what the original Stage 3 tax cuts would have cost, its inflationary impact compared to the original looks modest.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221851/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866">Ben Phillips</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stage-3-stacks-up-the-rejigged-tax-cuts-help-fight-bracket-creep-and-boost-middle-and-upper-middle-households-221851">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Over 250 millionaires and billionaires have issued an <a href="https://proudtopaymore.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">open letter</a> to global leaders encouraging them to implement wealth taxes to combat the cost-of-living crisis. This comes just as a report by the <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/money-banking/shocking-amount-australia-s-richest-people-earn-per-hour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Oxfam Charity</a> revealed that the global wealth of billionaires have only grown in the last three years despite inflation. The open letter, signed by super-rich individuals from 17 countries, includes signatories like Abigail Disney, the grand-niece of Walt Disney, Succession actor Brian Cox, and American philanthropist and Rockefeller family heir Valerie Rockefeller. They said that they would be "proud to pay more taxes" in order to address the inequality. "Elected leaders must tax us, the super rich," the letter read. "This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations' economic growth. "But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future." Austrian heir Marlene Engelhorn is also among the voices demanding that they pay more in taxes. "I've inherited a fortune and therefore power, without having done anything for it. And the state doesn't even want taxes on it," Engelhorn, who inherited millions from her family who founded chemical giant BASF, said. The letter was released just as global leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Abigail Disney, whose net-worth is measured at more than $100 million, said that lawmakers need to come together to make a meaningful economic and social change. "There's too much at stake for us all to wait for the ultra rich to grow a conscience and voluntarily change their ways," she said. "For that reason, lawmakers must step in and tax extreme wealth, along with the variety of environmentally destructive habits of the world's richest." A recent <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63fe48c7e864f3729e4f9287/t/6596bfb943707b56d11f1296/1704378297933/G20+Survey+of+those+with+More+than+%241+million+on+Attitudes+to+Extreme+Wealth+and+Taxing+the+Super+Rich.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of almost 2400 millionaires found that 74 per cent of them supported the introduction of a wealth tax to fund improved public services and deal with the cost-of-living crisis. The open letter also said that one-off donations and philanthropy "cannot redress the current colossal imbalance" of societal wealth. "We need our governments and our leaders to lead," the letter said. "The true measure of a society can be found, not just in how it treats its most vulnerable, but in what it asks of its wealthiest members." Images: Getty

Money & Banking

Flying home for Christmas? Carbon offsets are important, but they won’t fix plane pollution

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/susanne-becken-90437">Susanne Becken</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-mackey-152282">Brendan Mackey</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Australia is an important player in the global tourism business. In 2016, <a href="https://www.tra.gov.au/research/research">8.7 million visitors arrived in Australia and 8.8 million Australians went overseas</a>. A further 33.5 million overnight trips were made domestically. But all this travel comes at a cost. According to the <a href="http://tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/carbon-emissions/">Global Sustainable Tourism Dashboard</a>, all Australian domestic trips and one-way international journeys (the other half is attributed to the end point of travel) amount to 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide for 2016. That is 2.7% of global aviation emissions, despite a population of only 0.3% of the global total. The peak month of air travel in and out of Australia is December. Christmas is the time where people travel to see friends and family, or to go on holiday. More and more people are <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/analysis-of-a-119-country-survey-predicts-global-climate-change-awareness/">aware of the carbon implications of their travel</a> and want to know whether, for example, they should purchase carbon offsets or not. Our <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699716302538">recent study in the Journal of Air Transport Management</a> showed that about one third of airlines globally offer some form of carbon offsetting to their customers. However, the research also concluded that the information provided to customers is often insufficient, dated and possibly misleading. Whilst local airlines <a href="https://www.qantasfutureplanet.com.au/#aboutus">Qantas</a>, <a href="https://www.virginaustralia.com/nz/en/about-us/sustainability/carbon-offset-program/">Virgin Australia</a> and <a href="https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sustainability-customer-carbon-offset">Air New Zealand</a> have relatively advanced and well-articulated carbon offset programs, others fail to offer scientifically robust explanations and accredited mechanisms that ensure that the money spent on an offset generates some real climate benefits. The notion of carbon compensation is actually more difficult than people might think. To help explain why carbon offsetting does make an important climate contribution, but at the same time still adds to atmospheric carbon, we created an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh-erzGlR0">animated video clip</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xsh-erzGlR0?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Jack’s journey.</figcaption></figure> The video features Jack, a concerned business traveller who begins purchasing carbon credits. However, he comes to the realisation that the carbon emissions from his flights are still released into the atmosphere, despite the credit. The concept of “carbon neutral” promoted by airline offsets means that an equal amount of emissions is avoided elsewhere, but it does not mean there is no carbon being emitted at all – just relatively less compared with the scenario of not offsetting (where someone else continues to emit, in addition to the flight). This means that, contrary to many promotional and educational materials (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGB2OAg5ffA">here</a> for instance), carbon offsetting will not reduce overall carbon emissions. Trading emissions means that we are merely maintaining status quo. A steep reduction, however, is what’s required by every sector if we were to reach the net-zero emissions goal by 2050, agreed on in the <a href="http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php">Paris Agreement</a>. Carbon offsetting is already an important “<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517714000910">polluter pays</a>” mechanism for travellers who wish to contribute to climate mitigation. But it is also about to be institutionalised at large scale through the new UN-run <a href="https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/market-based-measures.aspx">Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA)</a>. CORSIA will come into force in 2021, when participating airlines will have to purchase carbon credits for emissions above 2020 levels on certain routes. The availability of carbon credits and their integrity is of major concern, as well as how they align with national obligations and mechanisms agreed in the Paris Agreement. Of particular interest is <a href="http://www.carbon-mechanisms.de/en/introduction/the-paris-agreement-and-article-6/">Article 6</a>, which allows countries to cooperate in meeting their climate commitments, including by “trading” emissions reductions to count towards a national target. The recent COP23 in Bonn highlighted that CORSIA is widely seen as a potential source of billions of dollars for offset schemes, supporting important climate action. Air travel may provide an important intermediate source of funds, but ultimately the aviation sector, just like anyone else, will have to reduce their own emissions. This will mean major advances in technology – and most likely a contraction in the fast expanding global aviation market. <h2>Travelling right this Christmas</h2> In the meantime, and if you have booked your flights for Christmas travel, you can do the following: <ul> <li> pack light (every kilogram will cost additional fuel) </li> <li> minimise carbon emissions whilst on holiday (for instance by biking or walking once you’re there), and </li> <li> support a <a href="http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/consumer/Standards.html">credible offsetting program</a>. </li> </ul> And it’s worth thinking about what else you can do during the year to minimise emissions – this is your own “carbon budget”.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89148/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/susanne-becken-90437">Susanne Becken</a>, Professor of Sustainable Tourism and Director, Griffith Institute for Tourism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-mackey-152282">Brendan Mackey</a>, Director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/flying-home-for-christmas-carbon-offsets-are-important-but-they-wont-fix-plane-pollution-89148">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

It’s time to limit how often we can travel abroad – ‘carbon passports’ may be the answer

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ross-bennett-cook-1301368">Ross Bennett-Cook</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-westminster-916">University of Westminster</a> The summer of 2023 has been very significant for the travel industry. By the end of July, international tourist arrivals globally <a href="https://www.unwto.org/news/international-tourism-swiftly-overcoming-pandemic-downturn">reached 84% of pre-pandemic levels</a>. In <a href="https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/eu-tourism-almost-full-recovery-pre-pandemic-levels-2023-10-23_en">some European countries</a>, such as France, Denmark and Ireland, tourism demand even surpassed its pre-pandemic level. This may be great <a href="https://skift.com/insight/state-of-travel/">news economically</a>, but there’s concern that a return to the status quo is already showing dire environmental and social consequences. The summer saw record-breaking heatwaves across many parts of the world. People were forced to flee <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/24/greece-wildfires-corfu-evia-rhodes-heatwave-northern-hemisphere-extreme-weather-temperatures-europe">wildfires in Greece</a> and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/hawaii-fires-update-biden-b2393188.html">Hawaii</a>, and extreme <a href="https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/world-news/foreign-office-issues-spain-weather-27339111">weather warnings</a> were issued in many popular holiday destinations like Portugal, Spain and Turkey. Experts <a href="https://theconversation.com/european-heatwave-whats-causing-it-and-is-climate-change-to-blame-209653">attributed these extreme conditions</a> to climate change. Tourism is part of the problem. The tourism sector <a href="https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Reports/2021/WTTC_Net_Zero_Roadmap.pdf">generates around one-tenth</a> of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis. The negative impacts of tourism on the environment have become so severe that some are suggesting drastic changes to our travel habits are inevitable. In a <a href="https://www.intrepidtravel.com/sites/intrepid/files/basic_page/files/A%20Sustainable%20Future%20For%20Travel%20From%20Crisis%20To%20Transformation-231016-02.pdf">report</a> from 2023 that analysed the future of sustainable travel, tour operator Intrepid Travel proposed that “carbon passports” will soon become a reality if the tourism industry hopes to survive. <h2>What is a carbon passport?</h2> The idea of a carbon passport centres on each traveller being assigned a yearly carbon allowance that they cannot exceed. These allowances can then “ration” travel. This concept may seem extreme. But the idea of personal carbon allowances is not new. A <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/565/565.pdf">similar concept</a> (called “personal carbon trading”) was discussed in the House of Commons in 2008, before being shut down due to its perceived complexity and the possibility of public resistance. The <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/#:%7E:text=A%20carbon%20footprint%20is%20the,is%20closer%20to%204%20tons.">average annual carbon footprint</a> for a person in the US is 16 tonnes – one of the highest rates in the world. In the UK this figure sits at 11.7 tonnes, still more than five times the figure recommended by the <a href="https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/the-average-british-carbon-footprint-is-five-times-over-paris-agreement-recommendations/152669/#:%7E:text=Despite%20rising%20environmental%20awareness%20across,equivalent%20(tCO2e)%20per%20year.">Paris Agreement</a> to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C. Globally, the average annual carbon footprint of a person is closer to 4 tonnes. But, to have the best chance of preventing temperature rise from overshooting 2°C, the average global carbon footprint <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/#:%7E:text=Globally%2C%20the%20average%20carbon%20footprint,tons%20doesn't%20happen%20overnight!">needs to drop</a> to under 2 tonnes by 2050. This figure equates to around <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year">two return flights</a> between London and New York. Intrepid Travel’s report predicts that we will see carbon passports in action by 2040. However, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/travel-short-haul-flights-europe-under-fire-climate-change-cop26/">several laws and restrictions</a> have been put in place over the past year that suggest our travel habits may already be on the verge of change. <h2>Targeting air travel</h2> Between 2013 and 2018, the amount of CO₂ emitted by commercial aircrafts worldwide <a href="https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_CO2-commercl-aviation-2018_20190918.pdf">increased by 32%</a>. Improvements in fuel efficiency are slowly reducing per passenger emissions. But <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014004889">research</a> from 2014 found that whatever the industry’s efforts to reduce its carbon emissions, they will be outweighed by the growth in air traffic. For emission reductions to have any meaningful effect, ticket prices would have to rise by 1.4% each year, discouraging some people from flying. However, in reality, <a href="https://www.climatecentral.org/news/increase-in-flights-will-outweigh-carbon-cuts-17875">ticket prices are falling</a>. Some European countries are beginning to take measures to reduce air travel. As of April 1 2023, passengers on short-haul flights and older aircraft in Belgium have been <a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/12/private-jets-and-short-haul-flights-face-pollution-busting-tax-increases-in-belgium">subject to increased taxes</a> to encourage alternative forms of travel. Less than two months later France banned <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65687665">short-haul domestic flights</a> where the same trip can be made by train in two-and-a-half hours or less. <a href="https://businesstravelerusa.com/news/spain-to-follow-frances-lead-plans-to-ban-short-haul-domestic-flights/">Spain</a> is expected to follow suit. A similar scheme could also be on the horizon for Germany. In 2021, a <a href="https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/seventy-percent-germans-favour-banning-short-haul-flights-survey">YouGov poll</a> found that 70% of Germans would support such measures to fight climate change if alternative transport routes like trains or ships were available. <h2>Cruises and carbon</h2> It’s not just air travel that’s being criticised. An <a href="https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-return-of-the-cruise-June-2023.pdf">investigation</a> by the European Federation for Transport and Environment in 2023 found that cruise ships pump four times as many sulphuric gases (which are proven to cause acid rain and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/04/26/cruise-ship-pollution-is-causing-serious-health-and-environmental-problems/?sh=468ee2f637db">several respiratory conditions</a>) into the atmosphere than all of Europe’s 291 million cars combined. Statistics like these have forced European destinations to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8727387d-590d-43bd-a305-b5ec208a4dfe">take action</a> against the cruise industry. In July, Amsterdam’s council <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66264226">banned cruise ships</a> from docking in the city centre in a bid to reduce tourism and pollution – an initiative that has shown success elsewhere. In 2019 Venice was the most polluted European port, due to large numbers of cruise ship visits. But it dropped to 41st place in 2022 after a ban on large cruise ships entering the city’s waters <a href="https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/europes-luxury-cruise-ships-emit-as-much-toxic-sulphur-as-1bn-cars-study/">reduced air pollutants from ships</a> in Venice by 80%. <h2>Changing destinations</h2> Intrepid Travel’s report also highlights that not only how we travel, but <a href="https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/global-warming-reshuffle-europes-tourism-demand-particularly-coastal-areas-2023-07-28_en">where we travel</a> will soon be impacted by climate change. Boiling temperatures will probably diminish the allure of traditional beach destinations, prompting European tourists to search for cooler destinations such as Belgium, Slovenia and Poland for their summer holidays. <a href="https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Tour-Operators/Travelers-seek-cooler-destinations-this-summer">Several travel agencies</a> reported seeing noticeable increases in holiday bookings to cooler European destinations like Scandinavia, Ireland and the UK during 2023’s peak summer travel months. Whatever the solution may be, changes to our travel habits look inevitable. Destinations across the globe, from <a href="https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/barcelonas-war-on-tourism-ada-colau/">Barcelona</a> to the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/italy-tourism-bans-controls-fees-restrictions/a-66453047">Italian riveria</a> and even <a href="https://theconversation.com/death-on-everest-the-boom-in-climbing-tourism-is-dangerous-and-unsustainable-114033">Mount Everest</a> are already calling for limits on tourist numbers as they struggle to cope with crowds and pollution. Holidaymakers should prepare to change their travel habits now, before this change is forced upon them. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ross-bennett-cook-1301368">Ross Bennett-Cook</a>, Visiting Lecturer, School of Architecture + Cities, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-westminster-916">University of Westminster</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-limit-how-often-we-can-travel-abroad-carbon-passports-may-be-the-answer-216503">original article</a>.

International Travel

What to wear for a climate crisis

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachael-wallis-568028">Rachael Wallis</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> When people move to the country from the city, they need to change their wardrobes, my <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/area.12540">research on tree-changers</a> in Australia found. The new context of their lives means the clothes they wore for the city no longer work for their new lives. This is also true in the climate crisis. Our context has changed. When we decide what clothes to buy, we now need to bring into play a wider range of values than the appearance of a garment, its newness and novelty and whether we like it or not. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">states</a>, if we are to have any hope of avoiding a world that is too hot and unpredictable to live in, we need to do everything we possibly can, right now, to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. The fashion industry contributes <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.973102/full">up to 10% of global emissions</a> – more than international aviation and shipping combined. It also contributes to biodiversity loss, pollution, landfill issues, unsafe work practices and more. Australia’s carbon footprint from the consumption and use of fashion is the <a href="https://hotorcool.org/unfit-unfair-unfashionable/">world’s biggest</a>, a dubious distinction in a materialistic world. So this is an area where the choices we make can have big impacts. While individual action will not solve all of the above problems, it will help as we move towards the structural and systemic change needed to live sustainably. If we are concerned about these issues, responding thoughtfully means we will live our lives according to our values. And that’s an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326475/">important factor</a> in living well, flourishing and being happy. <iframe id="datawrapper-chart-teOOs" style="border: none;" title="Carbon footprints from fashion consumption in G20 nations" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/teOOs/2/" width="100%" height="589" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" aria-label="Stacked Bars" data-external="1"></iframe> <h2>Lessons from wartime</h2> It’s not the first time people have adapted their clothing in response to the demands of a crisis. During the second world war, <a href="https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-clothes-rationing-affected-fashion-in-the-second-world-war">clothing styles changed</a> in the United Kingdom and Australia. To conserve precious resources, shorter skirts, minimal detailing and a focus on utility became the norm. People adapted their personal aesthetics and appearance because the situation was grave and they wanted to “do their bit” to help with the war effort. This was a collective necessity in dire times. This wartime response reflected the priorities and values of society as a whole as well as most people in that society. In other words, buying less (rationing meant this was not just a choice), mending and making do with what was already there was part of a value system that contributed to the Allied victory. In novels and other writing from the era, it is clear that at times it was not easy and it could be frustrating. There was, however, a public consensus that it was necessary. This shared commitment to the war effort became a value that made personal sacrifices worthwhile and satisfying. <h2>So what can we do today?</h2> In our current context, the <a href="https://hotorcool.org/unfit-unfair-unfashionable/">most helpful thing we can do</a> is to buy fewer new clothes and wear them for longer. Australians buy a lot of clothes, about <a href="https://www.cleanup.org.au/fastfashion">56 items per year</a> on average. That makes Australians the <a href="https://hotorcool.org/unfit-unfair-unfashionable/">second highest textiles consumers in the world</a> after <a href="https://www.cleanup.org.au/fastfashion">the USA</a> , and is <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2017/09/76e05528-fashion-at-the-crossroads.pdf">60% more than we bought even 15 years ago</a>. The <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/textiles-in-europes-circular-economy">price of clothes has dropped significantly</a> over the past couple of decades, and the <a href="https://hotorcool.org/unfit-unfair-unfashionable/">number of clothes</a> people have in their closets has grown. If we begin to shift away from our slavish devotion to newness and novelty – following the dictates of fashion – to a mindset of value-led sufficiency, we can appreciate more fully the feel of lived-in, mended or altered clothes. There is a feeling of comfort in pulling on an old garment that is soft with age and repeated washing. There is <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Loved_Clothes_Last/StfnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=joy+of+creative+mending&pg=PT7&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=joy%20of%20creative%20mending&f=false">joy in extending a garment’s life</a> through creative mending, especially when that aligns with our values. The Berlin-based <a href="https://hotorcool.org/unfit-unfair-unfashionable/">Hot or Cool Institute</a> suggests a wardrobe of 74 garments (including shoes but excluding undergarments) is typically sufficient for people who live in a two-season climate (in the tropics) and 85 pieces for those who live in a four-season climate, as most Australians do. If we buy ten to 12 new items a year, we can replace our entire wardrobe in about seven years. Buying second-hand instead of new is even better because it doesn’t add to current production emissions. If we buy second-hand, it still doesn’t mean we should buy more than we need. <h2>Choosing clothes to fit our values</h2> To live authentic lives that are fulfilling and satisfying in deep and meaningful ways, we need to be true to our selves. In the case of clothing, we should evaluate our choices in relation to the values we hold. And if we do care about living sustainably, that means changing those choices we feel are no longer suited to the climate crisis. Clothes need to reflect a person’s situation as well as their identity to <a href="https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q4x53/the-phenomenological-and-discursive-practice-of-place-in-lifestyle-migration-a-case-study-of-stanthorpe-queensland">“work” well</a>. This may mean that what we wear changes as we make different buying decisions, just as people did in the second world war and as tree-changers do. We may start to look different, but that change signifies our values in action. Best of all, clothing choices that align with keeping global warming to less than 1.5 degrees will have a long-term impact as significant as winning the war.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214478/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachael-wallis-568028">Rachael Wallis</a>, Research Assistant, Youth Community Futures, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-to-wear-for-a-climate-crisis-214478">original article</a>.

Beauty & Style

myTax is fast and free – so why do 2 in 3 Australians still pay to lodge a tax return?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jawad-harb-1441668">Jawad Harb</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-morton-1218408">Elizabeth Morton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Ten years ago, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) created the “myTax” portal, an easy way to lodge your tax return online. There was an “e-Tax” filing option before the 2015-16 tax year, but this was quite complicated and barely better than filling out a form online. In comparison, myTax <a href="https://resources.taxinstitute.com.au/tiausttaxforum/acceptance-of-mytax-in-australia">is simpler</a> and more automated. It’s available 24 hours a day, is free to use, and you will typically get your refund within <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Your-tax-return/How-to-lodge-your-tax-return/Lodge-your-tax-return-online-with-myTax/">two weeks</a>. But the chances are you won’t be using it. In fact, slightly less than <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2020-21/?anchor=IndividualsStatistics#IndividualsStatistics">36%</a> of Australia’s 15 million taxpayers used the myTax portal in 2020-21 – the most recent tax year for which the tax office has published data. About <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Taxation-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2020-21/?anchor=IndividualsStatistics#IndividualsStatistics">64% of tax returns</a> were lodged through tax agents. This is one of the highest rates among 38 <a href="https://www.oecd.org/about/">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a> nations. Meanwhile, just 0.6% of Australians still used the paper-based form. <hr /> <iframe id="5Kdz0" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5Kdz0/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> So why have Australians – who have quickly embraced the internet for everything from shopping to dating – been so slow to embrace myTax? For some, particularly older people, it’s about being intimidated by the technology. Others may be concerned with cybersecurity risk. But for most it’s about the perceived complexity of the tax system and the process, regardless of the technology. They see using a tax agent as easier and the way to maximise their tax refund. While in some cases this may be true, in many instances it’s simply a perception – but one the tax office will need to address if it wants to promote use of myTax. <h2>Reasons for the low uptake of myTax</h2> <a href="https://resources.taxinstitute.com.au/tiausttaxforum/acceptance-of-mytax-in-australia">Our research</a> suggests most people who have used the myTax portal think it is easy to use. We surveyed 193 taxpayers who have used the system. About three-quarters agreed the system was clear and understandable, and said they would keep using it. But of course these are people who have chosen to use the system, so their responses don’t shed much light on the reasons people don’t use myTax. Answers to that come from other published research, in particular from the <a href="https://www.igt.gov.au/">Inspector-General of Taxation</a> (the independent office investigating complaints about the tax system) as well as the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue. Evidence submitted to these bodies indicate that Australians prefer tax agents to avoid errors in claiming deductions. The parliamentary committee’s <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/024169/toc_pdf/TaxpayerEngagementwiththeTaxSystem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">2018 inquiry</a> into the tax system was told the use of tax agents ballooned from about 20% in the 1980s, peaking at about 74% of all taxpayers: "The Tax Commissioner considered that the size of the TaxPack had probably contributed to that rise, driving many people with simple tax affairs to a tax agent because it looked daunting." In short, habits are hard to break. Having come to rely on tax agents, most Australians keep using them, despite the system being vastly improved. For example, the myTax system now simplifies the process by <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Your-tax-return/How-to-lodge-your-tax-return/Lodge-your-tax-return-online-with-myTax/Pre-fill-availability/?=redirected_myGov_prefill">pre-filling</a> data from government agencies, health funds, financial institutions and your own employer. About 80% of our survey respondents said this was helpful. <h2>Taking care of the digital divide</h2> This suggests the main barrier to increasing use of the myTax system is mostly habit and the perception the tax system is too complicated to navigate without an expert. There is also a small percentage of people who feel uncomfortable with computers. This is reflected in the minority of respondents in our study who said they were unlikely to use myTax again, as well as the tax office’s data showing some people continue to stick with paper lodgement. Those more likely to find the system daunting are the elderly, those with low English skills, people with disabilities and those with low educational attainment. These people’s needs should not be forgotten as the Australian <a href="https://www.dta.gov.au/digital-government-strategy">Digital Government Strategy</a> aims to making Australia a “world-leading” digital government by 2025, delivering “simple, secure and connected public services”. Even with the greatest online system in the world, it’s unlikely there will ever be a complete transition.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207305/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jawad-harb-1441668">Jawad Harb</a>, PhD Candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-morton-1218408">Elizabeth Morton</a>, Research Fellow of the RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub, Lecturer Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/mytax-is-fast-and-free-so-why-do-2-in-3-australians-still-pay-to-lodge-a-tax-return-207305">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Can you lend a paw this tax time to help cats in need?

With a proud reputation of caring for cats for more than 60 years, the Cat Protection Society of NSW runs Sydney’s only no-kill shelter just for cats, as well as providing feline welfare programs to help cats and the people who love them. Cat Protection began in 1958 as a small group of people dedicated to reducing the number of street cats and while our organisation has grown over the years, our vision remains the same; that every cat deserves a loving and responsible home. Over the years, Cat Protection has helped literally hundreds of thousands of cats, kittens, and people. We’ve led the way in setting the standards for best-practice feline sheltering, and our health and welfare services extend far beyond our adoption centre. And while technology means we can offer a great range of free cat care resources online, we’ve never lost our human touch and we still help thousands of people every year with advice and tips on cat care by phone or in-person, at no cost. Our subsidised desexing, vaccination and microchipping programs promote cat health and welfare in the community and our newest program, Adopt-a-Stray, offers a complete and affordable package for those who wish to fully welcome a street cat into their heart and home. What sets us apart from many other animal shelters is our holistic approach to each individual cat or human client. Cats are not given a time limit, although most are adopted within days or weeks. Every cat is individually assessed and provided with a care plan to meet their unique needs. If they need complex surgery, allergy trials or behavioural interventions our highly qualified team will work with veterinarians and specialists to ensure the cat gets everything they need to set them on the path to living their best life. A kind person found Snake, a four-week-old sickly orphaned kitten. In addition to cat flu, our vets identified corneal scarring in his right eye, a blocked tear duct, and an adhesion on his eyelid restricting the normal movement of his third eyelid. Treatment resolved the flu and improved his eye, but Snake will live with limited vision in that eye. This has not dampened his playfulness or zest for life. As well as poor physical health, orphaned kittens miss out on the important lessons of being a cat from their mum and siblings, and this can lead to behavioural issues. Where we can, we will make sure such kittens get to join a stepfamily, but in cases such as Snake’s, illness means that isn’t always possible. It is then up to our human team to work with these little ones to help them learn to navigate the world with good manners! In contrast, Banjo had all the behavioural benefits of his brother but alas at seven weeks of age Banjo weighed only 560 grams while his brother Clancy weighed 900 grams! Banjo was diagnosed with a rare form of congenital hypothyroidism. Because his condition was diagnosed early, his prognosis is very good. He was started on a medication called Thyroxine and went back into foster care so that we could monitor his progress and adjust the dose of his medication as necessary with follow-up blood tests. After six weeks in foster care, Banjo graduated to the adoption centre. He will need to be on Thyroxine for the rest of his life, but that didn’t daunt his new family who’ve told us Banjo is now thriving in his loving forever home. From individualised TLC and veterinary care for every cat and kitten, to helping human clients resolve cat challenges (from furniture scratching to strata bans) and strategic research and advocacy on behalf of people and cats, Cat Protection’s impact is so much greater than our budget. As an independent registered charity for cats, we’re dependent on donations and bequests to do our work. We are compliant, open and transparent; on our website you can see our audited annual reports for details of what we do and what it costs. We have a strict “no harassment” fundraising policy which means under no circumstances will your information be sold on, and we do not employ pressure-tactics or door-to-door solicitations. We don’t spend money paying fundraising companies to ring you at dinner time asking for money or send you five-page long letters insisting you give more. And we never will. Donations are invested in helping our feline friends and nurturing the unique bond between cats and people. Your generosity will mean that we can continue to help thousands of cats and people each year. If you can lend a paw, please <a href="https://www.givenow.com.au/catprotectionsocietynsw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">make your tax-deductible donation here</a>! For general advice on cat care and everything feline, call the Cat Protection Society of NSW on 02 9557 4818 or visit <a href="https://catprotection.org.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">catprotection.org.au</a> Images: Supplied. This is a sponsored article produced in partnership with the Cat Protection Society of NSW.

Family & Pets

ATO cracks down on landlords submitting dodgy tax returns

The Australian Taxation Office (ATM) has plans to crack down on landlords submitting dodgy tax returns after an interview found nine in 10 made mistakes and wrongfully claimed expenses. Those working at home, including those who run home-based businesses and people who earn via short-term rental sites like Airbnb or Stayz, will also be under the thumb this year to file returns correctly, in a new bid to eliminate tax fraud. The review comes in the wake of a major funding boost to the ATO, announced in the 2023 federal budget, which saw an $89.6 million injection. The ATO claims there was a tax gap of $9 billion in the 2019-2020 financial year. Taxpayers paid 94.4 per cent of the whole amount theoretically owed to the Commonwealth, with deductions for rental expenses, including those incorrectly claiming negative gearing deductions, contributing $1.4 billion to the gap. Australian Tax Commissioner Tim Loh said the ATO will be taking action in 2023. "We encourage rental property owners and their registered tax agents to take extra care this tax time and review their records before lodging their return," Loh reportedly told The Age. "You can only claim interest on a loan used to purchase a rental property to earn rental income – don't forget, if your loan also includes a private expense, such as for a new car or a trip to Bali, you can only claim an interest deduction for the portion relating to producing your rental income.” Loh warned Australians who work from home and advised against the “copy and paste" tax return method. He said, ” We know a lot of people are working back in the office more compared to last year”, and the method the ATO uses to calculate working from home expenses has now changed. Image credit: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Check your rates: Couple's warning after being overcharged for more than a decade

A disgruntled couple from the NSW south coast town of Kiama have slammed their local council after discovering they have been overcharged by around $8,000 for a rubbish bin they weren’t even using. The couple, Kim and Geoff Oppert reached out to A Current Affair to warn other ratepayers to carefully check the fine print on their bills. The pair had made the decision to downsize their red-lid general waste bin after their daughter moved out of the family home, which ideally would have lowered their rates. Due to a mistake on their bills - clouded by legal jargon - the couple were paying twice as much for their red-lid garbage bin. This meant Kiama Council had been charging them for TWO bins for the past 12 years. "Look at your rates notice and check you're paying for just one bin," Mr Oppert told A Current Affair. "Over 12 years we paid $16,000 in garbage waste disposal and it really should have been half that," he said. "Our rate notice doesn't clearly say how many bins we have. It's bureaucratic speak no one could understand." When the couple finally realised the mistake they went straight to the council. "But they would only give us a refund for two years and quoted some tax act as the reason why," Mr Oppert explained. "It is so unfair and just not right," Mrs Oppert added. "It was their mistake not ours, and they admitted it.” Mr Oppert seeks to warn all Australians paying a council for a bin service, "Check your rates notice and make sure you're not getting ripped off.” Kiama Council were made aware of the situation and gave a partial refund to the couple. "When this matter was brought to our attention, Kiama Council acted quickly to rectify the situation, in accordance with the law, as outlined below.”, a Kiama Municipal Council spokesperson said in a statement. “We refunded the amounts of $805.72 for 2021-22 and $818.61 for 2022-23. The couple have not received a full refund due to tax laws. "The Office of Local Government has advised that, where charges go back more than 1 year, the Recovery of Imposts Tax Act 1963 applies as follows", the spokesperson continued. <img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2023/03/BINS-PIC.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /> "In addition, Kiama Council is now working on an audit of all our urban and residential waste services to ensure our charges are correct. "Council reminds all ratepayers to check their bills and if anything is unclear, please get in touch with us to discuss, we are always happy to help." Image credit: A Current Affair/Kiama Municipal Council

Real Estate

Ping, your pizza is on its way. Ping, please rate the driver. Yes, constant notifications really do tax your brain

A ping from the pizza company. A couple of pings from your socials. Ping, ping, ping from your family WhatsApp group trying to organise a weekend barbecue. With all those smartphone notifications, it’s no wonder you lose focus on what you’re trying to do do. Your phone doesn’t even need to ping to distract you. There’s <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-28923-001">pretty good</a><a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462">evidence</a> the mere presence of your phone, silent or not, is enough to divert your attention. So what’s going on? More importantly, how can you reclaim your focus, without missing the important stuff? <h2>Is it really such a big deal?</h2> When you look at the big picture, those pings can really add up. Although estimates vary, the average person checks their phone <a href="https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/30085/1/PubSub7601_Andrews.PDF">around 85 times</a><a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/trapped-in-the-net-are-we-all-addicted-to-our-smartphones-20190531-p51t44.html">a day</a>, roughly once every 15 minutes. In other words, every 15 minutes or so, your attention is likely to wander from what you’re doing. The trouble is, it can take <a href="https://lifehacker.com/how-long-it-takes-to-get-back-on-track-after-a-distract-1720708353">several minutes</a> to regain your concentration fully after being <a href="https://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Egmark/chi08-mark.pdf">interrupted</a> by your phone. If you’re just watching TV, distractions (and refocusing) are no big deal. But if you’re driving a car, trying to study, at work, or spending time with your loved ones, it could lead to some fairly substantial problems. <h2>Two types of interference</h2> The pings from your phone are “exogenous interruptions”. In other words, something external, around you, has caused the interruption. We can <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-46276-9_21">become conditioned</a> to feeling excited when we hear our phones ping. This is the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x">same pleasurable feeling</a> people who gamble can quickly become conditioned to at the sight or sound of a poker machine. What if your phone is on silent? Doesn’t that solve the ping problem? Well, no. That’s another type of interruption, an internal (or endogenous) interruption. Think of every time you were working on a task but your attention drifted to your phone. You may have fought the urge to pick it up and see what was happening online, but you probably checked anyway. In this situation, we can become so strongly conditioned to expect a reward each time we look at our phone we don’t need to wait for a ping to trigger the effect. These impulses are powerful. Just reading this article about checking your phone may make you feel like … checking your phone. <h2>Give your brain a break</h2> What do all these interruptions mean for cognition and wellbeing? There’s increasing evidence push notifications are associated with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853217300159">decreased productivity</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958820300051">poorer concentration</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537116300136">increased distraction</a> at work and school. But is there any evidence our brain is working harder to manage the frequent switches in attention? One study of people’s brain waves <a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2016/5718580/">found</a> those who describe themselves as heavy smartphone users were more sensitive to push notifications than ones who said they were light users. After hearing a push notification, heavy users were significantly worse at recovering their concentration on a task than lighter users. Although push notification interrupted concentration for both groups, the heavy users took much longer to regain focus. Frequent interruptions from your phone can also leave you <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219302596">feeling stressed</a> by a need to respond. Frequent smartphone interruptions are also associated with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131519301319">increased FOMO</a> (fear of missing out). If you get distracted by your phone after responding to a notification, any subsequent <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2050157921993896">procrastination</a> in returning to a task can also leave you feeling guilty or frustrated. There’s <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563219300883">certainly evidence</a> suggesting the longer you spend using your phone in unproductive ways, the lower you tend to rate your wellbeing. <h2>How can I stop?</h2> We know switching your phone to silent isn’t going to magically fix the problem, especially if you’re already a frequent checker. What’s needed is behaviour change, and that’s hard. It can take several attempts to see lasting change. If you have ever tried to quit smoking, lose weight, or start an exercise program you’ll know what I mean. Start by turning off all non-essential notifications. Then here are some things to try if you want to reduce the number of times you check your phone: <ul> <li> charge your phone overnight in a different room to your bedroom. Notifications can prevent you falling asleep and can repeatedly rouse you from essential sleep throughout the night </li> <li> interrupt the urge to check and actively decide if it’s going to benefit you, in that moment. For example, as you turn to reach for your phone, stop and ask yourself if this action serves a purpose other than distraction </li> <li> try the <a href="https://www.themuse.com/advice/take-it-from-someone-who-hates-productivity-hacksthe-pomodoro-technique-actually-works#:%7E:text=The%20Pomodoro%20Technique%20is%20a,are%20referred%20to%20as%20pomodoros">Pomodoro method</a> to stay focused on a task. This involves breaking your concentration time up into manageable chunks (for example, 25 minutes) then rewarding yourself with a short break (for instance, to check your phone) between chunks. Gradually increase the length of time between rewards. Gradually re-learning to sustain your attention on any task can take a while if you’re a high-volume checker. </li> </ul> Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/ping-your-pizza-is-on-its-way-ping-please-rate-the-driver-yes-constant-notifications-really-do-tax-your-brain-193952" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Technology

Southampton to Shanghai by train – one climate change researcher’s quest to avoid flying

Academics travel a lot. Whether for fieldwork or conferences, we’re often <a href="https://theconversation.com/university-sector-must-tackle-air-travel-emissions-118929">encouraged</a> to do it. Often internationally, invariably by aeroplane. But while globetrotting might make us feel important, a recent <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619311862">study</a> suggests there’s no connection between academic air-miles and career advancement. With the obvious realities of the climate crisis, and with air travel being the <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-wake-up-to-the-devastating-impact-flying-has-on-the-environment-70953">single quickest</a> way an average person can contribute to climate change, some academics are trying to stay on the ground whenever possible. Within a broader <a href="https://www.flightfree.co.uk/">campaign</a> to encourage people to go “flight-free”, there’s a community of <a href="https://academicflyingblog.wordpress.com/">academics</a> challenging the reliance on flying that’s typically sat uneasily at the heart of their careers. I’m a member of that community. I pledged not to fly in 2019 and 2020, and then won a fellowship to study Chinese attitudes to sustainability which required me to go to China for fieldwork. Suddenly, the consequences of my pledge became very real. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Not only do planes release a lot of CO₂ during flight, the white ‘contrails’ they leave behind warm the atmosphere further. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/passenger-airplanes-on-air-busy-traffic-1089042554?src=lgi_phsJCpzeLwXItWfMbw-1-17&studio=1">FotoHelin/Shutterstock</a></figcaption></figure> Life on the rails When I told my managers that I intended to get to China by train, I was met with a mixture of responses. Some thought I was mad, some admired my principles, some thought I was an awkward bugger. Maybe they were all right. In any case, what I was doing had certainly created more work for myself. I began trying to convince senior staff to release funds from my research budget to arrange visas, and thinking through the nitty-gritty of a trip across Europe, Russia and a big chunk of China itself. The cost of the trains was over £2,000, dwarfing the £700 I could pay for a London to Beijing return flight. Time-wise, the train trip took just under two weeks each way. But in terms of carbon emissions my trip was a steal, contributing <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2019">just 10%</a> of the emissions of the equivalent flights. The cost, complexity and discomfort of such a long solo trip did occasionally make me wonder if it wouldn’t just be easier to fly (answer: it would). But I was determined to honour my pledge and show other academics – by my own extreme example – that it is possible to do international work without flights. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The author meets a train guard in Siberia. Roger Tyers, Author provided</figcaption></figure> Considering it involved 21 train connections, my journey went surprisingly smoothly. I took a series of “short” trips from Southampton, changing in London, Brussels, Cologne, Berlin and then onto my first sleeper train from Warsaw to Kiev (avoiding Belarus which would have required another visa). My first experience on the Kiev-bound, Soviet-style sleeper train was something of a shock. Unsure of the etiquette when sharing a tiny cabin with two or three others with limited English, I soon learned that body language, Google translate and sharing food breaks the ice. Luckily, my no-flying trip was a recurring source of conversation, fascination and bafflement for many of my fellow travellers. After one night in Kiev, I took another overnight train to Moscow. Russia was something of a test – on my return journey I travelled 2,600 miles between Irkutsk and Moscow, spending 90 hours on a single train. Had this not been a work trip, I would have gladly stopped more often. Making friends with fellow passengers – mainly Russians on work trips or family visits, or European and Chinese tourists doing the bucket list Trans-Siberian route – certainly helped pass the time. The Siberian scenery – millions of trees on a seemingly endless loop – became somewhat repetitive, but the monotony afforded me time to read, write, plan and contemplate. The most spectacular journey was the Trans-Mongolian section, passing the edge of Lake Baikal, the world’s largest lake rimmed with snow-capped mountains, over the green steppes of northern Mongolia, across the Gobi desert, and finally through the mountainous valleys encircling Beijing. It’s hard not to be awed and inspired that these train lines exist in such remote parts of our planet. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1003%2C1003&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1003%2C1003&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>The track stretches for miles across the Mongolian plains. Roger Tyers, Author provided</figcaption></figure> Calling at Beijing China now has more high-speed railways than the rest of the world combined, and they do it in style. Beijing to Shanghai, a trip covering 1,300km, takes less than four and a half hours, with a solid internet connection throughout and the most legroom I enjoyed on any of my trips. The downer is that China’s electrified trains will, <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-wrestles-with-insecure-gas-supplies-but-stays-strong-on-longer-term-plan-for-renewables-117445">like most of their electricity</a>, be powered by coal. But on the upside, these trains are likely to take passengers off domestic flights – a lesson for Europe and the US. I enjoyed using them to visit my other field sites in Hangzhou and Ningbo before finally retracing my steps back, over 6,000 miles to the UK, clutching a load of new data, a heap of memories, and a sore back. The focus group data I collected in China, with members of their urban middle classes, has enforced my view that both ‘bottom-up’ social and cultural pressure, as well as “top-down” infrastructure and fiscal policy will be required in any country facing up the complex challenges of climate change. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The author at the end of his outward journey in Tiananmen Square. Roger Tyers, Author provided</figcaption></figure> I admit that my story is somewhat privileged – not everyone can take the train to China for work, and I doubt I’ll make a habit of it. Much depends on geography too. The UK is relatively well connected by surface transport options like rail, but many still fly - the UK has the <a href="https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-10-24-02.aspx">third largest</a> air passenger market, behind only the US and China. The bigger policy goal is to make train tickets less expensive relative to flights. In the meantime, academics can play a leadership role, both individually and <a href="https://theconversation.com/researchers-set-an-example-fly-less-111046">institutionally</a>. Universities could consider publishing records of staff flights, building low-carbon travel modes into grant proposals by default, and making videoconferencing facilities fantastic. Recent <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619311862">research</a> has shown, unsurprisingly, that climate researchers are taken more seriously if they practise what they preach. If we can lead by example in reducing our own flying carbon footprints while still conducting great research, then others – students, policymakers and other professionals – are far more likely to take notice. Writen by Roger Tyers. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/southampton-to-shanghai-by-train-one-climate-change-researchers-quest-to-avoid-flying-120015" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty Images

International Travel

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

A tax on sugary drinks can make us healthier. It’s time for Australia to introduce one

Australian churches collectively raise billions of dollars a year – why aren’t they taxed?

Stamp duty is holding us back from moving homes – we’ve worked out how much