Tax kerosene and fund rail infrastructure
Remove the tax exemption on aviation kerosene — the only fossil fuel exempt from duty in France — and reinvest the proceeds into the rail network, particularly SNCF Réseau and track maintenance.
Arguments For
Correcting a massive tax anomaly
Aviation kerosene is taxed at €0/litre in France, while diesel for cars is taxed at roughly €0.59/litre (TICPE) and rail electricity faces various levies. A 2019 European Commission study estimated the EU-wide kerosene tax exemption represents a subsidy worth approximately €27-32 billion per year. France's Cour des Comptes has repeatedly noted this inconsistency.
Climate emissions gap: aviation vs rail
Per passenger-km, aviation emits approximately 145-285g CO₂, while the TGV emits just 3-6g CO₂/pkm in France (powered largely by low-carbon electricity). Aviation's full climate impact (contrails, NOx, high-altitude effects) is estimated at 2-4x the CO₂-only figure. France already banned short-haul flights where a rail alternative under 2.5 hours exists.
Rail infrastructure desperately needs funding
SNCF Réseau's network has an estimated maintenance and renewal backlog of €35-40 billion. The 2023 COI report recommended €4.7 billion/year in rail investment, significantly above the then-current ~€2.8-3 billion/year. A kerosene tax of €0.33/litre could yield an estimated €1.2-1.5 billion annually — a meaningful contribution to the rail funding gap.
Functional international precedents
Sweden introduced an aviation tax in 2018 (€6-40 per passenger), contributing to a 3-5% decline in domestic passengers. Germany has levied a Luftverkehrsteuer since 2011 (€12.48-70.83 per passenger), generating ~€1.2 billion in 2023. The Netherlands raised their tax to €28.58 in 2023, projected at ~€440 million/year.
Majority public support
72% of French respondents in the EIB Climate Survey (2019) supported higher taxes on the most polluting activities including aviation. The Citizens' Convention on Climate (2020) recommended an eco-tax on aviation fuel among its 149 proposals.
Arguments Against
Competitive distortion and carbon leakage
Unilateral action would allow airlines to tanker fuel from untaxed jurisdictions — the Commission estimates this could offset 8-16% of expected revenue. Air France-KLM, with a 6-8% operating margin, competes against Gulf carriers and low-cost airlines based in lower-tax states.
Regressive impact and overseas territory connectivity
A kerosene tax would increase tickets by €10-30 on intra-EU flights and €30-80+ on long-haul, penalising budget travellers. The 2.2 million residents of overseas territories (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion) have no rail alternative and depend entirely on aviation.
Limited substitutability: rail cannot replace most aviation
Only 5-8% of European air routes have a viable rail alternative under 4 hours. The 2021 short-haul ban affected only 3 routes (~2.5% of domestic passengers). 75-80% of aviation CO₂ from French airports comes from international and long-haul flights where rail is not an alternative.
Aviation industry employment and economic weight
The French aviation sector directly employs approximately 300,000-320,000 people. Air France-KLM alone employs roughly 72,000 in France and was rescued with €7 billion in state aid during Covid. Additional cost burdens could accelerate fleet and route rationalisation.
Legal and treaty complications
The Chicago Convention (Article 24) and 3,000+ bilateral Air Service Agreements create legal barriers to taxing kerosene on international flights. Even the EU's 'Fit for 55' proposal only applies to intra-EU flights, leaving the majority of kerosene consumption (long-haul) untaxed.
Correcting a massive tax anomaly
Aviation kerosene is taxed at €0/litre in France, while diesel for cars is taxed at roughly €0.59/litre (TICPE) and rail electricity faces various levies. A 2019 European Commission study estimated the EU-wide kerosene tax exemption represents a subsidy worth approximately €27-32 billion per year. France's Cour des Comptes has repeatedly noted this inconsistency.
Climate emissions gap: aviation vs rail
Per passenger-km, aviation emits approximately 145-285g CO₂, while the TGV emits just 3-6g CO₂/pkm in France (powered largely by low-carbon electricity). Aviation's full climate impact (contrails, NOx, high-altitude effects) is estimated at 2-4x the CO₂-only figure. France already banned short-haul flights where a rail alternative under 2.5 hours exists.
Rail infrastructure desperately needs funding
SNCF Réseau's network has an estimated maintenance and renewal backlog of €35-40 billion. The 2023 COI report recommended €4.7 billion/year in rail investment, significantly above the then-current ~€2.8-3 billion/year. A kerosene tax of €0.33/litre could yield an estimated €1.2-1.5 billion annually — a meaningful contribution to the rail funding gap.
Functional international precedents
Sweden introduced an aviation tax in 2018 (€6-40 per passenger), contributing to a 3-5% decline in domestic passengers. Germany has levied a Luftverkehrsteuer since 2011 (€12.48-70.83 per passenger), generating ~€1.2 billion in 2023. The Netherlands raised their tax to €28.58 in 2023, projected at ~€440 million/year.
Majority public support
72% of French respondents in the EIB Climate Survey (2019) supported higher taxes on the most polluting activities including aviation. The Citizens' Convention on Climate (2020) recommended an eco-tax on aviation fuel among its 149 proposals.
Nuance & Verdict
Taxing aviation kerosene rests on a genuine and well-documented fiscal anomaly — aviation fuel is the last major fossil fuel exempt from excise duty in France and the EU — and on the urgent need to fund rail infrastructure and reduce transport emissions. The environmental arithmetic (~50x more CO₂ per passenger-km for flying versus TGV) is stark. However, implementation faces real constraints: international legal frameworks built over 80 years, legitimate competitive concerns for airlines operating on thin margins, limited rail substitutability for most air routes, and disproportionate impacts on overseas territories and price-sensitive travellers. The most credible path likely involves EU-level coordination (as attempted in 'Fit for 55') rather than unilateral French action, combined with earmarking mechanisms to ensure proceeds genuinely reach rail infrastructure rather than the general budget.