返回首页
英语资讯
News

经济学人下载:愚蠢至“机”(2)

Source: Economist    2019-03-14  6169彩票平台   论坛   Favorite  

The case for flying on a private jet is that it can save time for someone, such as a chief executive, whose time is extraordinarily valuable. Hence companies can offset the cost of these flights against their corporate-tax bills. In some countries the use of a private jet is a tax-free perk for executives. But a growing volume of research suggests that flying the boss privately is often a waste of money for shareholders. One analysis, by ICF consultancy, found that the jets are often used to fly to places where corporate titans are more likely to have holiday homes than business meetings, such as fancy ski resorts. A study by David Yermack of NYU Stern School of Business found that returns to investors in firms that allow such flights are 4% lower per year than in other companies. Users of such planes are also more likely to commit fraud: a careless attitude to other people’s money sometimes shades into outright criminality, it seems.
乘坐私人飞机的理由是,可以为某些人节省时间,如首席执行官,他的时间非常宝贵。因此,公司可以用公司税来抵消这些航班的成本。在一些国家,使用私人飞机对高管来说是免税的福利。但越来越多的研究表明,让老板乘私人飞机出行往往会造成股东的浪费。ICF咨询公司的一项分析发现,私人飞机经常被用于飞往企业巨头更有可能拥有度假屋的地方,比如高档滑雪场,而非商务会议。纽约大学斯特恩商学院的戴维•耶马克进行的一项研究发现,允许这种航班的公司每年给投资者的回报率比其他公司低4%。而如此使用私人飞机的人也更有可能诈骗:对他人钱财漫不经心的态度似乎有时会演变成公然的犯罪行为。

The environmental effects of corporate jets are dire. A flight from London to Paris on a half-full jet produces ten times as much in carbon emissions per passenger as a scheduled flight, according to Terrapass, a carbon-offset firm. New supersonic business jets under development will make that a lot worse. On one estimate, their emissions will be five to seven times higher than for today’s models. Amazingly, these emissions are largely unregulated. Aviation is not covered by the Paris agreement to limit climate change, and most private jets are excluded from corsia, a carbon-offsetting scheme involving most airlines. All in all, private planes could produce 4% of American emissions by 2050 compared with 0.9% today.
商务客机对环境的影响是可怕的。据碳补偿额零售提供商特立帕公司称,从伦敦飞往巴黎的半寿喷气式飞机每名乘客的碳排放量是定期航班的十倍。正在开发的新型超音速商务喷气机将使情况变得更糟。据估计,其排放量将比现有型号高出5至7倍。令人惊讶的是,这些排放在很大程度上是不受监管的。限制气候变化的《巴黎协定》不包括航空业,大多数私人飞机被排除在《国际航空碳抵消和减排计划》之外,《国际航空碳抵消和减排计划》是一个涉及大多数航空公司的碳抵消计划。总而言之,到2050年,私人飞机的排放量将占美国总排放量的4%,而目前这一比例仅为0.9%。

All air travel is bad for the environment. Business class is worse than economy class, because it burns more jet fuel per passenger. Private jets are more damaging by an order of magnitude. The tax breaks for cooking the planet in this way cannot be justified. They should all be scrapped. Carbon emissions should be taxed, not subsidised by the sleepless masses in steerage and the even less fortunate souls who never fly.
所有的航空旅行都对环境有害。商务舱比经济舱更甚,因为每位乘客消耗的航空燃油更多。私人飞机的破坏力要大上一个数量级。对于这种烹饪地球的方式实行税收优惠是不合理的。有关税收优惠都应被废除。碳排放应该征税,而不是由那些在驾驶舱内辗转难眠的大众和甚至还从未乘坐过飞机的不幸者补贴。


将本页收藏到:
上一篇:经济学人下载:治愈艾滋病:英国病人(1)
下一篇:经济学人下载:一周要闻 印巴冲突升级 荷兰召回驻伊朗大使 朝鲜或重建导弹试验设施

最新更新
论坛精彩内容
网站地图 - 学习交流 - 恒星英语论坛 - 关于我们 - 广告服务 - 帮助中心 - 联系我们
Copyright ©2006-2007 www.Hxen.com All Rights Reserved
返回首页