The Environmental Taskforce recently recommended introducing a progressive 'Frequent Flyer Levy' targeting individuals who take more than three international flights per year.
Under the proposed scheme, the first return flight in a year incurs no environmental tax, but each subsequent flight carries an escalating surcharge. Taskforce analysts estimate that this policy will reduce passenger aviation emissions by 14% within two years and raise £3.2 billion\pounds 3.2\text{ billion}£3.2 billion annually, which would be ring-fenced for green rail infrastructure. The Taskforce leader stated, "It is deeply unjust that a wealthy minority of flyers generate the vast majority of transport emissions while the poorest bear the worst consequences of climate change."
In response, Marcus Vance, a representative for the Aviation Alliance, strongly criticized the proposal. "A frequent flyer levy is a misguided intervention that will cripple the tourism sector, destroy thousands of regional jobs, and restrict the freedom of ordinary citizens to travel," he argued. "The state should instead focus on subsidizing research into sustainable aviation fuels." Conversely, climate activists applauded the announcement, stating that environmental preservation is a paramount ethical responsibility and that the state has a moral duty to restrict luxury emissions to protect future generations.
With reference to Extract A, explain the difference between a positive statement and a normative statement.
