The government of Sweden is reversing course on its approach to the airline sector. After years of adding taxes to airline tickets to dissuade people from flying, the country has now dropped these taxes, and is even investing money to grow the aviation sector.
In this post:
Sweden abolishes controversial tax on air travelers
As of July 1, 2025, the Swedish government has eliminated its aviation tax for airline passengers. This plan was first revealed nearly a year ago, as part of the government’s 2025 budget, which included more spending on infrastructure, research, and innovation, as well as tax relief on foreign exports.
Sweden’s government has been accused of backtracking on climate goals, with many arguing that the current cabinet has no plan to reach the country’s ambitious climate targets. The government counters that, claiming that it’s hoping to replace national climate policies with larger European Union goals.
For background, Sweden introduced this aviation tax back in 2018, and it was specifically intended to discourage people from traveling by air. Sweden is known for its progressive climate policies, so that was hardly surprising. The country even coined the term “flight shaming” (“flygskam”).
This aviation tax ranged from 76 SEK (~8 USD) for short haul flights, to 504 SEK (~53 USD) for long haul flights. The tax applied specifically to itineraries originating in Sweden, so those simply transiting the country weren’t subjected to this. Of course tickets to and from Sweden still have some taxes, like for airport security, immigration, etc. But the main tax has been eliminated.
What impact did this tax have on air travel? According to Swedavia AB, which runs 10 airports in the country, passenger numbers dropped for seven consecutive months in 2019, following these fees being implemented, with the country experiencing its slowest growth in airline passengers for a decade.
In the years following the tax being added, international flights to Sweden dropped by a third. In particular, smaller airports saw a substantial reduction in traffic. Furthermore, Ryanair ceased all domestic flights in Sweden. With this new development, we’re seeing airlines start to add back service, including Ryanair stationing two additional aircraft in the country.
In 2022, Sweden saw a more right-wing government elected, which stated that there were “few reasons to feel flight shame,” and announced plans to invest over $100 million into the aviation sector.
In response to this latest development, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has released the following statement:
“We congratulate the Swedish government for abolishing the aviation tax. It is excellent news, which recognises that taxation of air passengers is counterproductive economically and ineffective environmentally.”
This is good news for airlines and passengers
Suffice it to say that Sweden eliminating a tax on air travel is fantastic news for both airlines and consumers:
- The airline industry is very low margin, so this will give airlines a bit of flexibility with pricing; this tax is more than the margin on many tickets
- Ultimately the airline industry is also very competitive, so much of these savings will be passed on to consumers, and that should stimulate demand
Look, I totally respect that Sweden has certain climate goals it hopes to achieve, though I find a blanket aviation tax to not be a terribly practical way to tackle these concerns:
- These kinds of taxes are unfair to citizens of the country, since transit passengers through the country aren’t charged the taxes, despite flying (and polluting) more
- If we’re going to see taxes on aviation, I’d like to see them actually reflect emissions; for example, how about creating economic incentives for airlines to fly more fuel efficient aircraft to the country
- As Sweden has experienced, discouraging people from traveling by air reduces air service to a country, and has a negative economic impact, giving the country less money to invest in its climate goals
So I’m not trying to be a “Florida man” opposed to a reasonable climate change policy. I just believe it doesn’t make sense to shrink the economy in order to address climate change, rather than trying to grow the economy, and use some of that upside to offset the negative impacts of climate change.
Bottom line
As of July 2025, Sweden has abolished its aviation tax, which previously ranged from $8 to $53 per passenger, depending on the itinerary. The country has made this change as part of a pro-business budget bill. Over the years we’ve seen quite a few countries introduce aviation taxes to dissuade travel, so it’s interesting to see Sweden dropping this.
What do you make of Sweden eliminating its aviation tax?
This change is bad because rich people should be punished. They don't pay their fair share. It's not like we're asking for them to be killed or put in prison, just taxed.
Maybe Greta the Doomgoblin, who has since moved on to yachting in the Mediterranean, enjoyed her flight on El Al enough that she's pro airplane? It got her to her destination and back in front of media cameras much much faster than any other method of transport.
There is no such thing as "reasonable climate change policy". There is only using climate change as an excuse to do what you wanted to do anyway, whether it's anticapitalism, wealth redistribution, crony capitalism, sabotaging the west, or worldwide deindustrialization that is your demented world view.
The reality is that despite 30 years of ever increasing climate related regulations and taxes, emissions have continued to go up (mainly because nothing the west does matters...
There is no such thing as "reasonable climate change policy". There is only using climate change as an excuse to do what you wanted to do anyway, whether it's anticapitalism, wealth redistribution, crony capitalism, sabotaging the west, or worldwide deindustrialization that is your demented world view.
The reality is that despite 30 years of ever increasing climate related regulations and taxes, emissions have continued to go up (mainly because nothing the west does matters when China is building a new coal fired plant every few weeks), while temperatures have no statistically significant upward trend since the early 2000s. If co2 emissions were the existential threat claimed, we would simply ban burning fossil fuels, not tax them slightly. But no, we get Al Gore and his ilk jetting around in private jets to lecture poor people to do without. What a sick, twisted cult.
China is rolling out more renewable power generation facilities than the rest of the world put together. Your CC propaganda is well out of date.
And also creating coal power plants every week. Spare us your pro-PRC propaganda, Ronnie.
@Matthew
Maybe check the data before you spout crap? You're on the internet, you have the ability to check in seconds. Over the past 10 years, coal has gone from producing about 70% of China's electricity to about 58%. Notably, hydroelectricity made up about 19% of their electricity generation in 2015. Coal has sharply shrunk in market share, despite them still building more plants. Wind and Solar went from 4% market share in 2015...
@Matthew
Maybe check the data before you spout crap? You're on the internet, you have the ability to check in seconds. Over the past 10 years, coal has gone from producing about 70% of China's electricity to about 58%. Notably, hydroelectricity made up about 19% of their electricity generation in 2015. Coal has sharply shrunk in market share, despite them still building more plants. Wind and Solar went from 4% market share in 2015 to 18% now. Compared to other countries, 32% of global renewable energy production comes from Chinese plants, compared to 11% of the global share from the US. That's very different from the right-wing framing that China's just ignoring renewables and pursuing coal.
>total Chinese energy production by year and source in terawatt-hours
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~CHN
>market share of Chinese energy production by year and source
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~CHN
If the US would be just as invested in renewables as China is, the world already would have a brighter future.
Also, TF there is no statistically significance trend of global temperature. Open your eyes. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Well said. Thank you
In Europe, aviation taxes are just a politically correct way for cash-starved governments to raise taxes and compensate for years of wasting taxpayer money.
Nice! I'm planning another trip to Stockholm in September. Love that city.
Hmm, I wonder what else could have contributed to passenger levels dropping in 2019 and overall flights dropping by 1/3.
In 2020, I could guess. In 2019, I'm not so sure.
Greta is losing at every turn.
Enough people woke up - instead of became woke - and realize that, esp. in countries like Sweden, these kinds of taxes hurt people. Deeply.
all Sweden's move did was to consolidate SK's network at CPH
Aviation is not anywhere close to the largest contributor to global warming. And hint... neither Europe or the USA can fix the problem until the two largest countries in the world decide...
Greta is losing at every turn.
Enough people woke up - instead of became woke - and realize that, esp. in countries like Sweden, these kinds of taxes hurt people. Deeply.
all Sweden's move did was to consolidate SK's network at CPH
Aviation is not anywhere close to the largest contributor to global warming. And hint... neither Europe or the USA can fix the problem until the two largest countries in the world decide they want to play by the same climate rules - and they don't.
The world's largest single emitter of greenhouse gases is concrete production. Cost-effective alternatives exist.
SAS's network was already CPH centric, and as of 2023, Denmark owns 26% of SAS, so makes sense they would want the network centered around their country.
and Denmark took an even larger role in SAS' network.
as Tom notes, there are many industrial processes that pollute more than aviation.
there are enormous reasons for aviation to be as fuel efficient as possible and most western airlines including SAS have leaned into new generation aircraft.
rail just doesn't work near as well for large, low population density countries - which also happen to essentially be islands
@Tim
I don't think long-haul taxes are necessary or useful, but shorthaul taxes absolutely could be used to fund greener (and more efficient) alternatives. Sweden could have implemented such a tax on just the most heavily traveled shorthaul routes in the south where a majority of the population live, and used that money to fund better regional and intercity train service.
I'll also point out that Sweden, in terms of population centers, is not...
@Tim
I don't think long-haul taxes are necessary or useful, but shorthaul taxes absolutely could be used to fund greener (and more efficient) alternatives. Sweden could have implemented such a tax on just the most heavily traveled shorthaul routes in the south where a majority of the population live, and used that money to fund better regional and intercity train service.
I'll also point out that Sweden, in terms of population centers, is not much different from Japan. Most of the population is concentrated in one place (the south for Sweden and the Osaka-Tokyo corridor for Japan), and the two biggest cities (Gothenburg and Stockholm) are 250~ miles apart. That's easy rail reach, which could easily take a big chunk of airline market share. The next biggest outside of that region is 350-400~ miles from Stockholm depending on the routing you want to take. Farther, but still within range for HSR to be competitive to flights, similar to Tokyo to Fukuoka or Osaka to Fukuoka.
At the end of the day though, the biggest market where rail of every type could reduce pollution and CO2 emissions is the US. We drive and fly more per capita than any other country, to our own and the world's detriment.
It's far too late to save the planet from climate change.
Just enjoy what's left.
Could have been better if Greta wasn't gaslighting Western/1st world countries as major polluting countries and blamed China and India - those who really are responsible for the majority of pollution and climate change - instead.
Well, snowflakes and hypocrites like to cuddle those two countries around, so maybe then Greta would have been flagged as a Trumpist.
The US is second in terms of current GHG emissions, not India. And if you look at per capita GHG emissions, the US is 2x of China and 8x of India. Finally, if you look at cumulative emissions, the US is by far the most responsible party.
Don't be a snowflake.
So we need to have more kids in the US?
might as well party on the deck of the titanic till the music stops
"Not wanna be Florida man, but - I am a Florida man and I'm gonna be a Florida man"
These 2030 climate goals are ludicrous and "renewable energy" isn't anywhere close to being able to meet current needs let alone the complete future replacement of the internal combustion engine.
Now...if you're talking about going all in on nuclear then that's a different story.
Anyway...aviation is a net positive for society and trying to destroy it is foolish.
and the irony of all of this is that the world is in an AI race which is requiring enormous amounts of energy to power these massive data centers.
and AI's "greatest promise" is for computers to replace huge numbers of jobs.
computers don't care about the temperature as long as the humans leave the A/C on and keep the floods out
"Flygskam" is "flight shame" not "flight shaming". Subtle difference but it changes the meaning quite a lot ;)