The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[Trainbike46]

I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy, rather I am saying most people are not actually that sincere about the issue. I actually know quite a few people that don't fly or eat meat because of climate change, yet make few if any other major changes to their lifestyles. Whether they choose not to fly or not to eat meat is their choice, and their right. However if as many do they continue to drive big cars, live in large homes, work in well paid jobs many miles from home, and consume products like the rest of society, they aren't really being all that sincere about saving the planet, more like treating environmental issues as fashion trends.

If there were really sufficient numbers of people that really wanted to actually make the kind of lifestyle changes they expect others to make towards what they see as saving the planet, they would be doing a lot more. They would be downsizing their homes, cars, their consumption, taking jobs closer to home even if it meant lower wages. But by and large they don't, they simply strive to blame others through guilt as the article linked by another poster above shows. Because simply put it is far easier to blame everyone else, and especially those nasty people daring to get into flying metal tubes to disgrace themselves by having a bit a fun and relaxation.

That's all the proof you'll ever need in my humble opinion. You'll probably not agree, at least publicly, and that is fair enough. But I'm sure you will get the point I'm making nonetheless.

you claim to have a very intimate knowledge of other people's minds, seemingly without evidence. You make statements of vaguely defined other people and what they do, without backing anything you say up, both in this post above and in general. When other people provide evidence against your claims, you ignore them. You also regularly come in and attempt to derail any conversations regarding modal shift or railway electrification with climate crisis denial (either denying climate change is happening at all, or by claiming, contrary to all the science on the subject, that the impacts of climate change will be almost unnoticeable and require no action).

Your claims do not match my own experience, either of myself, or of the (many) people I know who care deeply about the climate crisis.

Just to make clear, lest you make decisions about what I do or don't do:
- I do not fly
- I do not have a car
- I am vegan
- I live in a flat, that I share with a flatmate (so no massive house)
- I work in research in a climate related field

And I believe government policy needs to be adapted to promote and facilitate more sustainable life-styles, including things like a widespread programme of insulation, improvements in public transport, no issuing any new fossil fuel licenses, a frequent flyer levy, and more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

Quite honestly I don't really care enough these days to ask. I am just pointing out that most people are nowhere near as virtuous as they like people to think.

And here you provide clear evidence that all your statements are based on assumption, not any facts, let alone facts that could be verified by others. Thank you for clarifying that

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

I’m not so sure such an option would be popular with foot passengers as it would either involve an uncomfortable night sleeping on a chair in one of the ship’s lounges or a fairly expensive cabin. Also at Birkenhead, you would to get a bus, taxi or Merseyrail to Liverpool Lime street, which is not that convenient.

Realistically, I can only see most people switching away from flying from Dublin to London if an Irish Sea rail tunnel is built and there are direct trains taking you from Dublin to London in three or four hours.

Ferries to and from Great Britain I suspect will remain predominately used by those who want to take their car on holiday.

I do this route regularly, it actually works really well. And there's usually a decent group of foot passengers on this crossing (most crossings have at least one bus load, at busier times 3 bus loads happens)

To address some of your concerns:
- The local station to the ferry terminal is actually Birkenhead Hamilton Square, which has a frequent service to Liverpool lime street and a regular one to Chester
- On arrival, stena line run a bus from the ferry terminal to Birkenhead Hamilton Square, making the connection relatively easy

Clearly, things could be improved, but it's not as unpopular as you make out

a cabin is the civilised way and reasonable compared to a hotel?. The stena courtesy bus goes to Birkenhead Hamilton Square(or used to?) where you can get the merseyrail train to lime st but the OPs suggested 1 hour connection time looks brave to me, the ship might dock at 630 but you have to get off it and through the terminal. In the other direction you currently need to find your own way to Belfast.

The courtesy bus still runs
The 7:40 train from Lime Street can realistically be made from the 6:30 ferry arrival, I usually have about 20 minutes to spare at lime street

 

[Enthusiast]

Just to make clear, lest you make decisions about what I do or don't do:
- I do not fly
- I do not have a car
- I am vegan
- I live in a flat, that I share with a flatmate (so no massive house)
- I work in research in a climate related field

And I believe government policy needs to be adapted to promote and facilitate more sustainable life-styles, including things like a widespread programme of insulation, improvements in public transport, no issuing any new fossil fuel licenses, a frequent flyer levy, and more.

You sound an absolute hoot. All your own business, of course. However, this isn't:

And I believe government policy needs to be adapted to promote and facilitate more sustainable life-styles, including things like a widespread programme of insulation, improvements in public transport, no issuing any new fossil fuel licenses, a frequent flyer levy, and more.

That indicates to me that you believe everybody else should behave as you do. They might not want to.

 

[The Ham]

It's actually very hard to do that. Passports and NI numbers have no link at all. And what about domestic travel - arguably the least necessary of all carbon emissions?


"Should be possible" how? How are you going to link a South African passport or an Irish one with a National Insurance number? How will you tax people who don't have a NI number, or who don't even become liable to pay tax here because they aren't legally resident, yet travel in and out all the time? If people fly for work, and their employer buys the ticket, do they, personally, become liable for the tax burden, or not?


The big question is why you want to have some sort of tax free allowance at great expense and upheaval to the system, when you could just put APD up? We don't get a "sensible use" allowance on petrol, or alcohol, or cigarettes, so why should anyone get a randomly selected 8 flights a year? "Buy a plane ticket, pay the tax" is the easiest and most sensible way of achieving the goals you want.



Put APD up! Why do you want a cumbersome regime to have this allowance when you say yourself the extra costs aren't even that high? We aren't talking about gold smuggling here.


Yeah when was the last time you heard of the DVLA punishing someone for that?


The airlines are going to have access to my NI number are they? And how about foreigners? How is KLM going to know when I buy a ticket that I am the same person that flew with Loganair 8 months ago? The airlines do not have this sort of data to hand and they never will. It is not possible to do what you want and not even desirable when the obvious option of putting APD up is staring everyone in the face.

I'm sorry if I've not been clear the proposal is for a variable APD, so no need for anyone to provide NI details or overseas tax details. How to you currently pay your APD? It's not through your employment, it's when you buy an airline ticket with a start/end point from a UK airport.

The airlines (when you buy the tickets and where you normally pay the APD) take your passport number and flight type for which the ticket is being brought, check against a government database which logs passport number and flight type taken and returns the APD due to be paid on the new ticket.

Once the ticket sale has gone through the database confirms that ticket and logs the need for higher APD on future tickets.

There will need to be a mechanism to allow for cancelled flights.

For most people that's only ever going to be APD of standard rate (given that even if everyone in the UK took all the flights in/out/within the UK and no foreign nations did, if they were split equally between us all we'd only be able to do 4 flights before we covered all the flights taken)

If however someone has exceeded their 8 flights the database logs the cheapest APD paid which hasn't had an uplift solid and then returns the extra due on the new APD.

Flights 9+10 the cheapest APD is uplifted by 50% and added the current APD due for those tickets.

11+12 the next cheapest is +125%, then +237.5% (13+14), then +406.25% (15+16), then +660% (17+18), then +1039% (19+20) and so on.

If you found yourself having done 20 ultra long haul flights in business or first class the total APD would be £2,278.13, compared to £200 currently.

However, it's unlikely that many people are doing that number of flights without also doing shorter trips. Therefore if the 12th cheapest flight's APD were domestic in economy (£74.04) or short haul in economy (£148.08) the extra cost would be a LOT less.

Ultimately, should something be done to try and limit (not ban) those who take significantly above the average number of flights to bring about some reductions in emissions from air travel or should we allow air travel to emit unlimited carbon whilst many other things are having their carbon emissions severely limited?

For example, in terms of extra costs it would be cheaper for someone to fly to London (£6.50 in APD) than drive their 12 year old diesel car (£12.50 in ULEZ fee) to London. Even with the above siding scale for APD it would still only exceed the ULEZ fee after 10 flights (which even for seeing family is quite a few times, given that often seeing family often involves different parties undertaking the traveling).

You sound an absolute hoot. All your own business, of course. However, this isn't:

That indicates to me that you believe everybody else should behave as you do. They might not want to.

Adding insulation (if government funded) doesn't really alter people's behaviour, it just means less energy is needed to maintain the normal situation (for example keeping the house at 28°C rather than asking people to turn it down to 23°C)

improvements in public transport, allow sthose which wish to use it to do so, if you wish to carry on driving then actually you are likely to find that the roads are less congested as fewer cars will be on the roads (even a bus with 8 people on its likely to be carrying 5 car loads of people but taking up the space of two cars).

No issuing any new fossil fuel licenses, will have limited impact on people. Given our grid is getting greener and new home are built with air source heat pumps (so reducing the demand for gas, especially paired with better insulation to existing homes) from about now on. Especially given that any new licences would result in new oil/gas for at least a few years and probably a few more than that - with there being a good chance that many won't ever result in any extra oil or gas, especially as the North Sea oil/gas fields are expected to be producing much less than currently and even the current production level is about 1/4 of the peak in 1999.

A frequent flyer levy, depending on the level it is set at its unlikely to impact so that many people (each quarter airport usage is the same as the population of the UK).

 

[AlterEgo]

A frequent flyer levy, depending on the level it is set at its unlikely to impact so that many people (each quarter airport usage is the same as the population of the UK).

So why such an overengineered response?

All flying is harmful and people should pay levies if they do it. What is the obsession with giving people 8 free hits a year? Do you think people should get 8 free goes in the ULEZ zone? That would be far easier to implement, but what would the point be?

All this "frequent flyer" stuff is nonsense. APD should be double what it is, for everyone, and it should be ring fenced to go towards environmental levies instead of going straight into the Treasury pot for whatever they like. If you double APD and someone takes 20 ex-UK flights a year then you are doubling your tax take anyway.

 

[philosopher]

I do this route regularly, it actually works really well. And there's usually a decent group of foot passengers on this crossing (most crossings have at least one bus load, at busier times 3 bus loads happens)

To address some of your concerns:
- The local station to the ferry terminal is actually Birkenhead Hamilton Square, which has a frequent service to Liverpool lime street and a regular one to Chester
- On arrival, stena line run a bus from the ferry terminal to Birkenhead Hamilton Square, making the connection relatively easy

Clearly, things could be improved, but it's not as unpopular as you make out

The courtesy bus still runs
The 7:40 train from Lime Street can realistically be made from the 6:30 ferry arrival, I usually have about 20 minutes to spare at lime street

The availability of SailRail on this route and the courtesy bus does immediately address a couple of the issues I had when travelling to Guernsey via Poole. However, I still think the majority of foot passengers, unless they were going to or from Merseyside, would find the interchange between the ferry and the train too inconvenient and would opt to fly unless flying was significantly more expensive.

A few years ago when I went to the Isle of Wight, I found the transfer at Portsmouth Harbour station onto the ferry to the Isle of Wight was really smooth, I was literally on the ferry five minutes after getting off the train, which departed a few minutes later. In an ideal world all transfers between trains and ferries would be that good. However there are no flights to the Isle of Wight, which probably means there is a greater incentive to maintain a very good connection between the train and the ferry.

 

[Skymonster]

Spain is on borrowed time with it's water issues.

If plenty of people really think we can solve Spain’s current problems by cutting a flights here and there, I really don’t have much hope for the future…

 

[Chester1]

I'm sorry if I've not been clear the proposal is for a variable APD, so no need for anyone to provide NI details or overseas tax details. How to you currently pay your APD? It's not through your employment, it's when you buy an airline ticket with a start/end point from a UK airport.

The airlines (when you buy the tickets and where you normally pay the APD) take your passport number and flight type for which the ticket is being brought, check against a government database which logs passport number and flight type taken and returns the APD due to be paid on the new ticket.

Once the ticket sale has gone through the database confirms that ticket and logs the need for higher APD on future tickets.

There will need to be a mechanism to allow for cancelled flights.

For most people that's only ever going to be APD of standard rate (given that even if everyone in the UK took all the flights in/out/within the UK and no foreign nations did, if they were split equally between us all we'd only be able to do 4 flights before we covered all the flights taken)

If however someone has exceeded their 8 flights the database logs the cheapest APD paid which hasn't had an uplift solid and then returns the extra due on the new APD.

Flights 9+10 the cheapest APD is uplifted by 50% and added the current APD due for those tickets.

11+12 the next cheapest is +125%, then +237.5% (13+14), then +406.25% (15+16), then +660% (17+18), then +1039% (19+20) and so on.

If you found yourself having done 20 ultra long haul flights in business or first class the total APD would be £2,278.13, compared to £200 currently.

However, it's unlikely that many people are doing that number of flights without also doing shorter trips. Therefore if the 12th cheapest flight's APD were domestic in economy (£74.04) or short haul in economy (£148.08) the extra cost would be a LOT less.

Ultimately, should something be done to try and limit (not ban) those who take significantly above the average number of flights to bring about some reductions in emissions from air travel or should we allow air travel to emit unlimited carbon whilst many other things are having their carbon emissions severely limited?

For example, in terms of extra costs it would be cheaper for someone to fly to London (£6.50 in APD) than drive their 12 year old diesel car (£12.50 in ULEZ fee) to London. Even with the above siding scale for APD it would still only exceed the ULEZ fee after 10 flights (which even for seeing family is quite a few times, given that often seeing family often involves different parties undertaking the traveling).



Adding insulation (if government funded) doesn't really alter people's behaviour, it just means less energy is needed to maintain the normal situation (for example keeping the house at 28°C rather than asking people to turn it down to 23°C)

improvements in public transport, allow sthose which wish to use it to do so, if you wish to carry on driving then actually you are likely to find that the roads are less congested as fewer cars will be on the roads (even a bus with 8 people on its likely to be carrying 5 car loads of people but taking up the space of two cars).

No issuing any new fossil fuel licenses, will have limited impact on people. Given our grid is getting greener and new home are built with air source heat pumps (so reducing the demand for gas, especially paired with better insulation to existing homes) from about now on. Especially given that any new licences would result in new oil/gas for at least a few years and probably a few more than that - with there being a good chance that many won't ever result in any extra oil or gas, especially as the North Sea oil/gas fields are expected to be producing much less than currently and even the current production level is about 1/4 of the peak in 1999.

A frequent flyer levy, depending on the level it is set at its unlikely to impact so that many people (each quarter airport usage is the same as the population of the UK).

One option would be to give everyone a one tax free return journey per year but with a corresponding increase in APD on top of what you had suggested for each subsequent flight. This would reassure many people that the aim was not to end occasional flying by normal people but to reduce flying by frequent flyers.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's almost trivial. You just have a central database that holds these details and make it illegal for airlines to sell you a ticket without referring to said database and ensuring you have the credits to cover the journey.
Same as they aren't allowed to transport you if you don't have a visa, ESTA etc.

That sounds suspiciously like the Chinese Social Credit system, so why stop at flights. You could use it to stop people taking unnecessary journeys without the express permission of the government...

What is it with some people's obsessions with curtailing other people's lives and wanting governments to have more power to control them?

I'm sorry, this is just balderdash.

Maybe you'd like to expand?

you claim to have a very intimate knowledge of other people's minds, seemingly without evidence. You make statements of vaguely defined other people and what they do, without backing anything you say up, both in this post above and in general. When other people provide evidence against your claims, you ignore them. You also regularly come in and attempt to derail any conversations regarding modal shift or railway electrification with climate crisis denial (either denying climate change is happening at all, or by claiming, contrary to all the science on the subject, that the impacts of climate change will be almost unnoticeable and require no action).

Your claims do not match my own experience, either of myself, or of the (many) people I know who care deeply about the climate crisis.

I don't claim to have intimate knowledge of other people's minds, and I don't need to. You will be aware of social media, a place where people's views are spread far and wide and where they can be challenged. And I am one of those people that do challenge people's views, because I was taught to always ask questions. Now I realise that challenging people these days is becoming increasingly frowned upon but its who I am. And challenging views doesn't make you a denier as so many people seem to claim, it is a basic function of human society that allows us to discover facts and resolve problems

Sadly time and again when I challenge people on their views on how to resolve climate based problems and deal with any consequences, the response usually falls into one of two categories. Either calling me a "denier" or ignoring / blocking. And more worryingly this is increasingly the response from academics, people who should be on the front line of debating issues but are now constantly shutting them down if the narrative goes off reservation. That to me is worrying, and demonstrates that there is a real lack of sincerity in a lot of people's motives. You will doubtless disagree, but many people don't like to go against the social norm, and being in favour of curtailing aviation is an easy & safe place for them to flock and be virtuous in.

Take for example the issue I raised of what to do about the economies around the globe that would be effectively shut down in civilian aviation were shut down. You'll note that no-one has yet taken that debate on, instead you and others are desperately and very unsubtly trying to shut down the argument by making it look like I haven't a clue what I'm talking about. This is a common response on social media too. I'd be fascinated to read some people's views on it, but I'll probably not be holding my breath.

Just to make clear, lest you make decisions about what I do or don't do:
- I do not fly
- I do not have a car
- I am vegan
- I live in a flat, that I share with a flatmate (so no massive house)
- I work in research in a climate related field

The more keen eyed of you may have noticed that I haven't listed any green credentials, because this debate isn't about one's green virtues. But nonetheless you had to list them. Why? Is this because you need people to know that you are eco-friendly, because that's kind of the same problem I discussed above.

And I believe government policy needs to be adapted to promote and facilitate more sustainable life-styles, including things like a widespread programme of insulation, improvements in public transport, no issuing any new fossil fuel licenses, a frequent flyer levy, and more.

Its not for this thread to debate at length, but any government policy changes will likely come with a cost. So something to consider is on whom and where should that cost be placed. Its exactly like this issue of closing economies down by curtailing aviation, the theory is one thing, but what is the practical application and what consequences will they have on society? A little food for thought there.

And here you provide clear evidence that all your statements are based on assumption, not any facts, let alone facts that could be verified by others. Thank you for clarifying that

Finishing off with a snide little comment there. Well done.

 

[Skymonster]

You also regularly come in and attempt to derail any conversations regarding modal shift or railway electrification with climate crisis denial (either denying climate change is happening at all, or by claiming, contrary to all the science on the subject, that the impacts of climate change will be almost unnoticeable and require no action). Your claims do not match my own experience, either of myself, or of the (many) people I know who care deeply about the climate.

Climate change campaigner says they’re right and those who don’t agree with them are wrong, then tries to shut down the debate. Its a typically woeful approach from zealots for a cause. The reality is that its reasonable to assume that those who do not support attempts to implement radical climate change initiatives have done their own reading, have come to their own conclusions, and are making their own decisions.

 

[eldomtom2]

Maybe you'd like to expand?

It is perfectly possible to predict the physical consequences of climate change, and from there one can work out the economic consequences.

The more keen eyed of you may have noticed that I haven't listed any green credentials, because this debate isn't about one's green virtues. But nonetheless you had to list them. Why? Is this because you need people to know that you are eco-friendly, because that's kind of the same problem I discussed above.

I suspect he decided to list them because of the continuous accusations of hypocrisy and performativism.

 

[Bantamzen]

It is perfectly possible to predict the physical consequences of climate change, and from there one can work out the economic consequences.

There's going to be a lot a variance over the various forecasts there though. However we can calculate the direct cost of closing down the civilian aviation industry (spoiler alert its a lot), and accurately calculate the cost to economies once the tourist dollars dry up. Of course this won't change the impact on those economies, and those people whose livelihoods are wreaked regardless of whether such measures have any marked effect on man made climate change.

 

[eldomtom2]

There's going to be a lot a variance over the various forecasts there though.

Yes, but within a range. And that range consists of "bad" to "very bad".

However we can calculate the direct cost of closing down the civilian aviation industry (spoiler alert its a lot), and accurately calculate the cost to economies once the tourist dollars dry up.

I didn't say you couldn't calculate that. I'm saying you haven't compared the cost of your strawman to the cost of unmitigated anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, but within a range. And that range consists of "bad" to "very bad".

I didn't say you couldn't calculate that. I'm saying you haven't compared the cost of your strawman to the cost of unmitigated anthropogenic climate change.

My strawman? Wow, way to dismiss what would be a massive, & very much guaranteed social and economic disaster, regardless of whether curtailing aviation would make a jot of difference to the overall climate change picture. Tens, maybe hundreds of millions of livelihoods wiped out at a stroke. I shall be reminded of this discussion when chatting to locals in other countries, and be sure to ask them what their lives would be like if tourism stopped. I'm sure they will have some very robust views, especially when I tell them that those people calling for their livelihoods to be curtailed don't even attempt to begin to answer what they will have to live on.

 

[The Ham]

So why such an overengineered response?

All flying is harmful and people should pay levies if they do it. What is the obsession with giving people 8 free hits a year? Do you think people should get 8 free goes in the ULEZ zone? That would be far easier to implement, but what would the point be?

All this "frequent flyer" stuff is nonsense. APD should be double what it is, for everyone, and it should be ring fenced to go towards environmental levies instead of going straight into the Treasury pot for whatever they like. If you double APD and someone takes 20 ex-UK flights a year then you are doubling your tax take anyway.

One option would be to give everyone a one tax free return journey per year but with a corresponding increase in APD on top of what you had suggested for each subsequent flight. This would reassure many people that the aim was not to end occasional flying by normal people but to reduce flying by frequent flyers.

I was only putting forwards one option, I'm happy for others to make suggestions.

There's obviously a question about how much the tax should be, some might suggest that the current rate is too high, whilst others might suggest that it needs to be 10 times the current rate.

I was going for something which didn't cut flights totally, but does start to hurt people's pockets if they fly a lot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2023 ==

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following a previous discussion about electric ferries, here's a recent news story:

Orkney islands to trial electric ferries to cut carbon emissions

Battery-powered hydrofoils to start in March 2024, aimed at replacing ageing and highly polluting inter-island ferries

www.theguardian.com

Orkney islands to trial electric ferries to cut carbon emissions​

Battery-powered hydrofoils will replace ageing and highly polluting inter-island ferries from March 2024

The Orkney islands are to test two electric ferries for commuting between its outlying islands as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions from shipping.

The battery-powered hydrofoil ferries, whose hulls are raised above the water, are part of a three-year, £15.5m demonstration project funded by the UK government due to start in March 2024.

The smaller of the two ferries will carry up to 12 passengers between Kirkwall, Orkney’s main town, and the islands of Shapinsay, Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre on a year-round daily service.


The larger vessel will take up to 50 passengers and light cargo between Kirkwall and the outer islands of Westray, Eday, Sanday and Stronsay in a circuit up to five times a day. It is expected to start service in 2025.

Councillors and MSPs in Orkney and Shetland, the archipelago north of Orkney, have been pressing the UK and Scottish governments for help in replacing their ageing and highly polluting inter-island ferries.

Unlike the state-owned ferry service CalMac, which serves the Hebrides, their inter-island ferries are council-owned and operated. Scottish ministers have rejected their pleas for support to replace them.

James Stockan, Orkney’s council leader, said the islands were already leaders in zero-carbon technologies. Orkney is home to a major marine energy research centre, known as Emec, and has one of the UK’s highest number of electric vehicle chargers in relation to population.

 

[eldomtom2]

My strawman? Wow, way to dismiss what would be a massive, & very much guaranteed social and economic disaster, regardless of whether curtailing aviation would make a jot of difference to the overall climate change picture. Tens, maybe hundreds of millions of livelihoods wiped out at a stroke. I shall be reminded of this discussion when chatting to locals in other countries, and be sure to ask them what their lives would be like if tourism stopped. I'm sure they will have some very robust views, especially when I tell them that those people calling for their livelihoods to be curtailed don't even attempt to begin to answer what they will have to live on.

Yes, it is a strawman, because banning all aviation is decidedly a minority position but one you continue to talk about even when people are just talking about reducing aviation.
And what do you plan on saying to all the people who will have their homes and livelihoods destroyed due to climate change?

 

[The Ham]

My strawman? Wow, way to dismiss what would be a massive, & very much guaranteed social and economic disaster, regardless of whether curtailing aviation would make a jot of difference to the overall climate change picture. Tens, maybe hundreds of millions of livelihoods wiped out at a stroke. I shall be reminded of this discussion when chatting to locals in other countries, and be sure to ask them what their lives would be like if tourism stopped. I'm sure they will have some very robust views, especially when I tell them that those people calling for their livelihoods to be curtailed don't even attempt to begin to answer what they will have to live on.

In what way would aviation be wiped out if the proposal was that of 8 flights before APD starts to increase by 50% for every two extra flights taken (even if it were 2 flights before it started to ramp up it wouldn't have a significant impact on the vast majority of UK citizens)?

Whilst 2% may not sound a lot, it's double the UK's emissions and aviation is likely to see growth going forwards; while the UK's emissions are likely to carry on falling. As such, it may not be that far away before the emissions from aviation are triple that of the UK.

If we currently produce 100 units, and we cut that to 20 then the 2 units from aviation (assuming no extra growth) would be 10% and so a significant percentage of all emissions.

However if aviation doubles to 4 units and we otherwise make the same costs the total would be 22 units with aviation being a little over 18%.

Few are calling for an outright ban, due to the complications it would cause (as you rightly point out), however a fair number are calling for something to ensure we don't increase emissions from aviation or better still get them to reduce more noticeably than technology has got emission to reduce to date (in that growth has always outstripped the reductions).

The problem with arguing that each country and sector only produce small amounts of carbon, is that you can use that to argue away doing anything.

My driving 100m down the road is hardly anything, so there's no point me walking it as it'll not save enough carbon to make a difference. Whilst that's strictly true, if I'm doing that 2,000 times a year and there's 30 million people also doing that each year, the carbon emissions soon mount up to be something substantial.

Also, whilst tourism does generate benefits, there are often problems with it to. For example, it's not uncommon for hotels to use significantly more water than the same number of residents would. In that hotels often change towels and bedding more often than people would do at home, they often have gardens which get watered more, they often wash glasses more than you would at home, and so on.

If flying was to get more expensive chances are the holidays which could be removed first would be the budget all inclusive packages, where people aren't encouraged to go out to the local restaurants (as that costs them extra). Likewise, the cheapest activity is to be by the hotel pool - with free drinks available all the time.

If that's the case it could actually improve the local economy by having tourists who spend money locally, including at local cafes, bars, restaurants and tourist destinations.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, it is a strawman, because banning all aviation is decidedly a minority position but one you continue to talk about even when people are just talking about reducing aviation.

No it isn't a strawman because people are talking about banning all aviation, and in increasing numbers. In fact its only now you've retreated to this position, to not surprising given that you seem unwilling to discuss the issues I've raised.

And what do you plan on saying to all the people who will have their homes and livelihoods destroyed due to climate change?

Sure, let's tackle this one, strap yourself in because this is going to get messy.

Firstly let's assume that one of the worse forecasts made for climate change plays out. As the decades roll on and temperatures rise some parts of the world become uninhabitable, others much less sustainable for producing food. So as this creeps further and further, poverty sets in & people start to migrate to other areas in the search of food and work. It starts out in the thousands but before long becomes millions of people on the move. This starts to alarm governments, who respond by tightening and even closing borders. In time the people migrating become trapped and desperate, violence starts to break out in refugee camps around the world, which by now are mainly in the pooper countries because the industrialised ones have become no-go zones for them.

In turn this impacts on global relations, the UN falls into a chaotic mess, treaties are broken, border conflicts break out and eventually so do wars. In a few decades climate change is all but forgotten as militaries around the globe re-arm to protect their borders and their resources, whilst right wing extremists become increasingly influential in many governments as populations become increasingly isolated from one another through more and more borders closing. Eventually, long before climate change even gets close threatening our existence, world war breaks out and mankind will stand on the brink once again, perhaps even sent over it if anyone starts chucking nuclear warheads about.

Now rip hundreds of billions, probably even trillions of dollars from global economies in order to close down aviation and you can hit the fast forward button on the above.

In what way would aviation be wiped out if the proposal was that of 8 flights before APD starts to increase by 50% for every two extra flights taken (even if it were 2 flights before it started to ramp up it wouldn't have a significant impact on the vast majority of UK citizens)?

Whilst 2% may not sound a lot, it's double the UK's emissions and aviation is likely to see growth going forwards; while the UK's emissions are likely to carry on falling. As such, it may not be that far away before the emissions from aviation are triple that of the UK.

If we currently produce 100 units, and we cut that to 20 then the 2 units from aviation (assuming no extra growth) would be 10% and so a significant percentage of all emissions.

However if aviation doubles to 4 units and we otherwise make the same costs the total would be 22 units with aviation being a little over 18%.

Few are calling for an outright ban, due to the complications it would cause (as you rightly point out), however a fair number are calling for something to ensure we don't increase emissions from aviation or better still get them to reduce more noticeably than technology has got emission to reduce to date (in that growth has always outstripped the reductions).

I'm sorry but plenty of people are calling for a complete ban, and as I say above in ever increasing numbers. Aviation is seen by many as an easy win because nobody really needs to go to Spain on holiday do they? That's often the basic argument, which as I've been highlighting ignores the bigger picture. But its an also a pretty handy smokescreen for other things that might not be as environmentally sustainable such as chronic food waste (which we are terrible for in this country), or buying EVs built like tanks (do they really need to be as big as some are?)

The problem with arguing that each country and sector only produce small amounts of carbon, is that you can use that to argue away doing anything.

The way I see it is that the big problem is that we are rushing for quick fixes, when quick fixes might not be what we actually need. The big solutions lie in how we generate energy, and more important how we store sustainable energy, which is something else we are not very good at. These are the big hitters and the focus should be on those, not targeting Mr & Mrs Jones taking their kids on holiday.

My driving 100m down the road is hardly anything, so there's no point me walking it as it'll not save enough carbon to make a difference. Whilst that's strictly true, if I'm doing that 2,000 times a year and there's 30 million people also doing that each year, the carbon emissions soon mount up to be something substantial.

Also, whilst tourism does generate benefits, there are often problems with it to. For example, it's not uncommon for hotels to use significantly more water than the same number of residents would. In that hotels often change towels and bedding more often than people would do at home, they often have gardens which get watered more, they often wash glasses more than you would at home, and so on.

If flying was to get more expensive chances are the holidays which could be removed first would be the budget all inclusive packages, where people aren't encouraged to go out to the local restaurants (as that costs them extra). Likewise, the cheapest activity is to be by the hotel pool - with free drinks available all the time.

If that's the case it could actually improve the local economy by having tourists who spend money locally, including at local cafes, bars, restaurants and tourist destinations.

Now I do agree that all inclusives are not great for local economies, but the reality is that the leisure industries in these countries are slowly turning away from the concept. Even a cursory glance at something like Trip Advisor shows increasing numbers of tourists complaining about drink limits and less food on offer. Its probably only a matter of time before these thankfully become a thing of history.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sorry but plenty of people are calling for a complete ban, and as I say above in ever increasing numbers. Aviation is seen by many as an easy win because nobody really needs to go to Spain on holiday do they? That's often the basic argument, which as I've been highlighting ignores the bigger picture. But its an also a pretty handy smokescreen for other things that might not be as environmentally sustainable such as chronic food waste (which we are terrible for in this country), or buying EVs built like tanks (do they really need to be as big as some are?)

I've heard very few calling for a total ban. What would be sensible would be a return to pre-low-cost-airline levels of flying, say those you might have had around 1997. There were flights, there were package holidays including charters, but you'd maybe go on one a year, not more frequent city breaks, and domestic flying was very expensive and thus only something very high value business travellers did (other than connecting to long haul). You'd be more likely to take your family holiday by car (and a full family car is quite efficient; the ones to concentrate on are the ones with one person in them).

 

[Chester1]

I've heard very few calling for a total ban. What would be sensible would be a return to pre-low-cost-airline levels of flying, say those you might have had around 1997. There were flights, there were package holidays including charters, but you'd maybe go on one a year, not more frequent city breaks, and domestic flying was very expensive and thus only something very high value business travellers did (other than connecting to long haul). You'd be more likely to take your family holiday by car (and a full family car is quite efficient; the ones to concentrate on are the ones with one person in them).

I wouldn't necessarily be against a target of 1997 aviation emissions levels but there would be massive clashes with the pro EU sections of society. Its hardly compatible to severely reduce travel to most of the EU and to encourage links and then eventual membership again. An active involvement of Brits in Europe would be highly dependent on aviation. Sure we can visit Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam by train but Warsaw or Athens are a 2 full day trek. The more trade with the EU, the more student exchanges etc the more flying will be needed.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've heard very few calling for a total ban. What would be sensible would be a return to pre-low-cost-airline levels of flying, say those you might have had around 1997. There were flights, there were package holidays including charters, but you'd maybe go on one a year, not more frequent city breaks, and domestic flying was very expensive and thus only something very high value business travellers did (other than connecting to long haul). You'd be more likely to take your family holiday by car (and a full family car is quite efficient; the ones to concentrate on are the ones with one person in them).

I do agree that domestic travel should be land based, and even some international ones where journey time is not excessive, basically more or less what EuroStar offer. However pricing people of of travel is not the way, because you create travel inequality not to mention putting a lot of people out of work. Those people that can afford inflated prices, or additional taxes on ticket prices will continue to do so. Those that can't will lose out, and honestly I find that unacceptable.

 

[Chester1]

I do agree that domestic travel should be land based, and even some international ones where journey time is not excessive, basically more or less what EuroStar offer. However pricing people of of travel is not the way, because you create travel inequality not to mention putting a lot of people out of work. Those people that can afford inflated prices, or additional taxes on ticket prices will continue to do so. Those that can't will lose out, and honestly I find that unacceptable.

I totally agree with this hence my suggestion that if APD became based on number of flights per year then everyone's first return journey should be tax free. Multi international flights per year are already a luxury of the better off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do agree that domestic travel should be land based, and even some international ones where journey time is not excessive, basically more or less what EuroStar offer.

While different families did different things, it wasn't just that. Instead of flying to Magaluf for your 2 weeks eating egg and chips and drinking lager, you'd make it part of the holiday to go down by car, stopping maybe 2 or 3 times along the way in each direction for one night to explore somewhere else and keep the drive sensible. In many ways it was much better an experience.

This is of course only a gain when you drive a whole family, as I think it is typically regarded that the carbon emissions of a seat on a full flight are about the same as if each person had driven an average petrol family car. Thus if travelling alone the car isn't necessarily preferable. The big issue with long haul is the distances involved, though relatively few fly long haul each day anyway, for instance from the UK to the US it's probably low tens of thousands a day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2023 ==

I do agree that domestic travel should be land based, and even some international ones where journey time is not excessive, basically more or less what EuroStar offer. However pricing people of of travel is not the way, because you create travel inequality not to mention putting a lot of people out of work. Those people that can afford inflated prices, or additional taxes on ticket prices will continue to do so. Those that can't will lose out, and honestly I find that unacceptable.

Short of moving to a communist style command economy, isn't that true of just about everything?

 

[Tetchytyke]

What would be sensible would be a return to pre-low-cost-airline levels of flying, say those you might have had around 1997. There were flights, there were package holidays including charters, but you'd maybe go on one a year

Absolutely.
After returning from Australia in 1987, I didn’t go on another plane for a decade. Our family holidays were on the ferry, either to Scandinavia or to Brittany. My school friends had an annual package holiday to Spain and they went on a coach.

The current levels of aviation are unsustainable. Bringing those levels down isn’t going to cause “the economy” to go into a slide.

Nobody wants to ban flying. It’s a straw man argument. Some people want to see aviation levels reduced.

 

[Bantamzen]

I totally agree with this hence my suggestion that if APD became based on number of flights per year then everyone's first return journey should be tax free. Multi international flights per year are already a luxury of the better off.

The problem is how would this be managed? I don't mean the technological solution, I work in data I could easily knock something like this up. But it is the political and even ideological problems it would raise. Firstly you would have to have all countries, and all airlines sign up to this, and there will be plenty that might well not. The UK for example could insist on all airlines doing and proving so, but what would stop someone simply fly to Amsterdam and use another carrier. Plus it is as easy as a few dollars a month to buy VPN access to buy tickets via remote servers, so managing it at the point of purchase would be equally difficult.

But the real problem is do we really want this. A system that charges if you fly more than x numbers of times each year is only one step away from a social credit system for all travel. And that in itself is only a few steps away from a social credit system for all facets of life. I am totally, and utterly against such a thing, and personally would fight against it with until my last breath.

While different families did different things, it wasn't just that. Instead of flying to Magaluf for your 2 weeks eating egg and chips and drinking lager, you'd make it part of the holiday to go down by car, stopping maybe 2 or 3 times along the way in each direction for one night to explore somewhere else and keep the drive sensible. In many ways it was much better an experience.

This is of course only a gain when you drive a whole family, as I think it is typically regarded that the carbon emissions of a seat on a full flight are about the same as if each person had driven an average petrol family car. Thus if travelling alone the car isn't necessarily preferable. The big issue with long haul is the distances involved, though relatively few fly long haul each day anyway, for instance from the UK to the US it's probably low tens of thousands a day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2023 ==



Short of moving to a communist style command economy, isn't that true of just about everything?

Putting aside that somewhat insulting and arrogant attitude to travellers, have you ever actually compared the cost of going abroad compared to say Spain. Not only is the latter considerably cheaper (and I will be able to confirm this next week when I fly out), but the quality is often way better. Not everyone lives on a diet of egg, chips and lager, there is so much good stuff out there that more and more people are seeking to enjoy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Putting aside that somewhat insulting and arrogant attitude to travellers, have you ever actually compared the cost of going abroad compared to say Spain. Not only is the latter considerably cheaper (and I will be able to confirm this next week when I fly out), but the quality is often way better. Not everyone lives on a diet of egg, chips and lager, there is so much good stuff out there that more and more people are seeking to enjoy.

I was quite obviously being facetious about egg and chips, but there are a lot of people who just go to Spain because it's hot and not for the cultural experiences to which you refer. There absolutely are large all inclusive resorts that people go to and don't leave - anywhere hot will do for them.

Perhaps given that there will be some warming many of those people will consider switching to Cornwall or other places on the South Coast. Having been there for the first time this weekend Newquay certainly seems (unlike most of the rest of Cornwall which tends to be quaint and lovely) to have the appropriate Blackpool-esque feel that will be preferred by those customers.

(Verdict on Newquay, FWIW, lovely quaint branch line, nasty run-down dump of a terminus, don't think much of the town )

 

[Bantamzen]

I was quite obviously being facetious about egg and chips, but there are a lot of people who just go to Spain because it's hot and not for the cultural experiences to which you refer. There absolutely are large all inclusive resorts that people go to and don't leave - anywhere hot will do for them.

Perhaps given that there will be some warming many of those people will consider switching to Cornwall or other places on the South Coast. Having been there for the first time this weekend Newquay certainly seems (unlike most of the rest of Cornwall which tends to be quaint and lovely) to have the appropriate Blackpool-esque feel that will be preferred by those customers.

(Verdict on Newquay, FWIW, lovely quaint branch line, nasty run-down dump of a terminus, don't think much of the town )

Did you miss this summer, save the last couple of weeks it has been pants? Mother Earth chucked a curve ball into the mix when the jet stream didn't migrate as far north, causing both the extreme heat in the Med and the s*** weather here. And I remember the days as a kid when a two week holiday was a Bridlington bore-fest. Ye Gods they were grim holidays, crappy B&Bs, awful food, terrible weather.... Sadly in many parts of the UK not much has changed. Cornwall & Devon are generally nicer with the best of the UK weather, but very expensive to stay at and if you travel by train can be eye-wateringly expensive. Even so, I suspect they wouldn't be able to handle even a fraction of the Med's traffic levels and I'm sure the price gouging that goes on in many UK resorts would kill off a lot of family's budgets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did you miss this summer, save the last couple of weeks it has been pants?

I'll be honest, I'd rather a bit of rain than 50 degrees.

To be honest, though, we did south west France by car every 2 years, Britain in the opposite year, and usually north Wales for weekend breaks. I don't look back and think we were done out of 2 weeks in Magaluf, I look back with happiness at enjoyable time together (give or take the odd argument about putting the caravan on the pitch ).

The idea that people would be seriously disadvantaged by not being able to go to an all inclusive in Spain quite as often (or even a cultural experience if that's the preference) is just a bit laughable. The beauty of our own isles are so often overlooked.

 

[trebor79]

Did you miss this summer, save the last couple of weeks it has been pants? Mother Earth chucked a curve ball into the mix when the jet stream didn't migrate as far north, causing both the extreme heat in the Med and the s*** weather here. And I remember the days as a kid when a two week holiday was a Bridlington bore-fest. Ye Gods they were grim holidays, crappy B&Bs, awful food, terrible weather.... Sadly in many parts of the UK not much has changed. Cornwall & Devon are generally nicer with the best of the UK weather, but very expensive to stay at and if you travel by train can be eye-wateringly expensive. Even so, I suspect they wouldn't be able to handle even a fraction of the Med's traffic levels and I'm sure the price gouging that goes on in many UK resorts would kill off a lot of family's budgets.

For the first 7 years of my life we went to Abergele for our holidays. I'm sure the weather was mainly rubbish but I don't recall ever being bored, we went to the beach, rode the Great Orme cable cars and tram, played crazy golf etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the first 7 years of my life we went to Abergele for our holidays. I'm sure the weather was mainly rubbish but I don't recall ever being bored, we went to the beach, rode the Great Orme cable cars and tram, played crazy golf etc.

And if people started going back to places like Abergele, Rhyl, Morecambe etc, they wouldn't be run down dumps as some of them are (apologies to Abergele as I've not been there for yonks, but I think that's accurate as far as Rhyl goes), rather the money brought in would make them once again nice places.

Blackpool would always be Blackpool but you don't have to go there, it's one place, you know what it is, go if you want that, don't if you don't.

What most people would be left with would be fewer, but higher quality, foreign trips. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[trebor79]

And if people started going back to places like Abergele, Rhyl, Morecambe etc, they wouldn't be run down dumps as some of them are (apologies to Abergele as I've not been there for yonks, but I think that's accurate as far as Rhyl goes), rather the money brought in would make them once again nice places.

Blackpool would always be Blackpool but you don't have to go there, it's one place, you know what it is, go if you want that, don't if you don't.

What most people would be left with would be fewer, but higher quality, foreign trips. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

Totally agree. Our kids are 9 and 4 and don't even have passports. We just decided it would be a lot of hassle and bother to go abroad with young kids and they get so little from it. All they want to do is play on the beach, go to outdoorsy places and spend time with us. They aren't really interested in cultural stuff or sightseeing at that sort of age so they miss nothing by having UK-based holidays.
When they are a little older we intend to do something like an American road trip or something, when they can appreciate and enjoy something like that.

We went on a safari for our honeymoon and there was a family there with daughters aged about 6 and 10. They spent the whole week whinging and moaning and weren't all that interested in the animals.