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

[Bantamzen]

I suggest you look up the term "whataboutism".

No thank you.

So is your argument we should weigh small definite losses much higher than large possible losses?

<bangs head repeatedly>

No I am telling you that you cannot ignore one problem to maybe solve another.

Are you seriously arguing no frequent flyers will cut back on their flights if prices rise?

Yep.

Why are you assuming that improving alternatives is impossible?

I'm not.

I've kept my answers short because you seem unwilling to debate one of the major issues at stake here, that is the absolute certainty of a serious impact to a great many people across the world if aviation was pressured into reductions as being suggested through this thread. We've even seen the impact the loss or major reduction of a primary revenue earner had in this country in the 1980s, and for many areas the impact is still being felt 4 decades later. Academics sitting in their offices or homes don't often think about these kinds of things when drawing up their forecasts and Tweeting out to the world that aviation needs to be dealt with immediately otherwise the world will burn (and before you hit that keyboard, I'd suggest a trip over to Twitter to see for yourself that this is happening on that platform). Aviation has become the hobby horse of climate change activists because its seen as a easy "win", and won't effect anyone that they associate with all that badly.

And that for me is the crux of the matter, its someone else's problem to deal with the economic fallout of aviation reduction, even though it would barely scratch the surface of the climate change problem.

Airlines already have to apply APD to fairs to/from the UK, depending on where the cut off is the reality is that not all that many people would actually be impacted by the extra costs.

APD is only payable from the UK isn't it? But regardless tackling climate change through taxation feels like a bad idea to me.

I'm happy to discuss other options, however few other options have been put forwards.

To be fair the aviation industry is exploring other options, not just with more efficient engines and craft design, but with capacities and moving away from hub based operations to point to point using these more efficient craft. But I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas out there.

The problem with doubt nothing is that we run the risk of seeing aviation emissions increase significantly - that's not really a viable option in a world where everything else is reducing their emissions.

But as per above, the industry isn't doing nothing. It is innovating and changing, something the rail industry in this country could take a lesson or two from!

The thing is unless we go for a hard limit (say 6 flights and then no more or an outright ban on domestic flights) there's few other options other than charging extra.

The numbers who can justify spending more and more on APD to carry on their lifestyle, is fairly small, however so are the numbers flying more than 4 times a year (at which point the extra cost would still be fairly small even if the ratching started after the first 2 flights).

The other thing to consider is that it's likely that more than just flying will start to increase costs for carbon intensive activities.

Being wealthy doesn't mean that they have unlimited resources or are willing to spend money that they don't need to, and so there's a good chance that even the wealthy would adjust their behaviour because of the extra costs.

One of the most valuable assets the better off have is mobility, and most if not all are not likely to want to give it up because they've earned it or had it all their lives.

But let's inject a dose of reality here. What government are going to tax the most wealthy out of the skies? The very people that will be helping bankroll their political party, offer investment opportunities, or maybe even just be slipping brown envelopes stuffed full of cash behind the pipes in the gents loos at Kings Cross? Invariably any new taxation will be circumnavigated, offset or simply claimed back by those that can, and the real cost will trickle down to those who can't. It is now how it has always been.

Any discussion on what measures are taken to try and tackle man made climate change in the long run have to take into account reality. They have to take into account any possible immediate effects on people and economies, and they have to consider unintended consequences such as I've described above. If they don't, then ultimately they will fail because reality is a bitch.

Climate change is something that needs to be tackled, I'm not disputing that. But the solutions will not be quick, they won't be easy, and most of all no-one is going to be lauded upon as the saviour of the world (a title I have a strong suspicion some activists crave). We won't "decarbonise" or even be carbon neutral by 2040, and that's fine. That and other dates are just arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by politicians, most of whom won't be in office to explain when the time comes to explain why the targets weren't met. The world won't end in 2030/40/50 if aviation, or for that matter any industry doesn't comply with the targets. So let's stop fart-arsing and panicking about on the fringes of climate change, and tackle the big issues. That is energy production, energy storage & distribution, and re-fixing carbon. No more silly targets, no more blaming & shaming, just real world solutions. Its time to do what we do best and innovate, its how we've got this far.

 

[The Ham]

To be fair the aviation industry is exploring other options, not just with more efficient engines and craft design, but with capacities and moving away from hub based operations to point to point using these more efficient craft. But I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas out there.

The issue with these options is that to date they haven't actual lead to a real terms cuts in emissions at the numbers flying just keep increasing faster than the savings can be made.

It's against that backdrop that many would be suggesting something else is done.

Yes there'll be some extreme views that will require a total ban, however the longer it takes for technology to ride to the rescue the more likely that something closer to a hard limit on the number of flights gains traction rather than something which permits a bit more travel but there being a higher cost.

Obviously there could be way around the APD proposal, such as electric aircraft - for example all flights in such an aircraft only attract the basic APD. That would make it more attractive to those who travel a lot for there to be electric flights (even if they only use them to get to another airport in another country) once they are mainstream in a few locations (and I would predict that the EU would probably look at a similar tax to fly as our APD if it resulted in more electric aircraft within the UK) then the complexities of the APD proposal would fall away with a more simple (fairly high) APD for all non electric flights.

 

[eldomtom2]

I've kept my answers short because you seem unwilling to debate one of the major issues at stake here, that is the absolute certainty of a serious impact to a great many people across the world if aviation was pressured into reductions as being suggested through this thread. We've even seen the impact the loss or major reduction of a primary revenue earner had in this country in the 1980s, and for many areas the impact is still being felt 4 decades later. Academics sitting in their offices or homes don't often think about these kinds of things when drawing up their forecasts and Tweeting out to the world that aviation needs to be dealt with immediately otherwise the world will burn (and before you hit that keyboard, I'd suggest a trip over to Twitter to see for yourself that this is happening on that platform). Aviation has become the hobby horse of climate change activists because its seen as a easy "win", and won't effect anyone that they associate with all that badly.

And again, it's an absolute certainty that climate change will have a serious impact to great many people across the world. Why do you insist that even some reduction in flying would cause an "economic fallout" such that it's not worth bothering to try and reduce it?

But regardless tackling climate change through taxation feels like a bad idea to me.

Why?

Climate change is something that needs to be tackled, I'm not disputing that. But the solutions will not be quick, they won't be easy, and most of all no-one is going to be lauded upon as the saviour of the world (a title I have a strong suspicion some activists crave). We won't "decarbonise" or even be carbon neutral by 2040, and that's fine. That and other dates are just arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by politicians, most of whom won't be in office to explain when the time comes to explain why the targets weren't met. The world won't end in 2030/40/50 if aviation, or for that matter any industry doesn't comply with the targets. So let's stop fart-arsing and panicking about on the fringes of climate change, and tackle the big issues. That is energy production, energy storage & distribution, and re-fixing carbon. No more silly targets, no more blaming & shaming, just real world solutions. Its time to do what we do best and innovate, its how we've got this far.

What basis do you have for claiming the world "won't end" (assuming you are not meaning that literally) if significant decarbonisation does not happen by 2050? How we judge decarbonisation efforts without targets?

 

[Meerkat]

Isn’t the elephant in the room the third world?
Flying might not be a massive carbon issue now, but once a billion Indians and hundreds of millions of Africans catch up and start flying as much as Europeans it will be.
But it can only be reduced with international action, and thats unlikely.
Electric aircraft are a distraction- you cannae break the laws of physics. If you burn your fuel you don’t have to land with it; if a long haul plane turns around it has to burn or dump loads of fuel before it is light enough to land again. An electric plane has to land with all its power source. That’s a hell of a lot of weight, and then a lot more weight to make the plane strong enough to survive landing that weight. And a longer, thicker, runway to land on.
Is there space in Britain for Britain to go on holiday in Britain? Holiday resorts aren’t that big, and fortunately we can’t destroy our coastline by building high rise hotels all along it as per Spain.

Also, surely at some point the noise and local pollution around airports will eventually become unacceptable under new standards surely? Last time I watched a game under the Heathrow flight path you could smell the fuel in the air.

 

[Bantamzen]

And again, it's an absolute certainty that climate change will have a serious impact to great many people across the world. Why do you insist that even some reduction in flying would cause an "economic fallout" such that it's not worth bothering to try and reduce it?

I have never said its not worth bothering to reduce it, I've even suggested areas where it should be reduced. But thank you for confirming what I suspected, you aren't taking in anything I say, just arguing for the sake of it. A lot like the people I've tried to debate with on social media, full of their own opinions, totally lacking in being able to listen to others.

Why?

Why? Because they never end up going where they should. For example, the current passenger duty tax could be going towards reforesting many parts of the UK to aid with carbon fixing. But does it? No. Taxes end up costing to poorest of society more, whilst the wealthiest avoid them. Surely you realise this right?

What basis do you have for claiming the world "won't end" (assuming you are not meaning that literally) if significant decarbonisation does not happen by 2050?

The planet has been through periods where the CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher than anything forecast for 2050, and some of the periods were with some irony thought to have been caused by explosions of plant life. The world went on. So no, the world doesn't end on 01/01/2050 if we don't reduce or stop flying.

Furthermore out impact on the environment isn't just limited to aviation, nor is it limited to the last few decades. I live on the edge of a large area of moorland, places that have been like that for centuries. But not millennia. Once upon a time those great expanses of moorland in the north of England were forests, but over many centuries our species has cut down the forests for our own purposes. Forests that were really good at fixing carbon. Evidence if ever it was needed that climate change is a long term issue, and will not be solved inside of 30 years.

How we judge decarbonisation efforts without targets?

Erm, we measure it....?? Targets cause politicians to panic buy solutions that might not work, or cause other problems. You only have to look at the covid responses and the "targets" set during that period to see why they are a terrible thing to have when dealing with long term issue.

Isn’t the elephant in the room the third world?
Flying might not be a massive carbon issue now, but once a billion Indians and hundreds of millions of Africans catch up and start flying as much as Europeans it will be.
But it can only be reduced with international action, and thats unlikely.

Think about this for a moment, if those people in the third world become able to fly as regularly as those in the industrialised nations, flying isn't going to be the big energy issue. They are going to be driving, eating, shopping, heating / cooling their home etc etc as much as those in the wealthier nations. This is why we need to focus on ways to generate and store greener energy, as well as work harder to fix carbon back into the ground. Well when I say we, I mean trees. A few billion more trees wouldn't go amiss right now, and is an incredibly easy starter for ten. Interestingly none of the people arguing for a reduction in flying have been broached this subject....

Electric aircraft are a distraction- you cannae break the laws of physics. If you burn your fuel you don’t have to land with it; if a long haul plane turns around it has to burn or dump loads of fuel before it is light enough to land again. An electric plane has to land with all its power source. That’s a hell of a lot of weight, and then a lot more weight to make the plane strong enough to survive landing that weight. And a longer, thicker, runway to land on.ve f

To be quite blunt, the drive for battery powered everything has become a distraction. We don't need to decarbonise everything, just reduce our impact so that our impact on the environment reduces. I confidently predict that we will never decarbonise, and for very, very obvious reasons. What we can do is reduce our carbon footprint by reducing our carbon based energy production, and re-fixing carbon from the air to the ground.

Is there space in Britain for Britain to go on holiday in Britain? Holiday resorts aren’t that big, and fortunately we can’t destroy our coastline by building high rise hotels all along it as per Spain.

I have no idea, but I do know that a lot of places are incredibly expensive. And that's without thinking about getting there.

Also, surely at some point the noise and local pollution around airports will eventually become unacceptable under new standards surely? Last time I watched a game under the Heathrow flight path you could smell the fuel in the air.

Heathrow is one of the biggest airports in the world. That's like standing next to Clapham Junction and wondering if all railway stations should close because of the levels of noise from the trains rattling through. And besides one of the biggest innovations in aviation technology are the newer generation of engines that are not only considerably more efficient, but also considerably quieter on take-off.

 

[eldomtom2]

Why? Because they never end up going where they should. For example, the current passenger duty tax could be going towards reforesting many parts of the UK to aid with carbon fixing. But does it? No. Taxes end up costing to poorest of society more, whilst the wealthiest avoid them. Surely you realise this right?

The primary purpose of carbon taxes is not to fund decarbonisation efforts but to disincentivise carbon emissions.

The planet has been through periods where the CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher than anything forecast for 2050, and some of the periods were with some irony thought to have been caused by explosions of plant life. The world went on. So no, the world doesn't end on 01/01/2050 if we don't reduce or stop flying.

Oh god, not this argument again...

Erm, we measure it....?? Targets cause politicians to panic buy solutions that might not work, or cause other problems. You only have to look at the covid responses and the "targets" set during that period to see why they are a terrible thing to have when dealing with long term issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that any sort of urgency is always bad when politicians are involved?

This is why we need to focus on ways to generate and store greener energy, as well as work harder to fix carbon back into the ground. Well when I say we, I mean trees. A few billion more trees wouldn't go amiss right now, and is an incredibly easy starter for ten. Interestingly none of the people arguing for a reduction in flying have been broached this subject....

This is absolute nonsense. Where are all these climate activists who are supposedly going "three cheers for deforestation!".

To be quite blunt, the drive for battery powered everything has become a distraction. We don't need to decarbonise everything, just reduce our impact so that our impact on the environment reduces. I confidently predict that we will never decarbonise, and for very, very obvious reasons. What we can do is reduce our carbon footprint by reducing our carbon based energy production, and re-fixing carbon from the air to the ground.

Do you understand the basic concept of "net zero"?

 

[Meerkat]

Think about this for a moment, if those people in the third world become able to fly as regularly as those in the industrialised nations, flying isn't going to be the big energy issue. They are going to be driving, eating, shopping, heating / cooling their home etc etc as much as those in the wealthier nations.

For most things they can skip to greener tech (as they have skipped to mobile rather than landlines, and mobile banking rather than branches). Not really possible for air travel

Heathrow is one of the biggest airports in the world. That's like standing next to Clapham Junction and wondering if all railway stations should close because of the levels of noise from the trains rattling through. And besides one of the biggest innovations in aviation technology are the newer generation of engines that are not only considerably more efficient, but also considerably quieter on take-off.

That’s airline greenwash - distraction with more efficiency whilst air travel increases far outweigh that.
And as so many industries are finding, just because something has been happening for decades doesn’t mean it’s acceptable in the future as we become more aware of the damage caused by pollution and noise.

 

[Bantamzen]

The primary purpose of carbon taxes is not to fund decarbonisation efforts but to disincentivise carbon emissions.

So you are against using carbon taxes to fund decarbonisation projects?

Oh god, not this argument again...

Forget god, let's actually debate this issue. Will the world end in 2050 if we don't stop flying, yes or no?

Are you seriously suggesting that any sort of urgency is always bad when politicians are involved?

More often than not, yes. We've seen examples around the world this very decade. And history is full of examples of bad outcomes from panicked solutions.

This is absolute nonsense. Where are all these climate activists who are supposedly going "three cheers for deforestation!".

Honestly, I would love a debate on the issue but you seem hell bent on avoiding one by making things up.

Do you understand the basic concept of "net zero"?

Yes. Do you understand why setting and arbitrary line in the sand to achieve it is not only a bad idea because drives poor decision making to make the target instead of actually solving the real issues?

For most things they can skip to greener tech (as they have skipped to mobile rather than landlines, and mobile banking rather than branches). Not really possible for air travel

Brilliant dodge there, you dropped your shoulder and ran right past my point...

That’s airline greenwash - distraction with more efficiency whilst air travel increases far outweigh that.
And as so many industries are finding, just because something has been happening for decades doesn’t mean it’s acceptable in the future as we become more aware of the damage caused by pollution and noise.

Distraction through efficiency? Wow that's a new one on me, "stop being efficient lads, it might mean we don't have to stop what we are doing which will upset the environmental lobby...". Maybe this is the real problem, the green lobby are getting nowhere gluing themselves to things, sitting in front of traffic or on top of tube trains, or throwing orange paint around, whilst engineers are working towards real world solutions....

I mean in a couple of generations of engines, aviation engineers have been able to deliver 30-40% more efficiency & reduce noise pollution in things like the A350. Meanwhile Just Stop Oil are defacing works of art or sitting on motorway gantries. Who are the real achievers here?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you really want the whole world to take the issue seriously, you won't do it through forcing people to stop doing things they've strived their lives to do. You won't do it through wreaking economies and livelihoods. And you definitely won't it by trying to shame or tax people into compliance. The solutions are out there, but they require hard work, planned implementation and consideration on their impacts on people's lives. And the really bad news is that these solutions will have to be continued to developed well beyond 2050, meaning that decarbonisation or even net zero are pipe dreams. Let them go...

 

[DustyBin]

So you are against using carbon taxes to fund decarbonisation projects?


Forget god, let's actually debate this issue. Will the world end in 2050 if we don't stop flying, yes or no?


More often than not, yes. We've seen examples around the world this very decade. And history is full of examples of bad outcomes from panicked solutions.


Honestly, I would love a debate on the issue but you seem hell bent on avoiding one by making things up.


Yes. Do you understand why setting and arbitrary line in the sand to achieve it is not only a bad idea because drives poor decision making to make the target instead of actually solving the real issues?


Brilliant dodge there, you dropped your shoulder and ran right past my point...


Distraction through efficiency? Wow that's a new one on me, "stop being efficient lads, it might mean we don't have to stop what we are doing which will upset the environmental lobby...". Maybe this is the real problem, the green lobby are getting nowhere gluing themselves to things, sitting in front of traffic or on top of tube trains, or throwing orange paint around, whilst engineers are working towards real world solutions....

I mean in a couple of generations of engines, aviation engineers have been able to deliver 30-40% more efficiency & reduce noise pollution in things like the A350. Meanwhile Just Stop Oil are defacing works of art or sitting on motorway gantries. Who are the real achievers here?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you really want the whole world to take the issue seriously, you won't do it through forcing people to stop doing things they've strived their lives to do. You won't do it through wreaking economies and livelihoods. And you definitely won't it by trying to shame or tax people into compliance. The solutions are out there, but they require hard work, planned implementation and consideration on their impacts on people's lives. And the really bad news is that these solutions will have to be continued to developed well beyond 2050, meaning that decarbonisation or even net zero are pipe dreams. Let them go...

Your highly erudite posts are clearly lost on some people!

 

[Krokodil]

So you are against using carbon taxes to fund decarbonisation projects?

That's not what he said and you know it. Tobacco taxes may provide a decent chunk of funding for the NHS, but their purpose remains to disincentivise smoking.

Forget god, let's actually debate this issue. Will the world end in 2050 if we don't stop flying, yes or no?

The world as we know it is changing drastically. We are already seeing wars over resources and mass migration. Flying is one of the contributors to the problem.

I mean in a couple of generations of engines, aviation engineers have been able to deliver 30-40% more efficiency

What use is that if the number of flights taken increases drastically in the same time period. We still need fewer people to fly, the efficiency improvements can be used to make the remaining flights less damaging.

 

[Meerkat]

Distraction through efficiency? Wow that's a new one on me, "stop being efficient lads, it might mean we don't have to stop what we are doing which will upset the environmental lobby...".

Its distraction. Small efficiency gains whilst the absolute numbers are soaring. And all the talk about electric and fancy fuels to distract from the need to just reduce flying.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you really want the whole world to take the issue seriously, you won't do it through forcing people to stop doing things they've strived their lives to do.

Sounds like that’s exactly the sort of thing that makes people take things seriously.

 

[Trainbike46]

Your highly erudite posts are clearly lost on some people!

They state a lot that sounds smart, but never back anything up with evidence, and often completely miss the point others are trying to make. A smart sounding response that doesn't actually respond to the issue being raised is rather useless. They also have a tendency to strawman the position of the people they're arguing against to a different position, once again making their arguments disingenuous and useless.

 

[eldomtom2]

So you are against using carbon taxes to fund decarbonisation projects?

See what @Krokodil said.

Forget god, let's actually debate this issue. Will the world end in 2050 if we don't stop flying, yes or no?

Define "the world ending".

More often than not, yes. We've seen examples around the world this very decade. And history is full of examples of bad outcomes from panicked solutions.

Are you arguing that governments should have done nothing during the pandemic?

Not to mention that if there wasn't urgency from activists, I suspect you'd be using it as evidence that there wasn't anything to worry about...

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you really want the whole world to take the issue seriously, you won't do it through forcing people to stop doing things they've strived their lives to do. You won't do it through wreaking economies and livelihoods. And you definitely won't it by trying to shame or tax people into compliance. The solutions are out there, but they require hard work, planned implementation and consideration on their impacts on people's lives. And the really bad news is that these solutions will have to be continued to developed well beyond 2050, meaning that decarbonisation or even net zero are pipe dreams. Let them go...

So you're saying people should "let go" of the idea that it's possible to avoid worldwide catastrophe?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Your highly erudite posts are clearly lost on some people!

Lovely words, but lots of arguing against a strawman rather than the actual arguments being made.

Its distraction. Small efficiency gains whilst the absolute numbers are soaring. And all the talk about electric and fancy fuels to distract from the need to just reduce flying.

Absolutely. The increased efficiency of aircraft is to be applauded, but the overall increase in aviation far exceeds the relatively small efficiency savings that are found.

The current situation really is the equivalent of trying to spend your way out of bankruptcy. The current level of consumption in the world- and not just in aviation- is completely unsustainable.

Reforestation is important, especially in the rainforests, but deforestation is just another symptom of rampant over-consumption.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well it seems claiming strawmen is the popular, if rather lame response to the issue. So I'm just going ask once again to see if one of the responders wants to come out from behind the big bad strawman and actually dare to tackle any of the following. Veiled insults need not apply.

1. Will the world end in 2050 if aviation not is reduced or stopped?

2. Will climate change become a much smaller problem if aviation is reduced and stopped?

3. And finally for todays star prize, and to answer the real question, what do you propose we do to help those people whose jobs you want taken away and how do you propose to back up economies that will lose out if tourism is reduced?

One of these questions is key to either making solutions work by being accepted by a global population, and if everyone stops dancing around the issue actually start to discuss how if any aviation is curtailed how we support those people most affected. I've already answered the "what about the impact of severe climate change on those people" question, albeit thus far that answer has been ignored.

So back over to the eco-tag team...

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. Will the world end in 2050 if aviation not is reduced or stopped?

Define "the world end". Will all humans die out? Probably not. Will the world become an unpleasant place to live, with significant parts of it underwater and/or too hot to be habitable? Quite possibly, yes, though 2050 is a rather arbitrary number and isn't really significant. Will there be major wars over limited resources like water and liveable land? Again, probably, yes. It's not a nice prospect.

2. Will climate change become a much smaller problem if aviation is reduced and stopped?

Yes, a significant reduction in global aviation will reduce the problem posed by climate change. The effect was, if I recall, already noticeable during the COVID near-shutdown.

Other major contributors to climate change are going to naturally reduce. For instance, in 20 years' time most cars will be EVs charged from renewable energy (and yes, that includes China and India who are often quoted as a reason not to bother, they're trailblazers of EVs), and most homes will not be heated with gas boilers. As things stand, other than very short haul "puddlejumpers" there's no viable alternative to aviation - you have it or you don't.

3. And finally for todays star prize, and to answer the real question, what do you propose we do to help those people whose jobs you want taken away and how do you propose to back up economies that will lose out if tourism is reduced?

They would get jobs in other areas, such as rail and (electric) coach, which would both have to expand significantly for domestic and short haul travel.

 

[Bantamzen]

Define "the world end". Will all humans die out? Probably not. Will the world become an unpleasant place to live, with significant parts of it underwater and/or too hot to be habitable? Quite possibly, yes, though 2050 is a rather arbitrary number and isn't really significant. Will there be major wars over limited resources like water and liveable land? Again, probably, yes. It's not a nice prospect.

You too are rather missing my point, we all know the world isn't going to end in 2050, well at least not through climate change. My point here is to challenge these cursory targets that everyone is sweating over.

Yes, a significant reduction in global aviation will reduce the problem posed by climate change. The effect was, if I recall, already noticeable during the COVID near-shutdown.

Other major contributors to climate change are going to naturally reduce. For instance, in 20 years' time most cars will be EVs charged from renewable energy (and yes, that includes China and India who are often quoted as a reason not to bother, they're trailblazers of EVs), and most homes will not be heated with gas boilers. As things stand, other than very short haul "puddlejumpers" there's no viable alternative to aviation - you have it or you don't.

Please see my point above.

They would get jobs in other areas, such as rail and (electric) coach, which would both have to expand significantly for domestic and short haul travel.

Again missing my point by a country mile. I'm not just talking about people in this country.

But just thinking about that for a moment, if aviation was massively curtailed do you think that would be the end of pressure on transport? Give it a moment or two, in particular reference back to the covid response. People losing jobs in aviation might find similar problems arising elsewhere because I think its more or less a given that them the 2030/40/50 targets are all missed, and they will be, trains, coaches and cars will be next on the chopping board.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

And in a moment of universal irony, I've just passed a class 60 hauling empty trucks from Drax back to Liverpool to pick up wood chips from way across the Atlantic. If ever proof were needed that are eco-policies were so muddled up, this would be it!

 

[DustyBin]

They state a lot that sounds smart, but never back anything up with evidence, and often completely miss the point others are trying to make. A smart sounding response that doesn't actually respond to the issue being raised is rather useless. They also have a tendency to strawman the position of the people they're arguing against to a different position, once again making their arguments disingenuous and useless.

I disagree. The title of the thread is clear, and whilst clearly not everybody in favour of restrictions on flying is calling for a total ban, the posters in question are advocating a dramatic reduction. The way I see it (and you may disagree), @Bantamzen is simply asking for a cost-benefit analysis.

Lovely words, but lots of arguing against a strawman rather than the actual arguments being made.

See above.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But just thinking about that for a moment, if aviation was massively curtailed do you think that would be the end of pressure on transport? Give it a moment or two, in particular reference back to the covid response. People losing jobs in aviation might find similar problems arising elsewhere because I think its more or less a given that them the 2030/40/50 targets are all missed, and they will be, trains, coaches and cars will be next on the chopping board.

If they can't be powered by renewable energy, then yes. But they can - as I said in 20 years most cars on the road will be electric.

And in a moment of universal irony, I've just passed a class 60 hauling empty trucks from Drax back to Liverpool to pick up wood chips from way across the Atlantic. If ever proof were needed that are eco-policies were so muddled up, this would be it!

Certainly the situation with Drax is ridiculous (British coal would probably emit less carbon overall), but no more ridiculous than the line of "we should do nothing because someone else is doing something silly or ill-informed".

 

[Bantamzen]

If they can't be powered by renewable energy, then yes. But they can - as I said in 20 years most cars on the road will be electric.

That's not a lot of good if they are powered by electricity generated from fuel shipped thousands of miles by diesel. And literally typed as another Drax working passes me heading up the Calder Valley.

Certainly the situation with Drax is ridiculous (British coal would probably emit less carbon overall), but no more ridiculous than the line of "we should do nothing because someone else is doing something silly or ill-informed".

And I am not calling for nothing to be done, which is the crux of my argument yet one that has been missed or ignored. I'm calling for more thought to the solutions proposed, their effect on economies and people around the world, and if like Drax they are just shifting the problem from A to B too meet a target. Curtailing aviation will quite frankly have little effect towards these lines in the sand, but they will cause their own, huge problems elsewhere. And if these issues aren't considered and tackled then frankly the solutions won't be accepted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not a lot of good if they are powered by electricity generated from fuel shipped thousands of miles by diesel. And literally typed as another Drax working passes me heading up the Calder Valley.

The vast majority of UK power generation is now either renewable or nuclear. Drax is a problem but it's a tiny minority of the problem. And to be fair electric cars are of benefit even if fully coal powered because of reduction in pollution in urban areas, though that's a bit of an aside to this discussion.

To put it as I often do, perfection is the enemy of the good.

And I am not calling for nothing to be done, which is the crux of my argument yet one that has been missed or ignored. I'm calling for more thought to the solutions proposed, their effect on economies and people around the world, and if like Drax they are just shifting the problem from A to B too meet a target. Curtailing aviation will quite frankly have little effect towards these lines in the sand, but they will cause their own, huge problems elsewhere. And if these issues aren't considered and tackled then frankly the solutions won't be accepted.

People lived with a more sensible level of aviation, e.g. that available in the late 1990s, and they will do again. Low cost airlines are often no longer low cost, anyway, and habits are already shifting.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well it seems claiming strawmen is the popular, if rather lame response to the issue. So I'm just going ask once again to see if one of the responders wants to come out from behind the big bad strawman and actually dare to tackle any of the following. Veiled insults need not apply.

1. Will the world end in 2050 if aviation not is reduced or stopped?

The higher emissions from all sources combined, the worse climate change will be. Completely ignoring a sector that has had growing emissions over the last few decades does not make sense in that context. The higher total emissions from all sectors, including aviation, the larger the areas that need to deal with heat making human life impossible, and the larger the risk of simultaneous crop failures, which if they happen will lead to mass starvation.

2. Will climate change become a much smaller problem if aviation is reduced and stopped?

See above, though measures in other sectors are clearly necessary and desirable. Every sector is able to present it's emission as small compared to the entire rest of the economy, that does not mean that ANY sector is exempt from action.

3. And finally for todays star prize, and to answer the real question, what do you propose we do to help those people whose jobs you want taken away and how do you propose to back up economies that will lose out if tourism is reduced?

People having good jobs is important. There's multiple solutions to this, and what solutions work will depend on the region in question. However in general, the green economy does create a lot of jobs, from insulating buildings and installing new heatings systems, to work on an expanded rail network, to jobs in renewable energy. In many countries, there's currently a shortage of workers across the economy, so jobs are available in many other sectors as well

But, unmitigated climate change will also destroy tourism jobs, but take food security with it, which is an objectively worse outcome than just reduced employment

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

That's not a lot of good if they are powered by electricity generated from fuel shipped thousands of miles by diesel. And literally typed as another Drax working passes me heading up the Calder Valley.


And I am not calling for nothing to be done, which is the crux of my argument yet one that has been missed or ignored. I'm calling for more thought to the solutions proposed, their effect on economies and people around the world, and if like Drax they are just shifting the problem from A to B too meet a target. Curtailing aviation will quite frankly have little effect towards these lines in the sand, but they will cause their own, huge problems elsewhere. And if these issues aren't considered and tackled then frankly the solutions won't be accepted.

Have you ever posted a solution you are in favour of in ANY thread on this forum? If so, could you link to it? I've only ever seen you argue against anything that even closely resembles climate action, whether it is about tackling emissions from cars, planes, the railway or insulation / building upgrades, but I obviously do not read every thread and post on this forum, so it is very possible that I have missed it, if so, my apologies

 

[Bantamzen]

The vast majority of UK power generation is now either renewable or nuclear. Drax is a problem but it's a tiny minority of the problem. And to be fair electric cars are of benefit even if fully coal powered because of reduction in pollution in urban areas, though that's a bit of an aside to this discussion.

To put it as I often do, perfection is the enemy of the good.

And do you know what I have no problem with electric cars, save the fact they are slumming quiet on country lanes but that's just something to adapt to.

However they are really quite expensive meaning that most people are going to struggle for a long time to be able to buy them, which means some targets won't be met. Which is part of my wider points on the targets, people fixate on them but don't actually arrive at how to achieve them. And when the targets are not met there will be a hunt for someone to blame adding an unnecessary distraction.

People lived with a more sensible level of aviation, e.g. that available in the late 1990s, and they will do again. Low cost airlines are often no longer low cost, anyway, and habits are already shifting.

Once upon a time people worked down the mines 1w hours a day 6 days a week, leaving their home villages one a year for a week or two if they were lucky. How about we dial it back that far?

The higher emissions from all sources combined, the worse climate change will be. Completely ignoring a sector that has had growing emissions over the last few decades does not make sense in that context. The higher total emissions from all sectors, including aviation, the larger the areas that need to deal with heat making human life impossible, and the larger the risk of simultaneous crop failures, which if they happen will lead to mass starvation.

And as I said further up above, aviation is making huge strides into reducing its impact. Is there more it can do, of course be the reality is that aviation is trying to tackle the challenge. What seems to be falling behind are the impact models on the effect of aviation which seem to be stuck a little in the past.

See above, though measures in other sectors are clearly necessary and desirable. Every sector is able to present it's emission as small compared to the entire rest of the economy, that does not mean that ANY sector is exempt from action.

Well not energy production or foor production, still by far the biggest impacts on the environment.

People having good jobs is important. There's multiple solutions to this, and what solutions work will depend on the region in question. However in general, the green economy does create a lot of jobs, from insulating buildings and installing new heatings systems, to work on an expanded rail network, to jobs in renewable energy. In many countries, there's currently a shortage of workers across the economy, so jobs are available in many other sectors as well

But you're not actually answering the issue, which is another point I'm trying to make that these jobs are often throwaways in such debates.

But, unmitigated climate change will also destroy tourism jobs, but take food security with it, which is an objectively worse outcome than just reduced employment

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

And I have alluded to this fact. But again we don't actually know with an great certainty what effects climate change will have, whereas we have much better idea what losing tourism could have. You can't ignore the latter simply because the former might overtake it.

Have you ever posted a solution you are in favour of in ANY thread on this forum? If so, could you link to it? I've only ever seen you argue against anything that even closely resembles climate action, whether it is about tackling emissions from cars, planes, the railway or insulation / building upgrades, but I obviously do not read every thread and post on this forum, so it is very possible that I have missed it, if so, my apologies

Well I have talked about how domestic flying is an area we should be able to tackle through other means of transport, although sadly in this country we have once again stalled on projects that would deliver them within a couple of decades whilst trying to strap batteries to ancient rolling stock. This is one of my huge frustrations about the climate change lobby these days, its obessed with targets we are never going to meet, and chasing solutions that won't have a huge impact, or worse still could have even worse consequences. All in the name of a quick "win". Well there isn't going to be one, man made climate change is millenia in the making and it is probably going to take many decades or even hundreds of years to fully tackle.

 

[Krokodil]

1. Will the world end in 2050 if aviation not is reduced or stopped?

The world as we know it will be gone. Reducing aviation is just one aspect of the changes that are required if we are to mitigate this.

2. Will climate change become a much smaller problem if aviation is reduced and stopped?

Smaller? Yes. "Much" is a pretty ambiguous term.

3. And finally for todays star prize, and to answer the real question, what do you propose we do to help those people whose jobs you want taken away

Change won't happen overnight. What do you think happened to people working in cigarette factories? People get new jobs, they retrain, older staff take the money and retire. I know a few ex-pilots and cabin crew who have become train drivers.

how do you propose to back up economies that will lose out if tourism is reduced?

How do you propose to back up those same economies when their tourism business becomes unviable because it's 50°C outside, there are wildfires, or heavy storms?

My point here is to challenge these cursory targets that everyone is sweating over.

Never mind the target, if we do nothing we won't even get halfway there. The target gives you a goal to aim for.

trains, coaches and cars will be next on the chopping board.

Electric trains and buses are highly efficient, they will be going nowhere. Road transport on the other hand represents 18% of the UK's emissions so I'll gladly sharpen the axe.

 

[eldomtom2]

However they are really quite expensive meaning that most people are going to struggle for a long time to be able to buy them, which means some targets won't be met. Which is part of my wider points on the targets, people fixate on them but don't actually arrive at how to achieve them. And when the targets are not met there will be a hunt for someone to blame adding an unnecessary distraction.

I think by the time targets are completely missed people will have made up their minds on who to blame!

What seems to be falling behind are the impact models on the effect of aviation which seem to be stuck a little in the past.

Please provide a citation for this claim.

Well not energy production or foor production, still by far the biggest impacts on the environment.

Are you doing anything to reduce your impact there, such as by eating less meat?

But you're not actually answering the issue, which is another point I'm trying to make that these jobs are often throwaways in such debates.

And you seem to be treating the jobs lost to the impacts of climate change as throwaways.

And I have alluded to this fact. But again we don't actually know with an great certainty what effects climate change will have, whereas we have much better idea what losing tourism could have. You can't ignore the latter simply because the former might overtake it.

And you seem to be completely ignoring the former. In addition, being less certain on what the impacts of climate change will be makes it more important to avoid them, not less.

Well there isn't going to be one, man made climate change is millenia in the making and it is probably going to take many decades or even hundreds of years to fully tackle.

Yes, that would be why global temperature has risen gradually over millenia instead of suddenly spiking in the last two centuries - oh wait.

 

[Krokodil]

Once upon a time people worked down the mines 1w hours a day 6 days a week, leaving their home villages one a year for a week or two if they were lucky. How about we dial it back that far?

Why would we want to send people down mines? Why dig up coal that we won't be burning? Besides, machines are safer and more efficient at mining. Modern public transport (if done right) is a very efficient way of moving the population around.

Well not energy production or foor production, still by far the biggest impacts on the environment.

Energy (at 24%) is high, but it has dropped drastically and will continue to do so. We should have invested in nuclear long ago. UK agriculture is 11%, similar to air travel. Some of which will be reduced as electric machinery develops and methods change (ironically going back to the traditional ways of cultivating and fertilising the soil). We all need to eat, agriculture is essential in a way that air travel is not.

But again we don't actually know with an great certainty what effects climate change will have,

There are a lot of things that we don't know about with any great certainty. Economics has a lot in common with meteorology in this respect.

What we do know is that we are seeing more severe weather events than before.

 

[The Ham]

Will the world end in 2050, almost certainly not.

However would it be possible for the world to sustain the current human population - that is less clear.

However what is fairly clear is that there's been a shift in the climate over the last 30 years at least, if not longer.

The majority of science she's that it is highly probable that it's due to increased carbon emissions (and other greenhouse gases) and that whilst natural sources are significant the man made element is the bit we can control.

For example if I'm spending more each month than I earn, whilst my mortgage payments may be bigger than my credit card spending, the latter is the bit where I've got more control over what I spend.

In the same way with carbon, if we are over spending what the earth can deal with; it's the "spending" we control that we should be looking at dealing with.

There's been some significant shift in reducing carbon emissions in some sectors and by most countries.

Yes there's area where it's still high (land based travel, agriculture, etc.), however few areas have seen significant growth in their emissions, the most noticeable is aviation.

There are generally a range of views, from banning it totally through to reducing current restrictions on flights (although both extreme views are here by very few), the general consensus is that there should be some additional limits on flying.

The ideal minimum would be to limit aviation to its current emissions (i.e. if we want to increase the numbers flying; this can only be done by improvements in carbon emissions within the aviation industry), others would rather that total emissions from aviation should reduce (how much depends on the person, but even a reduction of 10% would be a reasonable first step over the next 10 years - again numbers flying could increase just within those limits).

Limiting to current levels wouldn't reduce the numbers being employed in tourism or aviation, with those more fuel efficient aircraft (as well as possibly having fewer but larger flights, if that reduced emissions per seat) could mean that a reason of (say) 3% fall in emissions could still allow a small amount of growth in passengers.

Even if there was a hard limit of 6 return flights per person a year would probably not materially impact tourism, however it would result in a reduced number of flights.

I'm happy to discuss options (hard limit of x flights, a pricing structure to discourage flights, flight limit trading, something else) however I don't recall there being much "something else" being put forwards.

Personally I wouldn't favour a hard limit, as for example you've done your 6 return flights and then you get a call to say a parent is about to die. At least with a pricing structure or a trading option you can buy an extra return flight (you may not like the cost, but for a last goodbye most would pay over the odds).

The question which first needs answering by those who are arguing against any limits on flying, how far are you willing to let aviation increase its emissions by? If it increases by 10% would that be acceptable to you, how about 25%, 50%, 100%, 1,000%, 10,000% (yes those maybe crazy high numbers, but in the last 30 years it's gone up by over 200%, what's to stop them doing that again and then some by 2050)?

What would you expect in return for that? For example more tourism.

I suspect that most people would fall along the line of a reduction of 30% by 2050 to a small (say 10%) increase by 2050. Yes there'll be those who sit outside of this range.

Whilst, technology could get us there without other limits, some technology (such as synthetic fuels) will increase costs to the industry, so there may need to be extra taxes or costs for non synthetic fuels to level the playing field.

Whilst seeing a tripling of fuel costs would mean a 60% increase in total costs

 

[Bantamzen]

Ok so from what it seems no-one arguing at me is prepared to discuss the impact on the aviation & industries as the reduced of forced reductions through either higher fares / taxes, or through limiting the number of flights people would be allowed to take. It's disappointing, even annoying really because along with climate change itself it is a very important subject. And one that will ultimately shape the future of eco-policies.

What the responses to my posts have shown, as have my interactions across a wider spectrum of social media, is that there is a large disconnect between eco-friendly polices and theories versus the active real world. Which is what I have been trying to bring to the table. Perhaps this should not be surprising to me, after all I suspect a lot of responses I get on social media are from academics, who sometimes can't actually see beyond the boundaries of their fields. Should we be doing a lot more to reduce our impact on the environment? Yes. But equally should we be doing more to end wars? Absolutely. So why aren't we? The reality I am sorry to so won't please a lot of people here, and that reality is people.

Any proposed solutions to man made climate change cannot ignore the impact on people. If you are proposing on reducing an industry, you should also be proposing a solution for those who will lose their livelihoods. For those that remember the drive to close the UK coal industry down, you will hopefully remember the sheer impact that it had on entire communities. In fact for 5 years of my life I lived in one such place, and despite many years having past since the mines closed, there was still a massive economic impact felt. Now take that same impact and apply it to any proposed percentage reduction of close to 90 million jobs worldwide in and around aviation, and considerably more in and around tourism. Even a small reduction say 10% is going to impact tens of millions of people very quickly. So what do they do? And please don't offer vague answers like "they will find something else", the same was said for coal miners. Most didn't find anything else for a long time, because nothing was created in the industry's absence. So considering the impact of any reduction policies deserves serious discussion.

Finally for those clamouring to know my lifestyle choices, presumably so they can confirm their bias, then I going to be disappointing you. I don't drive, the vast majority of my powered travel is by public transport. However I do fly up to 2 return trips per year, although in the last 4 I've flown only 1 return trip.

I do often choose to walk anything up to 10km a day as part of my commute or going to and from the supermarket (my nearest being around 3.6km away). I do eat meat but generally avoid processed food, preferring to cook as it is highly enjoyable. And I waste practically no food whatsoever, making sure that leftovers are make into another meal I can store such as stews. I try to make all my tech last as long as possible, and the same with clothes plus I rarely buy anything I don't actually have a use for. And I support wildlife charities and reforestation projects.

 

[DustyBin]

Ok so from what it seems no-one arguing at me is prepared to discuss the impact on the aviation & industries as the reduced of forced reductions through either higher fares / taxes, or through limiting the number of flights people would be allowed to take. It's disappointing, even annoying really because along with climate change itself it is a very important subject. And one that will ultimately shape the future of eco-policies.

What the responses to my posts have shown, as have my interactions across a wider spectrum of social media, is that there is a large disconnect between eco-friendly polices and theories versus the active real world. Which is what I have been trying to bring to the table. Perhaps this should not be surprising to me, after all I suspect a lot of responses I get on social media are from academics, who sometimes can't actually see beyond the boundaries of their fields. Should we be doing a lot more to reduce our impact on the environment? Yes. But equally should we be doing more to end wars? Absolutely. So why aren't we? The reality I am sorry to so won't please a lot of people here, and that reality is people.

Any proposed solutions to man made climate change cannot ignore the impact on people. If you are proposing on reducing an industry, you should also be proposing a solution for those who will lose their livelihoods. For those that remember the drive to close the UK coal industry down, you will hopefully remember the sheer impact that it had on entire communities. In fact for 5 years of my life I lived in one such place, and despite many years having past since the mines closed, there was still a massive economic impact felt. Now take that same impact and apply it to any proposed percentage reduction of close to 90 million jobs worldwide in and around aviation, and considerably more in and around tourism. Even a small reduction say 10% is going to impact tens of millions of people very quickly. So what do they do? And please don't offer vague answers like "they will find something else", the same was said for coal miners. Most didn't find anything else for a long time, because nothing was created in the industry's absence. So considering the impact of any reduction policies deserves serious discussion.

Finally for those clamouring to know my lifestyle choices, presumably so they can confirm their bias, then I going to be disappointing you. I don't drive, the vast majority of my powered travel is by public transport. However I do fly up to 2 return trips per year, although in the last 4 I've flown only 1 return trip.

I do often choose to walk anything up to 10km a day as part of my commute or going to and from the supermarket (my nearest being around 3.6km away). I do eat meat but generally avoid processed food, preferring to cook as it is highly enjoyable. And I waste practically no food whatsoever, making sure that leftovers are make into another meal I can store such as stews. I try to make all my tech last as long as possible, and the same with clothes plus I rarely buy anything I don't actually have a use for. And I support wildlife charities and reforestation projects.

The problem you have is that (some of) those arguing with you appear to be fixated on the worst possible outcome(s) of climate change, believe it’s all the result of human activity, and therefore is within our gift to prevent. The cost-benefit analysis you’re asking for won’t be forthcoming, as there’s no cost too high to prevent certain “catastrophe”.

As you say, climate policy (and politics) is going to collide with reality at some point. It’s therefore important to focus on realistic, worthwhile, and sustainable measures to mitigate man-made climate change, rather than draconian measures such as banning commercial aviation (or making it unaffordable). People advocating the latter are simply undermining their own cause.

 

[The Ham]

Ok so from what it seems no-one arguing at me is prepared to discuss the impact on the aviation & industries as the reduced of forced reductions through either higher fares / taxes, or through limiting the number of flights people would be allowed to take. It's disappointing, even annoying really because along with climate change itself it is a very important subject. And one that will ultimately shape the future of eco-policies.

What the responses to my posts have shown, as have my interactions across a wider spectrum of social media, is that there is a large disconnect between eco-friendly polices and theories versus the active real world. Which is what I have been trying to bring to the table. Perhaps this should not be surprising to me, after all I suspect a lot of responses I get on social media are from academics, who sometimes can't actually see beyond the boundaries of their fields. Should we be doing a lot more to reduce our impact on the environment? Yes. But equally should we be doing more to end wars? Absolutely. So why aren't we? The reality I am sorry to so won't please a lot of people here, and that reality is people.

Any proposed solutions to man made climate change cannot ignore the impact on people. If you are proposing on reducing an industry, you should also be proposing a solution for those who will lose their livelihoods. For those that remember the drive to close the UK coal industry down, you will hopefully remember the sheer impact that it had on entire communities. In fact for 5 years of my life I lived in one such place, and despite many years having past since the mines closed, there was still a massive economic impact felt. Now take that same impact and apply it to any proposed percentage reduction of close to 90 million jobs worldwide in and around aviation, and considerably more in and around tourism. Even a small reduction say 10% is going to impact tens of millions of people very quickly. So what do they do? And please don't offer vague answers like "they will find something else", the same was said for coal miners. Most didn't find anything else for a long time, because nothing was created in the industry's absence. So considering the impact of any reduction policies deserves serious discussion.

Finally for those clamouring to know my lifestyle choices, presumably so they can confirm their bias, then I going to be disappointing you. I don't drive, the vast majority of my powered travel is by public transport. However I do fly up to 2 return trips per year, although in the last 4 I've flown only 1 return trip.

I do often choose to walk anything up to 10km a day as part of my commute or going to and from the supermarket (my nearest being around 3.6km away). I do eat meat but generally avoid processed food, preferring to cook as it is highly enjoyable. And I waste practically no food whatsoever, making sure that leftovers are make into another meal I can store such as stews. I try to make all my tech last as long as possible, and the same with clothes plus I rarely buy anything I don't actually have a use for. And I support wildlife charities and reforestation projects.

I think you miss understand, there's a difference between reducing emissions by 10% and reducing flying by 10%. (Even if that's the target, it could even be zero increases in emissions, as based on the last 30 years that would be a significant change in likely future emissions).

Given that you've started that the industry is going to improve the efficiency of aircraft (and could probably do so by reducing the number of smaller flights - for example there's likely to be fairly limited impact in a post HS2 world in no longer having London/Manchester flights, however those emissions could then be "transferred" to other rights which could provide bigger benefits):

And as I said further up above, aviation is making huge strides into reducing its impact. Is there more it can do, of course be the reality is that aviation is trying to tackle the challenge. What seems to be falling behind are the impact models on the effect of aviation which seem to be stuck a little in the past.

It should, if the industry is doing as you suggest, be possible to have (say) a 10% reduction in emissions and still maintain the vast majority of benefits flying provides.

The tourist industry is unlikely to be overly impacted by limiting people to (for example) a given number of flights before APD increases, especially if there's a reasonable number of no increase in APD flights.

As a nation on average there are 4 flights per person per year, whilst there's many who don't fly, there's also many foreign nationals who do fly to this country.

Therefore having the suggestion of 8 flights before APD rises is likely to have fairly limited impacts on 99% of the world's population (as 1% of the works population are responsible for 50% of aviation emissions).

Of those 80 million people I would hazard a guess that they are from countries such as the USA, EU countries, UK, Australia, New Zealand, China, and India. Therefore the numbers who actually fly to/from the UK more than 8 times (although even then some would pay the small amount extra in tax for a few more flights than that) is going to a fairly limited percentage of that total - however for those who do, it would allow the aviation industry to grow elsewhere if there was a zero growth limit on carbon emissions.

Even a 10% reduction in emissions (even if that was equal to a reduction in flights) could be achieved by those 80 million reducing their flying by 20%. The reality is that paired with efficiencies, new electric aircraft for island hopping, a little more rail use and the like then the actual reduction in travel could well be fairly limited and probably mostly domestic flights.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2023 ==

The problem you have is that (some of) those arguing with you appear to be fixated on the worst possible outcome(s) of climate change, believe it’s all the result of human activity, and therefore is within our gift to prevent. The cost-benefit analysis you’re asking for won’t be forthcoming, as there’s no cost too high to prevent certain “catastrophe”.

As you say, climate policy (and politics) is going to collide with reality at some point. It’s therefore important to focus on realistic, worthwhile, and sustainable measures to mitigate man-made climate change, rather than draconian measures such as banning commercial aviation (or making it unaffordable). People advocating the latter are simply undermining their own cause.

There's a range of what people are calling for, a very few would be calling for zero flights, whilst others at the other end of the argument will be asking for flights to be unlimited and so (by extension) to allow aviation to be permitted to be 98% of global carbon emissions (even if the reality is that it never gets that high).

The vast majority would like to see aviation have some form of limit, as I've said even if that's no increase in current levels that works still be useful.

A 10% reduction in emissions (which isn't a 10% reduction in flying) over the next 10 years again isn't going to be significantly in the wider impact on industries linked to aviation. Even if it was a 10% reduction in flights, quite a lot of that could be dealt with via things like the French rule of no domestic flights where there's a reasonable rail alternative - again having a limited impact on linked industries.

You could probably get more than a 10% reduction just by reducing private jets (not even a total ban).