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

[Krokodil]

Imagine for example saying to businesses on a Greek island "we're really sorry but we are going to stop your customers coming as often, if at all.

Does the UK government typically consult Greek hoteliers for their views on proposed taxes?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The consensus was that it’s an inefficient, unreliable, economic basket case, and that 50% of the network should be closed. Again, completely bonkers!

It’s not that bonkers, though. Usage is low on parts of the network, I used to regularly take the last Leeds-Carlisle train and in winter I’d often be the only person on it north of Settle. You’ll see similar on the Conwy Valley and HOWL too.

Most people don’t use the railways very often.

It’s the same with aviation. Most people don’t fly very much- once a year, if at all.

But the ones who fly a lot REALLY fly a lot. Look at, say, the qualification criteria for BA Gold- even five return trips Heathrow to JFK in business class isn’t enough to qualify. It’s not sustainable. It needs to be discouraged. Graduated tax would be one way. Taxing the perks of frequent flier membership may be another.

But we similar arguments with inheritance tax. Those opposed to inheritance tax frame it as an “attack on hard working normal people” when only 3.8% of estates are big enough to actually attract any inheritance tax liability. It’d be the same with taxing regular aviation- most people wouldn’t notice or be affected, but those who are will shout noisily about how it’s targeting normal people and how it’ll be the downfall of society as we know it.

 

[mi_z]

If aviation was a country then most would be tiny archipelagos off the coast of Energy and Food.

And folk here wonder why environmentalists are finding it harder and harder to gain public traction. If you want to make a difference find a way to implement changes without mucking many people's lives out. Or you could just keep making ridiculous analogies, I'm sure that will make a difference.

Good grief these forums so need a facepalm smile..

Aviation is 2% of global emissions IIRC. That's more than some tiny islands. However, it's also a faulty picture to paint. As a personal action, any flight would contribute to a large fraction of your emissions. It remains low globally because the majority of the world's population doesn't fly with any regularity. If people all flew like Westeners it would account for higher percentage. Using its current percentage is only viable because flying is a luxury activity.

 

[Krokodil]

I'd say mass urban car use is really what should be deprecated. Rural car use is the only viable way to get around, and we need people to live in rural areas to farm etc.

Given that 90% of people live in urban areas, surely what remains if most of them gave up their cars isn't "mass" any more so the original statement would still be correct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well most people live in urban areas. Even in smaller towns and villages though average journey lengths are not long, with many being short. So simply not living in a city doesn't mean your only choice is to drive. Cycling is a mode ideally suited for journeys under say 10 miles but the infrastructure in the UK is not suited for it.

Cycling is ideal for journeys between about 1 and 4 miles for most people (under a mile and getting the bike out and locking it up takes longer than walking). Ten miles is for the superfit and time-blessed.

For rural residents, park and ride at urban fringes is probably the best plan where a decent* bus service isn't viable.

* Hourly 0700-2300 ish is probably the limits of a genuinely useful rural/interurban service - below that and it becomes a distress purchase for most.

Cycling on country roads is a death wish.

Cycling on country lanes is fine, we could drop the speed limit if it's that bad, 30 on roads with no marked centreline would probably be reasonable.

What's not fine is on rural single and dual carriageways - all of these need segregated cycleways, e.g. the A421/422 around Buckingham.

 

[Krokodil]

Aviation is 2% of global emissions IIRC. That's more than some tiny islands. However, it's also a faulty picture to paint. As a personal action, any flight would contribute to a large fraction of your emissions. It remains low globally because the majority of the world's population don't fly with any regularity. If people all flew like Westeners it would account for higher percentage. Using its current percentage is only viable because flying is a luxury activity.

Quite. IIRC it's 12% of UK emissions and growing as a proportion.

 

[Krokodil]

the Dutch know everything there is to know about utility cycling and should simply be copied verbatim on the matter

Not just the Dutch, I've been very impressed by the infrastructure in Munich. It's well used too, including cargo bikes and kiddie trailers. Unfortunately British councils think it adequate to paint a white line down the gutter.

 

[Bantamzen]

At this point I'd point to the suggestions made by several posters, I think yourself included but I may recall wrongly, who suggested that very strict* COVID related legislation* would result in civil disobedience and rioting. This still pops up occasionally.

COVID thoroughly debunked this. The laws were draconian* and strictly enforced*, and there was no rioting whatsoever.

It simply wouldn't happen and is beyond fanciful. The French might riot. British people wouldn't, it's just not in our culture. There will be mumbling and tutting, but people will, after a bit of striking, switch jobs and get on with their lives, just like they did in the end when the far more significant decimation of the British coal industry, or the Beeching cuts, took place.

* Please don't turn this thread into a discussion on the rights and wrongs of that, though

Actually there was plenty of civil disobedience globally, even in covid- restriction loving China, which is what I'm talking about. Any restrictions on air travel won't stop having an impact once you cross the borders of our waters.

As I say this is the problem about this debate, most people can't see beyond their own narrow horizons. I have tried, and thus far failed to expand it.

 

[Krokodil]

Actually there was plenty of civil disobedience globally, even in covid- restriction loving China, which is what I'm talking about. Any restrictions on air travel won't stop having an impact once you cross the borders of our waters.

Do you seriously expect there to be protests in the streets because people can't bag a bargain flight to Malaga any more?

No, you'll get a press release from IAG, maybe a bit of placard-waving from the pilots' unions and then it'll all blow over. The number of people whose vote would be influenced by it will be miniscule.

 

[Bantamzen]

Do you seriously expect there to be protests in the streets because people can't bag a bargain flight to Malaga any more?

Do you ever actually absorb what I read, or just assume?

What I am taking about for what feels like the millionth time, is the impact on those economies that will suffer with less / no tourism. I hope that's made it clear enough for you now. So let's flip this gig around, how would you mitigate for this impact?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What I am taking about for what feels like the millionth time, is the impact on those economies that will suffer with less / no tourism. I hope that's made it clear enough for you now. So let's flip this gig around, how would you mitigate for this impact?

Given that basically all such places are outside the UK, that's for their Governments to deal with, not ours. It's not exclusive to air travel - for instance the outsourcing IT market in India and Eastern Europe is getting smaller because wages are increasing, so it's no longer as cheap as it was.

So as far as the UK goes we should do nothing at all. We just need to deal with ensuring replacement jobs for people who work in airports and for airlines. Which shouldn't be too hard as I'd expect an increase in rail and coach travel if domestic and short-haul air became seriously deprecated.

 

[Trainbike46]

Do you ever actually absorb what I read, or just assume?

What I am taking about for what feels like the millionth time, is the impact on those economies that will suffer with less / no tourism. I hope that's made it clear enough for you now. So let's flip this gig around, how would you mitigate for this impact?

When I answered this question for a specific location where I know more about, and the solution will differ between locations as, simply put, situations vary, you ignored it. Why should another poster believe that you will engage with what they say when so far you just keep repeating the same few points and ignore every attempt by anyone to meaningfully engage with it?

 

[eldomtom2]

Its going to have to be possible. People losing their jobs and potentially still being impacted by climate change means it won't be long before they push back.

And as I keep repeating, why do you act like different people won't be demanding more action when their jobs are impacted by climate change?

Simply put any changes implemented have to take into account any side effects. That's it. The bottom line. Imagine for example saying to businesses on a Greek island "we're really sorry but we are going to stop your customers coming as often, if at all. Oh and you'll still be affected by climate change". This is the problem with climate change debate in this country, its about us and stuff anyone else.

Again, why is it okay to say to e.g. Tuvalu "we're really sorry, but tourism is too important to Greek islands so you'll just have to watch as your entire island sinks below the waves"?

 

[Krokodil]

Do you ever actually absorb what I read, or just assume?

What I am taking about for what feels like the millionth time, is the impact on those economies that will suffer with less / no tourism. I hope that's made it clear enough for you now. So let's flip this gig around, how would you mitigate for this impact?

What makes you think that I particularly care about the effect upon the Greek economy? I hardly think that the Greek government considers the effect upon the British economy when it makes decisions.

If that sounds callous, I should make it plain that I don't relish the idea of anyone losing their job (unless that person is named "Grant Shapps") but you can't just do nothing on the basis that someone, somewhere will be negatively impacted.

Many places are over-touristed in any case and would welcome a reduction in visitors. Venice is an obvious example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not just the Dutch, I've been very impressed by the infrastructure in Munich. It's well used too, including cargo bikes and kiddie trailers. Unfortunately British councils think it adequate to paint a white line down the gutter.

While I've not been for a bit and London has near-transformed (though not perfect*) in less than 10 years or so, Germany was always in my experience a bit of a poor-man's Netherlands - that is similar concepts and types of cycle use, but much "bittier" in implementation so not quite as good. Better than the UK though.

* Worst thing about London is a lack of consistency in the designs.

 

[Bantamzen]

When I answered this question for a specific location where I know more about, and the solution will differ between locations as, simply put, situations vary, you ignored it. Why should another poster believe that you will engage with what they say when so far you just keep repeating the same few points and ignore every attempt by anyone to meaningfully engage with it?

I'm sorry I may have missed your response on how mitigations would be made for areas of the world that may lose significant amounts of their economy as a result of reducing aviation.

And as I keep repeating, why do you act like different people won't be demanding more action when their jobs are impacted by climate change?

Because the impact of reducing aviation will be much more impactful much sooner.

Again, why is it okay to say to e.g. Tuvalu "we're really sorry, but tourism is too important to Greek islands so you'll just have to watch as your entire island sinks below the waves"?

See the above..

What makes you think that I particularly care about the effect upon the Greek economy? I hardly think that the Greek government considers the effect upon the British economy when it makes decisions.

If that sounds callous, I should make it plain that I don't relish the idea of anyone losing their job (unless that person is named "Grant Shapps") but you can't just do nothing on the basis that someone, somewhere will be negatively impacted.

Many places are over-touristed in any case and would welcome a reduction in visitors. Venice is an obvious example.

It was an example...

 

[Krokodil]

It was an example...

And you can equally use Spain or Barbados if you like, it makes no difference. You can't refuse to reduce the amount of flights that are made, purely on the basis that someone in another country will need to find alternative employment.

The argument around HS2 was that demolishing a few houses was unfortunate, but it was for the greater good of the country as a whole.

 

[eldomtom2]

Because the impact of reducing aviation will be much more impactful much sooner.

"Reducing aviation" is an extremely broad term. Surely some forms of aviation could be reduced with much less of an impact than others.

 

[Skymonster]

What a stupid statement. The planet's warming has accelerated substantially since the industrial revolution. It's not a natural cycle.

It’s not stupid at all - stupidity is getting sucked in by it all and in the process impoverishing this country and millions of lives here and abroad. As I said, it can’t be stopped - it’s happening whether you like it or not and it’s been happening since the ice age. Thankfully the Prime Minister now seems to have seen some sense and is delaying actions that would severely damage this country and the economy.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm sorry I may have missed your response on how mitigations would be made for areas of the world that may lose significant amounts of their economy as a result of reducing aviation.

See my message below:

Why do you keep trying to take this back to allegations of hypocrisy?

They're really not engaging with the content of the discussion, and obviously the intention to do something, like reduce flying, naturally starts before the action, like actually not getting on a plane?

@Bantamzen It's not that I don't want to talk about solutions for reduced employment in the airline and tourism section. However, it is hard to have a useful discussion about this for every place globally that employs people in that sector, as local situations differ, and therefore appropriate solutions also differ.

To pick a location that I'm somewhat more familiar with, let's go for Amsterdam. It has one of the biggest airports in europe, as well as a significant tourism industry. There's also a massive shortage of workers in every sector, so a reduction of jobs in aviation and tourism would likely lead to people getting jobs in the various other sectors, such as the railway, shops/restaurants/etc. mostly used by local people, jobs in the port and industrial area, jobs in the financial sector, jobs in construction, etc. depending on the interests and skills of the individual people involved. Just in case you're wondering, all the sectors I listed have a shortage of employees in the Amsterdam area.

Of course, other places will have different situations, but the shortage of workers across sectors isn't even remotely unique to Amsterdam, and present in many communities across Europe.

As others have pointed out, it would also be a slow contraction rather than a cliff-edge situation.

If you want to discuss the situation in another place, feel free to suggest one

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


This thread was split of from somewhere else, and that discussion was originally almost entirely limited to UK domestic flights, where the suggested bans would be bans on things like domestic that don't cross any seas, and I for example stated that it was good that the most socially necessary domestic flights (those that connect Scottish Islands, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands with the UK mainland, and most key, provide connections for those places to hospitals, or in some cases more specialist hospitals) are easiest to electrify.

While clearly the discussion has moved beyond that, extrapolating the position that there shouldn't be non-electric domestic flights within the UK to the position that no flights should exist anywhere on the planet based on a thread title that wasn't originally referring to that seems a bit of a stretch.

EDIT:
and many people in this thread have explicitly talked about reducing flights, not outright banning all flights everywhere

Because the impact of reducing aviation will be much more impactful much sooner.


See the above..

that's a rather extreme version of economic discounting (where benefits or harms are weighed increasingly less as they are perceived to be further into the future

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Reducing aviation" is an extremely broad term. Surely some forms of aviation could be reduced with much less of an impact than others.

Certainly the easiest aviation to get rid of would be London-Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, particularly with HS2 where Old Oak is close enough to Heathrow to allow HS2 trains to be sold as code-shared connections with guarantees as happens in places like Germany.

Arguably also (sorry @Butts) London City Airport should probably close.

 

[Trainbike46]

Certainly the easiest aviation to get rid of would be London-Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, particularly with HS2 where Old Oak is close enough to Heathrow to allow HS2 trains to be sold as code-shared connections with guarantees as happens in places like Germany.

Arguably also (sorry @Butts) London City Airport should probably close.

Agreed on both counts. Personally I would add flights from London airports to Brussels, lille, the Paris airports and any Dutch airport to the list of banned flight routes

 

[Bantamzen]

So rather than answer all the arguments against my points, I will say just this.

Not one of you has provided any kind of proposal as to how to deal with people whose lives would be impacted because of any industrialised nation's decisions to reduce aviation. Not a single one of you. And that is tells me all I need to know. None of you really care about the world, just yourselves. But just understand this, today it is aviation and tourism that is being targeted by environmental activists. Tomorrow it might be your livelihoods, how will you react then?

 

[eldomtom2]

Not one of you has provided any kind of proposal as to how to deal with people whose lives would be impacted because of any industrialised nation's decisions to reduce aviation.

As I have repeated again and again and again, you keep ignoring that not reducing aviation is not a neutral choice that maintains the status quo. People's lives will be impacted no matter what is done - we should choose the option that impacts people the least.

 

[Bantamzen]

As I have repeated again and again and again, you keep ignoring that not reducing aviation is not a neutral choice that maintains the status quo. People's lives will be impacted no matter what is done - we should choose the option that impacts people the least.

No you are ignoring my question, what happens to those people who jobs go if aviation is reduced? I've answered what happens in the worst case scenario of climate change, so answer my question

 

[eldomtom2]

No you are ignoring my question, what happens to those people who jobs go if aviation is reduced?

Are you suggesting that no government policy that could lead to the loss of jobs should be enacted?

I've answered what happens in the worst case scenario of climate change, so answer my question

No you haven't. You've made vague claims about reducing aviation having the same impact as severe climate change, but you've never said what should be done for those impacted by climate change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tomorrow it might be your livelihoods, how will you react then?

Change my career. These are not things we as individuals control so there's no point in getting hung up on them.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are you suggesting that no government policy that could lead to the loss of jobs should be enacted?

No you haven't. You've made vague claims about reducing aviation having the same impact as severe climate change, but you've never said what should be done for those impacted by climate change.

Clearly you have not been paying attention. All I am going to say is this kind of approach is exactly why more and more people are becoming cynical towards climate change policies.

But don't take my word for it, sit back and watch as the net zero or zero carbon policies fall one by one as reality kicks in. Just don't say you were not warmed

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2023 ==

Change my career. These are not things we as individuals control so there's no point in getting hung up on them.

And if there are not enough jobs for you to change to...??

 

[The Ham]

Its only one step from saying people should do the six things to saying they must.

Lots of government agencies give advice, it doesn't mean that it becomes law (i.e. 5 fruit/vegetables a day)

On reducing number of births, put simply if someone choses to not have children or limit their family size because of the environment then its natural selection at work. I find it hard to believe people actually do decide for that reason. I think on the rare times people do say thats the reason its because its a trendier, less personal reason than the truth e.g. fertility issues or not wanting kids / more kids.

Just for clarification I want suggesting that this was a sensible policy.

I'd say mass urban car use is really what should be deprecated. Rural car use is the only viable way to get around, and we need people to live in rural areas to farm etc.

High quality European style public transport and cycle provision in all our large and medium cities could help step that way. Driving into big cities is grim, most people only do it because public transport is lacking (e.g. hourly suburban services into Manchester and Liverpool are a joke). Even in "shall we take the Jag or the Rangie today" type places, you don't drive into Manchester/Liverpool, you use Merseyrail/Metrolink.

The vast majority of rural (see definition below) jobs have little to do with agriculture - in fact there's quite a few who live in urban areas who work on R&D for agriculture based products.

Given that 90% of people live in urban areas, surely what remains if most of them gave up their cars isn't "mass" any more so the original statement would still be correct.

Under the government definition it's a little less than 85% - however that includes places with a population of over 10,000.

A lot of rural people therefore are likely to live in places with a population of between 5,000 and 10,000 and so could reasonably have a bus service to the nearest town (in fact I live in such a place, towards the larger end of that range and there's 2tph and 1bph to the nearest town)

Actually there was plenty of civil disobedience globally, even in covid- restriction loving China, which is what I'm talking about. Any restrictions on air travel won't stop having an impact once you cross the borders of our waters.

As I say this is the problem about this debate, most people can't see beyond their own narrow horizons. I have tried, and thus far failed to expand it.

My narrow horizons includes flying at most on 4 different flights in a year. However I anticipated that was probably lower than others, and so suggested 8 as the starting point for an increase in taxes (even then the first few bands weren't too costly).

I do however have a question, if there was to be a hard limit on flying - but it set so high that it had little impact on the tourism industry; where would you find such a limit acceptable for an individual each year?

30 individual flights? 40? 50? 60? 80? 100? 150? 200? 250? 500? 1,000? (For comparison 1,000 is over 3 flights a day).

(Note, this isn't a suggestion, which then government implements and then cuts in half every few years, but your personal view).

So rather than answer all the arguments against my points, I will say just this.

Not one of you has provided any kind of proposal as to how to deal with people whose lives would be impacted because of any industrialised nation's decisions to reduce aviation. Not a single one of you. And that is tells me all I need to know. None of you really care about the world, just yourselves. But just understand this, today it is aviation and tourism that is being targeted by environmental activists. Tomorrow it might be your livelihoods, how will you react then?

My industry has changed already. Gone are the days of building high speed roads between two places which didn't have them before or the building of bypasses. Gone are the days of drawing boards. Gone are the old school engineers who could calculate bridges on the back of an envelope and create a design which was a few percent over designed.

However, that's the nature of things.

Due to the aging population, there's generally fewer people to do the jobs which already exist, let alone new jobs.

Taking an example from history, the spreadsheet killed off thousands of Accounts Clerks, however as so many companies could easily record their finances far more accountants are now needed.

Now to be honest I can't see how tech could change tourism, but then few can see what the future will be like for an industry. It could do be that rather than flying you have personal tours of key sites from those knowledgeable of the area via VR. Saving loads of resources (including locally).

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if there are not enough jobs for you to change to...??

You seem to be suggesting that reining in aviation would cause global economic collapse. I rather doubt that given that there was an economy before aviation had even been invented.