Should most flights within Europe be stopped?

[Bantamzen]

Almost every traffic fine or control is run on this principle.

Traffic fines are quite different, you only get them if you don't stick to the rules!

This is a very good idea considering that an old A310 does not have the same pollution levels as the latest A330neo.

Indeed, many fleets are rapidly being replaced, even within their own types. For example Jet2 & Ryanair have been replacing older 737-3/8s with newer 737-8s, and Ryanair had an order in for the Max as both newer variants have much better fuel economy. Its why many independent carbon calculators can't be relied on.

The idea of 'we plant 10 trees for every 1 we cut down' is actually quite illogical. It involves cutting down a 200-year-old 50ft tree and replacing it with 10 dwarf trees with nowhere near the same level of carbon absorption.

I'm not thinking about replacement schemes, I would be looking for re-forestation schemes that re-plant trees where none have been for some time.

 

[London Trains]

How many routes could that fly which would guarantee at least (say) 750 one every flight? No good having a huge plane which is always half-empty.
From the UK probably an American destination?

London - New York and London - Dubai would be the only viable routes and they are both in the top 10 busiest flight routes.

 

[Peter Kelford]

London - New York and London - Dubai would be the only viable routes and they are both in the top 10 busiest flight routes.

Beijing-Shanghai, Sydney-Melbourne.

 

[London Trains]

Beijing-Shanghai, Sydney-Melbourne.

In my post I meant from the UK, but both of these also have large enough flows

 

[HullRailMan]

The whole suggestion of banning flights is nonsense, peddled by eco warriors whose main objective is the introduction of extreme left wing politics.
You can’t un-invent flying, people like it and are used to it. The real solution is making it more sustainable and reducing emissions that way - the same with electricity production.
The logical end point of this argument is that all non-essential travel should be banned. Travelling from, say, London to Edinburgh for leisure uses a huge amount of energy, whether you travel by air, car or rail. If they ban flights, they will then turn their attention to something else.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The whole suggestion of banning flights is nonsense, peddled by eco warriors whose main objective is the introduction of extreme left wing politics.
You can’t un-invent flying, people like it and are used to it. The real solution is making it more sustainable and reducing emissions that way - the same with electricity production.
The logical end point of this argument is that all non-essential travel should be banned. Travelling from, say, London to Edinburgh for leisure uses a huge amount of energy, whether you travel by air, car or rail. If they ban flights, they will then turn their attention to something else.

Having met quite a few people of the type who are often described as "eco warriors", and having also met various people who others describe as having "extreme left wing politics", I should say that in my experience there is minimal overlap between those two groups. I wonder whether people making comments like this really know such people, or have actually been influenced by the hysteria of billionaire-owned media.

Of course you can't un-invent something; that's not the point. The point is that if people want to bequeath a liveable (in reasonable comfort, by significant numbers of our species) planet to future generations, then we have no choice but to stop (to a very large extent) doing some things that some people are used to. (By the way, the majority of the world's population aren't "used to" flying - the majority of people never have flown anywhere and never will.) A very large proportion of flying is undertaken by a global elite of frequent flyers; their selfishness is part of the reason why our ecosystem is getting trashed.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The whole suggestion of banning flights is nonsense, peddled by eco warriors whose main objective is the introduction of extreme left wing politics.
You can’t un-invent flying, people like it and are used to it. The real solution is making it more sustainable and reducing emissions that way - the same with electricity production.
The logical end point of this argument is that all non-essential travel should be banned. Travelling from, say, London to Edinburgh for leisure uses a huge amount of energy, whether you travel by air, car or rail. If they ban flights, they will then turn their attention to something else.

Extreme left-wing politics seems to be a pointless insult. It's left-wing but then any government action is left-wing as opposed to 'free market ultra-liberalism'. Ecologists are essentially rational people, perhaps they have gone too far, but their key logic is rational.

I don't see how they want to un-invent flying or re-invent it. They just want to ban it. For us in the UK, it is not that hard to cut down on flights, unless you live in the Highlands. However, for the US, there is no way anyone can cut down on the road and on planes because there's just no development. Northern Europeans living out of the main cities also will have difficulties not flying. Don't forget also that long-haul travel is unavoidable on a plane, there's virtually no other practical way to get around. I agree with your point on sustainability.

 

[coppercapped]

Having met quite a few people of the type who are often described as "eco warriors", and having also met various people who others describe as having "extreme left wing politics", I should say that in my experience there is minimal overlap between those two groups. I wonder whether people making comments like this really know such people, or have actually been influenced by the hysteria of billionaire-owned media.

Of course you can't un-invent something; that's not the point. The point is that if people want to bequeath a liveable (in reasonable comfort, by significant numbers of our species) planet to future generations, then we have no choice but to stop (to a very large extent) doing some things that some people are used to. (By the way, the majority of the world's population aren't "used to" flying - the majority of people never have flown anywhere and never will.) A very large proportion of flying is undertaken by a global elite of frequent flyers; their selfishness is part of the reason why our ecosystem is getting trashed.

Ah! Envy politics...

Most of the space in commercial aeroplanes is given over to economy/tourist class seats. The 'elite' frequent flyers as you call them take up a small proportion of the seats on offer. The bulk of passengers are either going on holiday or visiting friends and family.

I have tried to show in an earlier post why stopping intra-European flights won't make that much of a difference to the global level of greenhouse gases being emitted. It won't even set an example when one read articles such as this one from Reuters news agency dated last September which states:

China’s total planned coal-fired power projects now stand at 226.2 gigawatts (GW), the highest in the world and more than twice the amount of new capacity on the books in India, according to data published by environmental groups on Thursday.
The projects approved by China amount to nearly 40% of the world’s total planned coal-fired power plants, according to the Global Coal Exit List database run by German environmental organization Urgewald and 30 other partner organizations.

The new China projects would be more than Germany’s existing installed power capacity of around 200 GW by the end of 2018.

The environmental groups said in a press release on Thursday that worldwide 400 of the 746 companies in their database were still planning to expand their coal operations.

The companies include miners and power generators, and account for 89% of the world’s thermal coal production and nearly 87% of the world’s installed coal-fired power capacity.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Ah! Envy politics...

Most of the space in commercial aeroplanes is given over to economy/tourist class seats. The 'elite' frequent flyers as you call them take up a small proportion of the seats on offer. The bulk of passengers are either going on holiday or visiting friends and family.

I have tried to show in an earlier post why stopping intra-European flights won't make that much of a difference to the global level of greenhouse gases being emitted. It won't even set an example when one read articles such as this one from Reuters news agency dated last September which states:

You misunderstand my use of "elite"; those many passengers going on holiday (which, it is true, are the majority on some airline routes) are indeed - in global terms - an elite. Many of them fly quite often; it's common for those who can afford overseas holidays to have several such a year. Most flights are indeed by people who are an elite in that sense.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the reference to "envy". Is wanting a society where people have fairer shares of the limited resources available something to do with envy, or is it simple justice?

 

[Chester1]

Ah! Envy politics...

Most of the space in commercial aeroplanes is given over to economy/tourist class seats. The 'elite' frequent flyers as you call them take up a small proportion of the seats on offer. The bulk of passengers are either going on holiday or visiting friends and family.

I have tried to show in an earlier post why stopping intra-European flights won't make that much of a difference to the global level of greenhouse gases being emitted. It won't even set an example when one read articles such as this one from Reuters news agency dated last September which states:

You could use the global argument to take no action at all. The easiest rebuttal to a flying ban is simply that aviation accounts for about 5% of UK emissions. There is a strong argument for taxing aviation fuel (which would require altering international agreements) and a frequent flyers tax (both collectively replacing APD which is a very blunt tax). Those measures would stem the growth of aviation emissions and encourage the development of batteries and electrofuels. Domestic and industrial emissions should be a much higher priority. There is definitely a cultural and political element to the campaigning on aviation, it gets too much focus for the level of emissions it creates

 

[Bald Rick]

You could use the global argument to take no action at all. The easiest rebuttal to a flying ban is simply that aviation accounts for about 5% of UK emissions. There is a strong argument for taxing aviation fuel (which would require altering international agreements) and a frequent flyers tax (both collectively replacing APD which is a very blunt tax). Those measures would stem the growth of aviation emissions and encourage the development of batteries and electrofuels. Domestic and industrial emissions should be a much higher priority. There is definitely a cultural and political element to the campaigning on aviation, it gets too much focus for the level of emissions it creates

Or insisting that all flights are fully carbon offset. Like Easyjet do.

 

[Chester1]

Or insisting that all flights are fully carbon offset. Like Easyjet do.

Carbon offsets are better than nothing but the stuff they fund really should be done anyway.

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course you can't un-invent something; that's not the point. The point is that if people want to bequeath a liveable (in reasonable comfort, by significant numbers of our species) planet to future generations, then we have no choice but to stop (to a very large extent) doing some things that some people are used to. (By the way, the majority of the world's population aren't "used to" flying - the majority of people never have flown anywhere and never will.) A very large proportion of flying is undertaken by a global elite of frequent flyers; their selfishness is part of the reason why our ecosystem is getting trashed.

Even the most frequent flyers are responsible for only a tiny fraction of the overall CO2 release. By far the most damaging factor is energy generation (especially coal), and it's subsequent use. Then not too far behind is the simply staggering 30-40% of food waste that industrialised nations generate, as well as the incredible amount of junk (food & other goods) we consume. And its not just the global elite that are consuming, we all are. Trying to label the "elite's" flying patterns is almost as bad as generalising the political alignment of eco-campaigners. I've no love of the one percenters, but they are not the problem here.

The problem I have with flight-shaming, and indeed many other forms of eco-campaigning is that it largely ignores the real problems, primarily because they are large & complex, but also for some are simply not sexy enough. Shouting at people on social media about their overseas holidays whilst proclaiming they will no longer fly is a frankly lazy, if popular bandwagon to jump on and virtue signal from. Trying to rally support for people to consume and waste less is far more difficult, and something those very same campaigners are probably just as guilty at. And there is the long & difficult road of campaigning governments for long term change, something many campaigners get bored of very quickly.

Sadly the real solutions are not quick wins, and reversing the effects of hundreds of years of industrial & agricultural damage (yes it started many centuries before the Industrial Revolution) that mankind has afflicted on the planet is going to take, well frankly hundreds of years. So its time to face the reality that prescriptive targets set for 2030/2040/2050 will only tickle the surface of the problem, and that we need to stop tinkering around the edges in an effort to feel better about ourselves, & actually get the real work done.