Carbon passports in the future?

[Citybreak1]

Could a ‘carbon passport’ be introduced for holidaymakers?

The passport would limit each traveller’s carbon footprint

www.standard.co.uk

This year has seen some extreme weather conditions, with devastating wildfires and floods happening across the globe.
And, according to a holiday company, the climate crisis behind these events could soon be addressed by restricting international travel with carbon passports.

I wonder if this would be for flights or trains too?

 

[SynthD]

A carbon passport, as envisioned by Intrepid Travel

It’s not a real thing.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

Any objective analysis of severe weather phenomena over the last few years shows that the recent weather phenomena are not out of line with historical data. Not that objectivity is a strong point in the current climate discussion, which uses fear porn to get draconian policies passed.

This would seem to penalize those of us that live in the Americas who must fly in order to travel anywhere in Europe or Asia. Of course there are transatlantic ships, but I wonder how much more efficient they really are than flying. And not everyone is retired (like me) and can afford to spend a week crossing the pond.

 

[Jonny]

It’s not a real thing.

At least it is not a real thing yet, but thread-level OP is quoting the London Evening Standard... so someone knows something is coming?

 

[paul1609]

Shouldn't a carbon passport take in to account all carbon emissions? I think a gas central heating boiler annually emits more carbon than 7 transatlantic flights from London to New York: https://www.nesta.org.uk/press-release/gas-boiler-emits-more-annual-co2-seven-transatlantic-flights/

 

[Merseysider]

Completely unworkable. More likely/feasible would be a rise in "city tax" for holidaymakers.

Such revenue then could (might?) be put towards carbon offsetting projects.

 

[AdamWW]

At least it is not a real thing yet, but thread-level OP is quoting the London Evening Standard... so someone knows something is coming?

The story in the Evening Standard seems to be about something made up by a travel agency as a suggestion of what might happen in the future.

It's not impossible that the main aim of this is to get some free advertising.

 

[SeanG]

This seems like one of these stories where a company produces some 'research' or an 'idea' and then writes a press release in order for papers to pick up on the story. In effect it is just a way to advertise without paying for an advertorial

 

[topydre]

Completely unworkable. More likely/feasible would be a rise in "city tax" for holidaymakers.

Such revenue then could (might?) be put towards carbon offsetting projects.

However they arrive? That wouldn't encourage people to travel by rail, coach etc

Also, doing this annually would be unfair on people who take a once in a lifetime trip halfway across the globe and otherwise do the rest of their travel in a low carbon. There would have to be some way of spreading the credits

 

[Taunton]

Such revenue then could (might?) be put towards carbon offsetting projects.

... or just be pocketed and squandered, or used to provide free services for those groups likely to vote for you.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Betteridge's law of headlines seems to apply.

 

[riceuten]

Any objective analysis of severe weather phenomena over the last few years

Usually those financed by Fossil Fuel companies and much promoted by the 1% of "scientists" who disagree with the concensus

 

[FormerBritInMe]

Usually those financed by Fossil Fuel companies and much promoted by the 1% of "scientists" who disagree with the consensus

Some of them were Nobel prize winners, so the scare quotes do not seem appropriate.
True science, not religious like beliefs masquerading as science, welcomes dissenting opinions. That is how we advance. It took a while for Einstein's theories of Relativity to be accepted as they contradicted the "settled science" of Newtonian Mechanics.

 

[Ianigsy]

I have a friend here in Yorkshire whose son and grandchildren live in Virginia- how often would such a system deem it acceptable for her to see them? Or my Polish ex-colleague who takes her husband and children over to visit her family a couple of times a year- admittedly they could drive or take the train, but not without it taking about two days in each direction.

 

[AdamWW]

I have a friend here in Yorkshire whose son and grandchildren live in Virginia- how often would such a system deem it acceptable for her to see them? Or my Polish ex-colleague who takes her husband and children over to visit her family a couple of times a year- admittedly they could drive or take the train, but not without it taking about two days in each direction.

Which is perhaps one reason that nobody actually in a position to impose such a scheme appears to have any desire to do so.

 

[Lucan]

I have a friend here in Yorkshire whose son and grandchildren live in Virginia- how often would such a system deem it acceptable for her to see them?

Perhaps the family should have thought of that before emigrating.

There was a time when people emigrating accepted that they were going for good (or bad) and contacted any remaining family only by letters afterwards. That was not very long ago, before air tickets became so cheap. The wife of an older friend of mine had come to the UK from NZ and regarded that journey as a trip of a lifetime which she would never have dreamed of repeating over and over. Similarly I knew of families who emigrated to Australia or Canada and were never seen again.

For the sake of form, Mrs L and I travel to see her sister 100 miles away twice a year, and quite honestly we find the visits underwhelming. I can't imagine wanting to go halfway round the world for it.

 

[nw1]

Perhaps the family should have thought of that before emigrating.

So you support these kind of measures?

 

[deltic]

Individual carbon budgets have been talked about for a long time - the chances of them being introduced are likely to be minimal but we are slowly moving towards more comprehensive carbon pricing which will increase the price of airline tickets.

 

[Starmill]

Not that objectivity is a strong point in the current climate discussion, which uses fear porn to get draconian policies passed.

What on earth is "fear porn"? Sounds like something you've just made up to me.

Nobody's "fearfully aroused" about climate change. Mostly people either don't know anything about it, don't care, or advocate reasonable changes, most of which don't actually change people's lifestyles at all. Can you give me a list of all of the "draconian" policies you say we've adopted? Because again that sounds like absolute rubbish to me.

Individual carbon budgets have been talked about for a long time - the chances of them being introduced are likely to be minimal but we are slowly moving towards more comprehensive carbon pricing which will increase the price of airline tickets.

Individual's choices can't really have any meaningful overall effect on the carbon we emit. The only real personal choice we can make that could shift the balance if we fly frequently or only occasionally. The rest needs to be about collective decision, as is all government policy.

True science, not religious like beliefs masquerading as science, welcomes dissenting opinions.

Erm no it doesn't. The "opinion" that the world is flat isn't welcomed anywhere by anyone doing good science. Dissenting evidence is what's welcomed.

It took a while for Einstein's theories of Relativity to be accepted as they contradicted the "settled science" of Newtonian Mechanics.

Those are mainly hypotheticals about which actually finding the first bit of evidence takes substantial work.

The evidence in support of the theory of climate breakdown however puts it almost beyond a doubt.

 

[Ianigsy]

Perhaps the family should have thought of that before emigrating.

There was a time when people emigrating accepted that they were going for good (or bad) and contacted any remaining family only by letters afterwards. That was not very long ago, before air tickets became so cheap. The wife of an older friend of mine had come to the UK from NZ and regarded that journey as a trip of a lifetime which she would never have dreamed of repeating over and over. Similarly I knew of families who emigrated to Australia or Canada and were never seen again.

For the sake of form, Mrs L and I travel to see her sister 100 miles away twice a year, and quite honestly we find the visits underwhelming. I can't imagine wanting to go halfway round the world for it.

He was a single man with no offspring when he went - he was sent on attachment with his work and married an American.

 

[AdamWW]

There was a time when people emigrating accepted that they were going for good (or bad) and contacted any remaining family only by letters afterwards. That was not very long ago, before air tickets became so cheap.

I think you'll need to go back more than 50 years for that to be the case, at least judging by the only family I know with near relatives on the other side of the Atlantic.

For the sake of form, Mrs L and I travel to see her sister 100 miles away twice a year, and quite honestly we find the visits underwhelming. I can't imagine wanting to go halfway round the world for it.

Rather depends on the family of course.

 

[Route115?]

My gripe would be the "big brother" aspect (but the majority who, unlike me, have a smart phone might be providing the necessary day anyway).

There was an interesting article in the Economist this week (third editorial) on how do deal with an anti-climate backlash. I suspect that right carrot will work and stick will fail but that might change if we are affected by more heatwaves & droughts, etc.

It may actually be a good idea, after all isn't it up to me how I use my carbon allowance. Perhaps I should be able to trade off turning down my thermosatat or not owning a car against some extra flights.

There are rather a lot of complications. Do you get a carbon bonus if the temperature drops below a certain point? Can you claim a compassionate award to see your cousin in Canada gets ill? Start a list.

What worries me is that certain activities such as tourism will be regarded as non essential and we will be encouraged to 'staycate'. That would be a shame.

 

[nw1]

What worries me is that certain activities such as tourism will be regarded as bnon essential and we will be encouraged to 'staycate'. That would be a shame.

It does seem like an unnecessarily authoritarian step, to clamp down on international tourism, and potentially even preventing immigrants returning to their home country to see friends/family etc.

But governments always seem to find "solutions" that hurt the ordinary person rather than the rich elite, who doubtless will still be able to freely fly around in their private jets by paying for some kind of special (and very expensive) permit to circumvent the rules.

Flying, and transport in general, is just one contribution to CO2 emissions. There are plenty of others yet people seem to want to pick on transport as an "unnecessary luxury".

I do worry sometimes that highly authoritarian "solutions" to world problems are seen as increasingly politically acceptable, the mantra being "you accepted lockdown, so you'll accept anything". One of the things which defines the politics of the 2020s for me (along with bad government, austerity, anti-wokeism, and xenophobia) is hair-shirted puritanism, and that enjoying life, in general, is an unaffordable luxury.

Don't get me wrong, climate change is a big concern, but there are surely other solutions than harsh and extreme measures. I've even seriously seen articles saying that you shouldn't own a cat or dog because of their contribution to CO2 emissions; surely that is just a little bit too far.

 

[AdamWW]

I do worry sometimes that highly authoritarian "solutions" to world problems are seen as increasingly politically acceptable, the mantra being "you accepted lockdown, so you'll accept anything".

Can you suggest what post-Covid legislation falls under that category?

I saw no suggestion in the "story" that started this thread of any government support for the idea being proposed.

 

[Mat17]

No doubt politicians hopping on private jets to go to this conference or that conference will be exempt? They'll probably still be allowed to take regular holidays too.

One rule for them, another for us.

 

[Trainguy34]

One rule for them, another for us.

Or more likely, no rule for them, one for us.

 

[Mat17]

Or more likely, no rule for them, one for us.

Very true.

 

[nw1]

Can you suggest what post-Covid legislation falls under that category?

I saw no suggestion in the "story" that started this thread of any government support for the idea being proposed.

Not legisation, but things such as the subject of this thread: I just do wonder whether the political mood would favour such drastic measures because enough people would consider them "necessary"?

 

[SynthD]

I just do wonder whether the political mood would favour such drastic measures because enough people would consider them "necessary"?

You’ve defined democracy well. Being alarmed or worried by what a travel company wrote for internet clicks is irrational.