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

[The Ham]

"Hopefully that will eventually be sorted but maybe there will be a need for a temporary suspension of flights for a few years while we wait for suffiicently large battery powered aircraft." - I seriously doubt any rational government is going to stop a billion dollar industry from trading unless your name is Klaus Schwab from the WEF 2030 agenda.

Often when things change there's a grace period to allow things to change.

Take for example cars, there's be viable (at least for most trips) EV's for a decade, have ICE vehicles been banned yet? No, even the ban on new sales isn't a total ban.

If there were electric aircraft which were viable (at least for domestic flights) then there would likely be tax incentives to use them first.

For example airlines being liable for 100% of APD for aircraft using carbon based fuels, but that falling to, say, 30% for electric based aircraft (another option could be a middle band for aircraft with carbon neutral fuels , but that starts getting complex due to the potential for different fuel mixes) and able to keep the difference (but only be able to charge customers 100% of the APD), with those values tracking upwards over time, so 3 years later it being 120%/40%, 3 years later 150%/50%, then 200%/60%, then 250%/70%, then 300%/80%, then 360%/90% and finally an outright ban/100%.

By doing the above the airlines would find that their bottom line would improve quite rapidly if they could swap to electric aircraft before their competitors.

You could even offer the airlines the ability to retain 100% of APD if they code share with trains for domestic hops (whilst that £6.50 might not be a big incentive, it would certainly "oil the wheels" with getting it sorted), especially if they could then offer through tickets from every local station to final destination and back again (or from starting country to first local station and then back from final local station to ending country) to everyone - as you may well find a whole load more people needing an "internal flight" than you otherwise would if they had to use an aircraft.

 

[Enthusiast]

...while we wait for suffiicently large battery powered aircraft."

There is not a hope in hell of a commercially viable battery powered aircraft, capable of travelling decent distances with a useful payload being developed any time soon, or any time not so soon for that matter. As mentioned upthread, aircraft rely on having a lot less weight on board when landing than at take off. They always have. A battery powered aircraft will need a considerably strengthened structure and landing gear. This will make it heavier and so it will need more power (and hence a bigger battery), which will need considerably strengthened structure and landing gear. This will make it heavier...you get the picture I'm sure.

It's pie in the sky (or in this case, er... not in the sky). A "Plan B" is needed. And as far as I am aware, apart from manufacturing jet fuel from avocado pears (or whatever) there isn't one.

 

[Ediswan]

As mentioned upthread, aircraft rely on having a lot less weight on board when landing than at take off. They always have. A battery powered aircraft will need a considerably strengthened structure and landing gear. This will make it heavier and so it will need more power (and hence a bigger battery), which will need considerably strengthened structure and landing gear. This will make it heavier...you get the picture I'm sure.

It all depends how much additional structure, batteries, engines etc. is required to support that increased landing weight.

Say being electric adds 10 tons to the landing weight, which in turn calls for 1 ton of additional structure etc. That in turn calls for an additonal 0.1 tons. The sequence converges on 11.111 tons. The resulting aircraft may or may not be economical to operate.

If anybody knows any actual figures, please do contribute.

 

[Meerkat]

It all depends how much additional structure, batteries, engines etc. is required to support that increased landing weight.

Say being electric adds 10 tons to the landing weight, which in turn calls for 1 ton of additional structure etc. That in turn calls for an additonal 0.1 tons. The sequence converges on 11.111 tons. The resulting aircraft may or may not be economical to operate.

If anybody knows any actual figures, please do contribute.

Heavier landings will presumably need longer and stronger runways too

 

[The Ham]

It all depends how much additional structure, batteries, engines etc. is required to support that increased landing weight.

Say being electric adds 10 tons to the landing weight, which in turn calls for 1 ton of additional structure etc. That in turn calls for an additonal 0.1 tons. The sequence converges on 11.111 tons. The resulting aircraft may or may not be economical to operate.

If anybody knows any actual figures, please do contribute.

For domestic flights, a lot of the extra weight from the landing gear could be offset by limits on luggage.

 

[Cdd89]

There’s a lot of focus on banning or restricting aviation in this thread, despite the evidence that people actually prefer rail and will choose it if the costs are comparable.

It seems to me that a lot of the damage can be avoided by improving the price, frequency and service offering of rail, specifically Eurostar which is the gateway out of the UK.

Given that rail seems to have real difficulty competing on price, I would also turn the question of a frequent flyer tax around again on its proponents, and ask how giving people what amounts to a big discount for their first flight(s) helps to make rail and aviation more comparable price-wise.

 

[Krokodil]

There’s a lot of focus on banning or restricting aviation in this thread, despite the evidence that people actually prefer rail and will choose it if the costs are comparable.

It seems to me that a lot of the damage can be avoided by improving the price, frequency and service offering of rail, specifically Eurostar which is the gateway out of the UK.

Trains versus planes: How Eurostar almost halved airline demand - Airline Ratings

A new train versus plane analysis by route expert OAG on the 25th anniversary of Eurostar raises questions about the future of the historic Paris-London route. OAG’s Becca Rowland used Eurostar’s birthday to look at how the high-speed rail link has affected air travel between the two cities...

www.airlineratings.com

Speed is relevant too. As sections of HS1 opened, Eurostar progressively tore into the London-Paris market. If the government ever pulls its finger out and builds it, HS2 will do the same for London - Scotland. Sadly at the moment the PM has the idiot Gilligan whispering in his ear, suggesting more London-Manchester flights.

The lack of an HS2-HS1 link is a missed opportunity too.

I would also turn the question of a frequent flyer tax around again on its proponents, and ask how giving people what amounts to a big discount for their first flight(s) helps to make rail and aviation more comparable price-wise.

They would still have to pay APD at the current rate (inflation adjusted) for their first flight. So it's not a discount compared with the present situation. The change being proposed is that subsequent flights would be charged multiples of this rate.

In addition, the other suggestion is that fuel duty should apply to aviation fuel. Airlines will pass this cost onto their customers.

 

[heathrowrail]

Leaving this thread full of woke lefties.

 

[Krokodil]

Leaving this thread full of woke lefties.

This isn't an airport, there's no need to announce departures. And you've no idea of my voting history or political views. "Woke", yeah right!

 

[Cdd89]

They would still have to pay APD at the current rate (inflation adjusted) for their first flight. So it's not a discount compared with the present situation. The change being proposed is that subsequent flights would be charged multiples of this rate.

Most proposals I’ve seen (such as the Possible campaign) suggest removing APD from the first flight and charging a low rate from the second flight.

But even keeping the first flight the same price, an infrequent traveller still gets a “discount” off whatever the maximum total cost would be.

I’m therefore concerned about the following feedback loop:

• Rail is already unfavourable compared to aviation
• Higher income or business-funded frequent travelers are moved to rail, where possible
• This results in even higher rail fares which become saturated with this sort of demand
• Infrequent travelers choose aviation, since it looks even better value by comparison

We should therefore (in my view) instead be looking to reduce the difference between rail and aviation costs for all travellers (not just frequent travellers), by a combination of higher taxes on aviation for all travellers, and greater subsidies and efficiencies for rail.

 

[Krokodil]

But even keeping the first flight the same price, an infrequent traveller still gets a “discount” off whatever the maximum total cost would be.

That's like saying that a parking fine represents a discount because you can pay £50 in the first 28 days instead of £100. It's still more than the £2.30 you would have paid in the first place.

 

[Trainbike46]

We should therefore (in my view) instead be looking to reduce the difference between rail and aviation costs for all travellers (not just frequent travellers), by a combination of higher taxes on aviation for all travellers, and greater subsidies and efficiencies for rail.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this point.

I don't see how flights getting more expensive for some people (ie, those who fly a lot), would lead to people choosing a first flight over rail?

 

[The Ham]

There’s a lot of focus on banning or restricting aviation in this thread, despite the evidence that people actually prefer rail and will choose it if the costs are comparable.

It seems to me that a lot of the damage can be avoided by improving the price, frequency and service offering of rail, specifically Eurostar which is the gateway out of the UK.

Given that rail seems to have real difficulty competing on price, I would also turn the question of a frequent flyer tax around again on its proponents, and ask how giving people what amounts to a big discount for their first flight(s) helps to make rail and aviation more comparable price-wise.

I fully agree that rail should be better, however for that to happen we need a load more capacity - which needs to be delivered (and not just promised, or more studies into if it's needed).

I wouldn't suggest a discount on what's currently paid, likewise the extra would only kick in after a reasonable number of fights (I've suggested 4 return flights, as that's more than most people would use).

Leaving this thread full of woke lefties.

Genuine question, what's the opposite of woke lefties?

Which then leads to the question do you wish to be that?

 

[Enthusiast]

For domestic flights, a lot of the extra weight from the landing gear could be offset by limits on luggage.

But people who fly usually like to take luggage. Or is your idea another way to discourage travel by air?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I guess it depends on what you consider an extreme measure. Personally, I would be in favour of a frequent flyer tax that taxes as soon as a person is doing more than a single return pair of flights a year tax increases rapidly with increasing numbers of flights. (I accept there are serious challenges in implementing such a policy)
I'd also be in favour of banning private jets, as their emissions are absurd when compared to commercial aviation (looking at a per-passenger-km emissions)
Another potentially useful policy would be to define an emissions cap for the aviation industry as a whole globally, that reduces absolute emissions year-on-year (probably starting with a 2019 baseline), as that provides strong motivation to actually implement efficiency improvements quickly, and where efficiency improvements fall short, flight numbers will need to be decreased. Of course, this does have the challenge of making global policy.

I don't think that something has challenges means it shouldn't be pursued though.

I'm also flexible with the actual policy instrument used to achieve it, and am very open to suggestions for this, as long as aviation (and all other sectors for that matter), does its share of reducing emissions.

Don't think I can argue with any of that, all seems to be sensible stuff. In particular the idea of an emissions cap for the aviation industry, set no higher than current levels and reducing year-on-year (or, at most, every 5 years), is a good one. An important provisio from me however is that this cap must include emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and biofuels etc. (remembering the stupidity of Drax...)

another way would be to apply a carbon budget to airlines as a whole, which decreases year-on-year to meet climate change needs, and let airlines work out whether they meet it through increased efficiency, reducing flights, or some combination of measures

As noted above, I like this idea (though perhaps not as much as a ban). However, it does leave cause for concern (which I have put in bold), what do we do if airlines fail to meet the required level of cuts?

More needs to be done to reduce net carbon emissions through carbon capture, using both technology and natural means such as reforestation, and cleaning up energy production. These are areas in which governments around the world have completely failed for decades, and emissions from everyday activities such as flying (or driving) are a convenient distraction from their failings in my opinion. (Again, that's not to say that nothing at all should be done in these areas).

I would argue that emissions from flying and driving can be added to the list of government failings, along with reforestation. Government has been telling us that we need to use our cars less and switch to public transport for years - from what I can see they have failed to acheive this (or at least failed to act in a way which encourages this).

I can't argue with the your maths(!), and I agree that in your example the "penalty" for taking two or three return flights probably wouldn't be prohibitive. That raises the obvious question though of what's the point in implementing it this way? I think it's more than likely that most people will simply "pay to pollute". To have any worthwhile effect it would need to be far more punitive in my opinion, which I can't say I'd be comfortable with.

Whilst pay to pollute isn't ideal, nor is having a hard limit and causing people to (for example) miss a loved ones last minutes (something for which people will pay a lot to try and do if they are able to) is arguably worse.

There could be ways to tax the airlines, for example they pay a tax if they don't have a minimum value of zero carbon fuel/energy use/reduced fuel use (which would likely increase as times goes on to encourage the use of technology).

A clear dilemma with most forms of 'pollution tax' is whether to design the system to minimise pollution (in which case a hard limit (or total ban) should also be considered) or to try and maximise revenue from the tax (which the state would, one hopes, spend on cleaning up the pollution). In the latter case, 'pay to pollute' would seem to be the way to go - let frequent-flying trillonaires pay to electrify the whole GB rail network, for example.

As for missing a loved one's last minutes, a suggestion I've heard is to have a voucher system where your limited quota of flights is transferable. Say, at the start of the scheme, every person is given 5 vouchers each valid for a given number of 'flight credits' (not sure how these should be set, given the different impacts of shorter and longer flights). You get an additional voucher every 5 years (or, if you want to phase it in, you could start by giving out one voucher a year and gradually decrease that until you only get one voucher every 15 years or more). Any flying beyond the vouchers you hold would either be outlawed or taxed at a level only trillonaires could afford. However, if you aren't intending to take any flights, you could also sell your vouchers to somebody who has used theirs, thus making this system more progressive than most alternatives.

I feel the biggest problem these forums have is that so many expect everything to be solved by rules and regulations. Taxing passengers for flying more than others won't stop them doing it.

So if taxes won't stop them flying, and we should be avoiding rules and regulations (such as a ban) what will stop people flying?

Targeting aviation is one of the fairer ways of tackling climate change because, as a rule the better off you are, the more flights you will take. So higher aviation taxes will predominantly impact the better off. In particular you have to be quite well off to afford business class flights and private jet flights. An extremely large tax on private jet flights therefore would be seen as a tax on the very wealthy.

Whereas banning ICE cars and new gas boilers tends to hit the less well off the most due to the current higher cost of electric cars and heat pumps. Hence why there has been so much controversy with these measures.

A good point well made. I'll just add that a ban on new oil boilers (not sure about gas) has certainly been (at least) strongly considered by the UK Government. Admittedly air travel is a global issue, whereas banning oil boilers can be done unilaterally - but has the UK Government been raising curbing air travel as a serious issue at the COPs (climate conferences)? If not, then how is it that leaving people unable to afford to heat their homes is considered to be worth talking about (or might even be Government policy for 2035 or something) while substatially reducing aviation is off-limits?

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.

If I understand correctly, you are highlighting an important point here. It all fundamentally comes down to the need to REDUCE greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and to a degree we have done the easy stuff (such as switching to more-efficient lightbulbs). This was not enough to solve the problem and are left with a need to reduce air travel, switch from cars to public transport and active travel etc. - stuff that impacts people's lives. That's clearly going to be a harder sell, both emotionally (for indivduals) and financially (for governments and maybe economies), and I'm not sure how we can do that.

The French might riot. British people wouldn't, it's just not in our culture.

I'm not sure about that. Having seen how some climate protestors have been angrily man-handled out of roads, and the reports of Mark Drakeford MS and Lee Waters MS having recieved threats over the implementation of a default 20mph speed limit in built-up areas of Wales, I wouldn't say riots are an impossibility. I really admire the protestors who just sat back and took it - all it would have taken is for one of them to start fighting back and a peaceful protest could have developed into a big fist-fight.

Aviation is 2% of global emissions IIRC. That's more than some tiny islands.

I think those 'tiny islands' include the UK - our 'domestic' emissions being about 1% of global emissions currently I think.

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.

I think Dolgellau-Barmouth is about 10 miles; yes it wouldn't be something that (m)any would consider to be a journey as such but as a lesiure activity in itself I would argue that you don't have to superfit. Of course, as a lesiure activity the return trip would be by some other mode, so for something like a commute (where you have to cycle back again) the equivalent would be about 5 miles (each way).

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.

Park & ride yes, not necessarily to 'urban fringes' though - you could just park at the nearest point on an hourly bus route (and I was quite surprised by how small a settlement has to be to recieve an hourly service in some Swiss cantons (possibly all of them, I don't know) - I think it was on Tim Dunn's railway architecture programme that they even built a funicular railway to reach a place that couldn't be served by bus).

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.

What about seeing that humanity's demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year - and not being worried about that or doing anything substantial about it; is that stupidity?

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.

The drawing boards may have gone, but at least in the UK the building of high-speed roads and bypasses continues. Even here in Wales, where much of the road building programme was paused to allow a review, several bypass and 'high-speed road' projects remain under construction, contracts already having been 'signed' before the review was announced. The review was announced on 22th June 2021, the contract for at least one high speed road scheme (complete with bypass) was "formally executed under seal on behalf of the Welsh Ministers" on 17th June 2021. That's less than a week before the review, that high speed road + bypass is now being built. The UK Government meanwhile may have stopped boasting of 'the biggest road building programme since the Romans' (or they may still be doing it, I'm not sure), but if they have it's only because (like HS2) they're not sure they can find the money to pay for them.

The recommendations of the Welsh road review should also be applied in England and Scotland - the building for more space for more cars must be stopped.

Unsurprisingly no-one is prepared to actually answer my question, and it is an important one. This is quite typical of the environmental debate in the 21st century, everyone wants to be seen to be doing the right thing, but nobody wants the responsibility of any effects changes might cause.

I wish all of you understood just what damage you are actually inadvertently causing to the climate debate. It isn't that people don't want change, but the lack of answers to everyday people from the environmental activists on simple everyday questions that make people cynical. Its exactly the reason why the climate policies are being dialled back in this country, and will be the reason that it will be in others.

Assuming you are talking about tourisim jobs, if I had the answers I'd probably give them to you. The fact is I don't know what to say other than we need to find those people other jobs - if we are to properly make the effort to tackle climate change there will be loads of vacacies that need filling (for example in the UK we already seem to have a shortage of bus drivers and many more will be needed to deliver the much-enhanced bus network needed to reduce car use). If that's not enough of an answer for you then I'm sorry; however I don't have a better answer than that for the people who are already losing their jobs due to climate change - my mother has recently returned from a trip around France (and possibly some brief forrays into neighbouring countries) - while in the Alps she noted a ski resort that has shut up shop because the snow season is now so short they were making a loss. (In case you're wondering she did not travel by air). Unless there is a drastic turnaround, we could be heading for a future where ski tourism (at least in the Alps) becomes a thing of the past.

The “frequent flyer tax” thing that keeps coming up just seems like an idea to offload the taxes onto people other than those proposing it (it is insane that most proposals involve a tax cut for those taking a small number of flights!).

It's also insane that cargo aircraft (presumably) go untaxed, but that's an even harder one to solve. At least my suggestion of globally banning all in-flight emissions by civilan aircraft is a simple concept and impacts rich and poor alike. In terms of unilateral UK action, in the absense of the global action I feel is necessary, I'd probably support a 'frequent flyer levy' whether it gave you one tax-free flight at the start of the scheme or not. The tax-cut for the first flight wouldn't benefit me personally, since I don't intend to fly anyway, but might win some votes for a parlimentary candidate - making them more likely to actually get elected to implement the tax. That aside, keeping the tax on the first fight at the current APD level would be the better option.

And let's be honest here its generally not even about us. I remember the climate change protester on a motorway gantry declaring that "they are taking away my future". My, not ours. Said it all really. Anyone who really cares about reducing our impact on the environment also cares about what happens to people whose lives might be impacted by any changes we make. Sadly these people are few and far between, as this thread demonstrates.

None of you really care about the world, just yourselves.

Not sure about other environmental activists, but what I care most about (as far as my activism is concerned) is the natural world and conserving biodiversity. I guess you could still argue that I'm doing it for myself, because ultimately if the food chain collapses me, my family and everyone else goes with it.

 

[The Ham]

But people who fly usually like to take luggage. Or is your idea another way to discourage travel by air?

It's already but uncommon for certain airlines to charge to have a hold bag, it would likely be a similar thing.

Even if it wasn't, on a flight with 150 people on there could be a reduction in hold bag limits of 2.25kg and save 1/3 of tonne. Whilst not enough to offset the whole extra weight (assumed to be 1 tonne) enough that you could marginally reduce the extra weight required.

Assuming a 20kg hold bag limit; reducing this to 17.75kg wouldn't limit that many people.

 

[Cdd89]

I don't see how flights getting more expensive for some people (ie, those who fly a lot), would lead to people choosing a first flight over rail?

Given that both rail and aviation are subject to capacity limits in the medium term, and given that we hope frequent travellers would gravitate toward rail to avoid any new tax, that means rail will become drastically more expensive (“substitution effect”), making aviation cheaper by comparison for infrequent travellers, incentivising those travellers to travel by air.

The potential consequence of which being that flights are not really reduced, we just have different people on planes and trains respectively.

That's like saying that a parking fine represents a discount because you can pay £50 in the first 28 days instead of £100. It's still more than the £2.30 you would have paid in the first place.

I think we’re just arguing semantics here. The fact is that an infrequent traveler will pay less, with all the negative effects of establishing such a discrepancy.

I must admit to being a bit puzzled as to why we are not in agreement on all travellers (including “infrequent” travellers) paying the full environmental cost of their journey. It seems many here wish for this only to apply to those who take more than four flights, which strikes me as a peculiar position.

 

[The Ham]

Given that both rail and aviation are subject to capacity limits in the medium term, and given that we hope frequent travellers would gravitate toward rail to avoid any new tax, that means rail will become drastically more expensive (“substitution effect”), making aviation cheaper by comparison for infrequent travellers, incentivising those travellers to travel by air.

The potential consequence of which being that flights are not really reduced, we just have different people on planes and trains respectively.


I think we’re just arguing semantics here. The fact is that an infrequent traveler will pay less, with all the negative effects of establishing such a discrepancy.

I must admit to being a bit puzzled as to why we are not in agreement on all travellers (including “infrequent” travellers) paying the full environmental cost of their journey. It seems many here wish for this only to apply to those who take more than four flights, which strikes me as a peculiar position.

Which was one of the reasons for the suggestion of making airlines liable for 100% of APD for a flight (arguably you set it so that they pay the same, or at least making the difference fairly marginal, regardless of the number of seats on an aircraft to encourage the use of large aircraft or no aircraft rather than having a large aircraft with fewer seats in) regardless of the number of passengers, as then routes with limited numbers of passengers are either going to get expensive or are going to be closed down.

Obviously there's a case for giving exceptions or targeting it to certain routes. For example giving exceptions to some of the islands where a large aircraft would be not suitable for to the limited number people who would ever fly those routes or targeting it to routes where there's a viable rail route.

To target it to a viable rail route it could be anything more than 4 hours by train is still per passenger, 3:30-4 hours per passenger or a minimum of 75% of the total APD, 3-3:30 hours 100% of APD, 2:30-3 hours 150% of APD, 2-2:30 hours 225% of APD, 1:30-2 hours 325% of APD 1-1:30 hours 500% APD and anything sub 1 hour 1,500%.

If 100% was £1,000 for domestic flights and £2,000 due sort haul, in a post HS2 world London Manchester flights would be subject to a £5,000 tax on an airline. Whist Newquay to London would still be per passenger and London Paris would be subject to a £4,500 tax That would likely make Manchester flights unviable, significantly reduce the number of London Paris flights and have no impact on the Newquay flights.

 

[Bantamzen]

So if taxes won't stop them flying, and we should be avoiding rules and regulations (such as a ban) what will stop people flying?

Well for domestic flights, having an alternative that doesn't potentially cost way more.

If I understand correctly, you are highlighting an important point here. It all fundamentally comes down to the need to REDUCE greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and to a degree we have done the easy stuff (such as switching to more-efficient lightbulbs). This was not enough to solve the problem and are left with a need to reduce air travel, switch from cars to public transport and active travel etc. - stuff that impacts people's lives. That's clearly going to be a harder sell, both emotionally (for indivduals) and financially (for governments and maybe economies), and I'm not sure how we can do that.

Reduce our overall greenhouse carbon impact. And despite being largely ignored by activists, aviation is making large strides in this direction not only in engine & cabin technology but also in how the operate. Newer gen engines are proving to be anything from 10%-35% more energy efficient, plus advancements are being made all the time in more carbon efficient fuels, some of which are already coming into play.

Also we are not left with the only option of cutting people's movements as you suggest. For example it is believed that between 30-40% of all food produced for wealthier countries is wasted, either by not being bought or by being thrown away because people either buy too much or don't know how to properly use / store food. This is will be way more impactful than reducing or curtailing aviation.

Assuming you are talking about tourisim jobs, if I had the answers I'd probably give them to you. The fact is I don't know what to say other than we need to find those people other jobs - if we are to properly make the effort to tackle climate change there will be loads of vacacies that need filling (for example in the UK we already seem to have a shortage of bus drivers and many more will be needed to deliver the much-enhanced bus network needed to reduce car use). If that's not enough of an answer for you then I'm sorry; however I don't have a better answer than that for the people who are already losing their jobs due to climate change - my mother has recently returned from a trip around France (and possibly some brief forrays into neighbouring countries) - while in the Alps she noted a ski resort that has shut up shop because the snow season is now so short they were making a loss. (In case you're wondering she did not travel by air). Unless there is a drastic turnaround, we could be heading for a future where ski tourism (at least in the Alps) becomes a thing of the past.

I'm not just talking about aviation jobs, but the economies built up around global travel. In themselves aviation and tourism are worth over a trillion dollars per annum, and this is before you consider the net worth to those countries. We are probably talking in terms of hundreds of millions of livelihoods here, not something that can just be swept under the carpet as some here seem to think.

And even for those directly involved in aviation, it is not as simple as "get another job" as many seem to think (I wonder if those people realise just how Daily Mail that all sounds?). As someone who has worked on the front line and now in data around these kind of things, I can say with absolute certainty that t is way more difficult. So this cannot be aimlessly swept under the carpet either.

I have been making this point time and again, we cannot ignore the impacts of any fundamental changes made in order to "save" the planet. And we have recent experience as to why, decisions made to "save" us from the virus earlier this decade have cost us absolute billions just in this country and caused way more problems than they solved. This is my position, factor in everything and carefully consider the consequences of doing as well as not doing something. This is my challenge to those who simply want to do and not consider any potential negative outcomes.

Not sure about other environmental activists, but what I care most about (as far as my activism is concerned) is the natural world and conserving biodiversity. I guess you could still argue that I'm doing it for myself, because ultimately if the food chain collapses me, my family and everyone else goes with it.

Let's just be clear here, this is about humanity saving it's own skin. The Earth has survived far, far worse than anything that we have done thus far, although we do have the capability to bring it perilously close, something a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. So I'm afraid I don't buy anyone's claims that they are saving the planet when waiving around their virtues. From experience most of the people waiving banners and throwing orange stuff around will soon change their tune if they were the ones asked to give up their livelihoods. So this is why I challenge people to stop thinking at the borders of their own comfort zones and consider what would happen if we did stop or heavily curtail aviation. What would happen to their livelihoods?

 

[JamesT]

It's already but uncommon for certain airlines to charge to have a hold bag, it would likely be a similar thing.

Even if it wasn't, on a flight with 150 people on there could be a reduction in hold bag limits of 2.25kg and save 1/3 of tonne. Whilst not enough to offset the whole extra weight (assumed to be 1 tonne) enough that you could marginally reduce the extra weight required.

Assuming a 20kg hold bag limit; reducing this to 17.75kg wouldn't limit that many people.

Unfortunately tweaking hold baggage limits is going to be fairly irrelevant. A little one-seater uses 1.5 tonnes of batteries https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/2...plane-battery-has-the-highest-energy-density/
Trying to scale that up to something the size of a current airliner comes out as needing batteries multiple times the weight of the aircraft.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm not just talking about aviation jobs, but the economies built up around global travel. In themselves aviation and tourism are worth over a trillion dollars per annum, and this is before you consider the net worth to those countries. We are probably talking in terms of hundreds of millions of livelihoods here, not something that can just be swept under the carpet as some here seem to think.

And even for those directly involved in aviation, it is not as simple as "get another job" as many seem to think (I wonder if those people realise just how Daily Mail that all sounds?). As someone who has worked on the front line and now in data around these kind of things, I can say with absolute certainty that t is way more difficult. So this cannot be aimlessly swept under the carpet either.

I have been making this point time and again, we cannot ignore the impacts of any fundamental changes made in order to "save" the planet. And we have recent experience as to why, decisions made to "save" us from the virus earlier this decade have cost us absolute billions just in this country and caused way more problems than they solved. This is my position, factor in everything and carefully consider the consequences of doing as well as not doing something. This is my challenge to those who simply want to do and not consider any potential negative outcomes.

I note that you completely ignored the point about alpine tourism...

 

[Bantamzen]

I note that you completely ignored the point about alpine tourism...

No, I've actually tackled the issue earlier in the discussion. Yes climate change could well lead to the loss of tourist industries, and I acknowledged that. But this isn't what we are discussing, we are discussing the impacts of reducing aviation on it's effect on economies around the world.

Nice try though....

 

[eldomtom2]

No, I've actually tackled the issue earlier in the discussion. Yes climate change could well lead to the loss of tourist industries, and I acknowledged that. But this isn't what we are discussing, we are discussing the impacts of reducing aviation on it's effect on economies around the world.

I'm sorry, aviation and climate change are not unrelated.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm sorry, aviation and climate change are not unrelated.

Yes they are, but aviation accounts for around 2% of CO2 emissions globally (based on calculations that are widely believed to be way out of date thanks to aviation technology improvements). Would stopping aviation have saved those jobs, in fact would those jobs have existed in those numbers if it were not for aviation?

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes they are, but aviation accounts for around 2% of CO2 emissions globally

What level of emissions do you think is worth reducing, then?

(based on calculations that are widely believed to be way out of date thanks to aviation technology improvements).

Please provide evidence for this claim.

 

[Bantamzen]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Well there's literally tons, but just as an example here's Airbus' sales pitch on their latest A350 craft (mods I've not quoted it as there are lots of embedded pictures and the format may not render well on here)

A350 Less Weight. Less Fuel. More Sustainable.

Improve your environmental footprint with the A350. The most eco-efficient aircraft in its category with 25% less fuel burn and CO2 emissions per seat.

aircraft.airbus.com

The crux of the blurb is that they are in the region of 25% more efficient than older versions of 2 engine wide bodied craft. And before you say "yeah but this is a sales pitch", aviation is a cost conscious industry, and fuel burn is very closely monitored right down the the flight crew determining exactly how much is taken on for each flight / rotation. So if these claims were inaccurate or false then this would be picked up very quickly by the industry and orders would dry up. Yet the A350 is proving to be a popular replacement craft for airlines around the world, so there must be something in it.

But I realise that this wasn't the answer you are looking for.

 

[eldomtom2]

Well there's literally tons, but just as an example here's Airbus' sales pitch on their latest A350 craft (mods I've not quoted it as there are lots of embedded pictures and the format may not render well on here)

A350 Less Weight. Less Fuel. More Sustainable.

Improve your environmental footprint with the A350. The most eco-efficient aircraft in its category with 25% less fuel burn and CO2 emissions per seat.

aircraft.airbus.com

The crux of the blurb is that they are in the region of 25% more efficient than older versions of 2 engine wide bodied craft. And before you say "yeah but this is a sales pitch", aviation is a cost conscious industry, and fuel burn is very closely monitored right down the the flight crew determining exactly how much is taken on for each flight / rotation. So if these claims were inaccurate or false then this would be picked up very quickly by the industry and orders would dry up. Yet the A350 is proving to be a popular replacement craft for airlines around the world, so there must be something in it.

But I realise that this wasn't the answer you are looking for.

That one aircraft is more efficient than older aircraft does not prove your claim that aircraft emissions calculations are "way out of date".

 

[Krokodil]

how is it that leaving people unable to afford to heat their homes is considered to be worth talking about (or might even be Government policy for 2035 or something) while substatially reducing aviation is off-limits?

Probably because heating bills are primarily something that concerns poor people (though keeping a swimming pool must be costly now) but reducing aviation will primarily affect the wealthy.

I think we’re just arguing semantics here. The fact is that an infrequent traveler will pay less, with all the negative effects of establishing such a discrepancy.

An infrequent traveller will pay the same as they do now. That's not "less".

I must admit to being a bit puzzled as to why we are not in agreement on all travellers (including “infrequent” travellers) paying the full environmental cost of their journey.

Because even I recognise that stopping all air travel is a step too far, we don't want to stop people completely. By targeting frequent fliers we hit those who do a disproportionate amount of damage, rather than penalising Doris who is taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip to see her grandchildren in Australia.

It seems many here wish for this only to apply to those who take more than four flights, which strikes me as a peculiar position.

I would have set it lower than the PP, one return trip per year.

Yes they are, but aviation accounts for around 2% of CO2 emissions globally (based on calculations that are widely believed to be way out of date thanks to aviation technology improvements). Would stopping aviation have saved those jobs, in fact would those jobs have existed in those numbers if it were not for aviation?

You speak as if aviation is the only industry being asked to lower its emissions.

Sure, engines are becoming more efficient but this is outweighed by the increase in the number of flights. This will get worse as wealth spreads throughout the world. If I remember correctly aviation represents around 12% of the UK's emissions.

Would you think it reasonable if we said that aviation emissions should not exceed the current proportion of global emissions? That is, as global emissions reduce, aviation reduces at the same rate. Would that be fair? If not, why not?

 

[Bantamzen]

That one aircraft is more efficient than older aircraft does not prove your claim that aircraft emissions calculations are "way out of date".

Many calculations were built around older aircraft and predictions don't seem to have changed based on more efficient aircraft. So there's that, but I suspect you know all this and are just sniping...

You speak as if aviation is the only industry being asked to lower its emissions.

Do I really? Maybe you should try re-reading what I've been saying.

Sure, engines are becoming more efficient but this is outweighed by the increase in the number of flights. This will get worse as wealth spreads throughout the world. If I remember correctly aviation represents around 12% of the UK's emissions.

Here's the thing. Well several things actually. If the world's wealth does spread, aviation isn't going to be the only additional pressure on the environment. More people are going to consume more energy, drive more often, buy more consumables, eat more food, use more land for homes. So it is not necessarily going to be the case that they will approach UK levels of aviation, or even get anywhere near, and its not likely to be the first thing they will consume more of.

As an aside it would be interesting to know how much of that 12% was civilian aviation starting or ending in the UK as opposed to transfers through, as well as the levels of cargo flights which typically use much older craft often converted from civilian.

Would you think it reasonable if we said that aviation emissions should not exceed the current proportion of global emissions? That is, as global emissions reduce, aviation reduces at the same rate. Would that be fair? If not, why not?

Totally fair so long as the industry be given chance to reduce emissions through efficiencies, and those efficiencies be noted and not ignored.

Conversely would you consider it fair to ask rail passengers to reduce their journeys or pay additional taxes based on the number of journeys taken and distances involved....

 

[Cdd89]

Because even I recognise that stopping all air travel is a step too far, we don't want to stop people completely. By targeting frequent fliers we hit those who do a disproportionate amount of damage, rather than penalising Doris who is taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip to see her grandchildren in Australia.

But the amount of damage done by each flight is linear. Frequent flyers do an exactly proportionate amount of damage, in line with the number of flights they take. A frequent flyer who takes 7 flights should pay 7x the environmental costs of someone who takes 1. Ramping it up exponentially creates distortions which may not have desirable outcomes (for example, the substitution effect mentioned thread).

Whist Newquay to London would still be per passenger and London Paris would be subject to a £4,500 tax That would likely make Manchester flights unviable, significantly reduce the number of London Paris flights and have no impact on the Newquay flights.

I don’t have anything against this in principle. I do think it will be a lot more thorny to implement than your post suggests and is likely to remain the province of brainstorming threads like this one

For Paris, the Eurostar is already the preferred mode (based on current price differences). Almost nobody is taking the plane because they prefer it, they are taking it because it’s cheap. So I’m against solutions that involve taxing frequent flyers more per flight, because of the distortionary effect it would have in making rail even more uncompetitive for less frequent flyers (which are the vast majority).