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

[The Ham]

Sorry, I will never support ANY measures in reducing travel. I will only support banning flights if the alternatives are competitive enough. Reducing travel damages the economy, quality of life and technological advancement, and we will be back to a century ago when aviation was still a novelty.


The reason that aviation enables long-haul transport is precisely the reason I oppose to a ban to aviation unless there is an alternative to long-haul transport. Telling people to spend weeks on the sea for a trip from the UK to Australia is simply unrealistic in the modern world. In addition, the cost to transport perishable food across the globe will also likely increase as well.

This is why there's likely to be a need to try and "cap" growth and reduce the number of fights taken by those who fly a lot (more than monthly) rather than an outright ban.

 

[Rhydgaled]

we will be back to a century ago when aviation was still a novelty.

Yes. Unfortunately I think that's the direction we need to be heading in (or even back to before aeroplanes were invented). Alternative fuels (even hydrogen) do nothing to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions at-altitude. Any in-flight combustion is a problem unless the exhaust gases could be captured and brought back. Emissions need to be falling fast, and I can't see that happening without, at the very least, a large reduction in flights.

Telling people to spend weeks on the sea for a trip from the UK to Australia is simply unrealistic in the modern world. In addition, the cost to transport perishable food across the globe will also likely increase as well.

Exactly; travel by sea from UK to Australia is simply not practical in most cases. So, while people would still legally be able to travel between the two, most would simply not travel (or do so just once in a lifetime instead of every year or two). Similarly, perishable food grown on the other side of the world would no longer be available in the UK, which should be a fairly sizeable reduction in 'food miles'. The result would be a significant reduction in energy use and therefore greenhouse gas emssions.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes. Unfortunately I think that's the direction we need to be heading in (or even back to before aeroplanes were invented). Alternative fuels (even hydrogen) do nothing to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions at-altitude. Any in-flight combustion is a problem unless the exhaust gases could be captured and brought back. Emissions need to be falling fast, and I can't see that happening without, at the very least, a large reduction in flights.

Exactly; travel by sea from UK to Australia is simply not practical in most cases. So, while people would still legally be able to travel between the two, most would simply not travel (or do so just once in a lifetime instead of every year or two). Similarly, perishable food grown on the other side of the world would no longer be available in the UK, which should be a fairly sizeable reduction in 'food miles'. The result would be a significant reduction in energy use and therefore greenhouse gas emssions.

So your suggestion is basically to dial back the clock to the late Victorian period then? How will that effect world economies, and how would you deal with this sizeable loss of travel and trade?

 

[Rhydgaled]

So your suggestion is basically to dial back the clock to the late Victorian period then?

As far as international travel is concerned, almost certainly yes. In other respects, probably not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as international travel is concerned, almost certainly yes. In other respects, probably not.

Ironically, 21st century tech is likely to assist us in dialling back travel to something a bit more like the 90s at least rather than post-low cost airlines. Business travel is still necessary, for example, but is much reduced from its peak, perhaps in the 2010s or so.

Sometimes there's no substitute for being there, but often there is now.

 

[philosopher]

Ironically, 21st century tech is likely to assist us in dialling back travel to something a bit more like the 90s at least rather than post-low cost airlines. Business travel is still necessary, for example, but is much reduced from its peak, perhaps in the 2010s or so.

Sometimes there's no substitute for being there, but often there is now.

If you are going to restrict aviation, targeting business travel would I think be far more politically easier for the following reasons:

1. As you mention, now there are fairly viable alternatives for a lot of business travel that does not involving getting on a flight.
2. Business travellers are more likely to fly business class than leisure travellers, so on average will have greater aviation emissions compared to leisure passengers.
3. Business travellers, as a rule less are keen on travelling than leisure passengers are. I know there are some people who really like their business trips, but there are quite a few others who dislike them as it is a big chore and prevents them being with their family, partner, etc for a few days.

That said, given the high costs of business travel, companies already have quite a big incentive to cut it down as much as possible.

 

[Bantamzen]

As far as international travel is concerned, almost certainly yes. In other respects, probably not.

Well unless someone can figure out how to replace the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and hundreds of millions of jobs globally, then I've got some bad news for you..

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well unless someone can figure out how to replace the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and hundreds of millions of jobs globally, then I've got some bad news for you..

AI will be a bigger threat to jobs than if even flying ceased completely. So if that work isn't underway...

 

[Cloud Strife]

The UK tourist industry barely has the capacity to cope with the present numbers - though it would help if school holidays were staggered to spread the load.

There is a major, major problem in Europe with school holidays as a whole, and I think this is worth paying attention to. A lot of people are going to foreign countries because the domestic prices are unaffordable, so for instance, Poles are going to Adriatic destinations because the domestic destinations are simply overcrowded and very poor quality.

The problem is that Europeans are culturally attached to long summer holidays for children and themselves, so for instance, you have France virtually shutting down in August. If we spread the summer tourism season to encompass June-September, then we already significantly reduce demand. Most southern European destinations are perfectly warm at those times, so there's no excuse not to do it.

But I think ultimately, the solution in the long run is to return to the early 90s era of aviation. The current situation where people like me can buy a return flight to the UK for less than 30 quid just for the sake of attending an event of interest is really unsustainable for the planet, and such travel needs to be discouraged.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I think ultimately, the solution in the long run is to return to the early 90s era of aviation. The current situation where people like me can buy a return flight to the UK for less than 30 quid just for the sake of attending an event of interest is really unsustainable for the planet, and such travel needs to be discouraged.

Yes, that's how I see it. Aviation is needed and neither will nor should go away, but we should all think quite a lot more before we use it. The levels of it in the 1990s do seem to be sensible and economies weren't destroyed by it. In any case economies have shifted to cheap flights and can shift back again. And night trains are returning to 1990s levels too (and on a much higher quality basis - a ride on a D-Zug or EN wasn't exactly a luxury experience).

To be fair cheap flights are slowly going away anyway, not many Ryanair £1 specials about now if any!

 

[Bantamzen]

AI will be a bigger threat to jobs than if even flying ceased completely. So if that work isn't underway...

Yes, that's how I see it. Aviation is needed and neither will nor should go away, but we should all think quite a lot more before we use it. The levels of it in the 1990s do seem to be sensible and economies weren't destroyed by it. In any case economies have shifted to cheap flights and can shift back again. And night trains are returning to 1990s levels too (and on a much higher quality basis - a ride on a D-Zug or EN wasn't exactly a luxury experience).

To be fair cheap flights are slowly going away anyway, not many Ryanair £1 specials about now if any!

But you still end up with a similar problem, slowing down economies around the globe. As I say, until that issue can be sorted all these ideas simply will not work because they will not be accepted. This is the problem with this idea, it is totally disconnected with economic reality, and economic reality is what will ultimately drive decision making.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you still end up with a similar problem, slowing down economies around the globe. As I say, until that issue can be sorted all these ideas simply will not work because they will not be accepted.

Not be accepted by whom?

The UK doesn't need to ask other countries' permission before making laws even if they impact other countries. It can even declare war on another country if it wishes without asking permission.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not be accepted by whom?

The UK doesn't need to ask other countries' permission before making laws even if they impact other countries. It can even declare war on another country if it wishes without asking permission.

And conversely the rest of the world doesn't need the UK's permission. Imagine if we did go 90s on aviation and the rest of the world didn't, how long do you suppose that would last here? Methinks not long.

The point is that you simply can't turn aviation off like a light switch without considering the impact both domestically and internationally. A lot of Brits work both here and abroad in and around aviation, it brings in tourism and business and affords our citizens a decent level of mobility, even if a handful of seats a day only cost a tenner (anyone who thinks an airline company sells most seats for less than operating costs are having a laugh).

Anyway you might want to be careful what you wish for. All those people you want to stop flying on their jollies to Spain might end up on the same Avanti service heading for The Lakes, and commercial pressure might see the region become another Blackpool... Just sayin like..

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyway you might want to be careful what you wish for. All those people you want to stop flying on their jollies to Spain might end up on the same Avanti service heading for The Lakes, and commercial pressure might see the region become another Blackpool... Just sayin like..

You were presumably alive in the 1990s. Was it like that then?

(No, it wasn't - if anything it's busier now!)

 

[Bantamzen]

You were presumably alive in the 1990s. Was it like that then?

(No, it wasn't - if anything it's busier now!)

I was very much alive then yes and already 3 years into my career. But I fear you are missing the point somewhat. Or maybe not...

 

[Rhydgaled]

And conversely the rest of the world doesn't need the UK's permission. Imagine if we did go 90s on aviation and the rest of the world didn't, how long do you suppose that would last here? Methinks not long.

The point is that you simply can't turn aviation off like a light switch

I agree with that much - the UK cannot (effectively) do this by itself. But the UK should be talking about it at climate summits and pressing for substantial reduction in air travel internationally.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with that much - the UK cannot (effectively) do this by itself. But the UK should be talking about it at climate summits and pressing for substantial reduction in air travel internationally.

Why would we? The tourism sector is worth tens of billions annually, why on Earth would we seek to help damage our economy more?

This is what I mean when I talk about the disconnection between environmental lobbyists and economic reality. Countries are simply not going to cut themselves off from revenue streams like tourism, especially those whose economies rely on it. And they especially aren't for what amounts to up to only 2 percent of global emissions. Sorry but that's just the reality of it, and the constraints that anyone wishing to find a workable solution have to work within. You'll find that when push comes to shove, people won't be willing to throw away things they work hard for, and even less willing to see their jobs get sold down by the river by people who don't have to worry about putting food on the table. And you can see this in the public's reaction to road block protests from the likes of Just Stop Oil.

And again, this is not to say we must do nothing. Of course we must, but what we do cannot be at a detriment to economies and by extension hard working people's lives. The solutions will be out there, just not as easy as shutting everything down. Of course this will be deeply destressing for some of those activists whom I suspect have more political ambitions than environmental. Whenever I hear or see someone gleefully suggesting travel restrictions or social credits this just firms up my suspicion that these people are more interested in control and power.

 

[eldomtom2]

Why would we? The tourism sector is worth tens of billions annually, why on Earth would we seek to help damage our economy more?

This is what I mean when I talk about the disconnection between environmental lobbyists and economic reality. Countries are simply not going to cut themselves off from revenue streams like tourism, especially those whose economies rely on it. And they especially aren't for what amounts to up to only 2 percent of global emissions. Sorry but that's just the reality of it, and the constraints that anyone wishing to find a workable solution have to work within. You'll find that when push comes to shove, people won't be willing to throw away things they work hard for, and even less willing to see their jobs get sold down by the river by people who don't have to worry about putting food on the table. And you can see this in the public's reaction to road block protests from the likes of Just Stop Oil.

And again, this is not to say we must do nothing. Of course we must, but what we do cannot be at a detriment to economies and by extension hard working people's lives. The solutions will be out there, just not as easy as shutting everything down. Of course this will be deeply destressing for some of those activists whom I suspect have more political ambitions than environmental. Whenever I hear or see someone gleefully suggesting travel restrictions or social credits this just firms up my suspicion that these people are more interested in control and power.

And again, I repeat my claim that you seem ignorant of the economic impacts of climate change.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why would we? The tourism sector is worth tens of billions annually, why on Earth would we seek to help damage our economy more?

Because aviation is damaging the climate. This could mean damaging storms like Storm Ciarán hit us more often in future, it could mean London drops below sea level, it could destory the Great Barrier Reef etc. The UK Government has, at the very least, seriously considered domestic policies which would be likely to increase instances of fuel poverty because these policies are needed to limit climate damage. Why would we not also be seriously considering other ways to reduce climate damage, even if these would impoverish ourselves in other ways?

This is what I mean when I talk about the disconnection between environmental lobbyists and economic reality. Countries are simply not going to cut themselves off from revenue streams like tourism, especially those whose economies rely on it. And they especially aren't for what amounts to up to only 2 percent of global emissions.

2% of what, exactly? I have a feeling that is only looking at CO2 emissions, ignoring the non-CO2 greenhouse gasses which, as I keep saying, are more-dangerous at-altitude and is why I am advocating a ban on in-flight emissions here (therefore leaving open the possibility of some clever technical innovation which would allow flying to continue in some new form). I'm also assuming that is 2% of current emissions - current emissions are of course too high. So, 2% of current emissions is a rather larger percentage of our remaining emissions budget - perhaps as much as 27% by 2050 (and I think that's just CO2). Current emissions levels just aren't sustainable.

 

[Bantamzen]

And again, I repeat my claim that you seem ignorant of the economic impacts of climate change.

You can repeat it all you like, but before you do go back and actually read what I said.

Because aviation is damaging the climate. This could mean damaging storms like Storm Ciarán hit us more often in future, it could mean London drops below sea level, it could destory the Great Barrier Reef etc. The UK Government has, at the very least, seriously considered domestic policies which would be likely to increase instances of fuel poverty because these policies are needed to limit climate damage. Why would we not also be seriously considering other ways to reduce climate damage, even if these would impoverish ourselves in other ways?

We live on the eastern edge of a large mass of water, the northern end of an strong oceanic current, and more often than not under a strong high level wind circulation. The combination of which means we sit at the end of a storm generating system, so yeah we are going to get storms.

2% of what, exactly? I have a feeling that is only looking at CO2 emissions, ignoring the non-CO2 greenhouse gasses which, as I keep saying, are more-dangerous at-altitude and is why I am advocating a ban on in-flight emissions here (therefore leaving open the possibility of some clever technical innovation which would allow flying to continue in some new form). I'm also assuming that is 2% of current emissions - current emissions are of course too high. So, 2% of current emissions is a rather larger percentage of our remaining emissions budget - perhaps as much as 27% by 2050 (and I think that's just CO2). Current emissions levels just aren't sustainable.

I hate to be one to break it to you but pretty much all human activities damage the environment in one way or another, aviation is just one small part of that damage. If you really want bet zero then what you should be advocating is dialling back the clock about ten thousand years, and that includes population figures. Would you advocate a return to mud huts, living off only what you can forage or kill, and asking most of the population to disappear? Well fear not, this level of extinction is highly likely at the moment, though not through climate change but war. If you really want something to fret about, the escalating violence around the globe is far more concerning, and is much more of a crisis than people flying on cheap air fares to Spain.

Aviation sits as part of the infrastructure that economies around the world rely on. Shut that down and you **** down the lives of millions of people, not in 2040 or 2040, but the moment you do that. And it is because of this that it will no happen, because people will not allow their lives to be worsened by people who don't have to worry about putting food on the table, and worse still by people who don't even give this possibility a second thought as they pursue their goal of "saving the world". This is my point, even though some stubbornly avoid it.

 

[eldomtom2]

We live on the eastern edge of a large mass of water, the northern end of an strong oceanic current, and more often than not under a strong high level wind circulation. The combination of which means we sit at the end of a storm generating system, so yeah we are going to get storms.

Would you rather be hit by severe storms once every decade or once every year?

I hate to be one to break it to you but pretty much all human activities damage the environment in one way or another, aviation is just one small part of that damage. If you really want bet zero then what you should be advocating is dialling back the clock about ten thousand years, and that includes population figures. Would you advocate a return to mud huts, living off only what you can forage or kill, and asking most of the population to disappear?

I presume you have a source for your claims?

 

[The Ham]

I hate to be one to break it to you but pretty much all human activities damage the environment in one way or another, aviation is just one small part of that damage. If you really want bet zero then what you should be advocating is dialling back the clock about ten thousand years, and that includes population figures. Would you advocate a return to mud huts, living off only what you can forage or kill, and asking most of the population to disappear? Well fear not, this level of extinction is highly likely at the moment, though not through climate change but war. If you really want something to fret about, the escalating violence around the globe is far more concerning, and is much more of a crisis than people flying on cheap air fares to Spain.

Whilst everything does impact on the environment, the carbon emissions from flying are difficult to justify as essential (at least after a certain number of fights).

Average home occupancy is 2.4 people, so if a household does two return flights to Spain (195kg per return) assuming 5 return flights that's 975kg, that's 12% of that household's carbon emissions from their home or about 1/3 of 10,000 miles of driving or 9% of the combined (driving and house averages).

Therefore 2 holidays a year would be reasonable, however if that were to rise to 5 holidays each that would then rise to 21% of the combined.

It would mean to be comparable to a family who drives 10,000 miles a year and doesn't fly, then a family flying 5 times a year could drive 2,000 miles. Even if the first family was doing 14,000 miles the other family could only do 6,000 miles, that's fairly restrictive (500 miles a month, so about 26 miles a working day and nothing the rest of the time).

Obviously other factors come to play, for example how energy efficient the homes are. However, once you get to 8 return trips, that's the same as running a second house full time.

 

[Bantamzen]

Would you rather be hit by severe storms once every decade or once every year?

Neither, however storms are a fact of life in this part of the world.

I presume you have a source for your claims?

Yep. It's called Man Made Climate Change. You may have heard of it, its been in the making for thousands of years...

 

[eldomtom2]

Neither, however storms are a fact of life in this part of the world.

Dodging the question. Would you prefer more frequent storms or less frequent storms?

Yep. It's called Man Made Climate Change. You may have heard of it, its been in the making for thousands of years...

That is not a source for your claim that "net zero" requires us to go back to the days of mud huts.

 

[Enthusiast]

But the UK should be talking about it at climate summits and pressing for substantial reduction in air travel internationally.

Are these the events where tens of thousands of people gather together to discuss how other people should reduce their air miles? Last time out >35,000 delegates and bag carriers descended on Sharm-el-Sheikh (very agreeable in November, so I'm led to believe). At the end of this month, the same crew will assemble in Dubai to produce the same nebulous waffle, with just the dates changed on their "declarations". Are you seriously suggesting that people should acquiesce to this utter hypocrisy? Or do they all travel by bike?

 

[Krokodil]

Are these the events where tens of thousands of people gather together to discuss how other people should reduce their air miles? Last time out >35,000 delegates and bag carriers descended on Sharm-el-Sheikh (very agreeable in November, so I'm led to believe). At the end of this month, the same crew will assemble in Dubai to produce the same nebulous waffle, with just the dates changed on their "declarations". Are you seriously suggesting that people should acquiesce to this utter hypocrisy? Or do they all travel by bike?

I don't think that any real environmentalists condone the jollies that politicians and other windbags jet off to, which seem to achieve very little (except providing plenty of income for the oldest profession). Imagine travelling to Davos, connected to the best public transport network in the world, and insisting on using a private jet.

 

[Bantamzen]

Whilst everything does impact on the environment, the carbon emissions from flying are difficult to justify as essential (at least after a certain number of fights).

Average home occupancy is 2.4 people, so if a household does two return flights to Spain (195kg per return) assuming 5 return flights that's 975kg, that's 12% of that household's carbon emissions from their home or about 1/3 of 10,000 miles of driving or 9% of the combined (driving and house averages).

Therefore 2 holidays a year would be reasonable, however if that were to rise to 5 holidays each that would then rise to 21% of the combined.

It would mean to be comparable to a family who drives 10,000 miles a year and doesn't fly, then a family flying 5 times a year could drive 2,000 miles. Even if the first family was doing 14,000 miles the other family could only do 6,000 miles, that's fairly restrictive (500 miles a month, so about 26 miles a working day and nothing the rest of the time).

Obviously other factors come to play, for example how energy efficient the homes are. However, once you get to 8 return trips, that's the same as running a second house full time.

What, or for that matter whom defines "essential". Strictly speaking quite a bit of what we do in the industrialised world could really be deemed as unessential. Holidays, going to watch sport, having nights out, riding around on trains for fun or to create social media content, none of it is particularly essential to the end user, but do enhance those people's lives and wellbeing. However it is essential for those providing said services, because without them they lose income.

And herein lies my issue with this, defining what people can and cannot do, and in quantities feels very much like the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. In 2040 it might be how flights you are allowed, in 2050 it might be how many miles you can travel, in 2060 it could morph into how often you are allowed out of your box. No I'm sorry but I draw the line at anything that not only seeks to restrict, but could easily be used in increasing measures.

So for me its back to finding ways to reduce our overall impact without trying to control society and it's movements & activities. Because if we don't, then expect more and more pushbacks. Like I said, the solutions are out there but won't be found by people gluing themselves to stuff, or chucking orange power around. The solutions will come from the best and brightest rolling up their sleeves and engineering solutions that reduce our overall impact. If we could sent astronauts into space and to the Moon inside a decade, then we can figure out this problem as a species, perhaps with the added bonus of making things better / cheaper, and more accessible to everyone. Too often on these forums the only solutions are to reduce or stop doing things because the alternative is too hard.

 

[eldomtom2]

No I'm sorry but I draw the line at anything that not only seeks to restrict, but could easily be used in increasing measures.

I presume you are not against all laws altogether.

 

[Enthusiast]

I presume you are not against all laws altogether.

I don't think Bantamzen is an anarchist, any more than anybody else trying to make some sense of the current madness is.

The pandemic demonstrated quite readily how legislators, if allowed, can introduce measures which restrict people from engaging in what were hitherto seemingly inalienable rights. People had to have a "reasonable excuse" to leave their homes; they could not invite anybody (bar a few very limited exceptions) into theirs; businesses and hospitality outlets which they used were closed by edict; schools were closed. We all know what happened. We were told they were temporary (though they turned out to be slightly less temporary than we were initially led to believe). All this happened with the stroke of a Minister's pen.

Travelling by air is an intrinsic part of modern life. We cannot "uninvent" the aeroplane. Many people engage in it for all sorts of reasons - some may be deemed as necessary, others deemed not so. So there is the problem of who decides which necessary and which isn't? But surely we can trust a government to sort that out? Or perhaps not.

During the pandemic, Ministers decided that leaving home without an excuse wasn't necessary. You could do without it. They decided that going to work (if you could undertake your job from home) wasn't necessary. You could do without it. Inviting friends and family into your home wasn't necessary. You could do without it. In fact meeting other people outdoors wasn't necessary. You could do without it. Visiting dying relatives in hospital wasn't necessary. You could do without it.

So some might be forgiven for being extremely suspicious of the notion that decisions about which journeys by air are necessary and which are not would be taken reasonably and fairly. Ministers who decided that people must not leave home without an excuse would have little reticence to impose a ban on flying. And, unlike the pandemic restrictions - which were (eventually) temporary - these would be permanent.

There is a simmering but determined campaign to stop people moving about. Far better they stay where they live and go no further than they can manage on a push bike or walk. Bad luck for those getting on in years who find the first impossible and the second somewhat difficult beyond a small distance. Car travel is vilified but air travel is akin to slaying every first-born. But travelling about is as "unnecessary" as leaving home without an excuse. It's what people do. Other strategies must be devised to prevent harmful emissions because preventing people moving about simply will not do.

 

[Krokodil]

What, or for that matter whom defines "essential". Strictly speaking quite a bit of what we do in the industrialised world could really be deemed as unessential. Holidays, going to watch sport, having nights out, riding around on trains for fun or to create social media content, none of it is particularly essential to the end user, but do enhance those people's lives and wellbeing.

Slap a tax on polluting activities or ration them and people can choose which they want to prioritise - ride a bike to work so that you can afford to fly away, or own a gas-guzzler and take your holidays in Pontins.

Other strategies must be devised to prevent harmful emissions because preventing people moving about simply will not do.

Placing restrictions on air travel isn't like directly placing restrictions upon an individual. You don't need a police officer issuing a £10,000 FPN to stop someone flying if the flight either doesn't exist or has been priced out of their reach.