Britain backs curb on cheap flights (global warming)

[baby_bear]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1514981,00.html

Britain backs curb on cheap flights

Robin McKie and Nick Mathiason
Sunday June 26, 2005
The Observer

<snip>

he majority of Britons believe that there must be restrictions on cheap air travel if the increasing problem of global warming is going to be tackled. The striking results of an Observer /ICM poll show that people are starting to realise that flying across Europe, often for less than £20, is damaging the environment.

The poll also shows that more than three-quarters of the population believe climate change is taking place and that humanity is to blame. A total of 58 per cent said they thought climate change now posed a significant threat.
...
The findings will be a major boost for the government as it prepares for next week's climate change negotiations at the G8 summit at Gleneagles. The Prime Minister is pushing for global action to limit carbon emissions, but is opposed by the Bush administration in the United States.

Mark Strutt, an expert on aviation and climate change for Greenpeace, said the public was increasingly aware of the damage aviation could cause to the environment. 'People are finally starting to realise that airline prices need to rise enough to reduce the amount of flying we do ... this doesn't mean a token rise in costs, but one large enough to have fewer aeroplanes in the sky altogether,' he said.

</snip>
Wow, contrast this with the votes in the Senate last week to not increase CAFE standards (gas mileage of car fleets) or to require any mandatory greeenhouse gas emission reductions.

Sometimes it seems we in the U.S. are, or think we are, on a separate planet.

b_b

[geek tragedy]

1. So, the answer is to make air travel available only to the wealthy?

Do any of these think-tank types come from working class backgrounds?

[PSPS]

2. Pay the full freight

The true cost of these $70 trans-European flights ends up on the taxpayer's bill. Since these flights are causing damage, they should be priced to fund the full cost of their existence. That's why gas prices being so low in the US compared to Europe causes people to waste it by buying gas guzzling SUV's.

Increasing prices on these flights won't make them "available only to the wealthy." But it will reduce their unnecessary use, hence reducing their number and the damage they cause.

[geek tragedy]

4. $70 trans-European flights? Oy, I live on the wrong continent.

Then again, rail travel Europe is a much more competitive alternative.

[shanti]

6. ryan air

better than trains, and faster.

[NashVegas]

7. More Like $25 If You Know Where and When To Look

I was hoping to take advantage of one of those next year, but c'est la vie.

[KeepItReal]

14. I flew easyJet...great value

It was really cheap (even considering the piss-poor exchange rate of the US Dollar).

The planes are pretty much spotless and the crews are very professional.

Check out where they fly:

http://www.easyjet.com/EN/Planning/Destination/index.html

Can I get a commission for this?

:-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Yes, when I was checking out ratings of airlines in my search for

an alternative route to Japan, I kept seeing consumer evaluations of flights from Manchester to London, from Milan to Rome, from Frankfurt to Zurich, and other short hops that could just as well be done by train, especially in Europe.

I can see London to Rome or Athens to Stockholm, but Manchester to London? The plane must be in the air for all of twenty minutes. A person could go there by train or bus in the time they spend getting to the airport on one end, waiting around, and traveling from the airport to the city on the other end.

I'm all for travel, but if someone offered me a dirt-cheap flight from Minneapolis to Duluth, I'd say "Huh?"

[rfkrfk]

16. jet fuel for international flight, zero tax

I mean exactly zero, not one effin lira.

[daleo]

3. Perhaps rationing by price is not the answer

If air travel has to be cut down substantially, doing so by raising prices until only the relatively affluent can fly would not be a fair means. People sometimes have to fly for family reasons, health, etc.

Perhaps a yearly limit on non-business travel (i.e. in miles) would have to be instituted. I don't know. Making air travel the preserve of the rich once more seems wrong.

[mom cat]

5. US in same planet...just in the dark ages.

[Igel]

8. It's ironic that they're doing this, while

cheap fares are just getting to central/eastern Europe, and the air system's opening up to the point where you don't have to sit on a train for hours to catch an international flight.

But, hey. NGO types, probably with grant money to pay for airfares from Britain, vs. the nouveau slightly-non-poor in Eastern Europe paying their own way. Obviously one is much better to set policy.

[barb162]

9. the Europeans are so many light years ahead of us on

global warming.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. It is appalling. Of course, our government tells the citizenry...

it's nonsense. Some of the print press provides information and issues warnings, but how many Americans get their news from our better newspapers? The only encouragement I see here is articles that indicate the Gen Y kids are on to this global crisis that's coming if something is not done.

[halobeam]

10. How about limiting non business flights to five a year?

That'll cut it way down. Then the rich can still vacation MUCH LESS for the sake of global warming, and the poor can still have a chance to afford a vacation once in a blue moon.

Class warfare is well fed once again.

[baby_bear]

13. I was thinking of limiting Air Force One and Two entirely

Talk about unnecessary expenditures of fuel and contributions to global warming....

b_b

[MaineDem]

15. These low cost flights are hurting the national airlines

That's what the issue is, I think. The Brits (the government) want the money to go to British Air and not Ryanair or the others. This is propaganda, in my opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. British Airways was privatised about 20 years ago

And this is the people, not the government, saying we need to do something. The government is busy trying to get a second runway built at Stansted Airport, to accommodate even more flights. Meanwhile, air fuel has no tax on it whatsoever, while about 75% of the cost of petrol for private citizens in the UK (and similar amounts all over Europe) is tax. No propaganda here.

[baby_bear]

18. No tax on air fuel?

I had no idea. That's very interesting. What is behind that?

b_b

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I think it's because air travel is largely international

and so it's more difficult to get agreement on the level. It can also be a point of competition between airports in different countries for which ones act as hubs. If one European country introduced a tax, then flights that refuel there will be more expensive, so passengers will use other airports and airlines if they're in transit.

Blair said as recently as February that he was against an air fuel tax:

Cross-examined on climate change by a panel of MPs this morning, the prime minister defended Britain's no-frills airline industry, saying he would not "slap some huge tax on cheap air travel".

Aviation fuel - kerosene - is unique in being tax free. Environmentalists claim the exemption deprives the government of around £7bn a year and breaches its own "polluter pays" principle.

At the London meeting of G7 finance ministers at the weekend, a consensus emerged for the first time on moving toward taxing kerosene. Germany, France and Luxembourg backed the proposal but earmarked the money for international aid rather than tackling climate change.

In its aviation white paper, the government had said taxing aviation fuel unilaterally was unfeasible until there was international support for the move. The most recent transport select committee report similarly ruled such a tax out.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1408376,00.html