User login
Navigation
Search
10 by 10 - a ban on domestic flights
3 June, 2009 - 17:37
This piece is from John Stewart, Chair of Airport Watch
Let’s dream for a moment. Just imagine environmental campaigners win the next General Election, expected in 2010, and, as part of the new government, the Campaign against Climate Change is asked to run the transport and environment departments of government. Aware of the urgent need to tackle runway climate change, the new Government wants to cut CO2 emissions in each transport sector by 10% by 2010.
Unlike the previous one, the new administration is determined aviation will not get ant special treatment. So, what would need to be done to achieve the 10% reduction from aviation?
The first port of call would be domestic flights within the UK. To howls of protest from the aviation industry, the Government has decided to ban them all by 2010. The industry claims the Government is acting ‘in collusion’ with the environmental movement, excluding it from the key discussions. In protest, BA chief executive Willie Walsh is threatening to climb on to the roof of the Houses of Parliament because he maintains what the Government is doing is just ‘plain stupid’.
The Government denies that its action is reckless. It argues that it has to cut emissions significantly from year one if there is any chance to stop runaway climate change. It blames the last Labour Government for the fact that it has to take such drastic action. Labour encouraged the growth of aviation in the vain belief that Emissions Trading and biofuels would sort out emissions from aircraft.
So the new Government asked its civil servants to look at the CO2 emissions that would be saved if all domestic flights were banned. They found that CO2 would be cut by probably just over 4%. The percentage of domestic flights varied quite a lot from airport to airport. At Southampton it was 50% but in Manchester only around 1.5%. But, because the actual number of aircraft using Manchester is much higher than at Southampton, the CO2 emitted by Manchester - 37, 899 per annum – is higher than Southampton’s – 24,264 tonnes per annum. Heathrow, incidentally, is in a class of its own: despite only 1% of its flights being domestic, they emit 136,965 tonnes per annum. Gatwick is the next highest on 81, 041 tonnes per annum.
To reach its 10% target the Government would need to do more than just get rid of internal flights. It would also need to look sat reducing considerably the number of short-haul flights to Europe.
Although there will be jobs lost initially, the Government is convinced that its tough line on aviation will eventually bring economic benefits. It expects to see expansion of the rail and teleconferencing industries. The banning of many of the short-haul flights to Europe will also mean that many more people will holiday in the UK, thus reducing the UK’s deficit in air transport - the difference between what UK citizens spend abroad and what visitors to this country spend here.
Fast forward to 2015 when the Government is seeking re-election. The move to ban internal and short-haul European flights was considered one of the Government’s masterstrokes. It helped the Government meet its CO2 target but it also played an important role in stimulating jobs in a greener economy.
Willie Walsh, incidentally, was sacked after being convicted of aggravate trespass after he scrambled onto the roof of Parliament. Last heard of, he was back in Ireland where he replaced Michael O’Leary as the boss of Ryanair, an unmorned the casualties of the Government’s policy to get tough on aviation.
John Stewart, Chair AirportWatch
12 June, 2009 - 07:27
#2
By all means put high carbon taxes on aviation fuel and empty airplane seats, on road transport fossil fuels and inefficient cars, but because there are times when one has an overriding need to get to a distant part of the British Isles in the shortest possible time, and I therefore object to an outright ban on domestic flights and to a compulsory maximum road speed limit below 70 mph.
12 June, 2009 - 09:38
#3
What on earth is an 'overriding need'? Perhaps to get to a parent's deathbed - but what else? If the trivial and routine business becomes 'overriding'- then this is simply excuse making, a desire not to change habits - when in fact changing our habits is long overdue. I suspect 'overriding need' in this context may well mean a little inconvenience like getting up earlier. If we are serious about combatting climate change then we must realise we will have to give up some things, and there must be inconvenience. We have become hooked on high energy usage - and so throw in undefined terms like 'overriding need' which mean in effect 'I'll do anything - so long as I don't have to change my lifestyle.'
We really have to get serious here or we won't get anywhere. Everyone will find an excuse, everyone has an 'overriding need' - which is of course nonsense. And in the end is collective suicide.
Derek Smith
12 June, 2009 - 10:53
#4
Neal, you assume that travelling by plane is the fastest way to get around the UK. While you can get by train in 4 1/2 half hours from London to Edinburgh, you would be hard pressed to beat this by plane, including travelling to and from the airports, check-in time etc. And of course the train is cheaper and more comfortable.
There is also an argument that reducing speed limits will reducte traffic congestion and improve traffic flow, so you will actually get where you are going quicker, and emitting much less pollution along the way.
12 June, 2009 - 18:19
#5
While I agree that most domestic flights are not needed, to cut carbon emissions to zero we need electric airliners with the electric energy originating from non carbon source.
18 June, 2009 - 00:37
#6
There is a need to reduce the amount of travelling that we do and to make that travelling less environmentally damaging. Flying is about the most damaging form of travelling at about 13-25 mpg equivalent per passenger (allowing for the altitude factor which makes aircraft emissions more serious than those at ground level). In contrast a full coach on a motorway can achieve about 500 mpg per passenger, and a fast train about 150 mpg per passenger about the same as an efficient diesel car with 4 passengers. But note cars cause congestion and consequent stress, trains do not.
About flying – apply tax to aviation fuel at about double the rate for road transport because of aircraft’s significantly greater environmental damage.. Increase airport taxes to compensate for the noise and disturbance caused by airports and by flying in general. This would address the ridiculous fare imbalances between flying and land transport.
For land based travel. We need a huge shift to public transport. If we can get people back onto public transport in large numbers it can be cheap, as applies in London and in many other countries. Free and concessionary travel arrangements, bus passes, rail cards etc should be made much more widely available. Cars should be leased not bought and a smart system should be devised in which the leasing, road tax, and insurance costs be paid for on a per gallon of fuel basis. This would make the true relative costs of motoring compared with public transport apparent.
The great boon of a shift to public transport is a vast reduction in congestion and noise. Once this became noticeable people would welcome the change. Another bonus would be increased employment (green jobs). While we are at it we ought to start making buses and trains (all foreign manufactures) rather than cars.
4 July, 2009 - 02:59
#7
To Derek Smith - Exactly Derek, as you have said yourself, an overiding need is perhaps to get to a parent's deathbed. So are you saying that this would be merely an inconvenience, an excuse? Perhaps you may reconsider your stance when it your own parent's deathbed that you are unable to reach in time?
4 July, 2009 - 03:13
#8
To Fergus-
Travelling by plane WOULD BE the fastest way to get around the UK if it wasn't for the security hold-ups at the airport imposed on everyone so that you, Fergus, feel reassuredly safe against the threat of terrorist bomb fluid in a shampoo bottle on the luggage rack!
The train may be cheaper, but sometimes money is less important than time. I dispute the fact that a train seat is more comfortable than an airline seat; it partly depends how much time you spend continually sitting on your arse!
I expect you are a supporter of nuclear energy too? Come on Fergus - show your colours!
4 July, 2009 - 06:14
#9
When we return to public transport I would like to see every urban and suburban road have its own narrow guage railway so every home is served by the little 10 seater tram passing the door every 10 minutes. These would link to the local shopping centre and the local railway station for longer trips and these would link to main line railway station to go around the country. Even villages and small towns would have their own street by street tramlink network....
All electric!
7 July, 2009 - 22:58
#10
Phil,
May I enquire what colour the (aeroplane free) sky is on your planet?
It would take a very courageous decision by any government to ban short haul passenger aviation and wind the clock of progress so far backwards. Particularly in isolation.
And what benefit is to be had from making an such a laughing stock of Britain and retarding internal mobility?
A 4% reduction in CO2, presumably at no penalty to yourself.
Were this idea to fly (pun intended), how will the UN IPCC gather it's UK delegates to a tourist destination of choice every year if they are unable to fly (In the age of video-conferencing these hypocrites are really setting a shining example!).
This nonsense blog is nothing more than slacktivism.
I have a more justifyable euphoria for you, and you may sleep doubly well during the long nights knowing you were also forced to actually do your part.
Since over 40% of Britain's CO2 emissions result from electricity generation, clearly the greatest gains are to be had in aggressive reduction in or elimination of electricity use - that means you must also do without. Start by banning mind-numbing luxuries such as television and cinema (your chum Al Gore will be out of a job; again).
Next ban lights. Don't just swap incandescents for fragile, mercury filled CFLs, ban lights. When the sun sets at 4pm in winter and it's too dark to read your copy of the local alternative news, you will simply have to go to bed - it's for the planet remember.
You don't need a boiler - your carbon neutral ancestors bathed in lakes and streams, a cold bath won't kill you. Nor will wearing three wooly jumpers instead of turning on the heater.
Free yourself from the addiction to an oven and microwave - cook over a wood fire.
You'll also have to recycle your PC and surrender the unnecessary luxuy of internet, that in turn means no sitting up into the wee hours on blog sites agreeing with deluded folk that banning cars and aeroplanes is the answer.
All these personal sacrifices mean you'll be doing your bit to reduce Britain's CO2 emissions, and by ten times as much as you could achieve by sitting on the sidelines and banning others from flying.
In fact aside from being a minor CO2 contributor, aviation is actually environmentally kind - since the passengers fly, there's no need for increasingly wide right of ways scaring the landscape or consuming great volumes of material for ongoing maintenance. Further, at cruising altitude there is no noise pollution bothering population or wildlife along the way.
Chris, you're either extracting the urine, or have completely lost your grip on reality. Narrow guage trams down every street, running every 10 minutes? Sure, we're banning flying and driving at 90 km/hr, so why not?
The reason so many buses are used for commuting rather than trams and trains, is the high cost of building and maintaining the right of way - even though moving a given load at a given speed on steel rails suffers a rolling resistance some 5 times lower than moving that same load in rubber tyred vehicle moving on a tarmacadam roadway.
For trains to make sense you need a sufficient patronage density - better you get off your backside and walk to a railway station and catch a train or tube that petition your mayor for a private tramway.
Since you're also the second fattest country on the planet, a daily walk would evidently do many of you some good.
Electric aeroplanes? I invite you to take your exciting proposal to any sane aeronautic engineer and see what he has to say. I suspect once he stops laughing, the answer will be that the batteries are too heavy and the motors of woefully inadequate power to mass ratio. Better luck with the anti-gravity device.
Good luck with the dreams,
Ben
8 July, 2009 - 13:21
#11
Ben, most of what you say is junk. You make a valid comment that I'll get to later, but I think you are missing the point with your opening paragraph. Courageous government leadership is what's called for - that's why the forum is called the 'Climate Emergency'.
Domestic emissions from short haul flights currently account for about 0.4% of the UK total, so drastically reducing domestic flights is never going to be the holy grail. Emissions released high in the atmosphere are recognised as having a radiative forcing factor of between 2 to 4 times more than emissions released as ground level. So, say we double the figure to account for this and we're getting up close to 1% - its still a small number, but when combined with other emergency initiatives, such as increasing the cost of motoring, decreasing the cost of public transport, and lowering speed limits, we can start to see real savings in the order of 4 to 5%. So we're getting towards the 10 by 10 aim, and we've just looked at transport.
Maybe we need to also look at reducing the attractiveness of short haul journeys between the UK and its close neighbours - France, Belgium, Netherlands and Ireland to get some more savings. I say reduce the attractiveness of flying rather than ban outright; I'd prefer to see appropriate taxation on flights that is commensurate with the pollution they cause. The end result would be the same, no short haul flights, but its more palatable to voters.
You're comments about heading back to the dark ages are naive. There are solutions out there, the problem is they're going to be expensive and unpalatable - nuclear, solar, wind etc on a massive scale. Your valid pont is that demand reduction is needed, but sensible measures, like turning down the thermostat, reducing waste, and travelling less. If governments had listened to the climate scientists and green movement 10 or 20 years ago we mightn't be backed into such a corner - they didn't so we are!
I can't say I agree with Chris's suggestions either, electric planes don't sound remotely feasible, and short haul rail on the scale proposed would be too expensive.
8 July, 2009 - 23:19
#12
Ben, I think we are clear that you don't want to cut aviation. And you are being sarcastic about electricity consumption. But what are you proposing other than maintaining the status quo which the politicians can do without any help from us?
9 July, 2009 - 21:26
#13
Converge and contract can work for local matters, too. How much of this travel was even wished for twenty or thirty years ago. There is no "right" to be carried so quickly around the country, it's just a slovenly modern affectation. In fact it could also be described as greed and not progress, which can be used to describe a lot of society's recent changes. Most people using this site are probably concerned about the end result of this, by which I mean Climate Change. It seems, though, that there is a measure of nimyism. So "Let's solve Climate Change except not change things where they might inconvenience me".
It's going to be like starting again, friends, not a minor mid-flight readjustment of course.
While I fundamentally agree that internal flights should be banned/sig reduced this piece doesn't fill me with hope.
There is no connection between why cutting the flights led to it becoming a 'masterstroke'
There needs to be something that connects the desired outcome to a better future, it can't all just be about cutting carbon - regardless of what may be desirable people will not agree to it or even more ideally buy into it. Change has to not just deal with the negative but demonstrate the positive outcomes.
We need to portray the positives that can be achieved, and here are just some examples:
- "As well as banning internal flights the New Government took away fuel subsidies and made airlines pay for their impact on the environment. Using these funds train services to previously short haul locations (eg. Manchester) have been dramatically increased. And Customer Service has improved out of sight. Happy train travels comment that 'We can't believe we can leave London in the Morning and be having a cup of tea by midday in our destination, with no chance of losing our luggage"
- Business has been surprisingly supportive of the Government's move. While there were opponents, like Starbucks who service the major airports, large Multinationals have sung the praises of the decision, "Previously we spent a lot of money on airline travel, probably more than we realised. Now staff use cost effective new technology to conference with their colleagues and clients in UK cities. It's cheaper and more productive as we don't waste our time travelling too and from the airport, not to mention the numerous delays".