I’m just going to check my calendar Darren…hang on a moment…

Nope, as I thought, it’s not April 1st yet

Report this comment

You are right to point out the hypocrisy of the government, however the sad fact is that carbon offsetting is not as effective as cutting down flights in the first place and higher prices might be the only way to achieve that. Consumer surveys show people are increasingly willing to accept higher prices (links in my recent EcoSalon post: http://www.ecosalon.com/how-green-travel-will-survive-the-recession/).

I think it’s pointless unless it’s part of a wider comprehensive strategy that makes cuts across the board but I’ve no doubt that rationing will happen eventually.

Report this comment

It’s great that there’s some genuine research going on in biofuels but even the most wildly optimistic outcomes won’t be in the timeframe required to make a genuine difference. We need eco-friendly planes right now or we need to cut back on flying.

I totally agree that the government is having a laugh, treating the air passenger duties as general taxation, and giving approval to expand Heathrow whilst saying we should fly less.

I don’t think I accused you of promoting carbon offsetting as the solution but you did mention it. What do you think the solution is? Higher prices will help make the necessary cutbacks now, while biofuels MIGHT at some point in the future. Big difference.

Report this comment

Isn’t it about choice? One person drives a 4×4 fuel guzzler to the local mini store about 2 minutes away and their neighbor walks. It is our responsibility to fly less even if the flights are cheaper than a night out at the cinema.

Shorter flights and multiple stop-overs are more polluting per passenger mile than longer flights as take-off and landings generate a significant part of the total emissions per flight.

Forget the government. Ultimately it is our responsibility to think and act.

Fewer flights, stay away for longer durations, or go camping in the Lakes.

Report this comment

Oh, I get it…your need to fly is more important than doing the right thing for the planet. We all have to live with the consequences your travel will have (increased global warming) but only you get to reap the benefits of that plane ride. Let me guess, now you’re going to argue that the plane will take off without you.

We can argue about the best way to cut the number of flights (biofuel will not save us!) but the fact remains that travel is a selfish act. Human beings lived for centuries without plane travel. We’ll do just fine…

Report this comment

Why are flights the target? They’re hardly the sole cause of pollution. In fact, they’re hardly the worst.

By the same logic, we should ration every non-essential thing that is bad for the environment, including:

- driving a private vehicle
- taking public transit
- switching on lights and heating
- using home appliances
- eating meat
- having children
- using paper
- buying any consumer product
…

Report this comment

Dave has a good point – why is there all this focus on flying? As the ‘father’ of climate change, James Hansen, pointed out last week in The Observer, there are far bigger causes of climate change that need to be tackled (such as coal fired power stations and rain forest destruction) before we think about rationing flights and personal freedoms.

I am always very nervous when I hear Governments suggesting that we ‘ration’ goods and services. Who is to determine what kind of travel is frivolous and what isn’t? Would we all have to cut back on holiday flights, but business flights could continue? Government flights could continue? Military flights could continue? Why would we not have ALL non-essential travel rationed? Train trips, bus trips and especially car trips all contribute CO2 emissions. In fact, a diesel train trip from London to Glasgow is more polluting per passenger than a flight is, so surely they would be controlled too?

The reality is that industries like aviation, which are at the forefront of technological progress, should have all the incentives needed to bring greener technologies into service faster. These include biofuels which, for aviation, could be avialable sooner than we could imagine. As Darren points out, we already pay more than the cost of our environmental damage through the Air Passenger Duty, so why should none of this money be earmarked towards speeding up research and development into these new fuels, or new aerodynamic technologies?

Haldane Dodd
Air Transport Action Group, Geneva

Report this comment

I’m a very big supporter of green initiatives. That being said, cutting a few flights isn’t going to change anything. There needs to be serious work on alternatives energy. If the government wants to do something, pass legislation that requires auto companies and airlines to meet alternative fuel benchmarks on a schedule.

California has finally been freed to up the milage standards on autos. It took 8 years for that to get done.

Report this comment

High-speed MAGLEV rail link, biofuel (50 – 80% reduction according to studies I’ve read) – both years away. They could whack up the price on air travel (extra taxes), though I don’t think increasing prices would reduce the problem much.

25%

Report this comment

I don’t fancy the idea of rationing either, but the Daily Mail article is landfill. It’s a vague description of something someone has said ‘the govt should consider’.

What are the actual limits being proposed? Is it capping at one mid-haul flight (or the carbon equivalent) or at three short-haul plus one long-haul (or the carbon equivalent)? Are we talking draconian travel restrictions or formalising the avoidance of non-essential flights, which most of us subscribe to anyway?

Nobody likes the idea of restrictions, but people who want to keep flying but care about the environment face a pretty intractable problem – the least we can do is hear ideas out properly before crying foul.

Report this comment

Why is the government talking about rationing flights anyway?

I agree with Darren in that the government could use the money they already received in flight taxes and help towards making changes that would lower emissions, fund bio-fuel and fuel additive research/production, etc rather than bail-out banks.

If the governments start dictating when and where to ration flights…then what happens to democracy? Is flight rationing something people want? Probably not, it’s easier just to NOT fly as much. People should be able to do that on their own without their government telling them to do it. At least you’d hope so.

Report this comment

@Dave I think proponents of rationing generally talk about carbon rationing as a whole so yes, all of those things you mention would be measured. It would be up to an individual how they spent their carbon allowance. It’s a pretty grim vision, if you ask me, but I could imagine it happening. Flights are a small contributor to global greenhouse emissions but a growing one and for individuals such as myself it’s a huge proportion of my annual carbon output.

@Julia It’s about choice right now but if we can’t solve the problem voluntarily, society may eventually decide it’s no longer a matter of choice. Either that or simple lack of resources may remove choices from the table. You don’t get the choice to drive a 4×4 if there’s no longer any petrol – either because it’s been banned or because we’ve run out of oil.

Report this comment

We must help the airlines to be more eco-friendly, so there is no need for a flight ration book. Some of my bright suggestions include:
- Fly only on one engine to save emissions.
- Only fly downhill fully loaded. Fly to, say, Jo’burg loaded, from London – and get someone else to fly the uphill passage from Jo’burg.
- Fit those clever gadgets that they have on lorries that raise a set of wheels for light loads and so save rubber on landing and takeoff
- Fly slower so use less fuel
- Fit wooly mufflers to the engines to cut the noise
- Get the stewardesses to wear only bikins to save weight – and/ or stewards, (depending on your orientation)
- go back to using steam power using wood ONLY from sustainable forests
- fit all aircraft with anchors for stopping so they do not have to use reverse thrust OR use those rubber bands like they have on aircraft carriers.
- only fly long haul routes and simply give parachutes to those people wanting intermediate stops
- er….
- that’s it

any more ideas anyone, come on! Otherwise we will all have to have ration books and if you don’t have enough coupons to go to New York, you may get thrown off over Greenland.

Report this comment

Sounds like the Daily Mail ran out of news on that day…

Report this comment

I have to urge you to do some research about bio fuels as they’re NOT an adequate substitute for fossil fuels.
It’s killing the local variety in agriculture (or what’s left) and people will starve if they’re not starving already. No oil – no import/export. Easy calculation.
The problem we’re facing isn’t carbon emissions, it’s peak oil. Read up on it and get real.

Meike

Report this comment