[Politics] Giving Up Flying vs "The Plane Is Going Anyway"

nicko31 · Nov 9, 2019

Air travel needs to be taxed properly just like petrol or diesel, in reality that would be hard to do. Better give everyone a carbon allowance, if you go over you pay.

Business class travel I would tax to hell....

Herr Tubthumper · Nov 9, 2019

nicko31 said:
Air travel needs to be taxed properly just like petrol or diesel, in reality that would be hard to do. Better give everyone a carbon allowance, if you go over you pay.

Business class travel I would tax to hell....

The carbon allowance idea is probably the most sensible and fairest approach. How it would operate, and how it would be managed and policed, I have no idea.

zefarelly · Nov 9, 2019

mikeyjh said:
Quite - It was all really exciting when you were young right! Then at some point you realise it's largely pointless. Agreed on cars as well, which is why I, like you, prefer not to venture beyond the garden

It was exciting, not onlY that, from Shoreham, I could be on a plane flying within an hour and a half, takes bloody ages now. There's no skipping through Gatwick any more. Travel in the U.K. On the roads is woeful as well. The only way to enjoy driving is to pay through the nose and get on a track! Although still pretty good for scootering!

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2019

Seagull said:
Should we individually give up flying to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or does it make no difference what we do because the plane is going anyway?
Interesting debate here.
What does NSC think?

What? There is no debate, of course the planes around the world aren't 'going anyway'. Does anyone really have the energy (no pun intended) to debate this with idiots?

Or does this also mean there's no point being a vegan, because the animals are dead anyway?

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2019

Kalimantan Gull said:
I'm very torn on this. I fly very regularly, primarily for work. I'm content with my personal role in combating climate change, so I don't feel guilty as such, but I see the hypocrisy

Good.

and yes, have made the argument you use.

You need to take a long look in the mirror.

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2019

Sorrel said:
The solution is to tax aviation more; the problem with that is that only the better off will be able to fly.

Why is that a problem? Why do the less well-off need to be able to fly?

An alternative would be if it becomes socially unacceptable and thus people don't want to be seen flying; this could happen, but I think it unlikely.

We have a 'green' family on our road, with the 'vote green' posters in the window. Some years ago they boasted how they weren't flying in order to save the environment. I don't know what made them give up their stance, as they now take a few family holidays by plane a year. The 'vote green' posters are still in the window of course. Typical hypocrites.

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2019

Kalimantan Gull said:
Electric-cell technology for cars could clearly be applied to planes too one day.

Really? I'd imagine there's more chance of nuclear powered flight.

Kalimantan Gull · Nov 9, 2019

beorhthelm said:
what happens when they are filling up outside the EU?

VAT on tickets.

But yes, fuel duty could also be charged, long distance planes can't fuel up for more than one journey

Kalimantan Gull · Nov 9, 2019

Triggaaar said:
Really? I'd imagine there's more chance of nuclear powered flight.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/new...ero-emission-technologies-to-take-flight.html

Probably start with hybrids, short distances, then when the batteries get better the 'sky's the limit' boom tish

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2019

Kalimantan Gull said:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/new...ero-emission-technologies-to-take-flight.html

Probably start with hybrids, short distances, then when the batteries get better the 'sky's the limit' boom tish

Yeah, can't see it myself.

Seagull · Nov 9, 2019

zefarelly said:
Cars are as bad as flying though. Most of them are more than double the size they need to be and have 4 empty seats.

This is so true. We can make more immediate positive effects as individuals by not driving. Mass transport such as planes, trains, buses require the action of many individuals to produce a reduction in emissions (they are for the moment "going anyway"). Though ultimately reduced demand will effect supply.

Cars should be made smaller, less polluting and one person journeys disincentivised. In Jakarta in the 90s you had to have a certain number of passengers in the car to be able to enter the city; don't know if that's still the case.

Overall we just have to find ways to leave the fossil fuels in the ground NOW!

Kalimantan Gull · Nov 9, 2019

Triggaaar said:
Yeah, can't see it myself.

I never thought I'd see the day there were banks of wind turbines off Brighton beach, part of a massive offshore grid providing huge amounts of electricity to the UK, but these things creep up on you

Kalimantan Gull · Nov 9, 2019

Seagull said:
Cars should be made smaller, less polluting and one person journeys disincentivised. In Jakarta in the 90s you had to have a certain number of passengers in the car to be able to enter the city; don't know if that's still the case.

It is, 3 passengers per vehicle in the city centre at rush hour. Its spawned a huge industry in people being driven around as the extra passengers, when you are about to enter the zone you see large numbers of pedestrians on the pavement offering themselves as the extra passengers for a fee.

Very resourceful people the Indonesians :lolol:

Nixonator · Nov 9, 2019

Won't make a blind bit of difference with industrial revolutions going on elsewhere in the world.

In fact, even a global carbon reduction is not an economical way to combat climate change long term.

In the tiny microcosm of your own existence, whether or not you take a flight is such an insignificant thing that these kinds of vacuous discussions are only had by those who have no concept of scale.

Thunder Bolt · Nov 9, 2019

Seagull said:
This is so true. We can make more immediate positive effects as individuals by not driving. Mass transport such as planes, trains, buses require the action of many individuals to produce a reduction in emissions (they are for the moment "going anyway"). Though ultimately reduced demand will effect supply.

Cars should be made smaller, less polluting and one person journeys disincentivised. In Jakarta in the 90s you had to have a certain number of passengers in the car to be able to enter the city; don't know if that's still the case.

Overall we just have to find ways to leave the fossil fuels in the ground NOW!

Twenty years ago, Athens said cars with odd/even registrations could drive alternate days to cut down on pollution & traffic jams.
Families bought two cars with odd numbered registration plates, and the other an even numbered plate.

Thunder Bolt · Nov 9, 2019

GT49er said:
And those cosy fires were so good for the environment?

Good point. All those smoking chimneys contributing to smog and accompanying chest problems.
Smokeless fuel was introduced in the 60s to clean up the cities.

Kalimantan Gull · Nov 9, 2019

Nixonator said:
Won't make a blind bit of difference with industrial revolutions going on elsewhere in the world.

In fact, even a global carbon reduction is not an economical way to combat climate change long term.

In the tiny microcosm of your own existence, whether or not you take a flight is such an insignificant thing that these kinds of vacuous discussions are only had by those who have no concept of scale.

You're partly right, and partly wrong. Yes we won't change anything by ourselves. But by taking an interest in this we accelerate the development of alternative technologies, which are then exported and incorporated into developing economies.

Which country produces the most electricity from renewable sources? China.

Birdie Boy · Nov 9, 2019

I'm about to start a new job in n other country, so I will be flying back and forth every 2-3 weeks. When I'm abroad i will use trains and trams to get around, whilst my car in England will be sitting idle for weeks at a time. I was doing around 15,000 miles per annum, so I will be helping here.

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2019

Kalimantan Gull said:
I never thought I'd see the day there were banks of wind turbines off Brighton beach

Why? Obviously wind has provided power for centuries. Did you think it was too difficult to build in the sea, or what?

but these things creep up on you

It's obvious that there's a desire for cleaner air travel, but the problem with electric cars is weight and range. We should be able to improve things enough to make it workable with cars, but passenger jets are a whole other ball game. Heavy batteries and low capacity do not go well with transatlantic air travel, and they're issues we just won't be fixing any time soon.

blue-shifted · Nov 9, 2019

Nixonator said:
Won't make a blind bit of difference with industrial revolutions going on elsewhere in the world.

In fact, even a global carbon reduction is not an economical way to combat climate change long term.

In the tiny microcosm of your own existence, whether or not you take a flight is such an insignificant thing that these kinds of vacuous discussions are only had by those who have no concept of scale.

I'm sure that attitude assuages your guilt, though if everyone thinks like that we're screwed

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Giving Up Flying vs "The Plane Is Going Anyway"

Should We Give Up Flying?

We should all give up flying now

We should all fly less

It makes no difference, the plane is going anyway

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Yes I eat anything

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Share this page