I agree about changing habits. There’s lot of small changes, and different choices, we can all make which collectively will make a significant difference.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Climate change: Tax frequent fliers and get rid of SUVs, + California on fire.
- Thread starter Stat Brother
- Start date
I agree about changing habits. There’s lot of small changes, and different choices, we can all make which collectively will make a significant difference.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
One of the very very few good things to come out of the virus crisis is peoples attitude to travel for business, pre-crisis - This sector will never return to pre crisis levels and as a knock on, the availability of cheap leisure flights will inevitably be vastly reduced. Unfortunate for some but a good thing overall.
- Thread starter
- #43
Images like this are a common trope on cycling heavy Twitter feed.
[tweet]1250001493744324608[/tweet]
Sold as 'the safest way to transport your family', does send a rather large FU to everyone on the planet, including your family.
When was the last time you saw a car advert that featured another car on the road?
[tweet]1250001493744324608[/tweet]
Sold as 'the safest way to transport your family', does send a rather large FU to everyone on the planet, including your family.
When was the last time you saw a car advert that featured another car on the road?
As opposed to the political geniuses in charge of ours?
What about doing the right thing and leading by example?
Brighton Rocker
Active member
The problem is that leading by example takes a large investment that few people can afford.
I live in an eco house that I had designed and built in 2012. It is well insulted with wool, airtight, triple glazing, air source heat pump for heating and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. Solar panels for electric and hot water. 100% green energy supplier. Electric car, no flights and from this year vegetarian. Also planted over a thousand trees. As technology is developed and mass produced, more families will be able to benefit.
One of the problems in the UK is that people move home quite frequently on average so, not worth investing in technology as payback too long and investment not reflected in increased house values.
I feel very fortunate to be able to afford the investment and don’t expect to move in next 10 years.
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,207
You’ve got twenty years, no rush!
- Thread starter
- #48
[tweet]1303964007603351553[/tweet]
I have a car.
I have a car.
In fairness, Beo’s point was ‘on the whole‘. You’ve got a cleaner car than the last. Not because of size but because techs moved on. If you compared to an equivalent newish Smart car say though, it’s always going to be more polluting. That’s the general point. Which is true. As an aside, roads aren’t big enough in this country for SUVs, that’s why I dislike em. That and women can’t drive em
Neither can most men!
cars have been getting bigger and heavier for decades now . . . . very American sadly . . . . the fact engines have got more efficient is merely a pathetic excuse to mask it. Passat kerb weight 1400-1600 kg - . . . . volvo XC90 . . .2100 +
go back to the late 50's and there were loads of micro cars around . . . . now we should be zipping round in small largely aluminium/plastic lightweight cars with 1L or less highly efficient petrol engines doing up to 100 mpg belching out virtually breathable gas. Diesel should be largely phased out and eliminated from towns and cities. . . fat cars ( and drivers) are a massive problem.
- Thread starter
- #51
But Paris isn't a tourist destination with a hospital unlike Brighton:-
So you want to turn the right to fly into a class thing? The rich get to do what they want, the poorer people don't get to have a holiday abroad or travel or see the world? Further and further we go into the have's and have nots. Why does someone have a right to do something based on what job they do, what family they were born into, or how much they earn.
Environlemtal issues are a problem for everyone. One could probably make a case that the wealthier are already causing more of a problem than less well off and you want to further exasperate this? Congestion charging is the same, why should a banker be allowed to drive in the zone and a postman cannot, or a refuse collector, or a teacher or nurse? Just because they earn enough?
There should be a personal quota. One return flight for every passport holder in the UK per annum. If you are not going to use it you can sell it, donate it, do something. Something like this would be fairer for everyone.
- Thread starter
- #53
Nicely put and worth some extra consideration
I agree on personal quotas but I also support a frequent flyer tax. This means those who fly the most pay more whilst less well-off people can still get their trips in.
That said, as an Eco Warrior and blue-sky thinker (pun obviously intended) who’s always on the look out for novel solutions I think I might have hit onto something. EasyJet is carbon neutral. Brewdog is carbon negative. They serve Brewdog Punk IPA on EasyJet flights. So, if you down a couple of negative beers, on a neutral flight, you’re actually taking more CO2 out of the environment during the flight than you emit. So simple.
Last edited:
Thank you.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
a good market driven solution, with a couple of issues. it leads to the consquence of richer able to travel more and doesnt do much to lower overall air travel. if we are serious about reducing flights, it means hard quota on total number, which does lead to same rich travel only problem. cant get away from that im afraid. except maybe a ballot?
Sorry, that is based on the assumption that everyone has the right to fly - and therefore pollute the planet. If you want to fly, or buy an expensive house, or earn lots of money you can, but you'll pay a heavy tax for doing so. I'm suggesting that air travel shouldn't be a right at all. So if you do fly, the minimum you should do is pay enough to offset any environmental damage. Flying is not a right - no one has the right to pollute the planet to that degree. Whereas public right of way to footpaths for example is a right in this country, and of course that should be equally accessible to anyone. That's the difference.
Create a flight tax based on income ..... like the Swiss do for speeding fines. Say for every flight you take you pay x% of your income as a tax. Second flight in the year and you pay x% x 2. Third flight in a year costs x% x 3. And so on.
Uter
Well-known member
But how does that solve the problem of pollution? Airlines should surely be paying for cost of negating the environmental damage they cause? And that ultimately means higher fares for passengers, or at least some of them. A frequent flyer tax could, in theory, raise enough money to offset these costs without punishing occasional flyers.
A more nuanced solution than mine. I guess the more you fly the higher the tax could rise. But I'd want to end £30 flights to Paris etc. If people want to fly, they should understand the real impact it is having and act responsibly.