Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers

[whole diary]

[Lee]

But then doesnt population in general far exceed the numbers of hundred years ago, and arent there more choices and options available for a wider range of that overall population than there were back then?

[Red Squirrel]

Well, as the oil will slowly run out...

That's not considered an issue these days, is it? There are now more than enough known reserves of fossil fuels to ensure that, if they are all burnt, the earth will heat up beyond the point where humans can live here...

[broadgage]

Re post #24, I can not agree with many of the points raised.
Air transport is a major source of carbon emissions and will have to be substantially reduced if we are serious about climate change.
Air transport is inherently and unavoidably highly polluting. Aircraft are almost entirely fossil fuel powered and alternatives seem most improbable. Aircraft are already nearly as efficient as is possible.

Therefore air transport must be discouraged, and this means increasing the price such that most people can no longer afford to fly much.
If someone chooses to emigrate to Australia or similarly distant place, it should mean accepting that their families from Europe wont be able to visit regularly, or even at all.
If a sporting event in which UK^▸ (United Kingdom) teams are competing is arranged in a distant place not readily reached by surface transport, then it must be accepted that most fans wont be able to watch it in person but will be reliant on television coverage.

Comparisons with other forms of transport are not entirely valid.
Railways can be electrified.
Local road transport can be electric.
Ships and boats can be electric or sail powered.
The electricity can be produced renewably.

An electric aircraft seems most unlikely to have intercontinental range.

I would not abolish surfaced roads, but I am opposed to any more road building or road widening, except when unavoidable to serve new developments.

Diesel buses and trains are preferable to private cars, but I would prefer to see these electrified, starting with the busiest routes. Overhead electrification is almost certainly the way forward, with batteries being an alternatives for some situations.

And yes I DO practice what I preach !
I do not fly, and have not flown for nearly 20 years.
I do not drive.
I heat my home largely with locally produced firewood.
I minimise electricity consumption, and much of what I do use is off peak.
I use no natural gas, and almost no coal or oil.

[Robin Summerhill]

I was really concentrating on the idea of unintended consequences: that if you intend to raise taxes on aviation in order to reduce numbers flying, that's going to mean a mechanism of higher prices. Therefore, the unaffordability is not unintended.

So perhaps I should clarify what I was getting at.

Indirect taxation (which is what a "flying tax" would be) is regressive, inasmuch as it will be a higher proportion of annual income for poorer people than richer people. Therefore it would probably not stop rich people flying at all, but it could well stop poorer people from doing the same. Whilst I agree that that could be foreseen, I am not sure that any political party anywhere in the world would get themselves elected on a "let the rich fly, let the poor go to hell" ticket. Therefore, from a political point of view, the idea wouldn't get off the ground (no pun intended... )

However, contained within my rant of yesterday were two important points. The first is that it seems rather odd to have a fixation on air  travel when immeasurably more damage is done by land transport, especially road traffic. Perhaps its because everybody uses the roads but a smaller proportion fly? Perhaps the superficial appearance of the "problem" in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is that this is a relatively small island and domestic flights have never really "caught on" in a big way, unlike for example in the USA where the vast distances often involved in travel put a completely different light on the matter?

If we are sincere in wanting to take drastic action against pollution and carbon emissions from transportation, then we need to address the lot. That includes you giving up your car; living within walking distance of your job; and not expecting a clock-face railway or bus timetables because some of them would carry an uneconomic load of passengers. Somehow I can't see any of that happening, because it would be political suicide for any government to do it.

The second point was that, given the above, we need to find more efficient and less polluting ways of moving people around. And we have been doing it for many years - cars have become much more fuel efficient since the 1970s and electric cars are now with us; railways have been electrified allowing them (in theory at least and certainly in time) to run on electricity produced from non-polluting sources (eg wind and solar power, and nuclear once we work out what to do with the waste...), and aircraft are much more fuel efficient than they were in years gone by. There have also been prototype electric planes built, and whilst there is still much work to do to make those into a commercial proposition, it might not take much time - bear in mind that the period of time between the Wright Brothers first bumpy ride in 1903 and the first commercial aircraft entering service in 1914 (just for clarification that was an aeroplane rather than an airship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline#The_first_airlines

[Bmblbzzz]

I was really concentrating on the idea of unintended consequences: that if you intend to raise taxes on aviation in order to reduce numbers flying, that's going to mean a mechanism of higher prices. Therefore, the unaffordability is not unintended.

So perhaps I should clarify what I was getting at.

Indirect taxation (which is what a "flying tax" would be) is regressive, inasmuch as it will be a higher proportion of annual income for poorer people than richer people. Therefore it would probably not stop rich people flying at all, but it could well stop poorer people from doing the same. Whilst I agree that that could be foreseen, I am not sure that any political party anywhere in the world would get themselves elected on a "let the rich fly, let the poor go to hell" ticket. Therefore, from a political point of view, the idea wouldn't get off the ground (no pun intended... )

I think we're both saying this. 

[broadgage]

Stick, stick, stick.

How about making public (train) transport travel cheaper over long distance, easy to find out about, plan, book, use, and with much more space on trains making them a pleasure.  Add a section in each train where you can walk up and buy a decent cup of coffee, perhaps even a bacon bap, and chat with a real staff member who doubles up as a safety and customer host.  Seats / carriages where you can lay down and sleep. High speed [too/two]. Ease personal movement to that you can remove intermediate paperwork and admin. Come into the city centres and include "total journey" in the fare - suburban train and bus to get you to where you really need to be.

You may still want to gently apply the sticks, but do add the carrot alternative!

Realistically, you will not remove all the very long distance (intercontinental) air stuff.  But the British Isles / France / Belgium / Netherlands / Germany short hauls ...

The first part of that sounds almost like a broadgage anti-IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) post

[grahame]

The first part of that sounds almost like a broadgage anti-IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) post

You surprise me  - that was entirely intentional.

But it was not written as anti anything - it was written as pro a system of long distance trains (journey times in excess of 150 minutes for most passengers) which stand up well against air travel.  Looking at trains that reach our Somerset / Devon / Bristol passengers, such services are probably the ones that would go to Newcastle and Scotland, and perhaps new direct services to Holyhead, Paris, and Frankfurt and Amsterdam via Brussels

[TaplowGreen]

Re post #24, I can not agree with many of the points raised.
Air transport is a major source of carbon emissions and will have to be substantially reduced if we are serious about climate change.
Air transport is inherently and unavoidably highly polluting. Aircraft are almost entirely fossil fuel powered and alternatives seem most improbable. Aircraft are already nearly as efficient as is possible.

Therefore air transport must be discouraged, and this means increasing the price such that most people can no longer afford to fly much.
If someone chooses to emigrate to Australia or similarly distant place, it should mean accepting that their families from Europe wont be able to visit regularly, or even at all.
If a sporting event in which UK^▸ (United Kingdom) teams are competing is arranged in a distant place not readily reached by surface transport, then it must be accepted that most fans wont be able to watch it in person but will be reliant on television coverage.

Comparisons with other forms of transport are not entirely valid.
Railways can be electrified.
Local road transport can be electric.
Ships and boats can be electric or sail powered.
The electricity can be produced renewably.

An electric aircraft seems most unlikely to have intercontinental range.

I would not abolish surfaced roads, but I am opposed to any more road building or road widening, except when unavoidable to serve new developments.

Diesel buses and trains are preferable to private cars, but I would prefer to see these electrified, starting with the busiest routes. Overhead electrification is almost certainly the way forward, with batteries being an alternatives for some situations.

And yes I DO practice what I preach !
I do not fly, and have not flown for nearly 20 years.
I do not drive.
I heat my home largely with locally produced firewood.
I minimise electricity consumption, and much of what I do use is off peak.
I use no natural gas, and almost no coal or oil.

Given your status as a shining example of environmental friendliness and paragon of virtue in general for us all to aspire to broadgage, presumably you'll be giving up steaks on the Pullman too? 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

[broadgage]

No I will not be giving up fillet steak, on the train or elsewhere.
I try to purchase free range and locally produced meat, which is less bad than intensively produced meat that has been transported from distant places.
I try to be reasonably green and suspect that a single flight does more harm than hundreds or even thousands of steaks.

[Robin Summerhill]

Therefore air transport must be discouraged, and this means increasing the price such that most people can no longer afford to fly much.
If someone chooses to emigrate to Australia or similarly distant place, it should mean accepting that their families from Europe wont be able to visit regularly, or even at all.
If a sporting event in which UK^▸ (United Kingdom) teams are competing is arranged in a distant place not readily reached by surface transport, then it must be accepted that most fans wont be able to watch it in person but will be reliant on television coverage.

A word of advice - don't stand for any political elections on a ticket like that. You'll lose your deposit...

[TaplowGreen]

No I will not be giving up fillet steak, on the train or elsewhere.

I try to be reasonably green and suspect that a single flight does more harm than hundreds or even thousands of steaks.

As per the article Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

- I believe the Pullman offers a vegetarian option? 

[broadgage]

I know, and have no intention of standing for any p0litical office.

On a more general note, I believe that devastating climate change is probably unavoidable. ALMOST ANY effective action to reduce carbon emissions is a vote loser.

Fossil fuel, whether used for air transport, or road transport, or for domestic heating, needs to be rendered unaffordable. Whom will vote for that !

[Robin Summerhill]

And yes I DO practice what I preach !

...I heat my home largely with locally produced firewood.

Erm...

Burning wood is not exactly "green"... A combination of the particulates from a wood burning stove and smoking all her life saw my mother off at 77 with emphysema.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=1cjpXJCWIM3TsAec26ioDw&q=wood+burning+stoves+pollution&oq=wood+burning+stoves+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l10.1297.10100..14219...0.0..0.118.1289.20j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131.VihreR4J5h8

[eightonedee]

Burning wood is not exactly "green"... A combination of the particulates from a wood burning stove and smoking all her life saw my mother off at 77 with emphysema.

And to  be carbon neutral Broadgage would need to grow an equivalent mass of wood to the mass he has just burnt

[grahame]

Burning wood is not exactly "green"... A combination of the particulates from a wood burning stove and smoking all her life saw my mother off at 77 with emphysema.

And to  be carbon neutral Broadgage would need to grow an equivalent mass of wood to the mass he has just burnt

But forest fires are a part of nature ... and if that's dead wood that might naturally have burned, cleared as "brush" ... or of it's clearance (out of nesting season of course) from West Somerset Railway or Network Rail land ... then far better to have it in a fire grate than heating the countryside?