It's a ridiculous situation where you can get return flights to Malaga four or five times over for the cost of a train to Manchester. The environmental impact of them aren't comparable.
Everyone wants cheap flights for their holidays but we have to accept that passengers don't even pay a tenth of the environmental impact of flying (I'm talking budget airlines short haul here). We should be taxing air travel much more to make the passenger pay for their pollution. Its the polluter pays principle again. If it incentivises people to fly less then that is a good thing. Flying is a luxury that is incredibly harmful to the environment we have to accept it and tax it. Rail travel should be much much cheaper to encourage that as a viable option to driving.
But we live in a global economy. Unless we are going to advocate more countries becoming self sufficient for its food, goods and services this is too simplistic to say restrict air travel.
Your comparison to train fares says more about unjustifiably high train fares.
If public transport was generally cheaper we would all use it more and our own cars far less.
Two types of travel that cant really be compared for most of us. A flight is invariably a Time consuming pain in the arse in my book. The time spent in the polluting airborne fart tube stops being a consideration when you factor in travel to and from the airports, time spent dicking about in the airport and all the fuckery that comes with that.
Nobody normal is getting planes for fun, most workplaces make you go for the cheapest form of transport if they are paying as opposed to the most practical. Invariably for me that is often driving or hiring a car as long distance trains are prohibitively expensive and my bean counting superiors know I'll bang in a claim for all the costs involved in flying
The railways need to be nationalised again, they are only a racket for large shareholders anyway and government subsidies ensure its a safe bet. Same with essential utilities
Then we have things like personal space, privacy, comfort, convenience before I consider cost and driving wins every time.
It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.
What do you predict will happen then?
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same? Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
The airlines woud probably object.
They bounced back from zero flights quite well.
But you’d expect them to object, yes.
Have they?
Their debt pile and the countless people that no longer work in the industry suggests otherwise.
True. But many thought dozens of airlines would fold. And it’s still relatively early days.
Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.
And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.
PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.
I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.
Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.
Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.
And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.
PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.
I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.
Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.
You take two flights a year and 'occasionally fly' for which you seem to think that you're entitled to some sort of familial exemption. When you talk of, 'We'llget nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing.' you do realise that you are one of those 'people'. Why do you need to be further infantalised and have your hand held whilst the Government tells you what to do when it's blindingly obvious that you could eschew travelling by plane with immediate effect all by yourself. You can reach Hague by train in less than seven hours, but obviously reaching more exotic locations will prove more taxing, altough you might take some comfort from the old adage, To travel is better than to arrive.
I'm aware that this will appear to be a personal attack, JS, but that genuinely isn't my intention; it just smacks of the double standards that many people afford themselves when getting all sanctimonious when criticising 'those people'.
“you do realise that you are one of those 'people'.”
Absolutely I do. My whole point is that I am exactly one of those people. All I’m saying is that there are very few people ‘trying to do the right thing’, and if we leave it for people to make the changes required in their lifestyles to reduce climate change then we are all doomed.
Some sort of government involvement is arguably the only way to save the day, much as government intervention is out of vogue with some these days.
“it just smacks of the double standards that many people afford themselves when getting all sanctimonious when criticising 'those people'.”
I hope I’m not being sanctimonious as I’m saying I’m very much one of those people. I’m criticising myself. I do bits and bobs, but it’s nowhere near enough.
PS Cheers btw, I’m aware it’s not a personal attack.I was attacking myself anyway. 👍
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's a ridiculous situation where you can get return flights to Malaga four or five times over for the cost of a train to Manchester. The environmental impact of them aren't comparable.
Everyone wants cheap flights for their holidays but we have to accept that passengers don't even pay a tenth of the environmental impact of flying (I'm talking budget airlines short haul here). We should be taxing air travel much more to make the passenger pay for their pollution. Its the polluter pays principle again. If it incentivises people to fly less then that is a good thing. Flying is a luxury that is incredibly harmful to the environment we have to accept it and tax it. Rail travel should be much much cheaper to encourage that as a viable option to driving.
But we live in a global economy. Unless we are going to advocate more countries becoming self sufficient for its food, goods and services this is too simplistic to say restrict air travel.
We were just talking about unnecessary air travel, not all air travel.
Your comparison to train fares says more about unjustifiably high train fares.
True, they are too high. Renationalising trains is quite a popular policy apparently.
If public transport was generally cheaper we would all use it more and our own cars far less.
Something that makes me really uncomfortable is the frequent suggestions that government should impose something. My simple take on this is would any of you genuinely trust them to
1) do it honestly and properly 2) trust them
I'm loathe to fuel a conspiracy flame here, let's just look at how the government and its shiny faced chums behaved during covid and their attitude to something that should have been as a philanthropic gesture as anything. Similar to climate change. They self served and stole money, behaved fraudulently, ignored rules they were letting the police prosecute people over and generally proved themselves to be the last people on this green earth to be allowed any type of power of inteferance on the lives of me and my family by imposing on me limits to anything I can do. Us muppets going on holiday even a couple of times a year is not a drop of piss in the ocean.
Its all a fun game to them, its a cash grab. They could have loaded roofs of thousands buildings with solar panels, made all new retail developments stick them in car parks of supermarkets. Coal and Nucleur power have millenia in them, people get excited about coal however what do you think picks the slack up when it isn't windy enough to generate a kilowatt of power or isn't sunny enough? They have to run constantly and besides the emissions can be managed and used to create bicarbonate of soda as a by-product but instead the push is to just shut them down to ay their stupid political game with their shiny-faced, interbreeding, entitled friends and they literally laugh at us for buying their shit they keep selling
ULEZ is not about air quality, it is a daft game being played between one arsehole (Johnson) and another arsehole (Khan) that impacts people who aren't in a position to use public transport (for starters care workers, healthcare professionals, tradespeople) or buy a suitable compliant vehicle during one of the worst and weird times on the motor industry where 2 year old cars were selling for more than new ones.
If it was about air quality I refer back to the YouTube video I posted ages ago where the air quality below ground, on the thing people are being pushed rightly or wrongly to use is actually dangerous and the air quality above ground right next to a road was very good.
It may be that government really does have the health interests of future generations at the forefront of their minds but I doubt it and don't think they have done anything to make anyone think any different
I think traffic jams like the one I experienced yesterday around the Blackwall Tunnel don't help polution. There was a train strike and they decided to close a lane in the Blackwall Tunnel. It would have been mayhem anyway but there was an event on (Charlton) and this shows no real care about avoiding polution to me. I got into the ground on the 81st minute. I would have turned back home but I was stuck in traffic and was meeting friends at the ground anyway so had to go through with it.
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's evident it's not the way "most" people think as if this thread is anything to go by, it seems "many" want the big hand of government to start controlling people's freedom of movement and the imposition of high taxation to penalise wealth creation.
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's evident it's not the way "most" people think as if this thread is anything to go by, it seems "many" want the big hand of government to start controlling people's freedom of movement and the imposition of high taxation to penalise wealth creation.
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
I agree with what you say around the free market being the best way to drive behaviour but I disagree around the way you have applied it.
One of my favourite economic topics (in terms of interest, not in terms of outcome) is externalities.
Surely you understand that you shouldn't just allow polluters to do what they want? That applies as much to the air as it does to the water.
Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs (where legalised), petrol/diesel all have taxes placed on them which arise from the negative externalities of their consumption, which is above and beyond standard consumption taxes of VAT.
The consumer or creator of negative externalities must pay.
By the by I am just about to get a Eurostar back from Paris to London, and on their website the claim is that the train pollutes 1/14th the amount of an equivalent flight...
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's evident it's not the way "most" people think as if this thread is anything to go by, it seems "many" want the big hand of government to start controlling people's freedom of movement and the imposition of high taxation to penalise wealth creation.
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
I agree with what you say around the free market being the best way to drive behaviour but I disagree around the way you have applied it.
One of my favourite economic topics (in terms of interest, not in terms of outcome) is externalities.
Surely you understand that you shouldn't just allow polluters to do what they want? That applies as much to the air as it does to the water.
Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs (where legalised), petrol/diesel all have taxes placed on them which arise from the negative externalities of their consumption, which is above and beyond standard consumption taxes of VAT.
The consumer or creator of negative externalities must pay.
I agree, BUT those taxes must not be so great that they suffocate the free market, prevent free enterprise, nor prevent individuals from making personal choices.
Air travel is a great example.
Posters want to restrict people flying, and reduce access to travel for the masses. The democratisation of air travel over the last 30 years has had a profoundly positive effect on society. You reduce that at your peril.
Over and above that, the market is driving change in aircraft technology in recognition of the industries impact on the environment. This is governments and private industry working together, not through the heavy hand of government, but through joint enterprise focusssed on continued economic development. The excerpt below from Easyjet is a case in point (my highlights).
The impact of climate change is not going to be resolved by a futile attempt to stop people doing things, but by developing technology so that people can do more of the things that develop economies and freedoms.
At easyJet, we want to lead the decarbonisation of aviation, and ultimately achieve zero carbon emission flying across Europe. In November 2021, we joined the UN-backed Race to Zero campaign, through which we committed to reaching an interim, science-based carbon emissions intensity improvement target of 35% by 2035, which has been validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
In the short-term we are focused on being as efficient as we can; flying our aircraft in ways which avoid noise and unnecessary use of fuel; and flying them full of passengers. Airbus NEO aircraft continue to join our fleet. These aircraft are at least 15% more fuel efficient than the aircraft they replace and also have a 50% noise reduction. All these measures mean that since 2000, we have already reduced our carbon emissions per passenger, per kilometre by one-third.
But we believe that aviation also needs to make radical changes and our ultimate ambition is to achieve zero carbon emissions flying. Therefore, we are working with partners across the industry, including Airbus, Rolls-Royce, GKN Aerospace, and Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, to accelerate the development of zero carbon emission technologies and the required infrastructure.
Together with Rolls-Royce, we are pioneering the development of hydrogen combustion engine technology, capable of powering an easyJet sized aircraft in the future. Hydrogen emits zero carbon emissions and the potential to also significantly reduce non-co2 effects from aviation. And when we speak about “easyJet-size aircraft”, this means we are addressing the narrowbody aircraft segment, which is absolute key to achieving decarbonisation at scale. We are thrilled to announce that our partnership has already achieved a world first – by successfully running a modern aero engine on hydrogen.
I was once told that all the fuel needed for the formula one motor car racing season was less than the fuel used for one Jumbo Jet flying across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe to North America. I think the man meant the actual racing because formula one racing teams fly from country to country.
Hydrogen fuel could be a game changer, but there's some problems:
Getting it around. Could be in trucks and currently you can add a certain percentage to the current gas system (about 20% if I remember) but we don't have the infrastructure for mass transport and storage yet
Making it. It uses a lot of energy to make hydrogen. Basically you use hydrolysis and stick some electrodes in water. You therefore need a source of water. Sea water corrodes the electrodes quickly, though there have been some advances with this.
Certainly though, aviation and lorry transport where there are limited numbers of hubs and depots, would be a very good start for aswitch to hydrogen... Though would require a lot of international alignment to make the most of it rather than just for internal use
Just put something in place that makes sense . My non compliant 1000 miles a year car will cost me £25 there and back to Heathrow. I can then jet off to the other side of the world from this airport that's in the ulez zone for nothing.
Just put something in place that makes sense . My non compliant 1000 miles a year car will cost me £25 there and back to Heathrow. I can then jet off to the other side of the world from this airport that's in the ulez zone for nothing.
Apart from APD and all other taxes applied in the supply chain?
Just put something in place that makes sense . My non compliant 1000 miles a year car will cost me £25 there and back to Heathrow. I can then jet off to the other side of the world from this airport that's in the ulez zone for nothing.
When I go to Heathrow I have to reduce my speed in my electric vehicle on the m4 right outside the airport for air quality reasons. Always make me chuckle as I see plane after plane landing as I drop down to 60mph.
I'm loathe to fuel a conspiracy flame here, let's just look at how the **Tory** government and its shiny faced chums behaved during covid and their attitude to something that should have been as a philanthropic gesture as anything.
ULEZ is not about air quality, It actually is. Just my view, but it's not like PPE, where there was a lot of corruption and pocket lining going on.
the air quality below ground, on the thing people are being pushed rightly or wrongly to use is actually dangerous There's a lot of disinformation been spread about this. It's dust that is the problem on the tube, not CO2 or nitrogen dioxide. They're working to reduce it, but dust isn't a carcinogen. Even if there really was a problem, it shouldn't mean that they give up cleaning up the air above ground.
It may be that government really does have the health interests of future generations at the forefront of their minds but I doubt it and don't think they have done anything to make anyone think any different Agreed. This government doesn't give a sh1tI'm afraid.
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's evident it's not the way "most" people think as if this thread is anything to go by, it seems "many" want the big hand of government to start controlling people's freedom of movement and the imposition of high taxation to penalise wealth creation.
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
'Let the free market drive behaviour.' Free market economics is the last thing you need in a global climate change crisis isn't it?
But having said that, if big business thinks climate change will negatively impact their businesses, which I read somewhere they already do believe, then maybe they'll start leaning on governments. Unfortunately the oil industry is very powerful, and tries to influence government policy through its 'Tufton Street' think tanks/lobby groups. Some from these organisations are now embedded in government, so it was no surprised when Sunak announced the granting on 100+ new drilling licenses (which let to an increase in oil companies share prices, which some close to the government were allegedly able to cash in on, shock horror.)
I'm loathe to fuel a conspiracy flame here, let's just look at how the **Tory** government and its shiny faced chums behaved during covid and their attitude to something that should have been as a philanthropic gesture as anything.
ULEZ is not about air quality, It actually is. Just my view, but it's not like PPE, where there was a lot of corruption and pocket lining going on.
the air quality below ground, on the thing people are being pushed rightly or wrongly to use is actually dangerous There's a lot of disinformation been spread about this. It's dust that is the problem on the tube, not CO2 or nitrogen dioxide. They're working to reduce it, but dust isn't a carcinogen. Even if there really was a problem, it shouldn't mean that they give up cleaning up the air above ground.
It may be that government really does have the health interests of future generations at the forefront of their minds but I doubt it and don't think they have done anything to make anyone think any different Agreed. This government doesn't give a sh1tI'm afraid.
Its government's full stop, I have no faith in Labour in fact one of the things that pisses me off about them is their desire to interfere with peoples lives
Dust, carcinogens CO2 whatever it is they were using the same device used to measure clean air, if the air was clean and not dangerous the device would not have shown it as dangerous. Ive got a bit of previous in this as I often work underground at deep level.
I don’t doubt that air quality is an issue in cities, it has been since the industrial revolution I do however strongly disagree with how the proposed solution is being strong armed in and how its being used as a stupid political football. I'm objective in this as I detest Khan and Johnson probably in fact definitely Johnson more if I'm splitting hairs either way I favour neither.
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's evident it's not the way "most" people think as if this thread is anything to go by, it seems "many" want the big hand of government to start controlling people's freedom of movement and the imposition of high taxation to penalise wealth creation.
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
They’ll probably have asthma, die younger than you will, but at least they can spend 2 hours queuing to go into the Blackwall tunnel thanks to your “freedom of movement” 🫡
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.
That’s such a bleak post. I don’t hold out much hope for my kids and grandkids’ futures if that’s the way most people are thinking. I really hope it isn’t.
It's evident it's not the way "most" people think as if this thread is anything to go by, it seems "many" want the big hand of government to start controlling people's freedom of movement and the imposition of high taxation to penalise wealth creation.
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
They’ll probably have asthma, die younger than you will, but at least they can spend 2 hours queuing to go into the Blackwall tunnel thanks to your “freedom of movement” 🫡
They are quite specific hypothetical examples of a made up narrative. Have you got any more?(not sealioning BTW).
In Glasgow where a LEZ scheme is in place (ie all non compliant vehicles are banned) pollution has risen by 10%, the SNP are blaming it on the weather.
There is something you could tax, which hasn’t seen an increase in 13 years, when the cost of public transport has gone up by more then inflation, and that’s petrol, billions left uncollected because politicians are scared of the right wing media. Not like the country isn’t short of cash
at a time of large inflation, increasing the cost of the entire supply chain would be a moronic thing to do.
There is something you could tax, which hasn’t seen an increase in 13 years, when the cost of public transport has gone up by more then inflation, and that’s petrol, billions left uncollected because politicians are scared of the right wing media. Not like the country isn’t short of cash
at a time of large inflation, increasing the cost of the entire supply chain would be a moronic thing to do.
Anyone able to tell me if this car meets ULEZ standards. I've entered the registration into the TfL ULEZ Checker, but it says there's no records for the car and it may or mat not be compliant. I need to check for updates before each trip into the ULEZ. -
By the by I am just about to get a Eurostar back from Paris to London, and on their website the claim is that the train pollutes 1/14th the amount of an equivalent flight...
Eurostar is a rare example of the train being cheaper (and far more reliable) than the plane.
Comments
Nobody normal is getting planes for fun, most workplaces make you go for the cheapest form of transport if they are paying as opposed to the most practical. Invariably for me that is often driving or hiring a car as long distance trains are prohibitively expensive and my bean counting superiors know I'll bang in a claim for all the costs involved in flying
The railways need to be nationalised again, they are only a racket for large shareholders anyway and government subsidies ensure its a safe bet. Same with essential utilities
Then we have things like personal space, privacy, comfort, convenience before I consider cost and driving wins every time.
Pure quality. Not.
Yet still preferable to todays shambles of a network.
“you do realise that you are one of those 'people'.”
I hope I’m not being sanctimonious as I’m saying I’m very much one of those people. I’m criticising myself. I do bits and bobs, but it’s nowhere near enough.
PS Cheers btw, I’m aware it’s not a personal attack.I was attacking myself anyway. 👍
1) do it honestly and properly
2) trust them
I'm loathe to fuel a conspiracy flame here, let's just look at how the government and its shiny faced chums behaved during covid and their attitude to something that should have been as a philanthropic gesture as anything. Similar to climate change. They self served and stole money, behaved fraudulently, ignored rules they were letting the police prosecute people over and generally proved themselves to be the last people on this green earth to be allowed any type of power of inteferance on the lives of me and my family by imposing on me limits to anything I can do. Us muppets going on holiday even a couple of times a year is not a drop of piss in the ocean.
Its all a fun game to them, its a cash grab. They could have loaded roofs of thousands buildings with solar panels, made all new retail developments stick them in car parks of supermarkets. Coal and Nucleur power have millenia in them, people get excited about coal however what do you think picks the slack up when it isn't windy enough to generate a kilowatt of power or isn't sunny enough? They have to run constantly and besides the emissions can be managed and used to create bicarbonate of soda as a by-product but instead the push is to just shut them down to ay their stupid political game with their shiny-faced, interbreeding, entitled friends and they literally laugh at us for buying their shit they keep selling
ULEZ is not about air quality, it is a daft game being played between one arsehole (Johnson) and another arsehole (Khan) that impacts people who aren't in a position to use public transport (for starters care workers, healthcare professionals, tradespeople) or buy a suitable compliant vehicle during one of the worst and weird times on the motor industry where 2 year old cars were selling for more than new ones.
If it was about air quality I refer back to the YouTube video I posted ages ago where the air quality below ground, on the thing people are being pushed rightly or wrongly to use is actually dangerous and the air quality above ground right next to a road was very good.
It may be that government really does have the health interests of future generations at the forefront of their minds but I doubt it and don't think they have done anything to make anyone think any different
That's not a world I want my kids and grandchildren to grow up in, as that would be genuinely bleak...
One of my favourite economic topics (in terms of interest, not in terms of outcome) is externalities.
Surely you understand that you shouldn't just allow polluters to do what they want? That applies as much to the air as it does to the water.
Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs (where legalised), petrol/diesel all have taxes placed on them which arise from the negative externalities of their consumption, which is above and beyond standard consumption taxes of VAT.
The consumer or creator of negative externalities must pay.
Air travel is a great example.
Posters want to restrict people flying, and reduce access to travel for the masses. The democratisation of air travel over the last 30 years has had a profoundly positive effect on society. You reduce that at your peril.
Over and above that, the market is driving change in aircraft technology in recognition of the industries impact on the environment. This is governments and private industry working together, not through the heavy hand of government, but through joint enterprise focusssed on continued economic development. The excerpt below from Easyjet is a case in point (my highlights).
The impact of climate change is not going to be resolved by a futile attempt to stop people doing things, but by developing technology so that people can do more of the things that develop economies and freedoms.
At easyJet, we want to lead the decarbonisation of aviation, and ultimately achieve zero carbon emission flying across Europe. In November 2021, we joined the UN-backed Race to Zero campaign, through which we committed to reaching an interim, science-based carbon emissions intensity improvement target of 35% by 2035, which has been validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
In the short-term we are focused on being as efficient as we can; flying our aircraft in ways which avoid noise and unnecessary use of fuel; and flying them full of passengers. Airbus NEO aircraft continue to join our fleet. These aircraft are at least 15% more fuel efficient than the aircraft they replace and also have a 50% noise reduction. All these measures mean that since 2000, we have already reduced our carbon emissions per passenger, per kilometre by one-third.
But we believe that aviation also needs to make radical changes and our ultimate ambition is to achieve zero carbon emissions flying. Therefore, we are working with partners across the industry, including Airbus, Rolls-Royce, GKN Aerospace, and Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, to accelerate the development of zero carbon emission technologies and the required infrastructure.
Together with Rolls-Royce, we are pioneering the development of hydrogen combustion engine technology, capable of powering an easyJet sized aircraft in the future. Hydrogen emits zero carbon emissions and the potential to also significantly reduce non-co2 effects from aviation. And when we speak about “easyJet-size aircraft”, this means we are addressing the narrowbody aircraft segment, which is absolute key to achieving decarbonisation at scale. We are thrilled to announce that our partnership has already achieved a world first – by successfully running a modern aero engine on hydrogen.
I think the man meant the actual racing because formula one racing teams fly from country to country.
Getting it around. Could be in trucks and currently you can add a certain percentage to the current gas system (about 20% if I remember) but we don't have the infrastructure for mass transport and storage yet
Making it. It uses a lot of energy to make hydrogen. Basically you use hydrolysis and stick some electrodes in water. You therefore need a source of water. Sea water corrodes the electrodes quickly, though there have been some advances with this.
Certainly though, aviation and lorry transport where there are limited numbers of hubs and depots, would be a very good start for aswitch to hydrogen... Though would require a lot of international alignment to make the most of it rather than just for internal use
My non compliant 1000 miles a year car will cost me £25 there and back to Heathrow.
I can then jet off to the other side of the world from this airport that's in the ulez zone for nothing.
But having said that, if big business thinks climate change will negatively impact their businesses, which I read somewhere they already do believe, then maybe they'll start leaning on governments. Unfortunately the oil industry is very powerful, and tries to influence government policy through its 'Tufton Street' think tanks/lobby groups. Some from these organisations are now embedded in government, so it was no surprised when Sunak announced the granting on 100+ new drilling licenses (which let to an increase in oil companies share prices, which some close to the government were allegedly able to cash in on, shock horror.)
Dust, carcinogens CO2 whatever it is they were using the same device used to measure clean air, if the air was clean and not dangerous the device would not have shown it as dangerous. Ive got a bit of previous in this as I often work underground at deep level.
I don’t doubt that air quality is an issue in cities, it has been since the industrial revolution I do however strongly disagree with how the proposed solution is being strong armed in and how its being used as a stupid political football. I'm objective in this as I detest Khan and Johnson probably in fact definitely Johnson more if I'm splitting hairs either way I favour neither.