Top English environmentalist wants air travel rationed

[NM]

from news.com.au:

IN a controversial move Britain's top environmentalist has called for English citizens to be limited to just a few airplane trips per year in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

Independent Committee on Climate Change chairman Adair Turner – who advises England Prime Minister Gordon Brown – made the proposal to parliament’s Environmental Audit Select Committee.

 

[2muchplastic]

Another crackpot idea from a treehugger. How can he even think that it is workable? So "English" citizens would be rationed, but Northern Irish, Welsh and Scots wouldn't be??? Would it go by town of residence, as there is nothing on the passport issued to denote whether someone is English, Welsh, Scottish etc (it says BRITISH CITIZEN)? So you could move from say, London to Cardiff and be able to fly as much as you like?

Would it extend to those who have already moved overseas, but retained their citizenship?

Or is it just that News Limited cannot understand the various nationalities from the British Isles, and incredibly bad reporting?

 

[drron]

In those immortal words from The Castle-"tell im he's dreaming"

 

[yogi]

I think the concept of looking to reduce one's air travel / carbon footprint is a very worthy one, just unsure how it would play out.

Perhaps a multi-phased strategy is needed with a variety of approaches, eg. encourage people to fly less if they can, use more technology, offsets, etc.

Though some airlines offer it as an addition and though it doesn't reduce air travel, perhaps airline tickets could all have a small compulsory carbon fee or something. This could have significant value in the longer term and assist (in a modest way) to offset emissions.

It's a start...

 

[Nigelinoz]

In those immortal words from The Castle-"tell im he's dreaming"

Yes you would think so,given that the Brown government has just announced approval for the third runway at Heathrow.
(Although I doubt whether that willbe built anytime soon)

 

[Nigelinoz]

Interesting timing,this piece appeared in "The Scotsman" today"
Airport chief says emissions cut isn't plane and simple - Scotsman.com News

By Ian Swanson
NEW international air links from the Capital could be put at risk by hasty measures to cut carbon emissions, the chief executive of Edinburgh Airport has warned.
Gordon Dewar said if the Scottish Government took unilateral action to curb emissions from aviation ahead of an agreed European scheme, Scotland could lose out to other countries.

 

[Platy]

Another crackpot idea from a treehugger.

Actually, no, mate, not in this case. Lord Turner is no idiot and has a notable resume:

"...Lord Turner of Ecchinswell's CV contains many elements of the new technocratic priesthood. Cambridge, where he was chairman of the university Tories (he later defected to the centrist SDP) and president of the union; the planning department at BP; posts in academe and City boardrooms; and, crucially, a long stint with McKinsey, the management consultancy whose tentacles stretch everywhere in government and business on both sides of the Atlantic..."

Taken from the following article:

The Guardian profile: Adair Turner | Money | The Guardian

Also well known as a troubleshooter to propose solutions for the UK pensions (superannuation) crisis.

The press will pick up on any solution element under review and sensationalise it to the max.

IMHO passing ideas off as "crackpot" without any supporting rationale is a cheap shot based on a blank round.

Similarly, a person of his commercial experience and broad political exposure cannot be readily denigrated as a "tree hugger" (by which I presume you mean somebody with entrenched, illogical and impractical pro-environmental views).

 

[serfty]

In any case, the UK already has it's no fly imposition - in the form of the APD which varies with amounts of £10, £20, £40 & £80 for travel departing the UK. (Respectively: to EU in Y to EU other, elsewhere in Y & elsewhere other)

This is soon to increase dramatically (e.g. From Dec next year the APD to fly from LHR to MEL with be £170 - it's currently £80)

It certainly inhibits me from UK originating travel.

 

[coco50]

I suppose that it ranks with China's one child policy, although China is a totalitarian society and the UK is supposedly a democracy. Would the restrictions apply to passengers from overseas in transit? One would hope that similar restrictions would apply to road transit in the UK as well as transport by sea.

 

[2muchplastic]

Platy, just to pick up on each of your points:

Actually, no, mate, not in this case. Lord Turner is no idiot and has a notable resume...

I don't disagree that Lord Turner is generally of sound mind, and has a highly impressive background. HOWEVER, even someone of such good pedigree and education has (reportedly) come up with a proposal that is so massively unworkable (and the reason that I believe that it is unworkable is below) that the thought of it is enough make you roll your eyes, think "WHAT???", and wonder if he was still at home to Mr & Mrs Sanity.
Hence "crackpot", and I see no reason to change that description.

The press will pick up on any solution element under review and sensationalise it to the max.

As I mentioned in my original post, I was MORE than open to the idea that News Limited have reported badly, including making reference to citizens of a country that is not a sovereign territory. There is no such thing as an "English" citizen only a British citizen. Devolution may have gone a long way in the British Isles, but not as far as being able to bestow English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish citizenship on it's residents. This shows crass ignorance on the part of the reporter.

IMHO passing ideas off as "crackpot" without any supporting rationale is a cheap shot based on a blank round.

You either missed part of my post, or misunderstood. I thought I had put some rationale in there, in particular about limiting this policy to "English" citizens. Presuming this was misreported, and was intended to be British citizens, how could it work? Britain is part of the EU, and EU citizens have the ability to move around the member states at will. Would the policy still apply when they are resident in another EU country? How can you apply the laws of one country on one resident in another country? How would the European Court of Human Rights view it (and yes, people are daft enough to think that the ability to move about freely in a manner that suits is one of their human rights)?
Looking at it another way, that the policy was intended to apply to residents within the borders of England, other countries are so close (France and Ireland a short ride away on a ferry, Scotland and Wales a short drive away, at least in Australian terms) that again, it would have somewhere between a minor positive to a big negative effect, as people either decided that couldn't be bothered to travel, or travelled the extra journey.
If it is to be policy, then it cannot be implemented unilaterally.

Similarly, a person of his commercial experience and broad political exposure cannot be readily denigrated as a "tree hugger" (by which I presume you mean somebody with entrenched, illogical and impractical pro-environmental views).

I am guilty on this one. I was using the phrase "treehugger" to describe one of a "pro-environment" bent. I withdraw this part.

But look at it this way - if it's true, then a lot of English airports will close.
Anyone want to buy Gatwick airport? Richard B? Anyone?

 

[Platy]

I suppose that it ranks with China's one child policy, although China is a totalitarian society and the UK is supposedly a democracy. Would the restrictions apply to passengers from overseas in transit? One would hope that similar restrictions would apply to road transit in the UK as well as transport by sea.

The idea is one under review by one of a number of Parliamentary Committees whose members are drawn from across the political spectrum:

Environmental Audit Select Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of the British democratic process.

It would be up to Parliamentarians themselves as elected members of the House of Commons to propose and institute any policy whilst being under the watchful eye of the British voter. The committee is operating an information gathering exercise.

Now, IF and WHEN such an idea became either POLICY of either of the major British political parties (namely, Labour and Conservative), or indeed was introduced to Parliament as part of new legislation, then it might be worth people jumping up and down, getting their F class pyjamas in a knot, and crying tree hugger and crackpot.

In the meantime the airline industry is under pressure to lower its impact on the environment (no bad thing whether or not you believe in human affected global warming).

Now where product is in very short supply it is usually controlled by higher cost - hence the congestion charge levied on vehicles entering central London.

Since carbon trading has been set up to put a value on greenhouse gas emissions/savings, I would imagine that any emission associated costs will find their true price on the open market allowing for supply and demand.

That said, having been in a situation here in Cairns over the last few days and watched the food gradually disappear from the supermarket shelves (1000s tons of food got stuck in the floods to the south of us - I even cooked up some frozen spinach last night to get my greens!!!), you start to ask yourself what would be the better solution if the situation worsened - to let prices go through the roof (so ordinary folk can't afford to eat) or to ration the available resources so its fair to all (all are treated equally).

Obviously rationing is an option, which most would only find palatable in extreme cases.

I seem to remember petrol being rationed during the oil crisis when I was a kid? Was that totalitarian or reasonable???

 

[Platy]

how could it work? Britain is part of the EU, and EU citizens have the ability to move around the member states at will. Would the policy still apply when they are resident in another EU country?

I am not up on the detail either, but my understanding is that there is, or will be, a European Union based agreement affecting aviation, as referred in the post above from Nigel.

I doubt very much any country would undertake potentially economically costly action without a joint agreement.

We would need to know the detail and context of Turner's suggestion to give due credit or rightful slam dunk (he may, for example, have listed the idea under a scenario of extreme measures should global warming seriously kick in and spiral out of control).

I would hope that someone of his pedigree would not make irrational or unsubstantiated ideas in a presentation to a Parliamentary Committee.

 

[Platy]

Presuming this was misreported, and was intended to be British citizens,

Absolutely, it was misreported. The Environmental Audit Select Committee to which Lord Turnmer presented his concepts, is part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (not England).

The Parliamentarians therein have to consider the UK's obligations to the EU in devising policy and enacting UK legislation, aligning statutes where required.

 

[codash1099]

I will admit to being a borderline climate change sceptic, not so much in whether or not it is occurring but rather the extent to which it is man made. And even if it is, is it likely that anything other than gargantuan changes to the way we live will have an effect?

That said, i view with great suspicion the pronouncements of pseudo experts, such as in this case. It is far easier and politically more acceptable to hit big business and "the rich" rather than telling us that we must all give up our cars. The fact is that air travel is a relatively low user of fuel per person per kilometer and producer of pollution when compared to other forms of transport and is making great improvements.

 

[Platy]

I will admit to being a borderline climate change sceptic, not so much in whether or not it is occurring but rather the extent to which it is man made. And even if it is, is it likely that anything other than gargantuan changes to the way we live will have an effect?

That said, i view with great suspicion the pronouncements of pseudo experts, such as in this case. It is far easier and politically more acceptable to hit big business and "the rich" rather than telling us that we must all give up our cars. The fact is that air travel is a relatively low user of fuel per person per kilometer and producer of pollution when compared to other forms of transport and is making great improvements.

Please explain who you mean by "pseudo experts, such as in this case"?

Lord Turner heads up the The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) "an independent body established under the Climate Change Act to advise the UK Government on setting carbon budgets, and to report to Parliament on the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions" - for more visit:

Committee on Climate Change | Independent Body to advise UK Government*-*The CCC

Now they have some pretty eminent folk combining both business people and high level scientists (listed at the bottom of this post).

Indulge my curiosity, when is a person a true expert and when a pseudo expert by your reckoning? Who should we be listening to, to help us make up our own minds about gobal warming and the merits of political policy to counter it (whether or not due to human intervention)? How do you feel about voting in non experts (in the main) to be MPs, Ministers only to rely on them to make all the decisions that affect us all?

Aircraft's contribution to global warming has been estimated to be rising to 15% by 2050. Fuel burn is not the only negative effect - others include the impact of contrails, which can be more pronounced at night. Yes, the industry is making progress and is indeed obliged to. In the EU, at least airlines are part of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) entering force on 1 January 2012


The CCC members:

]Lord Turner of Ecchinswell is the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change and Chair of the Financial Services Authority. He has previously been Chair at the Low Pay Commission, Chair at the Pension Commission, and Director-general Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

David Kennedy is the Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change. Previously he worked on energy strategy at the World Bank, and design of infrastructure investment projects at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He has a PhD in economics from the London School of Economics

Professor Jim Skea is Research Director at UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) having previously been the Director at the Policy Studies Institute (PSI). He has also acted as Launch Director for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership and was Director of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Global Environmental Change Programme

Professor Michael Grubb is Chief Economist at the UK Carbon Trust and Chairman of the international research network Climate Strategies. He is also senior research associate at Cambridge University and holds a visiting professorship at Imperial College. Previously he was Head of the Energy and Environmental Programme at Royal Institute of International Affairs, before joining Imperial College as Professor of Climate Change and Energy Policy

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London and Professor of Meteorology at the University of Reading. He is a Royal Society Research Professor and is also a member of the National Science Academies of the USA and China.

Professor Lord May of Oxford, OM AC FRS holds a Professorship jointly at Oxford University and Imperial College. He is a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. He was until recently President of The Royal Society, and before that Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Head of its Office of Science & Technology.

Professor Julia King became Vice-Chancellor of Aston University in 2006, having previously been Principal of the Engineering Faculty at Imperial College, London, before that she held various senior positions at Rolls-Royce plc in the aerospace, marine and power business groups. In March this year, she delivered the ‘King Review’ that examined vehicle and fuel technologies that, over the next 25 years, could help to reduce carbon emissions from road transport

Dr Samuel Fankhauser is a Principal Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. He is a former Deputy Chief Economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and former Managing Director (Strategic Advice) at IDEAcarbon.[/font]

 

[Lord Mud]

I see we have hit your climate change nerve platy

Personally I think there would be a revolt of a large kind if a policy such as this were enforced. The Poms love the cheap available access to their beachy destinations and many the airlines that are already getting a punch in the guts would be reeling. Mr. O'Leary included.

To be honest I cannot fathoom how such a rule would be enforced. When you book online at easy jet and it prompts the question "Have you travelled more than X times this year on a plane for personal purposes?" you answer "yes" and the airline says "sorry but your booking cannot proceed" I can imagine many unhappy punters and many MP's looking for new jobs next election.

As for Devolution, English people are commonly distingushed against those of thier NI, Welsh and Scottish Couterparts. Car tax, National Insurance, car insurance and social services. these are just some of the facets of Govt that English is used in. One could say that if they do bring in such a policy that they will no doubt require the airlines to bear the brunt of it, and an address is used everytime a ticket is booked so it could very well be directed at English people. You will no doubt find that Customs will be wondering why so many citzens changed their addresses.. the same way they do for car insurance because their postcode is not as good as a different one.

 

[Platy]

I see we have hit your climate change nerve platy

Personally I think there would be a revolt of a large kind if a policy such as this were enforced. The Poms love the cheap available access to their beachy destinations and many the airlines that are already getting a punch in the guts would be reeling. Mr. O'Leary included.

To be honest I cannot fathoom how such a rule would be enforced. When you book online at easy jet and it prompts the question "Have you travelled more than X times this year on a plane for personal purposes?" you answer "yes" and the airline says "sorry but your booking cannot proceed" I can imagine many unhappy punters and many MP's looking for new jobs next election.

As for Devolution, English people are commonly distingushed against those of thier NI, Welsh and Scottish Couterparts. Car tax, National Insurance, car insurance and social services. these are just some of the facets of Govt that English is used in. One could say that if they do bring in such a policy that they will no doubt require the airlines to bear the brunt of it, and an address is used everytime a ticket is booked so it could very well be directed at English people. You will no doubt find that Customs will be wondering why so many citzens changed their addresses.. the same way they do for car insurance because their postcode is not as good as a different one.

Actually, what interests me is how to tackle a complex system (the economy, climate, genetics/medicine, etc). In truth we are very bad at managing successful interventions to fix things! Hence the confusion over the economy, the debate over the "ethics" of genetic engineering and our feeble attempts to deal with diseases such as cancers. In fact we are collectively so bad at and ignorant about these things that people love to argue about side show issues (how much of global warming is man made, when is an expert an expert, etc).

As explained above, the idea to ration just English people was never part of the deal! (The writer of the news article itself confused English and UK).

IMHO you hit the nail on the head that any policy would require the support of the electorate or else the pollies would be out of a job at the next election!

That said, IF catastrophic events such as the bush fires become more frequent and (rightly or wrongly) associated with global wearming in the mind of ther electorate you MAY see voters more ready to accept ever more challenging measures, which try to stem climate change.

 

[dave39]

he is just a little ahead of time. with Peak oil that no-one wants to think about, all oil in the World was laid down 100 million years ago and we have used 50% in 100 years. So in 50 years time there is likely to be (a) little oil; (b) very expensive; (c) few cars except electric; and (d) air travel for the very rich only. It might be possible for planes to be flying on hydrogen by then but at a much higher cost. I plan to get all my World sightseeing done in the next 10 years before things start to get bad. I feel bad about the future of my kids and their kids because the next World War will be about oil and water reserves.

Dave

 

[drron]

The carbon footprint is only one part of the environmental problem-permanent infrastructure and use of non-renewable resources should also be taken into account-on that score air travel places much less demand than road or rail.Travelling 14000 miles by air requires 3km of tarmac,the whole way if road or rail and then there is the problem of water.I believe that per person the carbon footprint for cruise ships is larger than that for air travel.

 

[NYCguy]

What I would like to know is how many climate-change conferences, etc. Mr Adair has flown to in the last 3 years, and what class of service he travels in.

I'd be disappointed if all his proselytizing turned out to be a case of "don't do as I do, do as I say". That would, after all, be the height of hypocrisy.

Personally, I couldn't do my job if my flights were rationed, and I daresay that many others (millions of others, actually) would be in the same predicament. It's all well and good to make these publicity-grabbing pronouncements, but it's simply not practical.