please empty your brain below
|
I always try to avoid flying even taking trains to Alicante from London.
However flying is so much cheaper. I would raise air fares and lower train fares.
John | 07.07.19 - 7:32 a.m. | #
|
Short distance flying has become ridiculously cheap with the arrival of budge airlines such as Easyjet & Ryanair. Sometimes it can cost more to park the car at the airport than the flight itself.
The big downside to air travel, though, are the insane security checks which assume everyone is a terrorist. The need to arrive several hours before the flight only adds to the discomfort. (Oh, and the rip-off food & drink prices once you've cleared security)
Jon Jones | 07.07.19 - 8:08 a.m. | #
|
|
If the tax were to implemented, would you be able to sell your unused flights to frequent fliers to offset against their flights...?
solar penguin | 07.07.19 - 8:24 a.m. | #
|
It has been suggested that for many journeys where flying and land transport are both feasible (e.g. London Hamburg), carbon emissions for flying, train and car (per passenger) are broadly similar.
But the reason flying does so much more towards wrecking the planet is that flights make much longer journeys likely. Without flying, a visit to Australia would be zero or one per lifetime.
Malcolm | 07.07.19 - 8:32 a.m. | #
|
|
Crumbs. My tally is alas quite a lot higher, but I've no idea where I'd get the data from more than a few years ago to calculate it. My memory is not what it was, and my databanks - although comprehensive in recent years - don't go back to year zero.
Tim W | 07.07.19 - 8:37 a.m. | #
|
|
Agree with with trying to limit flights, but quite a few of us are in international relationships with families spread around the globe. Maybe any limits should be on the shorter flights where there are alternative transport options.
Keith | 07.07.19 - 8:47 a.m. | #
|
|
The impact on the airline and civil aircraft manufacturing industries, which employ many, many thousands, would be interesting.
JohnC | 07.07.19 - 9:06 a.m. | #
|
Finally! A time when my list of "Flights I have taken" becomes useful...
1970's: 0
1980's: 1
1990's: 9
2000's: 30
2010's: 16
Which is 56. I am definitely not 56 yet. I did spend 3 years living and working in America though, which accounts for the majority of those 30.
Geofftech | 07.07.19 - 9:41 a.m. | #
|
|
In terms of round trips, I think I had 12 Taiwan, 1 China, 1 Germany, 2 Japan and 2 Britain. The upcoming Japan trip would be my 19th. I am 36, so this would mean I am 1 flight per year had I started flying at 17. Unfortunately that's not the case -- my first flight was late in my 24th year, but admittedly most of my early flights were business trips that I had little choice (including the ones to / from Germany)
Patrickov | 07.07.19 - 10:03 a.m. | #
|
I haven’t flown since 2006 but that has been mostly due to my daughter having a fear of flying. In that time however I have been on six cruises so I’m hardly innocent in the carbon footprint stakes. For the record my stats add up like this:
1970s 0, 1980s 2, 1990s 6, 2000s 16, 2010s 0.
Phil | 07.07.19 - 10:14 a.m. | #
|
Isn't there some talk about planes going electric like cars? If not then surely the solution would be to find some other way of making them zero-emission?
For me -
1960s: 0
1970s: 4
1980s: 6
1990s: 10
2000s: 10
2010s: 8
= 38
From 1995-2012 we were living in America and so the majority of flights during those 2 decades were return visits to see family.
Actually if you take into account that those transatlantic flights all had stop-overs, the total for those 2 groups of 10, doubles which makes a total of 58.
I am 56.
My husband on the other hand also had to take a weekly return flight for work for about 3 years in the 2000s!
Cornish Cockney | 07.07.19 - 10:29 a.m. | #
|
|
Age 51, 132 flights, but 29 of those for work. So I'm averaging 1 pair of personal flights a year, and I consider myself very well traveled, having been to 55 different countries.
John B | 07.07.19 - 10:42 a.m. | #
|
I worked for 38 years for a International Airline, I retired in 2004. When I started work, flying was really only for the jet set (there was a air of sophistication,it was relaxed), crews got 3 days lay over on long haul flights. I have flown for work and pleasure more than most people.
I still get discount rates for ex employees, so I still fly more than most.
The only exceptions are the Eurostar, TGV, ICE and Thalys, trips which make travel so civilised in todays world.
YDU | 07.07.19 - 10:44 a.m. | #
|
Well, let me be the one to mention the elephant again.
Assuming that DG doesn't have 2.4 secret sprogs, his flight allowance would need to be doubled or tripled.
Gerry | 07.07.19 - 11:04 a.m. | #
|
No idea, but stabilised now at a fairly low level of perhaps one return trip a year. Most of my secondary school years were spent as a boarder in a UK school whilst my parents lived in Brussels. The majority of school holidays were spent flying "home" to Brussels, often as an unaccompanied minor. Obviously this is a trip that is now much easier by rail (school was near London).
I could count the number of longer haul flights easier, not being much of a "traveller". I think the total is 4, one for South America and the rest for North America.
My total may well be an odd number, having taken at least 3 one way flights, most recently Inverness to Gatwick after having used the sleeper to travel to Scotland.
Clearly we should all be flying less. I'm a big believer that high speed rail could help. It seems crazy to me that it isn't easier/ quicker to make more trips like London-Scotland and UK-Germany by rail. Bring on tradable quotas.
Lorenzo | 07.07.19 - 11:21 a.m. | #
|
|
Electric planes...already small versions flying. If people keep breeding the actual number of people choosing to fly will grow whether or not they limit themselves to one return flight each. Someone is just looking at a potential cash cow. It won't resolve anything environmentally. Not having children is an environmentally friendly decision.
B | 07.07.19 - 11:24 a.m. | #
|
After periods of guilty overuse (work trips to Asia, two "trips of a lifetime" to Australia), I'm back to one European return flight per year, and using trains wherever possible.
Another way to deal with this might be not just tax, but a revival of the WW2 "points" system, where various environmentally negative activities get a rating/value in points, and everyone has an annual allowance totalling what would be averagely "safe" in terms of environmental impact. If they were tradeable, you could have your extra flights, if you gave up something else for a year or two: and you'd probably be buying up points from someone not so well off in the first place. So the better off would be volunteering to tax themselves and reduce inequality as well.
Autolycus | Homepage | 07.07.19 - 11:36 a.m. | #
|
Maybe one answer is to award each person born a non-transferable maximum number of flown miles annually. But how would that be equitably arrived at? Could they be accumulated for longer flights every two or three years? But this doesn't allow for non-through services, requiring connections. Unless the connection is on a 'Great Circle' route, extra air miles are unavoidable.
I'm also ex-airline (left in 1982) and my flight log shows over 200 flights since 1970. I'm well over the limit - but who turns down free flights, for long service awards? I never did...
Planes use disproportionately more fuel in taxi-ing, take-off, landing and taxi-ing back to the terminal, so perhaps a cap on number of flights built in to that?
The carbon charge to passengers is inaccurately calculated. The scheduled plane flies even if no-on is on board so that's the base carbon load. Each passenger on board, plus their luggage plus their in-flight amenities adds a measurable amount to the carbon cost of the flight. So the carbon tax per passenger has to be that extra amount (and as the airline flies for profit, the carbon cost of the flight divided [equally or biased for class of travel?] by the number of seats). Complicated...
Overall - despite the environmental advantage, limiting flights isn't workable on present operations. Planes will continue to fly, because the demand is there and operators make a lot of money (usually) out of it.
Apart from more rail tunnels to Ireland and the Continent, the step-change has to be in the traction supply - 'electric', hydrogen, fuel cells, solar panel in-flight top ups (not great at night), hybrids of these or something not yet invented, but definitely not nuclear-powered planes...
Joel | 07.07.19 - 11:46 a.m. | #
|
Crumbs! I didn’t think I flew much compared to many I know, but have clocked up a conservative estimate of 93 flights. It’s mostly for combining family/friend visits and social occasions with holiday attached, but remains within one return per year so far. I can’t stand the whole airport rigmarole, but the dirt cheap prices makes it too hard to resist. Given the purpose of the visits, I find the idea of seeing less of my further-flung family and pals rather sad, but one could always try harder with rail within Europe. As for culture and holidays, the UK is a very deep treasure trove, and I always find that trips here are never less enjoyable and rewarding than those abroad.
60’s = 2
70’s = 0
80’s = 3
90’s = 30
00’s = 32
10’s = 26
NickW | Homepage | 07.07.19 - 11:52 a.m. | #
|
>Back when I was a very small child, I took no flights. There was one trip to Holland, but that was undertaken by North Sea ferry so I was being environmentally responsible even then.
Not necessarily; ships emit much more dirtier pollutants and make up a larger proportion of emissions than planes
jetblast787 | 07.07.19 - 11:57 a.m. | #
|
A quick count has identified approximately one return flight for each year of my age. The very first was an internal Soviet flight when I was 17. The longest was to Cairo, the shortest were five seven-minute helicopter flights between Hartland Point and Lundy (two there and three back). My most frequent destination was Brussels, (about a third of the total) when my wife was on a year's posting there, ending (annoyingly) just before the Tunnel opened.
A likely problem with electric planes is weight, and in particular weight on landing, which determines runway lengths. A jet loses weight throughout a flight (and can jettison surplus fuel in extremis). A flat battery weighs the same as a fully-charged one.
timbo | 07.07.19 - 12:08 p.m. | #
|
Just totted mine up. On individual flights I'm slightly ahead of my age but only because on three separate trips there were no direct planes in both directions forcing changes at hubs. And nearly two-thirds of flights were made before I turned 18 and could decide for myself to fly or not. (I really don't like flying and only do so when I have to. Airports are horrible and tedious, planes are cramped and destination airports are even more of a torture.)
I'm also not sure how to handle the one flight with a brief stopover where the plane landed and, being a domestic service in pre 9/11 days, passengers were allowed to disembark and stretch their legs in the boarding gate.
Totting it all up my most frequent flight destinations have been Edinburgh followed by Glasgow. Land alternatives exist (and in nearly all cases the decision to fly was not mine), but it's annoying that since all those flights were made the Caledonian Sleeper has done away with standard class berths so the land passenger either has to take a seat (or a road coach) or a vastly inflated cabin. And the supposed sweeteners the company churns out just don't convince when you're travelling light (so no need for extra baggage at all, regardless of if you need to pay or not), not taking a bike and going to a city with good cheap airport to centre connections. And whilst on a holiday the passenger probably treats the nights on the sleeper as part of the overall experience so can look at them as a saving, on a business or day trip it's a case of travel overnight or out first thing in the morning and back later in the day.
Tim Roll-Pickering | Homepage | 07.07.19 - 12:49 p.m. | #
|
2019 | 1 | Continental Europe
The odd count could mean you're currently on the continent. If so, do enjoy your trip.
Joachim | 07.07.19 - 1:20 p.m. | #
|
|
I wondered how long that would take :)
diamond geezer | Homepage | 07.07.19 - 2:05 p.m. | #
|
Folks are fortunate to be in the UK and/or Europe where one is able to get to many countries by other means of transport besides flying. Being in the US, that option is not available, not only for other continents, but even for our own, given the vast distances involved in traveling from one coast to the other (5000+km one way). Not to mention Hawaii and Alaska. The other kicker is that most US workers get very little time off for holidays as compared to many on the continent. And even if they do get a reasonable amount, they are frequently only allowed to take one, maybe two consecutive weeks at a time. The US train coverage is not great and is expensive. So if you live in the US and hope to see anything of your own country, much less the world at large, flying is virtually the only option for many folks. Driving across the continent it takes mulitple days (one way), even if you only stop to refuel.
Must admit I could not count the number of flights I have taken (many for work) since I first step foot in a MATs prop plane in the 1950s (when it took ages, due to refueling stops, to get from the US to the UK). But I am grateful to have had so many opportunities to see the world.
Mary | 07.07.19 - 2:12 p.m. | #
|
|
This is the point where I get to say with an air of enviromental smugness that I'm 26 and have never flown once in my life. The closest I've ever come to flying is the Dangleway.
X-Plaistow | 07.07.19 - 2:36 p.m. | #
|
|
I agree with John about lowering train fares.i have been to the south of France a couple of times by train and it's more expensive than flying - a lovely experience though. I do generally like travelling by train.
Cornish Monkey | 07.07.19 - 2:39 p.m. | #
|
|
Complicated flight accountancy is not needed, you just need uniform Carbon Tax applied across all the economy, so people choose to spend their money on flights or fast fashion. Providing a personal credits system that could be traded is foolish when you can just use cash.
John B | 07.07.19 - 3:06 p.m. | #
|
I have taken about 20 flights per year since I was born, and that number is mostly evenly spread over every year of my life starting from my first flight aged 5 weeks.
If this proposal came to pass in the UK, I would simply have to fly out of the UK and never return, or possibly fly to Paris and take the train over. Would this even apply to people not living in the UK? Millions of Indians transit the UK every year on the way between the US/Canada and India.
I support a carbon tax if other taxes (especially VAT if we manage to leave the EU) are reduced by a similar amount that the carbon tax is predicted to raise - if the point is provide incentives to change individual behaviour.
The current APD has caused me to take extra unnecessary flights - for example taking the train to Amsterdam to get a flight back to London connecting to the flight going where I actually want to go, because going directly from Heathrow is more expensive than the train plus two flights.
John | 07.07.19 - 3:42 p.m. | #
|
|
Some people above suggesting that you can better save the planet by not reproducing. That may be so, but an indirect, yet perhaps more effective, way to bear down on future population numbers is to work to improve the status of women. When they are in control, they tend to have fewer children.
Malcolm | 07.07.19 - 4:34 p.m. | #
|
|
I have flown to quite a few countries in my lifetime but no longer need to as I can visit hundreds of the finest destinations in the world from the comfort of my living room with the aid of u-tube!
mikeH | 07.07.19 - 5:06 p.m. | #
|
40 years old, have lived in 10 countries in 4 different continents, and visited at a guess 120 countries, whilst having jobs which involve allot of travel.
Total flights? 0
But I've spent a heck of allot of time in boats and ships of all types, and probably done upwards of 500 night rail journeys and 150 overnight bus journeys.
People always found it weird when they discovered I didn't fly (especially when I was far away from Europe), but Its definitely possible and I've had a heck of all of of fun by not doing it.
Admittedly now I have 2 young kids, a wife with family 5 and 11 hours flight away, and less flexible work/holiday time, it's becoming much harder to justify and keep up
Rich | Homepage | 07.07.19 - 5:41 p.m. | #
|
Aeroplanes powered by electricity fall into the same category of solutions as yet not invented as the often spoken about 'alternative technologies' that will solve the problem of the Irish border come Brexit.
'New low carbon aircraft' also get a mention in the huge Heathrow consultation excercise we're being exposed to in West London. When all common sense points to reducing air travel, they're spending millions to justify a significant increase, with all that entails.
ActonMan | 07.07.19 - 6:10 p.m. | #
|
JohnC's point that restricting air travel would create job losses was addressed in Ibsen's play 'Enemy of the People'. The logic of that argument, though, is that we'd still have asbestos factories and child labour, which contributed to the family income.
It's certainly the dilemma we're facing in west London over Heathrow expansion, as the population here will be most negatively effected by it, yet many thousands of local people work there.
ActonMan | 07.07.19 - 6:46 p.m. | #
|
|
At the peak of my business career (say about 1980-2006) I must have been taking upwards of 50 flights a year. As flying got more and more stressful, that became one of the reasons I opted for early retirement. Now take one or at most two round trips per year -- bliss!
James Webber | 07.07.19 - 6:59 p.m. | #
|
|
44
diamond geezer | Homepage | 07.07.19 - 7:18 p.m. | #
|
|
Welcome back DG. Looking forward to reading about it.
Malcolm | 07.07.19 - 7:49 p.m. | #
|
|
Luton to Brittany and back for a school trip back in the early 70s. Never flown since, recently I suppose partly for environmental reasons but mostly because I could reach everywhere it occurred to me to visit by other means. The furthest I've been is Sweden but I don't feel like I've missed out given all the various and varied places I have visited.
Andrew S | 07.07.19 - 9:48 p.m. | #
|
|
I’m not even 30 and I’ve flown 74 times already (37 return trips) – not very environmentally conscious, I must admit.
Jan | 07.07.19 - 10:36 p.m. | #
|
|
Get yourself to Japan - crazy amounts to blog about + the train/underground system is insane!
MarcB | 08.07.19 - 1:19 a.m. | #
|
|
I don't like airports so when possible I have taken trains or ferries rather than fly. Much more of an adventure if you ask me. And far less stressful. But I don't regret those flights to Norway, Canada and Iceland!
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 08.07.19 - 7:46 a.m. | #
|
The problem with electric planes that several people have mentioned is: Where do you get the electricity from? You can't exactly hook up a pantograph to a plane or add a third rail!
Hydrocarbons have an energy density over 40 times that of a battery. A 747 can take over 100 tons of aviation fuel. Replacing the aviation fuel with batteries would exceed the 747's maximum take-off weight by an order of magnitude. (I'm ignoring the minor detail of the physical space the batteries would take up)
You're probably going to be looking to hydrogen as your fuel source - which has challenging handling & storage characteristics.
Jon Jones | 08.07.19 - 7:52 a.m. | #
|
Most people like travel particularly for holidays or to see family so it's hard to unemotionally evaluate changing behaviour. I wonder how many people would move far from family if the cost of travelling back was £10,000 or £100,000 rather around £1,000. Perhaps one of those numbers is the true cost to the environment of a long haul flight?
Only when frequent flying becomes as socially acceptable as drink driving or smoking will people start dramatically changing behaviour. At the moment we all enthuse over a friend's weekend trip to New York. But until then the masses will keep flying because the alternatives have too much impact on themselves.
Jon | 08.07.19 - 9:39 a.m. | #
|
"It has been suggested that for many journeys... carbon emissions for flying, train and car (per passenger) are broadly similar."
As with everything, it depends.
Non High-Speed rail is the least energy-intensive, even if it's a diesel train. (though obviously electric is better) HS rail is better than flying, but not really better than driving with 2 people in the car and considerably less so than 4 people in a car. It requires phenomenal energy to go that speed at sea level (ish), which is why the aircraft are up where they are.
But it all boils down to the loading factor. A solo car trip is pretty bad. A 50% full flight is downright awful. Low speed rail and busses can have quite low loading factors and still come out ahead. Also note that I didn't say "polluting", as for electric rail it really depends on what's supplying the juice. A TGV is less polluting than an ICE, purely due to France being so nuclear-heavy.
The basic takeaway is that if you really want to be eco-friendly, take the bus or conventional rail. However, if you've got friends to go with you then the car isn't as bad as you might think.
Chz | 08.07.19 - 12:19 p.m. | #
|
I'm sure the wealthy would welcome a return to the days when the "masses" could not afford flying.
If flying is restricted, the environmentalists would then turn their attention to other forms of transport. Perhaps they won't be happy until we return to the days of the stagecoach.
JohnC | 08.07.19 - 1:13 p.m. | #
|
On a bridge over the M61 someone has painted "BURN FUEL DON'T CARE WE ALL BREATHE THE SAME AIR".
It's difficult to know for sure, but I can't help but think someone doesn't want us to travel. Anywhere.
Stay in your place proles.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 08.07.19 - 1:24 p.m. | #
|
I've done 63 flights in the last three years.
A lot of this is last minute bookings, searching on Skyscanner from London to Everywhere. So I'm basically filling a seat that would go out empty
Lumma | Homepage | 08.07.19 - 3:59 p.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|