7 ms·
It’s quite impressive how financially penalizing automobile use like in London - sure you can drive as long as you lop off a testicle for His Majesty - and they
by 6stringmerc 3y ago
It’s quite impressive how financially penalizing automobile use like in London - sure you can drive as long as you lop off a testicle for His Majesty - and they also have a significant train system.
Eventually the math will work its way to the point where Nations will have to admit their Airlines are the biggest polluters in their purview and it will be hard conversation.
Frankly there’s a very easy avenue to significantly address two issues:
Emissions and Global Pilot Shortages
In 2024 if passenger aviation went down by 25% in the United States the GDP would improve by a statistically noticeable amount.
I should write an article about this…3rd generation aviator (no license due to handicap)
- adrianN 3y agoMaybe eventually, but afaik aviation is something like 4% of emissions currently. A lot, but not our biggest concern. Probably also not the area where you get the biggest CO2 reduction per money invested.
- est31 3y agoYour figure is accurate for the global scale. In the USA it's also around 3%. In the UK, it's 8% though: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/28/scientists-uk-aviation-net-zero-ambitions-half-farmland-double-renewable-electricity https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/28/scientists-...
- Closi 3y agoThis is right in percentage terms - but also worth noting that the UK produces 4.7 tonnes of co2 per capita vs USA's 14.4 metric tons per capita. i.e. taking your 8% and 3% figures along with the tonnes of co2 above would mean in raw CO2 terms, the USA is producing more tonnes of aviation carbon per capita (i.e. per person) than the UK. The UK would be at 2.6% if it consumed 'other carbon' at USA rates (i.e. 14.4 metric tons per capita), but it is 8% because it consumed 4.7 tonnes per capita.
- closewith 3y agoThe USA excludes international aviation emissions while the UK includes them in their figure (the only country to do so). Domestic UK aviation emissions are tiny.
- Eavolution 3y agoWhat domestic flights even are there? The only ones I'm aware of are Belfast to assorted cities in England.
- jenscow 3y agoI know at least Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh all connect to London.
- Digit-Al 3y agoI've flown to Newquay as well.
- janekm 3y agoThere's over 182 domestic routes flown in the UK (Heathrow - Edinburgh is the most popular one): https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/domestic-flights-in-the-uk-where-do-we-fly/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/domestic-flights-in-the...
- stevedh 3y agoI've flown Newcastle to Southampton (and back) a few times.
- Closi 3y agoLoads of people fly from London/Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow and visa-versa (it's often cheaper and faster than the train). Then obviously NI as you mentioned.
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoThe interesting thing is that even in the USA only 50% of people fly in any one year.
- midasuni 3y agoFunny I drove in london a couple of weeks ago just fine. Stayed in a hotel near docklands, later drove to the British library and parked there for a few hours. Yes there was a financial sting from parking, last I checked NCP wasn’t owned by the government though. Even if I had gone into the very centre of london the cost of parking far outweighs the cost of the congestion charge.
- closewith 3y agoMost people driving in the ULEZ and congestion charge zones arent paying for parking.
- dukeyukey 3y agoAlthough the ULEZ only charges a vanishingly small number of vehicles, and the congestion charge only affects the most central part of the city. Driving in most of London is no more expensive than other UK cities.
- midasuni 3y agoAnd the vast majority of vehicles are ulez exempt. Doesn’t stop those in the outer boroughs whining about how the commies are coming for their teslas though. And someone is paying for that parking, land isn’t free.
- est31 3y agoThe UK is surrounded by water, and ships are a comparatively slow means of transportation.
- londons_explore 3y agoThere is a train to europe and can get you there in ~60 mins.
- tailspin2019 3y agoNitpick: you're already in Europe even before getting on that train. But we know what you mean... :)
- andyjohnson0 3y ago> There is a train to europe and can get you there in ~60 mins. ...from London. Most of the country, and a large majority of the population, isn't in London.
- throwaway167 3y agoAnd nor will those 60 minutes take you through all of Europe. You seem overly focused on London.
- andyjohnson0 3y ago> And nor will those 60 minutes take you through all of Europe. Because mainland Europe is larger than the uk? > You seem overly focused on London. Not really. I live a long way from London and haven't been there for many years. I do, however, know how things work in this country.
- ageitgey 3y agoThe Eurostar is great and I've taken it quite a few times. But realistically, it is way too expensive right now to seriously compete with flying for most people. It is typically 2x-3x as expensive as flying from Heathrow/Gatwick to CDG, for example. That really adds up if you are traveling with multiple people. We really need more services and more competition.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago> Eventually the math will work its way to the point where Nations will have to admit their Airlines are the biggest polluters in their purview and it will be hard conversation. I can’t see how this would ever happen. Passenger aviation is ~2% of global carbon emissions. There is no climate model that relies on cutting passenger aviation to meet its targets.
- closewith 3y agoDomestic aviation is 2% of global emissions. The Paris Accords didn't require any country to accept responsibility for emissions from international flights and only the UK does so (and only beginning in 2023).
- closewith 3y ago> Eventually the math will work its way to the point where Nations will have to admit their Airlines are the biggest polluters in their purview and it will be hard conversation. If we're at that point, then we'll have already won the battle against emissions. Aviation is tiny compared to land transport, sea transport, heating, manufacturing, etc. For aviation to become the biggest polluter, we'll need all the above to reduce emissions by 90+%.
- ramesh31 3y ago>In 2024 if passenger aviation went down by 25% in the United States the GDP would improve by a statistically noticeable amount. How does that make any sense? You propose to generate more economic activity by... reducing the amount of economic activity occuring?
- bluGill 3y agoA lot of what people fly for could be done as a phone call, or so many claim. That would return the cost of the trip to something else.
- throwaway167 3y agoIncome's circular. Airline related employees etc would have less. While others get the substitution. But where's the net increase?
- bluGill 3y agoThose employees would need to get a new, more productive job
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoServices get cheaper so we consume more of them. See Jevon's paradox.
- andrepd 3y agoDefinitely not penalising enough.
- lancebeet 3y agoIt has always fascinated me how incredibly car-dependent the UK is, given how small, densely populated and flat it is. The UK seems to have the perfect conditions for getting rid of the automobile entirely, but in reality public transport in the UK (at least outside of London, but sometimes even there) falls short, even compared to much larger and more scarcely populated nations.
- paganel 3y agoThe only good examples inside of Europe of countries where you can get by train to almost everywhere, in time, are very far and few between. Switzerland is of course in there, maybe Netherlands, maybe Belgium, not sure about Denmark, certainly not France nor Germany. Rail transport outside of Paris which does not involve the TGV is absolutely crap, meaning expensive (unless you purchase your tickets 3 months in advance or some crazy stuff like that) and it doesn’t get you to where you want, unless you want to get from Paris to one of the big other big French cities, but in that case you’d take the TGV anyway.
- nmfisher 3y agoSpain's rail system was great during my (admittedly very short) visit.
- lancebeet 3y agoMy claim is not that public transport is perfect everywhere else in Europe, only that the preconditions for good public transport are much better in the UK than in most other countries, such as France or Germany, yet it isn't vastly superior. In my personal experience, public transport in the UK is definitely worse than in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark, but I would argue it's worse than in Germany, France and even Sweden. Mind you, I don't restrict this to trains, buses make more sense in scarcely populated areas and their reliability tends to be highly affected by local politics.
- 00deadbeef 3y agoThe UK does have good public transport. It just doesn't have amazing public transport. I would disagree public transport in Germany is better. Deutsche Bahn trains are notorious for being late.
- _3u10 3y agoDoubtful they will just switch to SAF and pass on the cost.
- youngtaff 3y agoNot enough plant oils to make sufficient quantities of SAF so somehow we need to synthesise it from atmospheric CO2
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoThe airline industry looks like the least likely to decarbonise to me. I'm extremely sceptical about any messaging from them that purports to indicate they have any intention in that direction.