Futures Forum: Fossil-free flying: Solar Impulse
Futures Forum: Fossil-free flying
Unfortunately, there are also some not-so-clever things happening:
Futures Forum: Climate change: the great carbon offsetting scam
One idea currently out there might help:
A fairer way to fly
Photo credit: 
Swaminathan
SwaminathanJUNE 21, 2015 // BY: STEPHEN DEVLIN
We all know that flying is bad for the environment and a major driver of climate change. What’s more, demand for flights is expected to more than double over the next few decades, making the problem even worse.
But what most of us don’t know is that the majority of flights are taken by a very small and very rich segment of the population. It’s estimated that 70% of the total number of flights are taken by only 15% of the population, while 57% of the population took no flights abroad whatsoever in 2013. Those who do fly are significantly wealthier – for example, the average income for leisure passengers at Edinburgh Airport in 2013 was more than twice the average Scottish income.
Why should we allow a small number of rich people to take advantage of a global environment that belongs to all of us? And why should we assist those flights with fuel duty and VAT exemptions, as we do in the UK? It stands in stark contrast to those in low-earning countries who stand to suffer the worst effects of a changing climate.
The fair solution is obvious: those that fly more should pay more.
The majority shouldn’t have to subsidise the air miles lifestyle of the elite. That’s why we’re joining forces with the Fellow Travellers campaign in proposing that the current system of Air Passenger Duty, which levies the same small charge regardless of how frequently we fly, should be replaced with a Frequent Flyer Levy. A move to this system would see nothing charged on the first return flight that an individual takes each year, but would see it increase progressively the more flights the individual takes.
By doing this we can help limit the environmental impact from flying in a way that is fair and doesn’t penalise the majority for the actions of an elite. We can have a future in which flying is not reserved for the rich and we don’t have to keep building more runways for the benefit of the few. But to do that we need to correct the injustice in our tax system.
Our report, Managing aviation passenger demand with a Frequent Flyer Levy, forms part of the newly launched Fellow Travellers project. Together we are making the case for replacing the biased system of Air Passenger Duty with a fairer Frequent Flyer Levy. We show how this can both reduce the environmental impact of flying and redistribute flights away from the richest towards the rest of us.
There’s a way fairer way, so let’s make it happen.
ISSUES
A fairer way to fly | New Economics FoundationHere's how we can cut flights without ruining everyone's holiday | 1010
And here's a question:
CLIMATE OPTIMISM
Why is flying cheaper than getting the train?
Planes literally defy gravity to get us up into the air. Trains just chug along the ground, so why are trains so much pricier?
If you've ever tried to book a long weekend in London, or a trip to Paris or cornwall, or... really anywhere, it probably didn’t escaped your notice that flying is very often the cheapest way to get to your chosen destination.
That got us thinking - trains can often be less stressful, more comfortable and closer to town centres than planes. And that's before we even get into the impact on the climate - a round trip from Edinburgh to London produces 87% less CO2 if you travel by train compared to a plane. Despite all this, every year thousands opt for air travel instead because of the price. We went to investigate why the cost is so different.
Running those trains
There are a few reasons that trains are more expensive generally. Journey times are longer, meaning train companies have to pay their drivers, crew, and other staff for more hours, not to mention the station and signal staff. And then there’s all the infrastructure costs. Maintaining train tracks, signals and junctions is expensive work, especially where tracks are older. Planes need only fly through the air. Of course the airplanes themselves need maintaining and repairs, but so do the trains.
No free peanuts
Plus budget airlines have done a lot to slash ticket prices in the last 30 years. They tend to fly to airports with cheaper landing fees, and have a more limited presence there with fewer staff on check-in desks. They also have faster turnaround times and more seats in each plane to maximise how many passengers they carry. Plus all their plane stock is the same, which saves on maintenance and training costs. And of course the food is pretty pricey!
Who's driving?
So far so general, but that doesn’t explain why trains are so much more expensive in Britain. Commuters in Germany, France, Italy and Spain pay about a third as much as commuters in London, according to a recent TUC report. And the Campaign for Better Transport says that on average fares are 20% more expensive here than in Europe. No wonder it’s cheaper to fly EasyJet from Edinburgh to London than take the train. But why?
Commuters in Germany, France, Italy and Spain pay about a third as much as commuters in London
Well in essence, it comes down to the way the two industries are run in the UK.
Many suggest that the problems of rail fare hikes began back when the rail network was privatised in the early 1990s. One key problem is the conflicting interests of the rail companies. They are now in the service of two masters: the public interest and commercial aims. Some (mainly on the left it has to be said!) believe that privatisation has led to higher costs, for example needing to pay a whole bunch of boards of directors rather than just one. In fact, research undertaken by the Transport for Quality of Life suggest that debt write off, legal and admin costs, and dividend payments add up to £1bn in extra costs per year. With all of that behind the scenes, it’s easy to see why the cost of rail fares is so high.
Ok, stop sounding like a massive leftie
But it’s not quite that simple, because it’s not privatisation per se that’s the problem here - it's about the style of privatisation. The government subsidies paid to the industry mean that politicians are usually held responsible for fare rises and problems with the system, so rail companies have little incentive to really drive down prices - since they won’t get the blame.
And because there is generally only one rail provider in each region, passengers cannot vote with their feet if they don’t like the service they’re getting. And what's more, very often people are totally dependent on the trains to get to work. We are beholden to them in a way that we are not with planes, so again companies have little incentive to make tickets cheaper.
On the public vs private issue, our railway system gets the worst of both worlds.
And that’s not all. The industry as a whole is extremely complicated and fragmented, and the process by which companies bids for the franchise in each region is long and costly. This leads to serious inefficiencies in the system - the Campaign for Better Transport reckons it’s about 40% less efficient that European rail networks. And it’s the passengers that lose out.
Happy planes
So on the public vs private issue, our railway system gets the worst of both worlds. Not so for the aviation industry. An old agreement means that airlines don’t have to pay fuel duty, and there's no VAT on tickets. That adds up to an industry-wide saving of something in the order of £10 billion per year! That is a lot of money, especially when you compare it to the government's rail subsidy, worth £4bn per year.
And that’s really just scratching the surface. Transport is a big and complicated industry, with lots of hidden surprises and costs, and it needs reform to make train tickets more affordable. So why not get involved to make it happen - why not see if there's a local commuter group near you. Or the Campaign for Better Transport has a lot of sensible things to say about the whole transport industry, so get involved!
Why is flying cheaper than getting the train? | 1010
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment