This right tonight

[j4]

I caught part of a bunfight discussion on Radio 2 at lunchtime today, between George Monbiot and somebody from (I think) the Spectator, about the environmental ethics of cheap flights. [BBC News: "UK 'must act' on plane emissions" | Report launched today by the University of Oxford]

You already know what Monbiot's line is; I don't need to rehash that here. But the other chap was putting forward a view that I hadn't heard before; he was arguing that Monbiot's call for fewer cheap flights was part of some kind of middle-class conspiracy to trample all over the "rights" that have recently "been acquired" by "poorer people". He claimed that the rich resented the poor becoming richer, and wanted to "punish" them for this by curtailing their "rights" to cheap flights -- whether they are making these flights for pleasure, work, or "education".

Questions I am not going to attempt to answer include: whether the environmentalists' predictions of the future global warming scenario are as exaggerated as their detractors claim; how many flights Monbiot has made in the last year; whether he is more interested in advertising his book than saving the world; how many of our cheap flights to European holiday destinations (of which I've made a few myself) are "educational"; whether there is a middle-class conspiracy to erode the rights of poorer people; whether the poor are in fact becoming richer, and if so, by what metric.

Questions I would like to find answers to include: where do "rights" come from? Are we born with them? If not, do we accrue them as a function of our passage through time, or are they allocated to us by some external agency? Does the discontinuing of a commodity or service which used to exist automatically constitute riding roughshod over somebody's "rights"? If we have a "right" to something, should we claim it, whatever the cost?

Comments

[j4.livejournal.com]

I don't know what a 'culture of cheap flights' is

Sorry, that was a bit hand-wavy. What I'm saying is that it currently seems to be not just culturally acceptable but practically expected now that one can fly to many European destinations for very low prices. This hasn't always been the case, even in my short lifetime; it's a relatively new phenomenon. EasyJet have always been a particularly visible example, with posters advertising "Nice for £19" (or was it £9?) and so on; and I frequently get spam offering me flights for a tenner or even for "free" (by which I assume they mean no additional cost on top of airport tax etc). If ten years ago you'd asked the man on the street how much it would cost to fly to Prague, chances are he wouldn't have had a clue, except a guess that it was almost certainly more than he could afford. If you asked TMOTS the same question now, chances are he not only has a clue but is going there for his stag night.

What I'm suggesting challenging is the expectation that we will or should always be able to travel abroad cheaply and easily, and the assumption that because we can, we should. Why should we be able to travel abroad? I'm not saying we shouldn't; I suppose what I'm asking is "Who needs to do this / benefits from doing this, and why?" and "Are those needs/benefits more important than the need (if you acknowledge such a need*) to reduce carbon emissions or the benefits from doing so?"

* if you don't, then I suspect the whole discussion is purely academic.

why is Joe Blow from Preston taking a cheap flight to Prague seen as a 'problem' when Harry Windsor jetting to Mustique in some croney's Lear Jet is sacrosanct?

I hope I haven't said anything to indicate that I think it is sacrosanct: for avoidance of doubt, though, I certainly don't think it's sacrosanct, and I'm not sure who does. As I said in my previous comment, I think those with the power to do so should be attacking the problem from both ends.

However, I suspect (though I don't actually have the figures -- please do supply them if you can!) that the increase in official royal/presidential flights (or even Harry Windsor's pleasure trips) since the boom in cheap flights is smaller than the increase in Joe Blows from Preston nipping over to Nice for the weekend. If you're trying to limit the overall growth of something, do you target a) the area of most growth, or b) the area of least growth?

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

If you're trying to limit the overall growth of something, do you target a) the area of most growth, or b) the area of least growth?

Well, obviously (a). The only reason for going after the tiny amount of executive travel is a solidarity argument: people find it more acceptable if it affects everyone. This reminds me of the Yes, Minister episode about the efficiency drive.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I agree that any legally imposed limitations on air travel should be applied irrespective of whether one is a Windsor or Wayne/Waynetta.

I'm not sure about the "solidarity" argument, because it sounds a bit like "we need to be seen to be doing something about X even if the real problem is Y", but I'm also not sure that the "real" problem is Y, for any value of Y. If you see what I mean.

I suspect the reason there's a vocal lobby against cheap flights is that they're the most visible area of growth. For all I know, leisure flights made by the royal family in private jets have increased by 10,000% in the last 10 years (though even if they have, the absolute effect is probably smaller) -- but it's not as visible, and it's not the thing that's creating the culture changes.

But I don't know. As I've just said to chickenfeet, I don't have the answers.

Not familiar with the YM episode you mention, but I can imagine...!

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

If you're trying to limit the overall growth of something, do you target a) the area of most growth, or b) the area of least growth?

I think you tackle the area of maximum inequity. By your logic 'we' should be focussing on rising carbon fuels usage in China and India while not worrying too much about the G8.

I'm not sure who does

The government and Parliament? Has a single minister expressed concern over first class travel or private jets?

I do believe carbon emissions need to be reduced but I really doubt the sincerity of people who would start by tackling a relatively low per capita use by a group they don't identify with rather than the higher per capita usage of their privileged friends. To me it looks a whole lot more like a sumptuary law debate given an environmental gloss for PR's sake.

[j4.livejournal.com]

By your logic 'we' should be focussing on rising carbon fuels usage in China and India while not worrying too much about the G8.

Good point. OTOH, "Y is more of a problem than X" is not the same as "X is not a problem and therefore we need do nothing about it".

Has a single minister expressed concern over first class travel or private jets?

Conversely, the absence of anybody saying "X is a big problem" is not the same thing as everybody saying "X is sacrosanct".

I don't have the answers; I'm just raising questions. I think the questions of "Do we have a real need (let alone "right") to travel abroad frequently and easily for leisure reasons?" and "What benefits do we derive from travel?" are useful ones to consider, independently of the other issues. But thank you for raising more and different questions to consider.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Once again, in terms of formal logic, you are entirely correct. The trouble is politics (and like it or not 'rights' and 'privileges' and their support or curtailment is what politics is about) doesn't work that way. It's true that saying "X is a big problem" does not imply that "(closely related) Y is sacrosanct" but it does mean "we have absolutely no intention of doing anything about Y, otherwise we would have said so".

Do 'we' have a need to travel for pleasure? Who is 'we' and who defines what is 'necessary' vs (presumably unnecessary) 'pleasure' travel? Do 'we' need company X to fly its entire salesforce to Hawaii for the annual sales meeting? Do 'we' need Tony Blair to fly to Washington to kiss up to GWB? Would travel abroad for pleasure be more 'necessary' if it were expensive and unpleasant? Do 'we' need holiday villas in Tuscany?

[j4.livejournal.com]

it does mean "we have absolutely no intention of doing anything about Y, otherwise we would have said so"

What I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that the Royal Family et al will be exempted from restrictions on air travel just because nobody's saying that Prince Harry is the big problem. I agree that they don't seem to think it's the big problem. I'm not convinced it is the big problem. If you're convinced it is, I hope you're making your opinions known in more public fora than my LJ!

Do 'we' have a need to travel for pleasure? Who is 'we' and who defines what is 'necessary' vs (presumably unnecessary) 'pleasure' travel?

Good questions, and ones that I think people in general (that's all I mean by "we") should be asking themselves. Do I need to take this flight? Do I need to go abroad? What will I learn from it? Who will it benefit? I ask myself those questions because I believe it's a good thing to examine my personal choice. I also believe that it's a good thing for other people to examine their personal choices.

(Yes, the term "good thing" begs all sorts of questions. I can elaborate if you really want me to!)

Do 'we' need company X to fly its entire salesforce to Hawaii for the annual sales meeting?

Company X should ask itself that question.

Would travel abroad for pleasure be more 'necessary' if it were expensive and unpleasant?

No, of course not. But if travel abroad was more expensive, people might well recalibrate their idea of how "necessary" it is to them. For instance, I might have very different views on how necessary caviar was to my personal health and happiness if it was within sniffing distance of being something I could afford.

Are you trying to make the point that it's wrong (and/or simply not effective) for governments to try to use the free market as a tool for enforcing moral beliefs?

Do 'we' need holiday villas in Tuscany?

I can't speak for you, and wouldn't want to try; but I certainly wouldn't need a holiday villa in Tuscany, and I and wouldn't think it was a financially or environmentally responsible action on my part to buy one, even if I could afford one.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Actually I think markets are one of the least bad ways of dealing with these kinds of issues as long as the approach is consistent but I do not get that sense at all about this particular issue. If the government were to increase taxes on all hydrocarbon fuels in a logical way I might be convinced but that doesn't seem to be the intent. The intent appears to be to dissuade one class of consumer from using one kind of (public) transport for one kind of purpose; one, ironically, that seems to be quite fuel efficient otherwise it wouldn't be so cheap. It's hard not to see some agenda other than emissions reduction at work. There are lots of silly uses of hydrocarbon fuels that I think are somewhere between mad and bad besides going to Prague for a stag night. I think people who choose to commute fifty miles to work are just as crazy and irresponsible. Arguably so are people who'd drive from London to North Wales for the weekend. They probably consume as much fuel but it's not (as) foreign, so that's OK? How about people people who run big SUVs for no real reason? I'm content to let people choose for themselves within the context of a logical system of (dis)incentives but, I reiterate, that isn't what the anti-cheap flight lobby are driving at.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

The government is not talking about increasing taxes on aviation (whether on fuel, passengers or landing rights). Environmentalists are*.

Please be explicit about the hidden agenda you detect. As far as I can tell it's that middle-class environmentalists are attempting to rein in the middle-class privileges of city breaks in middle-class destinations in continental Europe and second homes abroad for middle-class commuters. Looks like noble self-sacrifice to me.

*The article by Monbiot which j4 links to claims that the government is prohibited by treaties from taxing fuel used for international flights - which would hobble any attempt to harmonise fuel duties across transport modes short of scrapping them all. And contrary to your suspicion, I haven't noticed environmentalists targeting aviation while embracing SUVs.

[emperor]

I think it's high time (sorry) we sorted out the treaty that makes aviation fuel so damned cheap. It means that flying is artificially cheap, particularly given its environmental cost.

[j4.livejournal.com]

one, ironically, that seems to be quite fuel efficient otherwise it wouldn't be so cheap

Out of interest, is fuel efficiency (in terms of cost) necessarily the same thing as environmental efficiency / low emissions / etc.?

I think people who choose to commute fifty miles to work are just as crazy and irresponsible.

I agree. I've often wondered what would happen if people were required to live within X miles of their place of work. (Just a thought experiment -- I'm not seriously proposing it as a workable solution to anything!)

Arguably so are people who'd drive from London to North Wales for the weekend.

I'd probably agree with that as well.

They probably consume as much fuel but it's not (as) foreign, so that's OK?

I'm afraid you've lost me here...

I'd be very surprised if a car journey from London to Wales consumed as much fuel and/or caused as many emissions as a flight from LHR to [destination of your choice], but I confess I don't have any data to back this up; so if you have stats to hand, please do confirm/correct.

But I'm afraid I really don't see where you get the idea that foreign travel per se is what is being objected to (hint: you can travel to Europe by other methods than flying), or that flights to foreign countries are worse because of their foreignness than internal flights.

How about people people who run big SUVs for no real reason?

Again, I'm not really sure what point you're making here: SUVs are often targeted by environmentalists as well; and personally I think they're another case where individuals should be asking themselves whether they really need to own an off-road vehicle for the sort of journeys they make... and no, I don't know how to enforce/encourage that sort of individual sense of responsibility to society and to the environment. If you asked me for a higher-level solution to the problem I'd probably just come up with the usual stuff about taxation; I'm afraid I don't have any magic bullets up my sleeve.