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

[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.