Air Travel. Should we be doing it?

[bimble]

One thing is certain. 'Let's just leave things the way they are now for the foreseeable future until the magic green power source becomes available' is not the solution to anything. Once upon a time there was no air travel. People still travelled. Just not so often or so fast or so far. You may say that nowadays people's expectations have changed. True. They can change again. If they don't, and in so many other areas of life, we really are fucking screwed.

Better let these people know that unfortunately they are too late & have to stop building all these hundreds of new airports. I know your thread was not about these people but of all subjects this is not a great one to approach so parocially, let’s all just go on holiday in the Uk.

How China’s airport plans will make it the world’s largest passenger market‌‌‌ - AeroTime

The global pandemic may have brought air travel to a halt over the past 18 months, but China’s plans to construct airports remain undimmed. AeroTime takes a look at airport construction in China and how the proposals are set to help it take the title of world’s largest passenger market from the...

www.aerotime.aero

New airports being constructed in India at unprecedented speed: PM Modi

The Centre has accorded in-principle approval for setting up of 21 greenfield airports across the country of which six have been constructed and operationalised till now, Minister of State for Civil Aviation V K Singh had stated on August 5 in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha.

m.economictimes.com

 

[platinumsage]

One thing is certain. 'Let's just leave things the way they are now for the foreseeable future until the magic green power source becomes available' is not the solution to anything. Once upon a time there was no air travel. People still travelled. Just not so often or so fast or so far. You may say that nowadays people's expectations have changed. True. They can change again. If they don't, and in so many other areas of life, we really are fucking screwed.

Not sure that doomster anarcho-primitivism is going to be the answer I'm afraid.

 

[Spymaster]

Better let these people know that unfortunately they are too late & have to stop building all these hundreds of new airports.

How China’s airport plans will make it the world’s largest passenger market‌‌‌ - AeroTime

The global pandemic may have brought air travel to a halt over the past 18 months, but China’s plans to construct airports remain undimmed. AeroTime takes a look at airport construction in China and how the proposals are set to help it take the title of world’s largest passenger market from the...

www.aerotime.aero

New airports being constructed in India at unprecedented speed: PM Modi

The Centre has accorded in-principle approval for setting up of 21 greenfield airports across the country of which six have been constructed and operationalised till now, Minister of State for Civil Aviation V K Singh had stated on August 5 in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha.

m.economictimes.com

This.

Telling individuals here to fly less whilst China, India, the US, etc., are pumping out airports and air traffic industrially, is going to fall largely on deaf ears.

 

[Pickman's model]

"Obvious" to you because you can't grasp the basics of capitalism perhaps? Where do you propose these companies get the money from each year to invest if their customer base is declining faster than their costs and liabilities? If you want investment in reduced-CO2 powered flight the quickest way to achieve it is increased revenue from customers combined with regulations forcing an increased proportion of that revenue into investment.

you're introducing things into your argument which certainly haven't come from me (...if their customer base is declining faster than their costs and liabilities, for example). the most basic thing about capitalism right now is that it's got us into a mess where large parts of the usa are already experiencing 1.5c above pre-industrial levels. where extreme heat in oceans passed the point of no return in 2014. so blithely saying 'let's carry on only with things that pollute perhaps a mite less and not rock the boat' is really not on the cards. there is a choice. either people can carry on flying as they are now and help us speed towards the point at which everything collapses, or people can carry on flying without continuing the fill the atmosphere with co2 etc. if it's so important to you to fly, which it seems to be, then surely you should be pressing airlines and manufacturers of aeroplanes to change things really quickly. you're living in cloud-cuckoo land if you really think that there will be regulations forcing revenue into investment. it's something which i suspect will have to be forced on airlines, in particular if passengers take the route you suggest and fly more.

 

[platinumsage]

you're introducing things into your argument which certainly haven't come from me (...if their customer base is declining faster than their costs and liabilities, for example). the most basic thing about capitalism right now is that it's got us into a mess where large parts of the usa are already experiencing 1.5c above pre-industrial levels. where extreme heat in oceans passed the point of no return in 2014. so blithely saying 'let's carry on only with things that pollute perhaps a mite less and not rock the boat' is really not on the cards. there is a choice. either people can carry on flying as they are now and help us speed towards the point at which everything collapses, or people can carry on flying without continuing the fill the atmosphere with co2 etc. if it's so important to you to fly, which it seems to be, then surely you should be pressing airlines and manufacturers of aeroplanes to change things really quickly. you're living in cloud-cuckoo land if you really think that there will be regulations forcing revenue into investment. it's something which i suspect will have to be forced on airlines, in particular if passengers take the route you suggest and fly more.

This is so barely coherent I don't know where to begin.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not sure that doomster anarcho-primitivism is going to be the answer I'm afraid.

no one's suggesting uninventing flight. except for you that is.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is so barely coherent I don't know where to begin.

for the irredeemably thick

1. you're dishonest. you're introducing things into your argument which haven't come from me, as though they had
2. it's too late to start thinking green fuels will do any good as large parts of the usa (and i am sure parts of other countries) are already at 1.5c above pre-industrial levels. your proposal will only make things worse.
3. it's you who don't understand capitalism if you think that encouraging more people to fly (If you want investment in reduced-CO2 powered flight the quickest way to achieve it is increased revenue from customers ) is going to encourage change. go on, give me an example where lots of people buying something has encouraged change in manufacturing. and you're talking out of your arse again with this nonsense about regulations forcing money from one set of companies, the airlines, into r&d in another lot, the people who make aircraft

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Not sure that doomster anarcho-primitivism is going to be the answer I'm afraid.

Head-in-the-sand ostrichism ain't much cop either.

 

[platinumsage]

Head-in-the-sand ostrichism ain't much cop either.

Who on this thread is advocating that, part from Pickman's who is just hoping people decide to boycott flying?

 

[JimW]

Better let these people know that unfortunately they are too late & have to stop building all these hundreds of new airports. I know your thread was not about these people but of all subjects this is not a great one to approach so parocially, let’s all just go on holiday in the Uk.

How China’s airport plans will make it the world’s largest passenger market‌‌‌ - AeroTime

The global pandemic may have brought air travel to a halt over the past 18 months, but China’s plans to construct airports remain undimmed. AeroTime takes a look at airport construction in China and how the proposals are set to help it take the title of world’s largest passenger market from the...

www.aerotime.aero

New airports being constructed in India at unprecedented speed: PM Modi

The Centre has accorded in-principle approval for setting up of 21 greenfield airports across the country of which six have been constructed and operationalised till now, Minister of State for Civil Aviation V K Singh had stated on August 5 in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha.

m.economictimes.com

Be interested to see projections of the per capita prevalence of air travel over similar distances between China and US/Europe, as of course a big chunk of the boom is just down to having a colossal population whose standard of living is rising, but the investment in high speed rail must be taking some of the strain.
Of course, what's really needed is a whole shift in the urbanisation strategy (absent something even more radical in the whole way work and the economy are conceived) which would cut the amount of shuttling between "hometown" and actual place of residence and work and there is a bit of movement there but not enough to soak up much of the out migration from the countryside yet.
Another aspect is the way local governments use built infrastructure investment to meet growth targets because it's a quicker fix and easier to control/skim off from than the soft infrastructure that's really needed, so while doubt that accounts for too much it will still be significant.

 

[platinumsage]

for the irredeemably thick

1. you're dishonest. you're introducing things into your argument which haven't come from me, as though they had

That seems to be your favourite trolling mechanism on here "I didn't mean that exact thing so your refutation of my position is flawed"

2. it's too late to start thinking green fuels will do any good as large parts of the usa (and i am sure parts of other countries) are already at 1.5c above pre-industrial levels. your proposal will only make things worse.

Following that argument it's too late to do anything at all. Not even your genius idea of "let's hope people decide to boycott air travel".

3. it's you who don't understand capitalism if you think that encouraging more people to fly (If you want investment in reduced-CO2 powered flight the quickest way to achieve it is increased revenue from customers ) is going to encourage change. go on, give me an example where lots of people buying something has encouraged change in manufacturing. and you're talking out of your arse again with this nonsense about regulations forcing money from one set of companies, the airlines, into r&d in another lot, the people who make aircraft

How did you go from "increased revenue from customers" to "encouraging more people to fly"? Also, a nice selective quote there "the quickest way to achieve it is increased revenue from customers combined with regulations forcing an increased proportion of that revenue into investment."

No point debating with you if you obviously have nothing useful to say.

 

[bimble]

Be interested to see projections of the per capita prevalence of air travel over similar distances between China and US/Europe, as of course a big chunk of the boom is just down to having a colossal population whose standard of living is rising, but the investment in high speed rail must be taking some of the strain.
Of course, what's really needed is a whole shift in the urbanisation strategy (absent something even more radical in the whole way work and the economy are conceived) which would cut the amount of shuttling between "hometown" and actual place of residence and work and there is a bit of movement there but not enough to soak up much of the out migration from the countryside yet.
Another aspect is the way local governments use built infrastructure investment to meet growth targets because it's a quicker fix and easier to control/skim off from than the soft infrastructure that's really needed, so while doubt that accounts for too much it will still be significant.

Yep, it is really interesting, including why domestic flights are seemingly seen by so many as a vital indicator (or facilitator ?) of economic growth modernity whatever.
I know absolutely nothing about China but did learn a bit recently about the extent to which the Indian gov has been hugely subsidising not just the construction of the country's many new airports but also the costs of a ticket on the various competing new domestic airlines, which are really incredibly cheap (including free snacks).

 

[Pickman's model]

That seems to be your favourite trolling mechanism on here "I didn't mean that exact thing so your refutation of my position is flawed"



Following that argument it's too late to do anything at all. Not even your genius idea of "let's hope people decide to boycott air travel".



How did you go from "increased revenue from customers" to "encouraging more people to fly"? Also, a nice selective quote there "the quickest way to achieve it is increased revenue from customers combined with regulations forcing an increased proportion of that revenue into investment."

No point debating with you if you obviously have nothing useful to say.

1) not only did i not mean that exact thing, i did not say that thing in any way shape or form. it's so far from anything i have said i can only conclude that you're a dishonest shit. btw you don't seem to have the first clue of what trolling is.
2) it's very possible it is too late to do anything at all which will redeem the situation. however, we won't know that for a while yet and it would be defeatist not to try to do something.
3) the increased revenue you mention has to come from somewhere. and as far as i can see it can only come from one place: the pockets of air travellers (and people sending freight by plane). as for your 'revenue from customers combined with regulations' it is so laughably naive i'm sure you don't mean it to be taken seriously

 

[platinumsage]

3) the increased revenue you mention has to come from somewhere. and as far as i can see it can only come from one place: the pockets of air travellers (and people sending freight by plane).

Correct, although this doesn't have to be from increased passenger numbers, but rather the profit (including tax) per passenger.

Whereas you propose it to come from where exactly when you suggest a boycott of air travel spurring an investment in green air travel?

 

[platinumsage]

as for your 'revenue from customers combined with regulations' it is so laughably naive i'm sure you don't mean it to be taken seriously

We can debate their greenness but this is what is paying for investment in electric vehicles - money from customers combined with regulations forcing investment.

 

[JimW]

Yep, it is really interesting, including why domestic flights are seemingly seen by so many as a vital indicator (or facilitator ?) of economic growth modernity whatever.
I know absolutely nothing about China but did learn a bit recently about the extent to which the Indian gov has been hugely subsidising not just the construction of the country's many new airports but also the costs of a ticket on the various competing new domestic airlines, which are really incredibly cheap (including free snacks).

The section later in the China article about air being used to link some of the more remote towns with poor overland links was interesting, should imagine the infrastructure comes cheaper by far when its the mountainous West with those crazy distances, the Lhasa rail link would not have been built without the political and strategic implications on top of any economic benefit, you'd guess, such a monumental undertaking.
So to actually reply, seems to be saying that it is "best" link by accepted measures in those cases, but really it does just look like path dependency elsewhere, perhaps even more so in China than India where the state was well placed to impose a different model if it so chose - as they have in terms of urbanisation for so long with household registration system.

 

[nogojones]

No it can't. Spending two weeks in the local seaside resort, however pleasant and enjoyable, isn't the same as visiting relatives in India, or working six months in Thailand, or studying for a degree for three years in the US. Long-range international travel, accessible to people on average wages, is a massively valuable thing for humanity. It's not some low-hanging fruit that can be harvested to avoid having to scrap some super yachts or insulate a few more homes.

I don't think the boom of western backpackers and sex tourists to Thailand has helped the majority of locals. It's devastated the environment, increased corruption and lets be honest its done fuck all in the way of "broadening the mind" of anyone who was lucky enough to go there. Sure it's a nice holiday, but we're deluding ourselves if we think there's some net benefit to the planet beyond the increasing the profits of airlines.

 

[nogojones]

Why is Eurostar less than a domestic train?
How full is the bus?
How full are the trains vs the planes?

If we ground the planes, them trains will be a bit fuller.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If we ground the planes, them trains will be a bit fuller.

The London-New York train is full enough, thanks.

 

[Pickman's model]

We can debate their greenness but this is what is paying for investment in electric vehicles - money from customers combined with regulations forcing investment.

i'd be grateful for a link to support your claim because the information i'm seeing doesn't bear this out at all

 

[nogojones]

The London-New York train is full enough, thanks.

One the bridge over the Bering Straits is finished they can all go the long way round

 

[bimble]

I don't think the boom of western backpackers and sex tourists to Thailand has helped the majority of locals. It's devastated the environment, increased corruption and lets be honest its done fuck all in the way of "broadening the mind" of anyone who was lucky enough to go there. Sure it's a nice holiday, but we're deluding ourselves if we think there's some net benefit to the planet beyond the increasing the profits of airlines.

Not far under 20% of Thailand’s economy is tourism related, and that might be shit in a whole bunch of ways but it’s happened and I don’t really see the point of arguing that wouldn’t it be better if we could rewind and delete the last several decades cos we can’t.

 

[ska invita]

Allowing one flight per person a year, or even two per person a year and then slapping a £10k levy (whatever) after that is the way to go. Pretty sure I read its business twats who deserve the key proportion of blame. They CAN just go on Zoom.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

One the bridge over the Bering Straits is finished they can all go the long way round

It'll be the new Concorde

 

[nogojones]

Allowing one flight per person a year, or even two per person a year and then slapping a £10k levy (whatever) after that is the way to go. Pretty sure I read its business twats who deserve the key proportion of blame. They CAN just go on Zoom.

You're too kind with the two flights a year. Letting people return home will just encourage them.

As for more flights a year, a 10K levy will just let the super rich off the hook. I lean more towards making them exit the plane at 40,000 ft.

 

[ska invita]

You're too kind with the two flights a year. Letting people return home will just encourage them.

As for more flights a year, a 10K levy will just let the super rich off the hook. I lean more towards making them exit the plane at 40,000 ft.

im open to variations in the details

 

[Riklet]

Leisure air travel maybe isnt great for the environment but compared to business travel and commercial transport and the dozen other highly polluting activities its small fry.

So yes you can avoid an anual flight and trip to Spain, but even if the entire UK population did this it would make basically a negligible difference.

Also how are we going to crush capitalism without taking a few planes and creating a few emissions?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Better let these people know that unfortunately they are too late & have to stop building all these hundreds of new airports. I know your thread was not about these people but of all subjects this is not a great one to approach so parocially, let’s all just go on holiday in the Uk.

Sorry if it seems parochial, but I don't think I'd get very far trying to convince the Chinese Communist Party of anything. If I did try that would probably be neo-colonial or summat.

If someone on the other side of the world is pumping out poison I can't see how it would help matters by pumping out our own poison.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

This.

Telling individuals here to fly less whilst China, India, the US, etc., are pumping out airports and air traffic industrially, is going to fall largely on deaf ears.

Well, we have to say that we don't want zillions of tourists coming here by air. Contrary to capitalist instincts? Yes. Difficult to implement in the face of widespread opposition? Yes, of course. But if we are serious about combating climate change we have to be doing stuff like this and so much more.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Leisure air travel maybe isnt great for the environment but compared to business travel and commercial transport and the dozen other highly polluting activities its small fry.

So yes you can avoid an anual flight and trip to Spain, but even if the entire UK population did this it would make basically a negligible difference.

Also how are we going to crush capitalism without taking a few planes and creating a few emissions?

Tourist air travel is set to expand phenomenally. That's the trouble. It all needs scaling back.