Europe’s smaller airports may not survive if jet fuel shortages triggered by the Middle East crisis lead to widespread route cancellations, the industry’s trade body has warned.
Although airlines insist there are currently no supply problems within the normal four- to six-week horizon, the US-Israel war on Iran and the effective closure of the strait of Hormuz have doubled the price of jet fuel, prompting some carriers to cancel flights.
The Airports Council of Europe said regional airports were the most exposed and faced an “existential threat” if airlines cut capacity and raised fares, as demand on their routes was generally more price-sensitive – demonstrated when Lufthansa axed 20,000 summer flights operated by its regional subsidiary, CityLine.
Aside that people still need to move, are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ? And what can be used as an alternative ? Bus ? Trains (for which you should probably build the railways) ? Cars ?
That is a problem that is hard to solve. Many people do not need to move but want to move for reasons. You do not need to fly to Mallorca in order to get wasted on cheap beer. You do not need to fly to Paris in order to start a shopping spree. You do not need to fly to Barcelona to watch a soccer game or fly into Vienna to catch a Taylor Swift concert. People are doing that. They like it, but it’s totally okay if they are not able to use airplanes for that. It’s also okay if the business class is going back to relying on online calls and meetings like they did during COVID. There’s no reason for someone to fly to London just to present a power point.
But there are also reasons why people might want or need to fly, for example to visit their family in a far away country. And that is really hard to balance in our current setup because rich people will be able to fly to Mallorca to get wasted on champagne, while your poor migrant will not be able to afford to fly to Turkey to visit their grandma for the last time.
I hope you don’t imply that people should never leave the place where they are born.
Yes, people want to move for some reasons and that’s ok. I don’t see why they should have limits on this.
I don’t agree.
Or better I agree for the reasons you cited, but you can go to the cities you list also to just see them, I think it is fine.
That’s a stupid point.
It is not the single flight to London the problem, but that lot of us are forced to go to the office to do a work you can do from home. You want to fight pollution ? If you mandate remote work for every possible worker that can use it, the number of people on the roads will drop significantly and the ones that need to go to work (production for example) have a better public transportation system as a collateral effect.
At this point the single time you need to fly to London to present a power point (because sometime you need to do it in person) is offset by the large quantity of pollution you avoid letting people to work from home.
People fly also to avoid to spend a lot of hours for a trip with a train that can be just a couple of hours flying.
An example: if I want to go to Sicily (Catania to be exact) from Milano I have the option to fly there (2.5/3 hours considering the time to reach airport) or to use a train (a little less than 15 hours with two train transfers). Or if someone want to visit their parent living on some island and the only alternative is the ferry (slower and more expensive).
In the end for every example that you can do about people that could choose to not fly, I could make an example about people that cannot choose to not fly, so maybe the real problem is not that.
You mean “flying” here. Flying frequently generates excessive amounts of CO2. That is killing other people. Killing other people for one’s own fun or comfort is not OK.
Now the next person will come and say, that’s not an individual problem, but a collective or societal one. But lifting the decision to a collective or political level, doesn’t change the fact by one iota that frequently flying generates lots of CO2, and lots of CO2 kills people. The only collective solution can be to have collective boundaries about that.
In in respect to technomogical alternatives: They are not there, in terms of available, real solutions, they don’t exist. No normal person is going to cross the ocean in a solar glider. We need to deal with reality, instead of what we wished that exists.
Obviously
Everything we do affect other people, in a way or another, we cannot think otherwise.
Flying generates only about 2% (against a 72% of the cars for example) on a global basis (%3 if you consider only Europe) of the CO2.
I agree that even if relatively small it is not to understimate but we can probably have better results if we choose to attack other aspects.
Or maybe ask for solution that benefit everyone instead of “punishing” only someone, like work from home for everyone who can. Or maybe to just stop to have a NIMBY attitude for everything (be a new solar field, a new railways or a wind turbine farm). Or maybe ask to make it easy to install solar/wind power generation plants for domestic usage.
There are a lot of things we can colletively ask to make thing better for everyone instead of saying that someone else should be stop to do something.
The problem is that we are trying to solve climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions regardless of who is causing them and why. That is leading to a world where some rich asshole in his private jet is flying to Monaco to watch the Formula One, and other people can’t afford to heat their homes. That doesn’t work and the current backlash is exactly caused by that. You are forced into the office by those rich CEOs and their private jets and the gov is telling you to drive less and is increasing the taxes for your petrol.
What I wanted to say is that there are totally fine reasons to fly or move around, and reasons that are not so great and should maybe be avoided. Our current setup is not reflecting that because it’s simply based on your ability to pay.
It is not really important in my opinion to know who or why
So we “punish” the rich people without doing anything for the other people. Let’s assume that you ban rich people to fly to Monaco, now what ? The amount of CO₂ produced by air travel is reduced by an amount that, on a global scale, is practically negligible, what good it do to the people who cannot heat their homes ?
The current backslah is caused by idiots who cannot read and understand facts. As i said flying generates about 2% of the global CO2, how much do you think a group of rich people would generate annually on a global basis ?
Moreover these idiots are the same that if you plan to build a new railways to reduce the cars on the road (and conseguently the pollution) protest just because with variety of stupid reasons, not last the NIMBY aspect.
Now, I agree that every reduction in polllution is good but we should aim for the bigger target (which, normally, is the impopular one) instead of the smaller that make the idiots feel good but does nothing.
You are targeting what, on a global scenario, is a niche in a niche. It make no sense if you want to solve global problems.
There are two things: The amount of CO2 produced by private jets is not “near nothing”, it is quite significant and produced only by a small number of people. We need to get to net zero in order to save the planet and therefore we can’t afford a “it’s only a small amount” way of thinking. And we can already see how this behaviour of the super rich is tipping opinions against environmental protections. I’m sure you have seen this whole “Taylor Swift is flying everyday and we have to drink out of paper straws”-meme
Quite significant of what ? If the total CO2 produced by the aviation industry is the 2% of the total pollution, even if the private jets produce 50% of this quantity it just is the 1% of the total. And I think that commercial jets are way more and fly way more than private jets so the quantity by which you reduce the pollution is negligible.
Again, it is not to be ignored but maybe it should not be our first target.
Then maybe we could start to focus on thing that have heavier impact, like cars or industry, instead of focusing on niche things that would not make a difference. But ok, I get it, after all the rich are the cause of everything.
Let me ask a question: do you really think that changing the behaviour of the 1% richest people would change anything on the pollution problem ?
Not that we don’t need to take also them accountable, but I still fail to see how reducing (or stopping) something this marginal can help.
Yes, and I found it always stupid while looking at the cars lines on a random morning in every big city in the US.
Yes, I really do think that changing the behaviour of those people who are producing 15% of global emissions will have an effect on global emissions.
Can you possibly post where to find the original image ? Too small to read anything other than some number.
And how this 15% is calculated ? What is included ? What is excluded ?
Are you sure that you are not targeting this 1% only because it is more simple to just say “is someone else fault” ?
Do you think that people can’t move without flying?
Yes. Including arranging one’s life so that you don’t need to fly.
No, only that sometimes flying is better that other alternatives.
In France some connection was terminated because train was better (less expensive, overall faster) than flying and that’s ok, but it is not always true.
Ok, but you should ask why people need to fly and I am sure you are not impling that people should never move from the place where they are born, be for work or any other reason.
But I am intrigued by what can be your solution for people who live on islands or has not other alternatives other than using a car/bus instead of flying in the case they cannot/don’t want to spend 8 hours traveling by car or train instead of a one-hour flight.