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.
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” ?
Ask the World Economic Forum or the Stockholm Environment Institute:
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/05/climate-change-economic-impact-incomes/
(and if you are honest, it totally makes sense that rich people produce an overproportional amount of CO2. They have the money. They are flying. They are consuming more. They have bigger houses and all those fancy Saunas, Whirlpools and second homes. Why are you questioning that?)