Quote: Cronus "But there's a very long way to go and in the meantime if we're serious about emissions we need to ask whether the perpetual drive for economic growth is a positive, as it means more aircraft, more routes, ever expanding airports and all their associated emissions. Similarly, do we simply allow more and more leisure routes? My belief is airline routes must at some point be limited and schemes to limit and punish frequent flyers introduced. An steeply increasing FF tax for each flight taken in a year, for example.'"
I couldn't agree more with the first point; it's perverse to persist with the notion that GDP can continue to grow - given that growth is naturally constrained by the planet we live on and the resources available. There is a school of thought that talks about continued growth, but through investment in environmental projects - hence the Green New Deal - but I can't personally see anything other than a future in which constant production and consumption has to be curtailed.
Cronus is, by the way, in step with environmental campaigners in respect of frequent flyers and a progressive taxEnvironmental groups are calling on policymakers to constrain the total number of flights and limit further expansion of airports.
Policy proposals include a “frequent flyers’ levy” which would increase progressively with every flight a person takes in a year while minimising the impact on those who fly only occasionally.
“We don’t want to penalise hardworking families that perhaps travel abroad once a year for a holiday,” says Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth UK.
Childs cited a 2014 survey by the Department for Transport which revealed that 15% of the UK’s population took 70% of flights.
“We need to recognise that aviation is a luxury and we need to share that luxury fairly.”'"