Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

[Howard]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study.

Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated. The analysis draws together data to give the clearest global picture of the impact of frequent fliers.

The research, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, collated a range of data and found large proportions of people in every country did not fly at all each year – 53% in the US, 65% in Germany and 66% in Taiwan. In the UK, separate data shows 48% of people did not fly abroad in 2018.

regards

Howard

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... y-covid-19

PS I hope this post is in the right thread. It might be a bit "political". Happy to see it moved, if moderators decide this.

[Mike4]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population

Otherwise known as "pilots"... perhaps!

But more seriously, this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

[scrumpyjack]

Yes, I bet Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant are among them, flying around the world to join climate protests!

[Lootman]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population

this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

I do between 3 and 5 long-haul flights a year, plus some shorter ones, so clearly you have people like me in mind.

I am not sure how you would "ration" me without taking away my liberty. And if my seat is not taken that plane is still flying, just with 12 stone less in weight. What is the carbon saving on that?

[dealtn]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population

Otherwise known as "pilots"... perhaps!

But more seriously, this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

How does potentially taking off 1 or 2 people from each flight translate into any meaningful reduction in emissions from each flight. The weight differential is minimal and the economics of the business would surely mean that 99% of flights would still happen?

What have I missed?

[dspp]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population

this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

I do between 3 and 5 long-haul flights a year, plus some shorter ones, so clearly you have people like me in mind.

I am not sure how you would "ration" me without taking away my liberty. And if my seat is not taken that plane is still flying, just with 12 stone less in weight. What is the carbon saving on that?

You'll need to do better maths & economics.

1. Your 76kg (we are metric here) plus your onboard food, plus your luggage, plus THE FUEL for you, and the divert fuel for you. That alone is a real carbon saving.
2. And ultimately the plane won't fly at all if there are insufficient PAX, which is an even bigger carbon saving.

Flying does need to be tackled, if only to stop it growing too fast. In time it will need to either shift to surface/electric or to alt-fuels.

Liberty matters are a red herring. You are at liberty to drive, but you must pay the various driving taxes. The way to deal with flying is through economic mechanisms, i.e. taxation.

regards, dspp

[Lootman]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population

Otherwise known as "pilots"... perhaps!

But more seriously, this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

How does potentially taking off 1 or 2 people from each flight translate into any meaningful reduction in emissions from each flight. The weight differential is minimal and the economics of the business would surely mean that 99% of flights would still happen?

Of course. The only place it would save a lot of carbon is on a route with many flights a day. For instance in normal times BA has about 10 flights a day between London and New York. Now if 50% of passengers on those flights are frequent flyers who are (somehow) barred from flying, then maybe there would be only 5 flights a day.

But then it is the frequency of flights to NYC that is BA's competitive advantage. You can just show up at Heathrow and get the next one, if you wish.

Of course right now there are far fewer flights, but still a good number. I flew long haul last month and there were maybe 40 of us on the plane, which holds 400. In some ways that is worse not better for the planet.

[Lootman]

Flying does need to be tackled, if only to stop it growing too fast. In time it will need to either shift to surface/electric or to alt-fuels.

Liberty matters are a red herring. You are at liberty to drive, but you must pay the various driving taxes. The way to deal with flying is through economic mechanisms, i.e. taxation.

Taxing flying more is different from rationing my flights. And in fact we already do the former, the flight I took last month cost me nearly 600 quid in APT.

But of course there are ways around that, like flying from another country, or even Inverness! The UK already has the highest air travel taxes on the planet.

[dspp]

Flying does need to be tackled, if only to stop it growing too fast. In time it will need to either shift to surface/electric or to alt-fuels.

Liberty matters are a red herring. You are at liberty to drive, but you must pay the various driving taxes. The way to deal with flying is through economic mechanisms, i.e. taxation.

Taxing flying more is different from rationing my flights. And in fact we already do the former, the flight I took last month cost me nearly 600 quid in APT.

But of course there are ways around that, like flying from another country, or even Inverness! The UK already has the highest air travel taxes on the planet.

You'll find that this is going global. The only thing slowing it is that all the countries want the other countries to go first. But just like taxation of tax-evaders, it is coming.

- dspp

[Lootman]

Flying does need to be tackled, if only to stop it growing too fast. In time it will need to either shift to surface/electric or to alt-fuels.

Liberty matters are a red herring. You are at liberty to drive, but you must pay the various driving taxes. The way to deal with flying is through economic mechanisms, i.e. taxation.

Taxing flying more is different from rationing my flights. And in fact we already do the former, the flight I took last month cost me nearly 600 quid in APT.

But of course there are ways around that, like flying from another country, or even Inverness! The UK already has the highest air travel taxes on the planet.

You'll find that this is going global. The only thing slowing it is that all the countries want the other countries to go first. But just like taxation of tax-evaders, it is coming.

I have not seen any real sign of that so far. In the last couple of years I have originated flights from Dublin, Helsinki, Amsterdam and Zurich and saved hundreds of pounds in APT each time. Countries are effectively competing with each other to offer cheaper flights, and any government that jacks hundreds of pounds onto flights originating there is doing real harm to its national airline, usually a point of pride for a country.

But anyway the thrust of the article was actually limiting how often someone can fly. Collecting more tax doesn't achieve that as there are plenty of people who will just pay the extra anyway, or their employer will. Just like there are people who will use a private jet. The article says that: "But Gössling was less enthusiastic, pointing out that frequent flyers were usually very wealthy, meaning higher ticket prices may not deter them."

The bigger problem is all these flights for a tenner on Easyjet and RyanAir. I have no problem with a surcharge on those. I just do not think anyone can be stopped from flying if they wish to.

[JohnB]

A problem with any rationing system is the 1% would claim their flights were essential business, not leisure travel, and it would be very difficult to assign flight quotas to companies. Using taxation and economic levers would be much simpler. Of course the rich could afford it, but we've never found a way to cap the excesses of the rich.

[GrahamPlatt]

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population

Otherwise known as "pilots"... perhaps!

But more seriously, this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

How does potentially taking off 1 or 2 people from each flight translate into any meaningful reduction in emissions from each flight. The weight differential is minimal and the economics of the business would surely mean that 99% of flights would still happen?

What have I missed?

That’s not quite the meaning of the statement that 1% of people cause 50% of aviation emissions. As I understand it, half of all flights are used by 1% of the population. If that 1% flew the same number of air miles as the other 99% of the population, airlines would only need to make half the flights they currently do. I’m sure you understand the same, but have chosen to joke about it.

[dealtn]

Otherwise known as "pilots"... perhaps!

But more seriously, this is something I've suspected for many years. There is a strong case for rationing an individual's people's air miles in my personal opinion.

How does potentially taking off 1 or 2 people from each flight translate into any meaningful reduction in emissions from each flight. The weight differential is minimal and the economics of the business would surely mean that 99% of flights would still happen?

What have I missed?

That’s not quite the meaning of the statement that 1% of people cause 50% of aviation emissions. As I understand it, half of all flights are used by 1% of the population. If that 1% flew the same number of air miles as the other 99% of the population, airlines would only need to make half the flights they currently do. I’m sure you understand the same, but have chosen to joke about it.

I'm not joking about anything. In fact I wasn't even commenting on the "1% of people cause 50% of emissions". If I were don't you think it more likely I would have quoted that, rather than the portion of the thread I did?

I responded to someone who suggested that we should be rationing people's air miles. I thought such rationing would reduce the number of people flying by 1 or 2 a flight. In which case virtually the same emissions would occur. I then asked what had I missed? Maybe that 1, or 2, isn't the correct number and that rationing would be more strict such that total flights would fall significantly, and with it emissions. In which case that can be pointed out and explained to me.

If you think it should be the case that the 1% should fly the same as the rest of the population, even given that 99% would have varying amounts of flying to "match" with, surely the likely outcome would be close to no airlines and no flights. Sure we would have no emissions, but I'm not sure that's a desirable outcome. Or is it?

[Lootman]

I responded to someone who suggested that we should be rationing people's air miles. I thought such rationing would reduce the number of people flying by 1 or 2 a flight. In which case virtually the same emissions would occur. I then asked what had I missed? Maybe that 1, or 2, isn't the correct number and that rationing would be more strict such that total flights would fall significantly, and with it emissions. In which case that can be pointed out and explained to me.

That is how I see it too. Unless the number of flights is dramatically reduced then there would not be any real saving.

In fact global aviation is set to double by 2050 (from 2019 levels) so it seems highly unlikely we see fewer flights. Just wait until the Chinese and the Indiansare flying domestically as much as Americans do.

And how would the rationing work? How would I be stopped from buying a plane ticket once I had reached my "quota" for the year? And even if the UK cold do that, I can still take a ferry or train to Dublin, Paris or Amsterdam and buy an air ticket from there, which I already sometimes do anyway to escape APT or otherwise get a better fare.

[dspp]

1. For anyone interested in the background data see a post I put up 27/10 viewtopic.php?p=351061#p351061.

2. Over the last several years I have been one of those frequent flyers, ironically primarily on decarbonisation/renewables matters.

regards, dspp

[Lootman]

1. For anyone interested in the background data see a post I put up 27/10 viewtopic.php?p=351061#p351061.

I don't know if you noticed but the Guardian article cited seems to go out of its way to not cite the source of this research. You can find it if you dig around a bit (and of course it is an environmental "think tank", as if we didn't know). But surely the article should lead with whose research it is so that the reader can decide how biased or competent he thinks that source may be.

Not that I am claiming the data is wrong, but how you collate and present data to achieve an end is an art form in itself.

Barely a day goes by without The Guardian having a headline like "New study shows (fill in your bleeding heart cause here). The study is usually some activist or ideological lobby group, like Shelter for housing issues, or some advocacy group with the name "justice" in there somewhere.

[Midsmartin]

"I am not sure how you would "ration" me without taking away my liberty."

First I'd want to have fuel duty on aviation fuel, and/or a carbon tax large enough to discourage people. You'd be at liberty to fly if you could afford the enormous price !

On the more philosophical point, is it OK to restrict people's liberty to do something that's harmful? I say "yes". Your freedom to do something stops when it effects someone else. We are happy to restrict someone's liberty to discharge toxic waste into rivers. I regard discharging CO2 into the atmosphere as being in a similar category of problem - although a habit which every one of us engages in to Varying degrees. My last long distance flight was a long time ago, but I drive a car (a bit), have gas heating etc. I don't claim to wear an environmental halo. We all need to stop doing this together.

[GrahamPlatt]

"I am not sure how you would "ration" me without taking away my liberty."

First I'd want to have fuel duty on aviation fuel, and/or a carbon tax large enough to discourage people. You'd be at liberty to fly if you could afford the enormous price !

On the more philosophical point, is it OK to restrict people's liberty to do something that's harmful? I say "yes". Your freedom to do something stops when it effects someone else. We are happy to restrict someone's liberty to discharge toxic waste into rivers. I regard discharging CO2 into the atmosphere as being in a similar category of problem - although a habit which every one of us engages in to Varying degrees. My last long distance flight was a long time ago, but I drive a car (a bit), have gas heating etc. I don't claim to wear an environmental halo. We all need to stop doing this together.

Oddly enough, per seat, the emissions of the better planes are less (cO2 gm/ mile) than driving a car (with a single occupant).

[vrdiver]

In my "worst" year of international work I made 117 flights in the calendar year. Four of them were personal, the rest for work. If you just slap a ban or tax them then there is a consequential impact on economic activity for the UK, since making a UK based consultant such as I was, more expensive to get to where they need to go, just shifts commercial attention to ensuring the workforce are based in countries that don't have those penalties. I've swapped projects with Americans based on exchange rate fluctuations; sometimes it really can be a wafer-thin economic argument as to where the work ends up.

I don't disagree with the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, far from it, but I think the "unintended consequences" of a poorly thought through action such as slapping a tax on frequent flyers might simply move the problem, rather like a game of whack-a-mole, rather than make any difference.

Investing in technology to make business travel redundant, however, could be far more effective!

VRD

[dspp]

A rule of thumb I have seen is that cattle class are packed 3x as densely as biz-class, who are in turn packed 3x as tightly as first class. The revenues and profits flow similarly. If you take the airframe mass (and hence fuel fraction) as being apportionable to the area occupied - which is a fair approximation, given that airframe selection is also a variable in play - then the mass fraction allocated to each seat will follow the revenue, and in turn the energy consumption, and in turn the carbon footprint. (For simplicity I am ignoring premium economy). Remember that as a generalisation we know that airline profits are 80% business+first. You can find stuff online that gives the decimal points behind this if you want and try and understand what you are all looking for (and I've designed a plane once upon a time, so I can find my way around the maths, though I don't expect my SSBJ to ever get built).

So what is the underlying reality, and ultimate proposal here, is to tax on the polluter pays principle. Let's use some crude LONG HAUL numbers to illustrate the point:

PRICE NOW
economy = £500
business = £1500
first = £4500

PRICE IF MORE FULLY LOADED FOR POLLUTION
economy = £1000
business = £3000
first = £9000

How many of those flights would still take place, or even down-class following that exercise. Bear in mind that the biz-jet would get hit with even more eye-watering numbers. This doesn't stop the true believers doing the once in a lifetime Haj flight, but it does deter the bucket-and-spade brigade from doing London-Miami for a family fortnight. Or the marginal consultant just hopping to Houston, or commercial sales to Beijing, etc.

Short haul is somewhat different. Most of that should be substituted by electric-TGV (and electric is what all true TGV are) driven by renewables. Not a good time to inhabit a trading nation stuck on an island at the back end of a penisula-shaped continent. The really bad place is the 4h medium sectors for working-week trips : too long for TGV, too short to be unsubstitutable.

regards, dspp