Southampton University: We need an air travel regulator with "Teeth"

Air travel will destroy the world

Story submitted by Eric Worrall

Southampton University in England has published a hilarious study, which calls for the implementation of a global strongman authority with “teeth” to stop us from travelling by air. According to the study;

 

“The analysis shows that forecasts for strong growth in air-traffic will result in civil aviation becoming an increasingly significant contributor to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Some mitigation-measures can be left to market-forces as the key-driver for implementation because they directly reduce airlines’ fuel consumption, and their impact on reducing fuel-costs will be welcomed by the industry. Other mitigation-measures cannot be left to market-forces. … A global regulator with ‘teeth’ needs to be established, but investing such a body with the appropriate level of authority requires securing an international agreement which history would suggest is going to be very difficult. … the ticket price-increases necessary to induce the required reduction in traffic growth-rates place a monetary-value on CO2 emissions of approximately 7–100 times greater than other common valuations. It is clear that, whilst aviation must remain one piece of the transport-jigsaw, environmentally a global regulator with ‘teeth’ is urgently required.”

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014004889

One thing for sure, this has got to be one of the most bizarre calls for totalitarianism I have ever read. If our civilisation acts upon this advice, one thing we can be certain of is that puzzled historians in future ages will devote entire chapters to strange circumstances surrounding the “Southampton Solution”.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Uh, oh looks like AlGore’s private jet may be at risk.

Jeff L

Think about how elitist this suggested “solution” is – only the richest would be able to travel by air. But then again, all of the so called solutions to CAGW involve raising energy prices, which hurt the poorest hardest. Ironic because the left used to position themselves as champions of the poor & underprivileged, which all their environmental positions are diametrically opposed to. I don’t think they have thought this through very well.

Greg Goodman

How about a science malfeasance regulator with teeth, that can dismiss scientists misusing science for political ends.

Alan the Brit

They don’t give a tinker’s cuss about the poor & disadvantaged, it’s all a clever ploy to seize power & taxpayers money that we don’t have, to enrich the few, make the rich even richer, & exert authoritarian control on everyone else. They want to put the world back 50 years +!

I’m not ready to give up air travel.
Perhaps these guys could be the source of hot air for increased Hot Air Balloon travel?
Win/Win for all.
/grin

JRM

Radical Muslims or Radical Environmentalist, which is the greater threat? We are allowing one group to teach our kids their beliefs in our schools. If we wait 20 years before taking some action to stop it, it will be too late.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/epa-chief-teach-global-warming-in-schools-20140808

thingadonta

I suggest they have a conference in some far away locale and all fly in to discuss the matter.

Gary Pearse

Not so funny. The fact its comfortable for them to publish this stuff says loads. Substitute any other thing “needing” regulation and you have the plan. Things start with someone having such an off-the-wall idea. Europe is beyond hope as even Europeans know – they were oddly restrained from their desired seduction by total*#itartianisim by the iron curtain. With it gone, they are now moving left of China while China is moving right. My concern is the softening of America on individual freedoms, the inexorable shifting into the new_ #world_order. It reminds me of the feminist revolution – probably none were so surprised as women themselves how relatively easy it was to achieve acquiescence of their “foe”. Ironically, we have to look to China, India and the former Soviets to save us from the Southhampton man#ifesto. Don’t we always say re agreements to stifle ourselves, “we won’t do it unless China and India agree to do it! The Republicans, unfortunately are me-tooiing themselves into the plan.

earwig42

I guess we serfs won’t be flying much anymore.

Steve Case

Col Mosby said at 6:03 am
Uh, oh looks like AlGore’s private jet may be at risk.

No, Al Gore is a VIP and his air travel is important just like he is. You on the other hand …

MarkW

Col Mosby says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:03 am
—–
The private jets of Gore and the other “leaders” will never be in jeopardy. It is the air travel of the masses that our “betters” seek to eliminate.

Give up air travel and give up being crowded into a box with seats designed for 5’4″ 100-lb folks; the rush to find 4″ of carry-on storage or pay extra to be in the head of that rush line; lousy food; surly flight attendants; having to darn near undress at Checkpoint Charlie and then getting rechecked in the boarding area and all the other amenities of modern air travel? I decided that air travel was a form of torture 25 years ago, a worse torture after 9/11 and get on commercial air only when forced.

So who most often travels by air? Not the poor. Not the disease ridden “refugees” arriving by the southern entrance of the US. Not even most of the middle class, who can no longer afford food, much less luxuries.
The answer is the rich! So why do we need anything with teeth? Just make the rich poor – socialists are good at doing that.

bertief

I’m ashamed. Southampton was my university.

JimS

Was this study sponsored by a consortium of cruise ship companies?

mrpeteraustin

More, including press contact. The proposed price rises (1.4% per year) seem smaller than previous correspondents may have assumed:
“This would translate to a yearly 1.4 per cent increase on ticket prices, breaking the trend of increasing lower airfares,” says co-author and researcher Matt Grote. “The price of domestic tickets has dropped by 1.3 per cent a year between 1979 and 2012, and international fares have fallen by 0.5 per cent per annum between 1990 and 2012.”
However, the research suggests any move to suppress demand would be resisted by the airline industry and national governments. The researchers say a global regulator ‘with teeth’ is urgently needed to enforce CO2 emission reduction measures.
“Some mitigation measures can be left to the aviation sector to resolve,” says Head of the Centre for Environmental Science at the University of Southampton Professor Ian Williams. “For example, the industry will continue to seek improvements to fuel efficiency as this will reduce costs. However, other essential measures, such as securing international agreements, setting action plans, regulations and carbon standards will require political leadership at a global level.”
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/news/2014/08/08_air_traffic_growth.page

beng

Guess it’s time to go back to coal-burning trans-oceanic steamers. Oh wait, I mean clippers, since they’re “renewable”.

steveta_uk

So has Anthony booked his sea passage for the UK visit yet? Queen Mary 2 is very nice, I’m told.

joelobryan

The ticket price increases would come in the form of taxes. The Progressive who propose these sorts of foolish schemes then say, “look at all the good things we can do with this new found fountain of money.”
One big problem though, as a consumption tax, airline travel would diminish dramatically as designed, cutting tax revenue further. the as airlines failed, and aerospace industry crumbled, everyone would ask, “What were we thinking, letting these Progressives be in charge?”

“One thing for sure, this has got to be one of the most bizarre calls for totalitarianism I have ever read. If our civilisation acts upon this advice, one thing we can be certain of is that puzzled historians in future ages will devote entire chapters to strange circumstances surrounding the “Southampton Solution”.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as though it is increasingly normal for academia to be bizarre these days and spit out bizarre pieces like this one.
If you want to start a revolution and foment social upheaval, academia is a good place to start. Academia tends to attract radical thinkers with bizarre ideas and agendas, and CAGW as a movement certainly fits the bill as a tool for reorganizing or reformulating society in the model of the radical thinker.
As long as the bizarre and radical thinkers are confined solely to academia, I don’t think that we need be too concerned about them. However, when they start successfully asserting their influence in government at all levels, then it is time to worry–a lot.

DonS

@JimS
Nope, cruise companies and other ship operators are keeping their heads down because the hounds are loose on the trail of their polluting of the seas. pollutionarticles.blogspot.com
Pick out a cave soon, we’re headed back to the stone ages.

I used to think like this(Southampton) then I grew up!

michael hart

Hen’s teeth.

LeeHarvey

@ joelobryan –
…everyone would ask, ‘What were we thinking, letting these Progressives be in charge?’”
See, that’s where you’re mistaken. Such thoughts would be forbidden by the time we reach that point.

……of course, we could always go back to the dirigible, couldn’t we?

MarkG

“Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as though it is increasingly normal for academia to be bizarre these days and spit out bizarre pieces like this one.”
Academia these days is mostly just a way for the government to give fat pay checks to lefties who couldn’t possibly make a living in the real world. It’s just another scam that needs to be completely defunded.

Unmentionable

“Air travel will destroy the world”
That too huh?

Jim G

If someone wanted to put restrictions on travel for people who have been to those African countries with ebola problems they would probably be considered racists but saving the world from CO2 is acceptable.

Who was it who said:
“We can’t have the masses moving about too much” ?

Unmentionable

Life is fatal Eric, please enjoy the ride.
PS: Whomever it was that at some point suggested or else insinuated that you were entitled to or else able to have some control input, sorry, they weren’t being entirely honest. Console yourself mate, screaming and waving arms around just unsettles the wildlife and annoys mothers.

rogero

Since strike breaking in the early 20th century, persons from Southampton have earned the subriquet Scummers, a tradition kept very much alive on the terraces of Portsmouth football club.
This latest manifestation seems very much in character.

Bruce Cobb

What? The Academia Nuts are at it again.

Kelvin Vaughan

beng says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:55 am
Guess it’s time to go back to coal-burning trans-oceanic steamers. Oh wait, I mean clippers, since they’re “renewable”.
http://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/a-new-concept-in-cruising-stx-europe%E2%80%99s-eoseas-%E2%80%93-other-cruise-news-cruising%E2%80%99s-economic-impact-in-the-us-%E2%80%93-canadian-and-us-reaction-to-north-american-eca-%E2%80%93-disn/

joelobryan said:
August 12, 2014 at 7:06 am
“What were we thinking, letting these Progressives be in charge?”
————
The left accuse Conservatives of fighting change and of clinging to quaint ideas such as the Constitution and Rule of Law, but these damnable progressives want to progress us back to the stone age.

David

“a monetary-value on CO2 emissions of approximately 7–100 times greater than other common valuations”
A nice, narrow range there guys. Obviously, you’ve thought this out very well.

James at 48

Prices being what they are, it’s mostly 5%ers and above doing air travel. Air travel is not in a growth mode any more.

hunter

The two dimensional reactionary and ill-informed stance of so many climate extremists is annoying. Why is it that modern extremists nearly always end up taking from others in order to have their way? If the climate obsessed would withdraw from the world and live in cliamte monestaries and nunneries, we could see their wonderful example and be inspired. Instead they seem to always come to this: Tkae from others the things that bother the extremists, while the extremists seldom if ever apply those standards to themselves.

Eustace Cranch

CD (@CD153) says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:10 am
“As long as the bizarre and radical thinkers are confined solely to academia, I don’t think that we need be too concerned about them. However, when they start successfully asserting their influence in government at all levels, then it is time to worry–a lot.”
________________________________________________________
The former is the wellspring of the latter.
The time to worry is right now.

M Courtney

If all mitigation-measures are successfully implemented, it is still likely that traffic growth-rates will continue to out-pace emissions reduction-rates. Therefore, to achieve an overall reduction in CO2 emissions, behaviour change will be necessary to reduce demand for air-travel.

That seems right to me. And analytically justified.
The problem comes when you ask if the behaviour change is worth the reduction in CO2 emissions.
Then you hit questions of the price of liberty, the cost of coercion and the benefits of a reduction in CO2 emissions.
The last point may be a scientific question (although it isn’t easy to answer). The other two are ethical and political. Yet the paper says,

It is clear that, whilst aviation must remain one piece of the transport-jigsaw, environmentally a global regulator with ‘teeth’ is urgently required.

That is opinion. It is not justified, except as assertion.
The University of Southampton is mis-using science to provide a cloak for politics.

It appears that their main recommendation is to increase ticket prices. Of course, that doesn’t affect the authors, as they fly on taxpayer’s dime. It also doesn’t affect the wealthy (who the authors are pandering to) because even a huge rate hike will have minimal impact on them. This is designed to hit the middle class, the masses. Push us back to the periphery were we “belong”.

M Courtney

Now with formatting:

If all mitigation-measures are successfully implemented, it is still likely that traffic growth-rates will continue to out-pace emissions reduction-rates. Therefore, to achieve an overall reduction in CO2 emissions, behaviour change will be necessary to reduce demand for air-travel.

That seems right to me. And analytically justified.
The problem comes when you ask if the behaviour change is worth the reduction in CO2 emissions. Then you hit questions of the price of liberty, the cost of coercion and the benefits of a reduction in CO2 emissions.
The last point may be a scientific question (although it isn’t easy to answer). The other two are ethical and political. Yet the paper says,

It is clear that, whilst aviation must remain one piece of the transport-jigsaw, environmentally a global regulator with ‘teeth’ is urgently required.

That is opinion. It is not justified, except as assertion.
The University of Southampton is mis-using science to provide a cloak for politics.

ConTrari

A global conference must be held about this important subject. The Maldives has a nice new airport. Maybe they can supply some shark teeth too.

Blade

Greg Goodman [August 12, 2014 at 6:13 am] says:
How about a science malfeasance regulator with teeth, that can dismiss scientists misusing science for political ends.

Comment of the day! Let’s add an academic regulator as well. Lord knows they need it.
A single generation separates these academics from the last great battle against totalitarianism, yet that short timespan is long enough to erase their etch-a-sketch brains. They merely need to step outside and look to their own skies which were once filled with the conflict that kept these pinheads free enough to sit around on their spoiled fat arses and submit papers calling for voluntary submission to international totalitarianism.
All my life I have made fun of those kooks who warn of one-world order Bilderbegr types, yet their instincts are at least partially correct because we clearly have an embedded cabal of traitors that long for and actively campaign for an elite international ruling class of bureaucrats. This is more philosophical than scientific now, and the AGW hoax is only but the latest manifestation of a peculiarity of freedom itself. I believe that it is a genetic flaw in humans that mirrors bees and ants which causes a natural propensity to submitting to authority, servicing the queen, and acting as obedient workers. It appears often in human history from Egypt to Rome to feudalism and onward.
So The question is, how can free people really survive if they allow their traitors to destroy them from the inside? Can we really develop democracies and not expect traitors from time to time to gather working majority or plurality consensus that undermines that very ‘democracy’? The freedom to plot against your very freedom? This is the most important question I think.

Tim Obrien

Lords and Serfs. Only the enlightened and privileged are worthy…

phlogiston

When will we English wake up to the fact that the rest of the world is sick of missionaries from old blighty with green petticoats coming to tell them how to live their lives. This Victorian attitude of moral superiority and mission to “natives” is profoundly embarrassing and has no place in the 21st century.

tadchem

In the post-apocalytic world that will develop almost immediately after the one world government tries to take hold (triggering global rebellion and universal civil disobedience), the major CO2 emissions will likely come from cooking fires and slash-and-burn agriculture.

Curious George

Southampton University should stop paying its employees for air travel. They should drive (drive? – bad, too) or swim to their conferences. That would be a neat practical test of the proposed measures. I wonder if authors do already lead by example?

It seems as if Professor Ian Williams is no stranger to the joys of travel himself:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/469417587122905088
And not averse to fellow academics enjoying them:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/469417587122905088
Also seems to be a bit of a green activist:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/488804299225722880 ……..quelle surprise
It’s a tough life being a scientactivist grant seeker:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/488804299225722880

Mods – can you delete last post – links got mixed up

DirkH

CD (@CD153) says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:31 am
“……of course, we could always go back to the dirigible, couldn’t we?”
The passengers who didn’t jump out of the cabin actually survived – as the cabin sank to the ground rather slowly, not in freefall.
Compare that to MH-17 or MH-370.