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”.
Uh, oh looks like AlGore’s private jet may be at risk.
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.
How about a science malfeasance regulator with teeth, that can dismiss scientists misusing science for political ends.
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
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
I suggest they have a conference in some far away locale and all fly in to discuss the matter.
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.
I guess we serfs won’t be flying much anymore.
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 …
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.
I’m ashamed. Southampton was my university.
Was this study sponsored by a consortium of cruise ship companies?
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
Guess it’s time to go back to coal-burning trans-oceanic steamers. Oh wait, I mean clippers, since they’re “renewable”.
So has Anthony booked his sea passage for the UK visit yet? Queen Mary 2 is very nice, I’m told.
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.
@Jim Stevens
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!
Hen’s teeth.
@ 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?
“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.
“Air travel will destroy the world”
That too huh?
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” ?
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.
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.
What? The Academia Nuts are at it again.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Now with formatting:
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,
That is opinion. It is not justified, except as assertion.
The University of Southampton is mis-using science to provide a cloak for politics.
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.
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.
Lords and Serfs. Only the enlightened and privileged are worthy…
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.
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.
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
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.
It seems as if Professor Ian Williams is no stranger to the joys of travel himself:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/statuses/469417587122905088
And not averse to fellow academics enjoying them:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/448883031211003904
Also, he seems to be a bit of a green activist:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/470145624969846784
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/460367563550380032
……quelle surprise.
It’s a tough life being a scientactivist grant seeker:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/statuses/488804299225722880
Hm, maybe we can start with the annual Progressive Fundamentalist Hajj. No air travel to the next COP meeting. 20,000 economic jihadists who gather solely to exact revenge on the very people who make their luxury travel possible shouldn’t be flying anywhere. No planes, ships or cars. Let them use sails to cross the ocean, and since it’s their opinion that the Northwest Passage is ice-free, I’d suggest that route to demonstrate its navigability.
It would be a bold move and would have the additional benefit of extending the meeting for weeks and lots of free publicity as the rest of the world mobilizes the effort to rescue thousands of climate lemmings from the ice.
Alan the Brit says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:20 am
They want to put the world back 50 years +!
###
Off by a couple orders of magnitude.
These academics and activists could possibly save a little money, emit a little less CO2 and make a small symbolic sacrifice if they were issued bus tickets instead of airfare to go to their conferences and speaking engagements.
What releases the most co2 – a fully loaded airbus A380 or the same number of people driving the same distance?
Just wonderin’
James at 48 says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:46 am
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.
What are you basing that on James?
The jets are getting bigger, numbers are increasing, they are flying higher and further as well as lower and shorter, and everywhere in between. there are scores of new jet models appearing, in the mid size and small jet categories as well. The national air spaces in all western countries are in a rapid capacity expansion phase and the numbers of new jets being ordered is not slackening at all. Large new orders are being placed almost daily. And the fares are steadily becoming cheaper with the economies of scale effect.
And this largely ignores what’s occurring in the BRICs states, as well, which has been much larger again.
Go to any large domestic or international airport and just watch the activity, it is frenetic and it is not the 5%ers, it’s the top 50% of the income bracket that’s flying.
Got to any supermarket here in OZ and the very first thing EVERY checkout person asks me is “do you have frequent flyer points?”. They ask everyone that.
But does flying lead to an end of the world heat-death of Gaia? Nope.
Who’s going to get the money?
@Tim Obrien
>Lords and Serfs. Only the enlightened and privileged are worthy…
That’s how the Soviet Union worked for decades. According to the social model, some comrades will still be more equal than others for some time to come.
“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”
Relax, as CO2 is worth virtually nothing these days even a value of 100 times virtually nothing is still chicken little.
as per an earlier comment – who funded this?
Amongst others (quite likely) the British taxpayer. Time to ask for your money back lads.
@Vince Causey
What releases the most co2 – a fully loaded airbus A380 or the same number of people driving the same distance?
++++++++
Nuclear powered electric trains are really hard to beat on that score.
“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.”
‘increasing lower airfares’. What kind of gobbledegook is that?
Of course. Only the privileged, rich, and tax payer funded people should be allowed to fly.
You know, the superior ones.
I’m not sure we should gripe about papers like this. Perhaps if more people started thinking about flights being 100 times more expensive or banned for anything non essential, perhaps they’d be less eager to blindly embrace the consensus and start asking some hard questions.
No warmist should ever be left in any doubt that seriously cutting CO2 is both near impossible and very unpleasant.
We have a good test case in the Ukraine. The local regulator has “teeth”, but most of the normal world would like to see those “teeth” knocked-out.
Regulators with teeth, have a habit, of chewing up the middle class, and not enjoying the taste of the aristocracy. The poor are not on the menu, because they are too lean and grisly.
So “saving the planet”, is just a smoke-screen, for putting the productive population, back in the bus. And the upper crust, and the bureaucrats, will travel in private planes, or airlines that cater to the new order.
we need is less regulators and more lecturers with something useful to add to their students CAGW fevered brains…
Stories like this are amusing, but nothing to get worked up about. I don’t care how “progressive” some politician might be, few are likely to even suggest something like this because they understand the role of tourism in the world economy. And the few who don’t will get laughed at or shunned.
Ahh, the return to serfdom. Who would have thought the liberating effects of fossil fuel would one day be used as justification to take it all back.
The moron-who wrote that-stupid-excerpt from the study-didn’t know how to use-dashes.
Perhaps it is time for scientists with clout to lean on the pseudo scientists in these ‘climate science’ departments. How can a university allow such nonsense to be broadcast under their name?
Yes! Let’s start with Air Force 1. Maybe the President would stay in the White House a while and do some work.
/snark
Or you could live in my neck of the woods and never want to go anywhere else.
Of course such a recommendation would exclude anything green!
JRM,
“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.
How true your statement is!
Check out these links, probably indicative of the whole western world right now.
http://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
(found at .
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/view-detailed.do?standardNumber=90812
our official government education web site
What is perhaps more shocking are the examiner’s comments which are in red over each page.
This barely if at all can be defined as education. No prizes for guess which way these children will vote when they become of age.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
There is an upcoming solution to stop air travel.
.
Ebola.
Gary Pearse wrote August 12, 2014 at 6:30 am: “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.”
This reminded me of a nearly 30 minute program that I heard last night on my earphone radio (courtesy CBC, which carries broadcasters from various parts of the world). I believe that this came from Radio Australia (if not, Deutsche Welle), a program about the supposed benefits of “geoengineering”, the addition of SO2 or SO3 to the air to produce sulfates to reduce our present horrendous rate of warming. (If anyone can detect any warming in the eastern part of North America I’d like to hear from them! Here in NB it is a typical or wet summer, and I read recently that New York City had not had a single heatwave this year.)
Getting back to geoengineering, there was not one questioning sentence about whether the world is actually warming and if geoengineering would accomplish a thing.
Ian M
***we all know how well this experiment worked out for the EU?
March 2010: Jeremy Rifkin: The Empathic Civilization
An Address Before the British Royal Society for the Arts
Two spectacular failures, separated by only 18 months, marked the end of the modern era. In July 2008, the price of oil on world markets peaked at $147/ barrel, inflation soared, the price of everything from food to gasoline skyrocketed, and the global economic engine shut off…
The European Union is the first continental governing institution of the Third Industrial Revolution era.
***The EU is already beginning to put in place the infrastructure for a Europeanwide energy regime, along with the codes, regulations, and standards to effectively operate a seamless transport, communications, and energy grid that will stretch from the Irish Sea to the doorsteps of Russia by midcentury…
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cwe/EmpathcCIV_EN.pdf
“Other mitigation-measures cannot be left to market-forces. …”
These guys are just leftists plain and simple. There faith in “market forces” to the limited extent that they understand such concepts has a depth of about 1/2 of .001″.
Idiots .. its wrong and so stupid on so many levels one does not know where to start ….
Justa Joe says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:22 pm
Practical every day ‘economics’ (not the stuff of textbook fairytale) when left to do what it does (sans ideological warpified interference and dictat), generally produces a situation most people want or prefer and wish to maintain or else develop further. Including as one commenter said, above, the economic desirability of international travel and tourism.
On wonders what world it is the eco-warrior loons want to preserve or conservem or put to rights ‘n stuff? Last I looked we still live in a situation where survival of the fittest, of each life form, rules. Just look at the ebola contagion if you doubt this, we’ll either survive by wising-up, or we won’t. Nothing has fundamentally changed due to digital modernity, the same rules apply as always and the same natural processes are proceeding.
Which necessarily means humans must and will manage the ‘environment’s’ health and viability, as a natural requirement and prerequisite of their attempt and desire to survive, and remain fit to do so.
So whence any need for eco-heros self-appointing as Pontifs for Gaia when we’re necessarily already ensuring that we survive, along with the requisite global biota functioning which works for us, as well, and for our global survival niche?
We already are massively managing and moderating our own actions and conserving the parts of the biota which we have already recognized are valuable to that end and which a human will also value to the extent they will get on a jet and fly around the world to visit it in the flesh.
So it seems self evident (to me) that our mutual survival need and our associated economic processes are already doing this job which the eco-heros want to lobby for the right to self-appoint themselves to.
If employment is based on merit, then our survival needs and economic processes already have that job. So lets let it do what it does best and it will automatically maintain and evolve self-moderating mechanisms that changing human action and priorities, as necessary, sans eco pontif thought-farts and its tedious childish heroism.
excerpt from original post: ” … the ticket price-increases necessary to induce the required reduction in traffic growth-rates …”
But that growth has its own structural and industry limitations already that are non-monetary and non-interference, they are based on airspace safety requirements, namely the national airspace in most western countries (North America and Europe especially) is currently near full capacity-utilization and radical technical measures are being introduced currently, and a quickly as possible, to relieve the traffic congestion pressures, as the various national airspace systems, as in the case in particular, is currently and constantly struggling to accommodate ~5,000 flights on jet routes, during the busiest parts of the day.
The reason why radical technical innovation and new airspace architectures are being developed and implemented is because of flight-shedding time delays, caused by federal airspace regulators making excess to airspace capacity airliners to stay waiting on the tarmac until an airspace ‘slot’ become available for it to take off. So these uneconomical delays already apply a powerful incentive to aircraft operators to reduce the number of scheduled and unscheduled flights (usually by buying bigger jets that hold more people and get better mileage per head, thus need fewer aircraft and flight crews, etc.) to make them more economically efficient and also fuel and time efficient.
Have a look at this novel propulsion efficiency and fuel solution that’s currently being developed and is now entering production, it is flying right now:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Airbus-Commits-To-E-Fan-Production222348-1.html
Else we can listen to the professors of Gaia pontificate about how ‘economic’ incentives must be given teeth and imposed imposed, for no reason whatsoever. Well guess what professors, businesses operates on a profit incentive, and that IS NONE OTHER THAN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE INDUSTRY-WIDE INCENTIVE TO EFFICIENCY AND ON-GOING SURVIVAL!
So if one stupidly and arbitrarily imposes uneconomic measures as feigned “economic incentives” then what you’ll get instead is an unprofitable industry that’s totally ruined, and does not innovate to solve any material issues of efficiency, at all. Because it is no longer profitable to do so.
duh!
But that has been the unstated agenda, all along with such proposals, and such an outcome would fill the High-Pontifs of Gaia and global saviorism, with tremulous inconsolable waves of glee regarding their disproportionate counterproductive effects on humanity, and its best interests.
These ignorant left-greenish professors need to shut it and keep their snouts out of economic discussions for they have nothing constructive to contribute in them and are just serial proposing enervating and surplus-to-requirement ‘solutions’ to non-problems, because the natural curtailing and modifying economic and profit incentive solutions are already in act of process at any given moment, sans such foolhardy useless inputs to economic and socio-political ‘debating’.
Professors, don’t operate profitable businesses, because they can’t. The reason is they have virtually no clue as to the nature of such a strange and alien contraption as a profit-making business sector. First thing they would want is to lobby government to bailout their pet airline project as an economic ‘stimulus’ measure, for that’s all many of them have ever known, and thus have no operating concept of value and efficiency in business, not the mechanisms of self moderation and efficiency dividends that already exist to limit actions and excess, or damage to global ecological systems.
Take that douche bags.
I’m just waiting for some progressive to come up with a plan that includes mandatory counselling before you can complete a booking for air travel.
Anybody else irritated by the odd over-hyphenation in this drivel? (“mitigation-measures” etc.etc.).
Being charitable, maybe the authors are not native English speakers (they would no doubt prefer that as “not-native-English speakers”, or maybe “not-native English-speakers”).
If so, I bet they flew in…
Stopping the masses from using air travel is just an extension of stopping the masses from using car travel. In Britain, there is a tax to travel into central London (congestion charge – see the way it is framed). There is also a proposal to charge extra for diesel vehicles – more particulates (after promoting their use to save CO2) and there is the continuous exhortation to use bicycles which must be the most dangerous way to travel in large towns, with many people killed every day.
All this, just to keep the roads clearer for the people who matter?
SteveT
Unmentionable says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm
———————————–
The eco-left don’t understand market forces as a mechanism for innovation. They only extol “market forces” when they believe that these forces will make some product or activity prohibitively expensive for the average Joe. When they don’t believe that the average Joe will be rapidly and sufficiently restricted by pricing him out of the market then they want the Govt to put the hammer down on the little guy.
Funny you should mention that Steve, that same topic became the latest scandal in Australia just today.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/shorten-seizes-on-hockeys-poor-people-dont-have-cars-comment/5668468
I was quite staggered by the arrogance of Joe Hockey. He says his budget’s fuel excise increase will not affect the poor at all because the poor are already unable to afford to buy fuel, or buy a car, so it won’t be a problem for them, because they can’t drive.
Well, if we put a side the unforgivable arrogance, I will ay that he and I are the same age and in the Australia I grew up in the widely accepted concept of “a fair go”, for everyone in society was the backbone and sinew of the entire Australian cultural mentality, and way of life. Joe Hockey is the only person I have ever heard express such total disregard for that unifying common principle and openly promoted direct unfairness and inequality of policy application, and national and social division that leaves people out, and exposes them to deliberately regressive policies against the poorest section of the population.
The assertion that the poor won’t even be affected is of course incredulous, for if they don’t have a car they must use cabs, buses and trains, all of which use fuels with the increased excise taxation and they also receive all of their life’s consumables and food via transportation, which again uses the same fuel.
So obviously the costs will be passed on to the poor due to the excise rise and they will be thus disproportionally affected even if they don’t have a car, and can’t afford to buy fuel already, because they are already reduced to abject poverty.
—
Note for Joe Hockey: You’re an antagonistic arrogant ingrate mouthing narcissistic and xenomorphic out-of-step conceits which no Australian government minister has been stupid enough to say even once during my entire lifetime. You seem to be in the wrong country there sport, that or you’ve fallen on your head one too many times. But I guarantee you one this, you’ve just blown your chance of ever becoming PM mate.
In his own words to camera:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/joe-hockey-fuel-excise-comments/5669096
RE Joe Hockey. The rich are able to save and invest because their income exceeds the cost of life’s essentials (food, fuel). The percentage of their income devoted to essentials drops with increasing income. Any tax on an essential is regressive. Joe’s stupidity is beyond words.
Pay an indulgence fee and climb aboard or donate funds quid pro quo for your ACA-style waiver from the WH.
JimS says: “Was this study sponsored by a consortium of cruise ship companies?”
No, it was Amtrak. Part of the Intercontinental Railroad, you know.
You scratch a shiny green progressive and underneath there is a dark totalitarian.
ALWAYS.
Laws are the only thing between them and perfecting everyone else.
Blogged Not Science. Not Engineering.
I’m guessing frm the article that the authors have no working Engineering (or physical science) understanding: The plausible, nett radiative effects of CO2 at 10 to 12 km above the surface (cruising altitude for inter-/continental flights) are as a coolant.
But that guess is wrong: Matt Grote has a BEng in Aeronautical Engineering and has worked as an airline pilot. So he has NO excuse for writing crap other than bowing to the wishes of his masters: Selling his soul for a PhD.
Ian WIlliams has a degree in Chemistry and is the head of the Centre for Environmental Sciences.
John Preston who runs the Civil, Maritime and Environmental Engineering and Science Academic Unit and Professor of Rail Transport doesn’t appear to have any science of Engineering qualifications. His claim to infamy appears to be “He has held almost 130 research grants and contracts, worth over £5.5 million”