From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
by Paul Homewood
Would somebody like to tell me when anybody actually voted for any of this?
Jetting off to the Mediterranean this summer? I hope you got a good deal, because cheap flights are becoming increasingly hard to find.
You probably had an inkling that the era of absurdly cheap short-haul flights in Europe was coming to an end. After all, according to travel search engine Kayak, summer flights between the UK and the continent are currently one-third more expensive than last year. But two new reports make it clear that this isn’t just temporary turbulence.
It’s the new reality for flying as airlines face a huge decarbonization challenge and tightening climate-compliance laws
The first headwind stems from two big changes in the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland. Right now, they get about half of those allowances for free. But that deal comes to an end in 2026, as the share of allowances they have to pay for starts to rise from 2024. That is effectively going to double their carbon costs over just three years.
The unit price of carbon emissions has also soared recently, topping €100 ($111) for the first time in late February, and it doesn’t seem to be on its way back down. A report by Alex Irving, European transport analyst at Bernstein, puts the resulting cost from these changes for European airlines at about €5 billion in 2027.
That’s just the thin end of the wedge. Over the next three decades, aviation has to transform itself from a polluting industry — planes are responsible for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions — to a net-zero one. Under Destination 2050, the European sector’s plan to reduce emissions, it’ll do that by investing in future aircraft and infrastructure, making operations more efficient, and using alternative fuels and carbon-removal technologies.
A report by research groups SEO Amsterdam Economics and the Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre, commissioned by airline industry bodies, has put the cost of reaching net zero by 2050 at a whopping €820 billion.
Both reports conclude the sector won’t be able to absorb these costs itself. The changes to the EU ETS alone will slash the operating profit of the continent’s six largest point-to-point airlines (Ryanair Holdings Plc, EasyJet Plc, Wizz Air Holdings Plc, Vueling, Eurowings and Transavia) by an estimated 77%. That means ticket prices will have to be higher, which in turn means that demand destruction is inevitable. As Irving writes: “If it were possible to charge more without spoiling demand, airlines would have already been doing so.”
Demand growth is a touchy subject for airlines, as a recent battle over proposed flight caps between the Dutch government and Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport illustrates. The forecasts are strong: The International Air Transport Association suggested that passenger numbers would nearly double to just under 8 billion by 2040 from 2017 levels. Time will tell if rising ticket prices dampen that, but the question remains whether growth is even compatible with ambitions for carbon-neutrality.
The answer might be hard to swallow. Decarbonizing flying is hard enough without the extra passengers. A briefing from the Royal Society, for example, outlined that even meeting existing UK aviation demand with biofuels would require about half of the country’s agricultural land.
Fewer flights is, naturally, the easiest way to slice carbon emissions, and so a demand drop would come with its own climate benefits. The aviation industry’s report calculates that, in 2050, the drop in demand from raising prices to pay for sustainable airplane fuel would reduce emissions by 12%, and economic measures — such as emissions-trading obligations and CO2 removal investments — would lead to a further 2% reduction, compared with a business-as-usual scenario.
Just remember. Our so-called leaders hate you and want you to suffer.
And they think there are too many of us on this planet.(especially white ones)
whatever the prevailing wisdom is, do the opposite.
Experiment.. .get married, have many babies and work your but off.. ..at least it will be a life of shared misery rather than alone misery LOL
All the rest of it, Jet travel, cruises, luxury restaurants, identity vagueness, uncertainty, identify confusion, wallowing in the micro aggression of snowflakeville and the the pursuit online existential experiences ain’t worth a dime.
Well, the feeling is mutual.
Will it also affect private jets, or just airlines? Anyway, aviation DOES impact climate..
“The potential effects of contrails on global climate were simulated with a GCM that introduced additional cirrus cover with the same optical properties as natural cirrus in air traffic regions with large fuel consumption (Ponater et al., 1996). The induced temperature change was more than 1 K at the Earth’s surface in Northern mid-latitudes for 5% additional cirrus cloud cover in the main traffic regions.”
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=40
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.:”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html
Let’s see where most planes fly.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=no2/orthographic=-34.73,14.76,576/loc=0.673,41.645
How much did air traffic drop during the height of Covid hysteria? What changes did we see in the climate at that time? I
I know we had some record cold temperatures in Austria. But again, it was because of an increase in DTR (daily temperature range) related to the very clear skies.
Got it. Cooler than expected is weather. Warmer than expected is OMG! Carbon!
Well, the Climate of Stupidity certainly skyrocketed.
Didn’t 9/11 completely debunk that – temps went up when all the planes were grounded and the contrails cleared?
Also, while still in Cumbria, I set some solar panels out in a field near my cottage.
Where I was was about 10 miles east of the main North America flightpath from London/North Europe.
(For East Coast they’d hang left over Glasgow Prestwick and for West Coast they just keep going straight on and over the pole)
At any given time I could see 8 or 9 aircraft in the sky and the prevailing wind gently wafted the trails over the top of me
Typically when one got between the sun and my solar setup, its output dropped by 40 or 50% – picking up again when the trail had completely passed
Don’t believe anything that:
No, the opposite is true. Temperatures did not go up, but DTR increased substantially, by over 1K. That is an indication of substantial aviation induced cirrus coverage otherwise.
The physics of cirrus, be it natural or artificial, is not in question. They doubtlessly heat the planet. So much btw., that the IPCC is suggesting “cirrus thinning” as an approach to mitigate global warming.
Be it 9/11 or covid lockdowns, we have enough data telling us we massively seed the skies with cirrus clouds..
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with
“They doubtlessly heat the planet.” Some of us appreciate that extra warmth.
You consider CO2 a pollutant?
The question unasked… WHY mitigate ‘global warming'(impossible, btw) when it so obviously benefits so many?
I don’t know why the readers have down voted your post .
This makes sense as the residues of the jet fuel must have some effect on the atmosphere and can be seen high in the sky under certain cool conditions .
You certainly cannot see C02 moving from 350 pp million to 410 pp million , and an extra 60 pp million could not make any record able increase in temperature despite what some crooked scientists are telling us .
Any one who believes that 60 pp million has affected the earths temperature ,would believe that the earth is flat .
Guess people here do not like the idea that we are warming the planet after all.
Gee – where do people go for vacation? To the Antarctic? No to warm areas. More people die from the cold than heat.
More of that ‘warming’ please… snowed last night in NE WA. State.
What are Europeans going to do? The typical European flies far more than the typical American when it comes to vacation. I met an English guy in February who took 11 vacations in the previous 12 months, all by air.
If I’m angry already about this proposal, what are they feeling?
Well, they do need to practice their escape from The Village (2004).
Funny you mention that. That movie (even though it was a box office bomb) is a perfect analogy to what is going on with this climate change and zero carbon nonsense. Also brings to mind that H.L. Mencken quote about the “imaginary hobgoblins”…..
Where does all the money raised by those emissions taxes end up? And why aren’t the media asking those questions?
The Ukraine.
It’s shredded and fed to the unicorns that fart CO2-scrubbing glitter into the atmosphere.
Into the pockets of those selling the offset certificates, less commission for any middleman handling the trade (which presumably counts as one of the highly-paid ‘green jobs’ that we are always told will be created by ‘going green’).
Honestyrus, if you know the number of the bank account of Climate (most certainly, where thos tax moneys are deposited) please tell me, because I would like to make a donation.
Go back to 2008 and list all the extremely important new stories people should have viewed , read or heard. It is a very long list. Now that the flow of information onto the internet is more and more censored/fixed and even before it hits the internet. You have dig deep to stay informed.
These two recent videos from the Mentour Now aviation channel are worth a look.
What’s Happening with the Airline Ticket Prices?!
From Zero to Hydrogen: The Future of Clean Energy Flight.
Here is a summary of the first Mentour Now video comment section as to why prices have gone up recently. Karthick Ashwath summarizes the video this way:
1. Some airlines prematurely retired aircraft and lost capacity
2. Production from both Boeing and Airbus is not able to meet demand fast enough
3. Pilot shortage has increased their salaries (premature retirement during the pandemic as well as fewer pilots being trained)
4. Airlines are hiking prices to improve their finances as they have regained their market share. 5. Airlines deferring deliveries during the pandemic
Love the artwork of two bizjets flying in very tight formation. Also like the extremely asymmetrical horizontal stabilizer, and what appears to be a third engine inlet on the port side of the vertical stabilizer. If this is “AI Art”, then AI still has a long way to go.
Hi speed aerodynamics can be confusing for those without a degree in compressible fluid flow. The extra inlet is for carbon monitoring and sequestering. The asymmetric wings are necessary to avoid constructive interference when two aircraft are flying in such close proximity. Just ask a lawyer.
The extra inlet is for carbon monitoring and sequestering.
______________________________
Zackly what I was gonna say. (-:
I always prefer to drive with my car, because of more liberty on place and on both ways back and forth.
“They” do not want to hear that drivel. That’s why the EV ‘push’.
The whole aviation industry has brought this on itself. I’ve subscribed to Aviation Week since the 70’s, and seen the industry — manufacturers, airlines, engine companies, military, everybody — jump on the global warming/CO2 bandwagon, with no more thought than your average MSNBC viewer. Spending big bucks to solve a non-problem with non-solutions. Supposedly bright people.
Came here to say that.
yes . Aviation is the most efficient travel use of fuel around.
Al Gore appears not to attach any credence or importance to that, neither do a load of similar “do as I say not as do” hypocrites, just as they refuse to acknowledge that all life on earth depends on what they want to reduce….TASs all.
Sailing ships are a great way to get across oceans. Horse and carriage are a great way to get across land. People used these methods for thousands of years. You should too because it will save the Earth.
Save the earth from what ?
Sarcasm.
Ah a Mennonite radical environmentalist LOL!
I am a land lubber so… forget the ships. I live in horse and buggy community in hinkydinkyville PA. I’d love to have a horse an buggy….very expensive.
I ‘d rather drive my gas guzzling old jalopy. it’s cheaper.
Sooner or later California will slide into the ocean. a giant deep sea shelf will collapse into a world swamping tsunami, asteroid impact extinction events Nuke War, Alien abductions, and AI will destroy us all anyway…..maybe sooner or later or very much later if at all. . LOL.
I thought we’d moved on from animal slavery.
Poe’s law in force here, doon. People seriously propose such things.
Sailing ships denuded landscapes of one of the best, natural and limitlessly renewable and recyclable substances known to man to date – care to “guess’ what that is – or are you as much in ignorance of that as you are in denial that CO2 helped to create your life..?
Sarcasm right? Hopefully
Amazing how many here totally missed the sarcasm in that post.
I recognized sarcasm, but there are people who think this way, so I’ll give the straight answers.
Sailing ships – like when Greta Thunberg flew across the Atlantic so she could sail a yacht back? Or like when men died on nearly every trip by a wind-powered freighter?
A horse and carriage is a great way to get across the land when you can afford to take lots of time, are rich enough to hire a man to take care of the horses after the day’s drive, you don’t mind taking the oats out of a poor family’s porridge pot to feed the horses, and the steaming piles of manure your horses left behind are someone else’s problem.
The objective is to price flights higher to reduce passenger numbers, as always hitting the poorest harder. Same as expensive EVs will force less car owners. The elite will be ok and the plebs will be happy. 🙄
And just wait until inflation really kicks in.
“Would somebody like to tell me when anybody actually voted for any of this?”
Lots of people in nations with representative governments voted for people to implement it. They might not have understood the costs involved, but they’re adults, right?
In 2019, I was thinking about flying to Canada and later to Ukraine and around Europe. European airlines can still require masks capriciously; mandate or not . Finally, who wants to go to Canada now… not me!
Terra firma is the place to be…my locality and what I am doing is plenty interesting. So phooey on flying. I’ll wait until air travel is entirely electric and the only thing it burns is coal at the power plant. LOL
No need to pay anyone’s premium: carbonized tax, tax income redistribution, Fed deficit, ‘no one really wants to work anymore’, Saudi’s Prince/OPEC induced inflation or not….. even if I had money to burn.
It’s more fun discovering ways to have fun ‘off trend” side stepping the dollar hoarders.
While our votes appear to have little say in any matter, at least I can vote with my dollars.
Not just cheap flights.
Out of the blue, the place in Sheffield where I bought my 2.0litre VW diesel, 5 years ago for £13,500+tax sent me an email.
They were inviting me to ‘ask questions’ about the range of EVs they had.
But it was an opportunity to scratch through their other stock so I looked up a replacement for my little truck
They only had one remotely similar, a 1.6litre diesel, one year old and 12,000 miles
They were asking £27,500+tax for it.
(Mine was 6 months old and 5,000miles)
A properly registered business would escape (be able to reclaim) the tax but for me and other ordinary punters, the price had gone from £16,200 to £33,000 for a lesser vehicle.
Inside 5 years
Do as the Cubans did after Castro….keep that car running hook or crook. There was never a political correction in Cuba….maybe there will be one in the UK. The Green King needs to pound sand
I have a 2002 Mercury Sable Station wagon 105,000 miles….. Used cars are almost 2.5 x what they were in 2012….. Just wait when the carbon taxer’s hit the PA car market. USA has very high diversity of approaches from state to state so stuff like carbon taxing cars takes a bit longer. I would rather spend 3-4 grand every 5 years to keep it going than buy another used or new car that is carbon taxed. In 3 years, it will be vintage so no one will be able to touch it unless they want to destroy the antique car market in PA…. which they will not do.
The last thing I want is a computerized modern car. with all the gizmo’s and gadgets… wifi…..GPS.. no one needs that in their cars unless driving is their business.
You might be surprised what is really useful because of the computerisation.
Fuel injection for extra power , anti lock braking, stability control, air bags . nice to haves are cruise control a/c that stays at set temperature and so on. GPS has become essential as most cant read maps the proper way
My 2002 Mercury… it has all the computerized thingees I never needed that you mentioned but no GPS. No wifi
I drive a 1980 Triumph TR7. I bought 2 derelict cars for $1200 the pair in 2001 when I retired, & built one out of the 2 plus a few parts. With a home paint job it owed me $5000 when on the road in 2002. After 100,000 kilometers in 2014 I spent 10,000 on a mechanical rebuild & a professional paint job. It is not concourse, but is at least as good as it left the factory new.
It doesn’t have fuel injection for extra power , anti lock braking, stability control, air bags or cruise control, things I definitely don’t want, but the air conditioning is great in the Oz summer. It is a great car to drive, & I do not expect to buy any other car in my driving life.
Awesome, sounds like fun. I wish I had the time for a project car.
“GPS has become essential as most cant read maps the proper way” The ‘dumbing down’ is continuing apace.
I have a Lexus – a 1992 Lexus. The previous owner(s) took good care of it, and even today it looks good and runs well. Cost me about $6000, and by the time I had the maintenance whipped into shape, it added up to about $10,000. It doesn’t get the best mileage, but even so it’s a good car I can afford, and who knows how much my carbon emissions are? For over thirty years, nobody’s done industrial pollution making me a new one. Price, luxury, comfort, and the car isn’t reporting home where I am because GPS wasn’t much of a thing back then. There’s no lithium to burn my car and residence down. What’s not to like?
Wildly wickedly off topic, sorry, but this epic, Weren’t we talking about exactly this just recently?
Quote:”Aerial footage showed cars piled on top of another in a jumble of cracked concrete as one official described how the Lower Manhattan building “pancaked all the way to the cellar floor”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/19/new-york-car-park-collapse-dead/
Of course, no-one has a clue what happened or why
They do NOT “face a huge decarbonisation challenge”. They may choose to, but it is worrying that hey choose to believe that nonsensical myth of a climate emergency. There is no such thing!
Maybe those New Yorkers really are stupid enough to overload the structure with many new-fangled very-heavy EVs! Time to ban them from all buildings, tunnels, etc. ??????
The collapse saved the parking garage from being burned up when one of those EV battery packs failed and ignited the rest.
Given that it is estimated that 58% of human created emissions have been absorbed by carbon sinks, why is net zero the target?
Prior to the Industrial Age atmospheric CO2 content was dropping and this was detrimental to the biosphere. Even the IPCC published that the initial increase in temperatures was likely more beneficial than any negatives, so keeping current levels of CO2 would be a good idea.
What level of CO2 emissions would do that? And even if you believe the claptrap around climate change, shouldn’t that be the target?
The human caused carbon emissions are in the range of error bars for the natural carbon cycle
John Kerry sez if you cannot afford it – just eat cake – meanwhile, he will continue to fly and eat cake.
If an airline wants to ‘decarbonize’, just remove the people. Oops!
Lets scare the crap out them start talking about the nuclear jet engine
It scares the life out of me talking about battery powered planes
They are going to carry REALLY BIG parachutes.
Two things, number one the nations where these airlines are headquartered need to tell the EU to take a hike. Number two no problem was ever solved by the government taking your money from you.
The internet was created by government money.
The worlds richest nations are a mix of market and government economies.
Want examples of free markets with little regulation , look to the poorest like Cambodia
What problems were solved by some one taking your money from you?
Give the Government MORE money? God no.
The EU is all about walls.
story tip
WSJ
What to Know About Europe’s Carbon Border TaxNew policy imposes tax on imports that burn too much carbon in production
The European Union’s parliament this week approved the bloc’s new carbon border tax. The policy, a high-stakes effort to nudge other governments around the world to follow Europe’s lead in climate policy, has cleared its final legislative hurdle and will become reality.
But details still have to be ironed out, and what it all means for international politics and global emissions is still anyone’s guess. Here are the details.
What is it? The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is part of a broader overhaul of the EU’s carbon market aimed at reducing emissions. It imposes a charge on imports to the bloc from countries that don’t put a price on emissions in the way the EU does.
It is a smoke screen piece of political subterfuge. The EU is putting into law trade restrictions by implementing import duty simply by calling it carbon tax.
The EU is and has always been anti competitive blocking imports from lower cost areas of the world whenever they could find a mechanism to do it. This latest roll of the trade restriction mindset is faux climate control wrapped in virtue signalling packaging.
Totalitarian regimes have to control everything. The EU is a classic current example of central control over every last vestige of life and trade.
The future of that political shambolic organisation is not considered bright.
“The future of that political shambolic organisation is not considered bright.”
I hope you are right. The populations of some member countries (The Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Hungary, even Germany) might be starting to wake up to the extent to which they’ve become disenfranchised by the centralisation of control in Brussels, but there still doesn’t seem to be any real likelihood of any other country leaving the EU. Without that happening the EU will soldier on regardless.
Sigh. They keep calling carbon dioxide “pollution” when it is no such thing.
Here we go again. Carbon Credits, what a laugh. Here we are slowly decreasing our oxygen level because of insufficient CO2 and they want to reduce it still further. Do all of you know that only plants, whether in the ocean or on land are the only source of oxygen? Therefore we need more plants with more CO2, perhaps 1000 parts per million to change our loss of 19 parts per million per year to zero or lose in less than 4000 years enough O2 to impact people’s health. That’s the net zero we should be striving for.
The bad part of this is timing. The 707s were real fuel hogs but over the years the engines have come to burning much less fuel while producing much higher output. That is why the air force is re engining the B52s as the new engines will produce twice the output while burning less fuel. Note, they will still use 8 engines. Had the advancements come at a slower rate, possibly they could have settled for reduce fuel consumption instead of a flat tax. They are out to get the air industry no matter what.
‘They’ are out to get all industry, period.
The main reason for replacing the B-52 engines is maintenance. They couldn’t get replacement parts for an engine 50 years out of production. The fuel efficiency is just a bonus. The new RollsRoyce engines have the same thrust as the old TF-33 engines, not more, because the turbofan B-52’s were way over-powered to begin with; I never made a full power takeoff, even at max gross weight. They’re saying the new engines will never need a scheduled overhaul in the remaining life of the aircraft. Rolls is going to manufacture the engines in Indiana.
it must have been a thrill to pilot a B-52
Hurray for Indiana! Legit Hurray.
“Cheap Flights”
For a laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLoHL2O04aI
(English humour)
Well Irish humour in fact, but it is all the same in these Isles. I bet Ryanair don’t allow that to be available on the in flight entertainment portal, oh silly me, I just remembered Ryanair don’t do in flight entertainment.
Wonderful! Thanks.
What have all these headlines in common?
‘The End of cheap flights’
‘The end of cheap cars’
The end of cheap food’
‘The end of cheap holidays’
The end of cheap travel’
‘The end of cheap electricity’
‘The end of cheap gas’
That’s right….they are all policies printed on the election manifesto released by the Climate Alarmist Party.
They are all outcomes, of the prime policy of those woke evangelists, all achieved by stopping the availability and banning the use of fossil fuels.
It will be obvious from the list the woke policy priority is principally focused on the lower income members of society. They will be the ones that can not afford those items that used to be ‘cheap’ only the poor will be impacted, only they will be denied.
The wealthy members of society will still be able to afford the life they desire. The only difference for them, is the cost of filling the private jet will have increased.
it’s time for a revolution against this stupidity
Long Past. Too much comfort now, and likely too late. Unawareness rampant.