A radical new plan to reduce international air travel from Europe to minimal levels over the next few years has been proposed by a group of Net Zero fanatics led by the New Economics Foundation (NEF). Massive charges under a ‘frequent flyer levy’ are proposed, the effect of which could quickly destroy large sections of the international air transportation industry. Some of the money raised – or not as the case may be – will be sent abroad as ‘climate aid’ to less developed countries forced to stay poor by mandated restrictions on their use of hydrocarbons. Needless to say, the work is the product of what Ben Pile recently termed “bog-standard Green Blob fronts”. Writing and promoting the NEF publication involved a number of operations heavily funded by the usual suspects including the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and ClimateWorks.
The fantasy plan calls for large European surcharges to be added to ticket prices for multiple annual trips. Financial details are not provided in the press release but the report suggests €50 for a medium distance trip and additional levies of €100 for long and “comfort” classes. This would appear to suggest an extra €250 charge for long-distance business and first class travel. George Monbiot of the Guardian boasts of the report having been shared exclusively with his newspaper and writes that the €100 levy on both distance and class will rise with each trip. It is hoped the surcharges will raise €64 billion, a sum said to be equivalent to 30% of the entire EU annual budget. This would be spent, at least until the golden goose is killed stone dead, on accelerating Europe to a “fairer, greener economy”. More virtuous bungs can be sent to countries to stop them using hydrocarbons and recompense them for the non-existent climate crisis.
Although the report talks of reducing travel by around 25%, the blow will be much worse in financial terms. Many airlines rely on premium travel to keep economy tickets low and severe reductions would affect the economics of aviation, both in the air and on the ground. Reducing passenger traffic by a suggested 25% and very likely much more, would require massive restructuring across the board including air traffic control, baggage handling, security and border activities and airport management. Yet more lost jobs to be added to the increasing pile of Net Zero casualties.
Not that this is the end of the attack. Air travel has enabled countless millions to travel for pleasure, holidays, education, business and to connect with family over the last few decades. In pursuit of ther mad Net Zero policies, the eco-zealots tell us, further restrictions “would therefore be necessary”. These would include caps on the number of flights, airport slots, night flights, private jets and “limits on the more damaging comfort classes of travel”.
Want to know what is being planned by the Net Zero fanatics – look at what their Blob-funded puppets are writing. In this case, forget about flying within just a few short years.
The New Economics Foundation has been around for a few years pumping out Left wing propaganda. It is no surprise that the hard Left’s favourite money tree the Rowntree Trust has funnelled in cash, although much larger amounts have been supplied by the Laudes Foundation and the ECF. As Ben Pile noted recently in the Daily Sceptic, most of the organisations active in the climate domain in the U.K. are funded by the ECF directly, or by one of the half dozen or so of the ECF’s grantor philanthropic foundations. As Pile also observes, the “hapless consumer” is ensnared by the phantom institutions that represent the green-ideology-addled British Establishment.
The NEF report is co-written by the Stay Grounded Network which, perhaps to nobody’s surprise, is funded by the ECF. The aviation campaigner at this outfit, Magdalena Heuwieser, says that the single trip flyer is paying the same tax as a traveller making 10 trips. Except that the more frequent flyer is actually paying 10 times more tax. Designed to fit a political narrative, Left wing sums often diverge from reality. In his article, Monbiot notes that air travel, heavily taxed as most passengers are aware, is “heavily subsidised” since the fuel is exempt from duties. In Monbiot’s world, a lack of a specific tax is often seen as a ‘subsidy’, while an actual £12 billion annual subsidy loaded onto U.K. electricity consumers to pay for unreliable renewable power is passed off as an ‘investment’. One reason fuel duty is not levied on aviation is that mobile jet aircraft will ‘tanker up’ at cheaper locations.
Monbiot reports on the view of Marlene Engelhorn who states that the “mile-high club of private planet combustion, where wealthy people like me can ferment in our comfort zones, needs to close it doors”. Easy to say of course when you are a wealthy heiress who has inherited a fortune from the BASF chemical operation. Other people who work for a living and need holidays and some modest comfort as they travel to drum up business might take a different view.
According to Monbiot, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) reviewed an early draft of the NEF report. Another Green Blob-funded operation of course, mostly it seems through ClimateWorks. This large operation channels considerable flows of money from other billionaire foundations such as Hewlett and Packard. These two latter operations are also direct funders of ICCT. Flying less is obviously the most effective solution to cutting emissions, states Sola Zhang, described by Monbiot as an aviation “expert”. Another operation quoted by Monbiot, More in Common, found that rich people would be most affected by a frequent flyer levy because they fly more. Again such value, such insight – funders ECF, the George Soros Open Society Foundation and Hewlett must be very pleased.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“George Monbiot of the Guardian boasts of the report having been shared exclusively with his newspaper and writes that the €100 levy on both distance and class will rise with each trip.”
__________________________________________________________________________
“We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.
George Monbiot April 12, 2019 You Tube
Now that science has shown Net Zero to be ridiculously faulted, that not one single serious climate forecast has EVER materialised only capitalism has any chance of maintaining world travel and advancing the world’s economy.
If I want to fly my private jet from LA to Paris just for lunch, I should be allowed to do that.
Oh wait, that was Leonardo DiCaprio and or Kim Kardashian, Oprah, Justin Trudeau, etc.
How about we create a gross hypocrisy tax but make the first trip to the guillotine free?
live by the sword, die by the sword
How about throwing George Monbiot out of his Professorship at UCL if he ever drives a car again, flies again or travels more than once a year to his country pile in Somerset??
Eliminate private jets first. If that’s not done I don’t want to hear about limiting commercial air travel. In Colorado we have very short commercial flights such as from Denver to Aspen only 185 miles (300km). We also have buses that make the exact same trip in about four hours.
That’s the thing, the super-rich won’t care if they have to pay $1000 levy for each flight, to them that’s peanuts. For normal people of normal means, these levies are blatantly discriminatory. To stop the super-rich from flying, it has to be an imprisonable offence or a fine of 20%+ of their gross assets. If that is Jeff Bezos, you’re talking about a fine well north of $10bn.
Buses aren’t so wonderful in passenger miles per ton of CO2.
And the lowest emissions (rail lines) are expensive and real estate intensive.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311
Well to be accurate, there are only a few smaller airliner models that CAN actually land at Aspen. So folks traveling by air from large distances make a connection in Denver to board the planes that are capable of landing at Aspen. So your argument is not really valid. Most people visiting Aspen are not necessarily native to Denver…. And to make someone traveling from Miami or New York, or Memphis fly to Denver, in a few hours then board a bus for another 4 hours is just not going to work.
Not only is it the physical capability of the aircraft, but pilots need special training to be legal to fly into Aspen on commercial flights as it is quite tricky.
But I get your point, the climate catastrophe nutbars calling for reduction of air travel, must first punish bizjet use before assaulting the commercial air travel sector.
However not all bizjet owners are elite rich snobs. Check out this up front video of a successful small businessman, who was an F16 pilot and now flies his own small jet for both business and pleasure. He takes his family from Madison Wi to Aspen Co in the Premier 1A small jet. Takes 2 hours and 11 minutes and burns 2300 lbs of jet fuel, which is 343 gallons at roughly $5.50/gal so the 5 people had a fuel cost of $1,888 or $378 per person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AweWYD8e0BM&t=2040s (Aspen-Landing with all the Bells and Whistles going off!)
The landing starts at time 28:30, and you can see how tricky the approach and landing are as you can only use one direction for landing and must use the opposite direction for takeoff due to the terrain. But also take note as the plane is on short final, off to the left there are at least 65 business jets parked at Aspen in the fall, not during ski season….
Sola Zhang (last name Zheng) is an environmental activist from CHINA. Maybe she is helping the CCP to figure out how to use coal-fired trans-Atlantic air travel? No thanks.
Let’s be clear, the NEF has absolutely zero democratic mandate. Just because a few people get funded by a few others doesn’t mean that anything they say must be enacted in law. I propose that the UK population vote on the proposition that: ‘NEF officers and funders should set an example by desisting from flying in any aeroplanes whatsoever until 2030’.
There will be no levies on those that don’t vote for green nutters.
Just a ban punishable by 5 years in prison for those that wish to make everyone’s life miserable if they don’t become flying ascetics immediately.
No doubt there will be a special exemption for those enlightened souls who fly to the various COPs and other greenish conferences across the planet. 😉
commercial
Every day now, our enemies are showing their desires for our futures more and more plainly. They have come a long way since Maurice Strong said: “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
…but fortunately, so have we.
Every commentator on the green side (CO2 Bad!) has some idea of what needs to happen to prevent CO2-Caused Earth-Ending-Global-Warning. No such commentator I’ve seen presents numbers to tell us how much CO2 has to be reduced to prevent CO2-Caused Earth-Ending-Global-Warming. It’s a, “Keep reducing CO2 and we’ll tell you when to stop” game.
It’s a game where people boo and cheer, but no one keeps score.
I would support this. England seems to be a very appropriate place to do it as it has a lot of blob members who have been dying to show their chops. Go for it Albion – I’ll cheer you on (from the sidelines).
Perhaps have a levy on George Monbiot opening his mouth. That would bring in a lot of money. Why do these people think they have a right to rule the world?
Just outlaw frequent flyer points and air travel incentive programs. Bookings would drop 25% followed closely by a 25% drop air travel emissions. But hotel, hospitality, resorts of all kinds would tank. No politician will go there….
Massive Frequent Flyer Levies
Sorted
Apart from buying half a million pounds’ worth of new furniture, Guido can reveal that the UK’s tax overlords have been racking up an eye-watering bill on planes and taxis since the election.
https://order-order.com/2024/10/21/hmrc-spends-half-a-million-on-plane-travel-and-private-taxis-since-election/
And
Labour’s invented another cushy gig for the climate crew – introducing the new “Special Representative for Nature”. Ruth Davis has landed the role, supposedly to “raise global ambition on nature recovery.” She’ll be reporting to Environment Secretary Steve Reed, and passionate climate crusader David Lammy.
https://order-order.com/2024/10/21/government-hires-greenpeace-director-for-new-special-representative-for-nature-non-job/
Trebles all round
The Trouble with Tribbles is all they do is eat and make little Tribbles.
You don’t say…
Air travel will be getting more expensive soon as the EU mandate for using Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) begin to kick in. These mandates pushed by IATA (International Air Transit Authority) are designed to reduce GHG emissions from jet fuel use. However, the renewable fuels are at least 2X more expensive than conventional jet fuel but on reduce GHG emissions by anywhere from zero to 80% depending on what feedstocks are used. And currently, all SAF comes from agricultural crops (foods, actually) or waste cooking oil of questionable renewable qualities.
And more disturbing is the EU mandate for E-Fuels where “renewable excess” power is growing to up to 70% of all SAF by 2050. This will take all the power production of the EU to accomplish as E-Fuels are energy hogs. It simply takes a lot of energy to reduce CO2 back to hydrocarbons.
If the SAF floats due to chemical density, can the tanks be overfilled with a mix and the same SAF be reflown many times? I don’t know the answer I’m just profit maximizing.
I’m just profit maximizing.
Just the sort of person they hate.
IATA stands for the International Air Transport Association. It is a trade association that tries to promote the interests of the air travel industry not nutjob green blob insanity.
I respect freedom of speech, so we should let these idiots have their say. But when they are this stupid, they should be caned when they finish speaking. Every time.
“The fantasy plan calls for large European surcharges to be added to ticket prices for …”
brings back corporate jets on the 1980’s?
“It is hoped the surcharges will raise €64 billion, a sum said to be equivalent to 30% of the entire EU annual budget.” Wow? Hoped by who?
Eastern Europe has to be brought up to…
There is an aspect here that Monbiot et al seem to be unaware of (not surprisingly!)
Heathrow, for example, is the UK’s biggest ‘port’ by value with a network of over 218 destinations worldwide and handled around £203bn worth of goods in 2022, more than all other airports in the UK combined. In total it served over 218 destinations of which 112 were long haul.
£82bn of that trade was to and from non EU countries and 83% of the cargo was carried in the bellyhold of passenger aircraft.
Other airports in the UK carried around 28% of goods transported by air.
Major airports around the world are likely to be doing similar business.
If you cut flights you need to find other ways to move these large value volumes of goods around the world or you impoverish your and other countries populations.
The most concerning point is that not having a tax is equal to subsidy. Tax is theft, and there should be no tax on everything for starters. Then you could put a tax on things that target the more wealthy. But stop putting a tax on things we can’t live without. In the EU they think everything can be solved with adding more taxes. It’s insane how people accept taxes.
This is all you need to know about this nonsense.
“It is hoped the surcharges will raise €64 billion, a sum said to be equivalent to 30% of the entire EU annual budget.”
This is purely a money raising ploy and again it goes without saying that giving more money to government never solved a damn thing.
I have an alternate plan. Surcharges should be required but only for those preaching the CAGW sermon. Those of us who reject CAGW will not be charged a surcharge. For the believers the first flight will be the same as for the nonbelievers. The second flight will be twice that amount, the third three times the price and so on. The other difference with my plan is the collected surcharges will not go to any government rather it will be applied to the nonbelievers ticket price. Flying will become much cheaper for us. It’s a win win.
I wonder how many green blobbers would quietly accept these surtaxes or higher prices on their own airline tickets. After all, wouldn’t this impede their regular trips to these non-productive conferences like COP where they rail against other people’s fossil fuel use but have no intention of reducing their own, especially when their trips are usually government-funded.
Ban labradors first!
One labrador in its lifetime will have a carbon footprint equal to two Toyota Landcruisers in their lifetime
To say nothing of the methane!
first do private jets and yachts