TAKE ACTION
Recent entries
- Do you want to make cars less polluting? Now's your chance
- Coal: the Kingsnorth Six on trial
- More cracks appearing in nuclear waste plans
- Carrotmob - organising consumers for good
- Best Green Blogs 2008
- Wall-E + Kleenex = Iron-E
- Star Wars starting wars again...
- Deep Green: The dispossessed of Diego Garcia
- John West - still in denial?
- Sticky, noisy and remarkable: working in the Amazon jungle
'Divided consumer attitudes' to climate change mirrored by government
Posted by jossc on 18 January 2008.
Earlier this week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) released a report identifying things the public should be doing to limit climate change. Third on the list is to "avoid unnecessary short-haul flights". Apparently we find this hard to do because of "divided consumer attitudes" - ie, we want to have our cake and eat it.
Perhaps before they start lecturing us on how to behave, though, they might consider making a start slightly closer to home. Round the corner at the Department for Transport (DfT) might be a good place to start, since their colleagues are busy making it easier for people to fly short-haul, by trying to build a third, short-haul runway at Heathrow.
If the DfT were to read the report they'd discover that Defra's attitude is the complete opposite of their own. For example, "government needs to lead by example, and to be more visible on climate change," as well as to "remove the most unsustainable products and services from the market place". So it's not just the poor old consumers who are suffering from 'divided attitudes'. Hurrah, the government is on our wavelength, after all.
Whether the mess of contradictions can be put down to cock-up or conspiracy I really don't know, but for an administration that came to power promising "joined-up" government it certainly doesn't look good. Still they've only had just over a decade at it, and Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say...
Divided consumer atitudes
The debate regarding flights of any sort and whether we should be taking them always skirts round the issues that affect us - the people that take them. When discussed either in government breifings or by campaign groups the real and essential essence of what we are being asked to do by reducing our flights is never discussed - and why?
All parties are carfully treading around the delicate issue of asking us not to take a holliday outside the UK. For many of us in the UK this would cause outrage. With only 26 days paid leave per year the highlight is often travel to a place that is less dismall in the summer than the UK (and I give everyone the summer of '07 as the example) to relax and enjoy other cultures. The public wont react well to being told going on holliday is wrong - this is why it is never mentioned. So why not stop critising a failure of leadership and policy from the government and try to tackle the less sexy but far more polluting issue of poor insulation in housing - after all this is potentialy the biggest win to be had in terms of energy conservation, stop our decrepit housing stock bleeding heat in winter. Insulate now!
The true cost of flying
The real focus of this debate is not whether you take one two week holiday each year and travel by plane to get there, but whether you are also taking five or six long week-ends a year to different European destinations - if you are, chances are it's because the flights cost so little that you can't resist the temptation.
The proposed new runway at Heathrow will permit around 900 extra flights a day (a 70% growth in traffic) - well over half of this will be short-haul low cost. Air travel represents a fairly small percentage of our CO2 emissions at present (13 per cent of the UK's climate impact acording to the government), but is undergoing dramatic growth. If unchecked, it will account for 90% of our CO2 emissions by 2050, meaning that any other energy conservation measures we take (like insulating our houses) would be rendered useless.
The government is trying to tell us that it is sincere about tackling climate change, but their refusal to take any action to limit aviation expansion (VAT and fuel tax on kerosene, for example) shows that they are not serious.
Cheap flights are a recent innovation made possible by collusion between the aviation industry and the government. They are NOT a basic human right, they are a luxury. To put it into context, the only other things which are VAT-exempt are
food and children's clothing. If we had to start paying the true cost of each flight, we'd be doing a lot less of it, I reckon.
The true cost of flying
Jossc - a fair and well weighted response. Though it seems from your numbers that flights will have to do alot of work to outweigh the gains to be made by insulation. By my rudimentry maths i make it forty two years. There is a fair bit of fashion, innovation and peak oil to go through by that time so it doesnt really lend to the debate to quote that statistic now. If progress is to be made what is needed is to imbue a sense of obligation and responsibility to individuals to regulate themselves as to what travel CO2 they emit as direction and leadership from the government will never happen. Why would it? If it annoys the voters as it will increase the cost of travel leisure and recreation it would be political suicide. The place to make progress is to subsidise insulation through grants to poor quality housing saving both energy and the feul bills of those who can less afford it. This would be a positive platform to campaign on - a win win, rather than something people generally like doing - travelling. At the moment flights are only 5% of the co2 problem. It will get bigger as you rightly say but 5% just isnt eye catching statistic as a headline and can be seen as exageration of the issue re flights. The question of what is the other 95% produced by is the first question most people will ask. Is it conceivable that in his current situation that either grumpy gordon or alas dear Darling will have the won tons to impose such a change. If you were them would you?