But look at the other side, thank god, we do live in a Democratic state, where this is possible. Yes they should be locked up, as they are trying to get rid of the things we love, but they have a right to raise their voice, in where a number of people around the world do not 🙂
In a democratic society, the minority have to accept the position of the majority. Of course it means that we can all voice opinions, but it also means that the minority cannot (or should not be able to) force their opinions on the majority – in the case at EMA a few weeks ago, a few mindless souls should not be allowed to disrupt the travel of thousands. And if the majority want more and more flights, then the minority are obligated to accept that whilst they campaign for their view and seek to try to influence more people to join their cause.
Their concepts are fundamentally flawed anyway – the only things that is “plane stupid” are the people involved in the campaign. Cheap flights have not come about deliberately to damage the environment – even the low fare carriers make money, and that’s known as capitalism (something else the democratic UK has decided it is in favour of). Cheap fares have come about because the airline industry has driven down costs and continuously increased its efficiciency (including engine efficiency) – just think of how much more environmentally damaging flying would be if we still all flew around in first generation jets like 707s and DC-8s.
Taxing aviation probably isn’t the answer either (as tax usually just goes into government coffers and serves no purpose related to the source from which it is collected), unless the tax is ring-fenced and used to develop even more efficient and cleaner technology for airlines to use – if that condition is met, then I think taxation would be useful. BUT, if you reduce the amount of flying being done, then less money is generated, and less money is available to invest in new cleaner technology. And aviation fuel taxation in the UK, for example, would do more harm as airlines would tanker more fuel which would actually increase emissions as a result of aeroplanes carting un-needed fuel around. This is not a UK solution either – it is a global solution that requires consistant application across the globe. Aviation isn’t a UK thing, its a global thing, and polution and global warming won’t hold short of the UK just because the UK is doing things that are better for the environment than anyone else.
In any case, aviation is only a minor contributor to global polution. The biggest poluter in western europe is the power generation industry, as it is primarily driven by fosil fuels. The same mindless people who want flights to be cut back also do not want nuclear power stations (which would have a significant impact on reducing emissions), nor do they want wind farms because they’d spoil the view and/or a few birds might fly into the windmills and die as a result. Ahh, how sad – I guess a few birds crashing into windmills is more important then? Or I guess we all go back to caves.
Global warming needs a coordinated effort that INVESTS in new technology to reduce aviation, other transportation AND power generation emissions (amongst others). Until this happens, the environmentalists might as well just stand there picking their noses for what good they’re going to do.
Andy
Sign In
