“Sir David told MPs that everyone would have to play their part in the battle against climate change, and this would involve some tough decisions. He criticised airfares as too cheap, and said that these should rise to discourage flying.“

I can see the logic but I’m not sure it’s the right approach, to penalise those that might be less able to afford air travel, should prices be hiked.

Quite how doable it is from a technology perspective, I don’t know, but wouldn’t pressure be better applied to the aeroplane manufacturers, to develop more efficient or even carbon neutral aircraft?

I’m all for addressing climate issues but is disenfranchising people really the right approach? I wonder how far off, as an example, a hydrogen powered, commercial plane might be.

He’s probably clocked up more air miles than most so it’s a bit rich coming from him now he’s seen the world 5x over

That’s partly tongue in cheek

Celebrity Environmentalists rely on Jet Travel to get around the world lecturing people

I heard that he canoes

I think you're right in that the airlines should be encouraged to do more to reduce their carbon footprint.

randomclaret2 wrote:Celebrity Environmentalists rely on Jet Travel to get around the world lecturing people

I've been waiting a long time for Al Gore to move out of his multiple mansions and stop taking private jets all over the world. I don't think that will ever happen.

I agree that airfares are too cheap. Thing is we've all got used and to and almost see it as a right now to be able to jet off to Europe for a weekend away on the cheap.

I turn off when I read or see wealthy and privileged individuals telling us not to do the very same things that they have done or are doing.

It's like the multi millionaires Bono and Geldoff, pleading for the average person to give whatever they can to help solve starving across the world....

Kind of ironic when they probably have a combined worth of over 100m.

randomclaret2 wrote:Celebrity Environmentalists rely on Jet Travel to get around the world lecturing people

true, always the patronising and extremely rich lecturing the plebs on how to behave.

Aye, at least blokes like Farage and Robinson are honest. They're happy to feather their own nests at other people's expense...........

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I think you're right in that the airlines should be encouraged to do more to reduce their carbon footprint.

Yes then prices would hmm Rocket!!!

evensteadiereddie wrote:Aye, at least blokes like Farage and Robinson are honest. They're happy to feather their own nests at other people's expense...........

Why bring those couple of bellends into this? There's enough hypocrisy when it comes to those who say "do as I say, not as I do" without turning this into another Farage/Robinson thread.

evensteadiereddie wrote:Aye, at least blokes like Farage and Robinson are honest. They're happy to feather their own nests at other people's expense...........

Only on'es are they? Not like the sanctimoious Queen of Primrose Hill then dear Emma.

It may seem hypocritical but the work he has done flying around the world raising awareness about plastic in the ocean and other environmental issues, I’m guessing has offset his carbon footprint? I doubt he’d of had the same impact sat In a tv studio.

If raising the cost of flights means some people have to go on holiday in the uk rather than Spain or wherever than I’m all for it.

Stayingup wrote:Only on'es are they? Not like the sanctimoious Queen of Primrose Hill then dear Emma.

So I presume you can provide evidence of Emma Thompson "feathering her own nest at other people's expense" due to her campaigning and charity work?
She's not like Farage and Robinson at all, even if you happen to totally disagree with her views and actions.

Many of the younger generation will have to miss out on gap years flying off to Australia and New Zealand and travelling the globe if they are really serious about climate change.

Whilst those on lower or average incomes will have to miss out on their foreign holidays the wealthiest in society will still be able to afford foreign travel. The cost of "saving the planet" was always going to be borne by the less well off.

I disagree with putting pricing up so only the well off can travel. The aircraft manufacturers have been working at improving efficiency.

But let’s not focus on one aspect of climate change.

We all need to change. We can buy lower emission, more efficient cars. We can drive fewer miles. We can plant our gardens to feed bees and insects. And we can reduce our household waste.

If millions or even billions of individuals make personal changes, the effect will be substantial. If industry and businesses follow, we might just begin to make a difference.

What does worry me is population growth. 7.7billion people now but an additional 4billion by the end of the century. All needing food, power and transportation.

SirAlec wrote:If raising the cost of flights means some people have to go on holiday in the uk rather than Spain or wherever than I’m all for it.

If that happened - then many holidays abroad would be the sole privilege of the upper-middle classes. I wouldn't like to be the politician who turned round to hard working people and said 'sorry, but it's Blackpool for you because we have to cutback our carbon footprint' while high earners fly off to warmer climes.

He ought to encourage scientists, airlines and governments to develop eco fuel for planes possibly even electric. I remember a few years ago Virgin trialed a fuel based on some recycled agricultural waste.

He's probably right that we all need to fly less. Like others I'm not sure I agree that pricing some people out of it is the right was to achieve that though.

Maybe a better approach would be a system where all of our air miles are clocked and there is a limit per individual, probably with exceptions for some circumstances. I'm sure any system would be controversial and probably open to creation & exploitation of loopholes but it would seem like a fairer starting point than allowing richer people to just buy their way out of responsibility for tackling climate change.

There has to be a way of democratising this. A system of negative air miles, for example. The more and the further you fly, the more you pay (though I think we should also penalise short domestic flights). This way people who fly to Spain once.a year will pay standard fares, whereas those who fly more often pay many times more. This would have to be separated from work travel.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this very issue last week. What I thought was instead of raising airfares why not allow each person a certain number of air miles per year. These could then be sold to people who want to fly more or have to for work reasons. That would reduce the amount of flights, if the allocation is low enough, and at the same time bring about some much needed redistribution of wealth.

Billy Balfour wrote:If that happened - then many holidays abroad would be the sole privilege of the upper-middle classes. I wouldn't like to be the politician who turned round to hard working people and said 'sorry, but it's Blackpool for you because we have to cutback our carbon footprint' while high earners fly off to warmer climes.

I flew to Iceland last tour for £38, that’s ******* ridiculous. My old man flew from Dublin to Leeds this week for €3 yes €3!!! I’m not saying quadruple the costs of flights but something needs to be done

Capping people's air miles is an idea that wouldn't get off the ground.

SirAlec wrote:I flew to Iceland last tour for £38, that’s ******* ridiculous. My old man flew from Dublin to Leeds this week for €3 yes €3!!! I’m not saying quadruple the costs of flights but something needs to be done

Yet if you flew from London to Glasgow it would cost more than either of those flights..

The fact that flights are very often cheaper than trains suggests that something is screwed up somewhere.

DCWat wrote:“Sir David told MPs that everyone would have to play their part in the battle against climate change, and this would involve some tough decisions. He criticised airfares as too cheap, and said that these should rise to discourage flying.“

I can see the logic but I’m not sure it’s the right approach, to penalise those that might be less able to afford air travel, should prices be hiked.

Quite how doable it is from a technology perspective, I don’t know, but wouldn’t pressure be better applied to the aeroplane manufacturers, to develop more efficient or even carbon neutral aircraft?

I’m all for addressing climate issues but is disenfranchising people really the right approach? I wonder how far off, as an example, a hydrogen powered, commercial plane might be.

When 9/11 happened and a significant amount of aircraft were grounded the average air temperature increased.

I agree ground them all, drown a few billion people, we are ok in Burnley. To high for global warming seas to reach.

Those flights were cheap because others paid more.

jrgbfc wrote:I agree that airfares are too cheap.

Maybe. But public transport is in general, slower, more expensive, less reliable, and less comfortable and convenient than owning and running a car. So I'd start with sorting that out. And I don't mean making cars more expensive...

Population control.

Cars are far more damaging than planes, in every single regard. Limit cars to one per household, or charge double tax for each car after the first registered to that home or something. It won't ever happen because it's a massive industry and it's much easier to stop the Smiths from Burnley going to Tenerife once a year than it is for Dr Double Barrelled Name from Brighton and their sons and daughters to have Land Rover each.

The general public should not be punished wanting a annual holiday or exploring the world.

What we need to cut down on is business people taking an 8 hour flight to sit in a meeting for an hour, sign a document then go home on the 8 hour return flight the same day.

Heavy, heavy taxes on private charter planes which create a whole new flight just because the person looks down on sitting in first class or won't add an hour or two to their schedule to take an already running commercial flight.

Low cost airlines actually have the lowest carbon footprint of all airlines as they push airline manufactures to produce planes that burn less fuel and they now have lighter seats and do away with other no essentials meaning lower fuel burn, lower cost to the airline and a lower carbon footprint.
Making flights exclusively for the rich again will stop that push for aircraft that use less fuel and as well will kill economies that relay on business and tourism from air travel. I think if the UK wants to reduce its carbon footprint it needs to be looking closer to the ground. And with places like China at it large what is the real point anyway? Any saving is dwarfed by other countries actions. These celebrities keep saying that we can save the planet if everyone in the uk turns off their plugs at night but really it doesn’t scratch the surface does it. Why don’t they ever go to places like China and get them to act?

CombatClaret wrote:The general public should not be punished wanting a annual holiday or exploring the world.

What we need to cut down on is business people taking an 8 hour flight to sit in a meeting for an hour, sign a document then go home on the 8 hour return flight the same day.

Heavy, heavy taxes on private charter planes which create a whole new flight just because the person looks down on sitting in first class or won't add an hour or two to their schedule to take an already running commercial flight.

There is so much needless air travel. Is it really necessary for people to fly to Europe for stag/hen do's?

jrgbfc wrote:There is so much needless air travel. Is it really necessary for people to fly to Europe for stag/hen do's?

What is deemed as 'needless'... Your opinion on a messageboard?

If Jurassic park is anything to go by then no.

duncandisorderly wrote:Cars are far more damaging than planes, in every single regard. Limit cars to one per household, or charge double tax for each car after the first registered to that home or something. It won't ever happen because it's a massive industry and it's much easier to stop the Smiths from Burnley going to Tenerife once a year than it is for Dr Double Barrelled Name from Brighton and their sons and daughters to have Land Rover each.

Really, based on miles travelled they pollute less per person.

You could ban air travel, destroy a massive part of Burnley industry.

What about make all new houses have 5kw solar on the roof, designers would organise new estates would be designed to harness renewable energy.

Think outside the box to make a difference, not within it.

Laughing is right, it would be like a return to the early 70's when someone who flew to Torremolinos was considered affluent. And posh.

The ones who can afford will continue whatever.

jrgbfc wrote:There is so much needless air travel. Is it really necessary for people to fly to Europe for stag/hen do's?

Again this falls into quite niche travel, how many people are attending multiple foreign stag do's every year, it's a lads holiday and fairly rare.

Meanwhile there are countless business people racking up hundreds of thousands of air miles per year just to look people in the eye when they talk to them. Not to mention charter flights.

Too many people, too little trees.

Stop clearing the rain forest, the amount of people creates this demand for extra deforestation & more resources being used.

In the present day, imo anything over two kids is extremely unethical.

Billy Balfour wrote:Why bring those couple of bellends into this? There's enough hypocrisy when it comes to those who say "do as I say, not as I do" without turning this into another Farage/Robinson thread.

Nobody's turned it into a Farage/Robinson thread. We're discussing blatant hypocrisy and deceit - or at least the OP and several others seem to think we are.
You might support these "bellends", a few of your "likes" certainly do, you might not.
FWIW, I think Attenborough's good deeds far outweigh a few airline flights that he might or might not make.

I'd love a Tesla but they're do damned expensive.

Bonkers absolute bonkers. Like all the other Hippy, dippy ideas people like him have. Higher air fares will hit the poorest or is it that only the rich and privileged can be allowed to fly because their carbon footprint is somehow special or exempt. Of course never mind the number of workers who will be laid off at airports, airlines, travel companies etc. Never mind that if a fewer number of people fly the number of planes flying in the air will probably remain constant because planes fly all over the world even when they are not full so they doesn't exactly help either. It won't matter to Attenborough if less planes are built meaning more laid off workers again because in his universe he thinks somehow China and India polluting the planet will be offset by people paying a 5p tax on plastic bottles. Pathetic.

Well if his idea is bonkers and pathetic, what is the alternative? To do nothing could also be seen as rather bonkers given the consequences for the world we live in.

LaLigaClaret wrote:Bonkers absolute bonkers. Like all the other Hippy, dippy ideas people like him have. Higher air fares will hit the poorest or is it that only the rich and privileged can be allowed to fly because their carbon footprint is somehow special or exempt.

Many people here are saying exactly that the rich and privileged should take more of the financial burden which can then be spent on offset.

LaLigaClaret wrote: Of course never mind the number of workers who will be laid off at airports, airlines, travel companies etc.

Yes maybe the poorest will be hit in ways, coal is a among the worst polluters as a power source but no one is arguing we should not ween ourselves off coal power to protect the coal miners.

LaLigaClaret wrote: China and India polluting the planet

Whataboutery, why not lead the way in climate change and convince other to do the same through our own actions. Surely there is a lot of money in creating clean tech which can be sold to these countries. We're only on the moral high ground because we had our dirty industrial revolution earlier than everyone else.

Erasmus wrote:Well if his idea is bonkers and pathetic, what is the alternative? To do nothing could also be seen as rather bonkers given the consequences for the world we live in.

I'm not advocating doing nothing but I am opposed to knee jerk ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny.

AndrewJB wrote:There has to be a way of democratising this. A system of negative air miles, for example. The more and the further you fly, the more you pay (though I think we should also penalise short domestic flights). This way people who fly to Spain once.a year will pay standard fares, whereas those who fly more often pay many times more. This would have to be separated from work travel.

Erasmus wrote:Funnily enough, I was thinking about this very issue last week. What I thought was instead of raising airfares why not allow each person a certain number of air miles per year. These could then be sold to people who want to fly more or have to for work reasons. That would reduce the amount of flights, if the allocation is low enough, and at the same time bring about some much needed redistribution of wealth.

duncandisorderly wrote:Cars are far more damaging than planes, in every single regard. Limit cars to one per household, or charge double tax for each car after the first registered to that home or something. It won't ever happen because it's a massive industry and it's much easier to stop the Smiths from Burnley going to Tenerife once a year than it is for Dr Double Barrelled Name from Brighton and their sons and daughters to have Land Rover each.

Ah, rationing. At last. So I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks the answer to environmental disintegration has to involve rationing.

(We shouldn't be afraid to call it that either. There's nothing wrong with rationing.)

CombatClaret wrote:Many people here are saying exactly that the rich and privileged should take more of the financial burden which can then be spent on offset.



Yes maybe the poorest will be hit in ways, coal is a among the worst polluters as a power source but no one is arguing we should not ween ourselves off coal power to protect the coal miners.


Whataboutery, why not lead the way in climate change and convince other to do the same through our own actions. Surely there is a lot of money in creating clean tech which can be sold to these countries. We're only on the moral high ground because we had our dirty industrial revolution earlier than everyone else.

The biggest polluters happen to use and produce the most coal in the world. Putting a mean spirited tax that hits the poorest in the UK is not the answer.

Ban all domestic flights of less than 60 minutes flight time. Catch the train instead.