Climatists believe that people have been flying around too much for the good of the planet.
Climatists believe that people have been flying around too much for the good of the planet, and so this piece of news out of Germany was no great surprise.
Lufthansa will add an environmental charge of up to 72 euros ($77) to its fares, the airline group said on Tuesday, joining at least one European rival in doing so as the industry battles to cover the cost of new EU rules on reducing emissions.
Airlines have warned for years that regulations requiring them to use more expensive sustainable jet fuel could drive up costs.
And nor was this, via Politico (April 2024):
The U.K. government has opened the door to new green taxes on airline passengers, just five months after playing down the idea.
If the aviation sector “is not meeting the emissions reductions trajectory” required to bring down pollution, ministers will “consider what further measures may be needed to ensure that the sector maximizes in-sector reductions to meet the U.K.’s overall 2050 net zero target,” the government told MPs in a letter Wednesday.
More of this to come.
For reasons better explained by certain religious traditions and/or psychology, much of current climate policy can be understood both as a form of punishment and for the opportunity it gives for those who administer it for control. Thus, merely increasing the cost of flights was never going to be enough (besides, “the rich” might bypass it). And so prohibition has already begun:
France has banned domestic short-haul flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to cut carbon emissions.
The law came into force two years after lawmakers had voted to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The ban all but rules out air travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux, while connecting flights are unaffected.
Critics have described the latest measures as “symbolic bans”.
Laurent Donceel, interim head of industry group Airlines for Europe (A4E), told the AFP news agency that “banning these trips will only have minimal effects” on CO2 output.
Spain is banning some short-haul domestic flights as part of its plan to reduce carbon emissions.
Flights with a rail alternative that takes less than two and a half hours will no longer be allowed, “except in cases of connection with hub airports that link with international routes”.
The restriction is part of an agreement made in Congress by Spain’s coalition government. The country has been considering a ban since 2021 as part of its 2050 climate action plan.
More such bans to come.
Speaking as someone who took a round trip by train between Washington, D.C., and New York City this week, I generally prefer (if timing works) to take a train rather than a short flight, but that’s my choice. And consumer choice, like, to no small extent, consumption itself, doesn’t fit in too well with net zero. Nor, for that matter, does too much mobility. Stick to your 15-minute city and be happy!
The attacks on short-haul flights in Europe, I suspect, also owe something to the distaste felt by those in the (generally better-off) administrative and virtue-signaling classes at the spectacle of the wrong sort of people crowding airports and, worse still, vacation spots they would rather keep for themselves.
I doubt if rail unions will be complaining either.