As I write, the airline Flybe, which is one of the few carriers still to run a number of British internal flights, is on the verge of going into administration. Now, this is not normally the sort of story which crosses the Coastalblog radar. "Business finds trading environment harsh" is a familiar story, and whilst each one comes with a backstory of actual people losing actual jobs it's hard to pick one from the other.
The main reason that the Flybe story piqued my interest wasn't the story itself, but the reporting around it. In short: the airline may be about to close and is blaming the high rates of duty for making it unprofitable. Cue numerous discussions about whether or not this duty is fair, analysis of the wider implications, bemoaning of the state of the domestic aviation industry. Much of which seemed to me to be largely missing the point.
I'm going to tread carefully here. As a Cornishman, I'm acutely aware of how cut off the county is from the rest of the country, and how impossible to navigate unless you have a car, so I'm loth to criticise an airline which is one of the few reliable routes into the county. I'm also acutely aware that at least 2000 jobs are dependent upon the airline, plus the wider implication for the tourist industry. But the point I'd like to make, which, to my astonishment, has been entirely ignored in all the reporting surrounding this story, is this, rather than cutting duty, making flights cheaper, Flybe should raise its prices if it can't balance the books.
Because I'm afraid that it really should be expensive to fly on planes. You shouldn't fly on planes unless you have to. Flying on planes is an incredibly bad thing to do for the environment. If you do have to then yes, it should cost a lot of money. It should be a mode of transport of last resort. If you have the sort of job that requires you to fly, then it's a reasonable bet that you've got the sort of job which pays you enough to do so. No one has a right to take a flight, the advent of cheap flights has been one of the biggest drivers of anthropogenic climate change, and we are seeing the consequences now, today, as I sit and type this.
This story is developing on the same day that we learn that the oceans are heating faster than ever before, that the last ten years have been the ten hottest on record. Dry areas are getting drier. Wet areas are getting wetter. Storms are becoming more frequent and more violent, but instead of recognising them as what they are: events intensified by the effects of climate breakdowns, we give them names. This should be the caveat inserted before discussion of any story of its type, or else it is missing the point. The environmental impact of actions is still being wilfully ignored, we speak of trying to avert climate breakdown, when climate breakdown is already here.
Witness the head-in-the-sand response of Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to the unprecedented ferocity of the bushfires which have devastated his country. Witness talk of future trade deals with the US focusing on the impact on agriculture, rather than agriculture's impact upon the world. In order to effectively combat climate change, debates like this need reframing. Environmental concerns are not a fringe interest any more, they are a matter of life and death. We urgently need to remove fossil fuels from the energy mix, we urgently need to eat less meat and dairy, we urgently need to fly and drive much, much less, we urgently need to fight to throw this situation into reverse, this is not a matter for debate any more.
Now, there's a class argument against this which I have some sympathy, making flying more expensive makes it more exclusive. Likewise, meat raised in a sustainable way is more expensive. By aggressively pursuing policies designed to arrest climate change, you risk pricing vast swathes of the population out of what they have come to regard as the base level of what life should be. There aren't any easy answers to this one other than to say that what we accept as a normal life needs reframing. It shouldn't be normal to jet off for three or four holidays a year. It shouldn't be normal to eat intensively farmed meat on a daily basis. It shouldn't be normal to sit outside the school gates with the engine running.
And so, the argument about whether or not the Government should intervene buy cutting duty on Flybe's internal flights does seem to me to be missing the point entirely. Flying should be expensive, because it's costing us the Earth.
The main reason that the Flybe story piqued my interest wasn't the story itself, but the reporting around it. In short: the airline may be about to close and is blaming the high rates of duty for making it unprofitable. Cue numerous discussions about whether or not this duty is fair, analysis of the wider implications, bemoaning of the state of the domestic aviation industry. Much of which seemed to me to be largely missing the point.
I'm going to tread carefully here. As a Cornishman, I'm acutely aware of how cut off the county is from the rest of the country, and how impossible to navigate unless you have a car, so I'm loth to criticise an airline which is one of the few reliable routes into the county. I'm also acutely aware that at least 2000 jobs are dependent upon the airline, plus the wider implication for the tourist industry. But the point I'd like to make, which, to my astonishment, has been entirely ignored in all the reporting surrounding this story, is this, rather than cutting duty, making flights cheaper, Flybe should raise its prices if it can't balance the books.
Because I'm afraid that it really should be expensive to fly on planes. You shouldn't fly on planes unless you have to. Flying on planes is an incredibly bad thing to do for the environment. If you do have to then yes, it should cost a lot of money. It should be a mode of transport of last resort. If you have the sort of job that requires you to fly, then it's a reasonable bet that you've got the sort of job which pays you enough to do so. No one has a right to take a flight, the advent of cheap flights has been one of the biggest drivers of anthropogenic climate change, and we are seeing the consequences now, today, as I sit and type this.
This story is developing on the same day that we learn that the oceans are heating faster than ever before, that the last ten years have been the ten hottest on record. Dry areas are getting drier. Wet areas are getting wetter. Storms are becoming more frequent and more violent, but instead of recognising them as what they are: events intensified by the effects of climate breakdowns, we give them names. This should be the caveat inserted before discussion of any story of its type, or else it is missing the point. The environmental impact of actions is still being wilfully ignored, we speak of trying to avert climate breakdown, when climate breakdown is already here.
Witness the head-in-the-sand response of Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to the unprecedented ferocity of the bushfires which have devastated his country. Witness talk of future trade deals with the US focusing on the impact on agriculture, rather than agriculture's impact upon the world. In order to effectively combat climate change, debates like this need reframing. Environmental concerns are not a fringe interest any more, they are a matter of life and death. We urgently need to remove fossil fuels from the energy mix, we urgently need to eat less meat and dairy, we urgently need to fly and drive much, much less, we urgently need to fight to throw this situation into reverse, this is not a matter for debate any more.
Now, there's a class argument against this which I have some sympathy, making flying more expensive makes it more exclusive. Likewise, meat raised in a sustainable way is more expensive. By aggressively pursuing policies designed to arrest climate change, you risk pricing vast swathes of the population out of what they have come to regard as the base level of what life should be. There aren't any easy answers to this one other than to say that what we accept as a normal life needs reframing. It shouldn't be normal to jet off for three or four holidays a year. It shouldn't be normal to eat intensively farmed meat on a daily basis. It shouldn't be normal to sit outside the school gates with the engine running.
And so, the argument about whether or not the Government should intervene buy cutting duty on Flybe's internal flights does seem to me to be missing the point entirely. Flying should be expensive, because it's costing us the Earth.
Watch people drive from Southampton to Heathrow, park up and fly to Scotland from there because its cheaper.
ReplyDeletePeople already do this, and it can't be good for the carbon footprint.
The dash 8 is a relatively low emission aircraft