via FCRN:
Research carried out at Loughborough University that found most people would rather try to cut energy use in their homes than give up air travel. In fact, less than one in five people are prepared to fly less to reduce their carbon footprint and that people are flying further and more frequently than ever... The research also found that increasing the cost of flying by a small margin is not enough to deter people from flying. It would take a 50% increase in the cost of a ticket to discourage most people. However, a greater number of people than ever before do believe that there should be some increase in air fares to compensate for the impact of aviation on the environment.Read more on the project or this news report.
Bottom Line: We will only lower our carbon footprint by lowering our standard of living. (If we could do it "for free," we would have done already.)
5 comments:
For a long time, I knew the cost in carbon emissions was horrendous, but I thought that buying offsets made my flying okay. Then I saw a live map of the US which shows all the planes in the air at any given moment. It changed the way I felt about flying. Since then, I have cut my flying significantly, but it means I now get to see people I love dearly who live far away only once or twice a year.
Few people are going to give up flying until forced to do so, so the next question is, how can we develop safe, fast travel that has low impact on the environment?
Are bullet trains the answer? The harm to corridor habitat suggests not, and there's still the issue of fuel and emissions.
Would love to see other's thoughts on this matter.
I applaud the framing of the issue in your bottom line. This is what we need to focus on. There is no free lunch.
The weird thing is it's the _skeptics_ (such as myself) who more universally accept this framing. They want to see pretty strong evidence that making themselves worse off now will pay off in the future.
Proponents are actually in three camps:
- Those for whom a lower standard of living actually has positive utility because of their notions of what is "natural".
- Those who don't acknowledge the cost. They want to _signal_ being green without it really impacting them. So they'll believe some pretty strange things about how easy solving the problem will be.
- Those who acknowledge the cost and rationally believe that the benefits outweigh it.
As a skeptic, I want to hash things out with the last group but find myself gritting my teeth as the first two jump in and thrash around.
I don't believe that research. If airlines could charge more, they would, right?
The PE of Demand on air travel may be high because of a serious lack of substitutes, but the oligarchical nature of the air market leads me to believe that they are pretty close to their profit maximization.
I think research like this creates the illusion that scarcity doesn't work. I've heard the same argument about the price of gasoline, and then watched GM, Chrysler and Ford writhe in agony when the price on a barrel of crude went up.
@Kevin -- yes, totally agree on your points.
@Josh -- yes, BUT. Airlines compete prices down (supply). The study was about how customers would behave with different prices (demand). So the study is probably fine, but it *was* a survey...
David, with such an oligopoly, do they compete prices down, or do they collude (not even in the legal sense, but you catch my drift) prices closer to profit maximization?
If it is the former, then okay. But, if it is the latter, then I'd think they are pretty close to where consumers would begin pushing for alternatives.
I do understand your clarification, though.
Post a Comment