Editorial: Europe Planes' Green Meanies
By Perry Flint, Air Transport World | Aug. 28, 2006
Don't look now, but among Europe's political elites a consensus appears to be developing that in terms of the amount of harm they inflict upon the human race, airlines are on a par with tobacco companies and purveyors of illegal drugs.
If this kind of thinking is not reversed, airplanes in Europe may be required one day to carry a warning label on their fuselages: "Warning: Air travel is hazardous to your health."
Exaggeration? We think not. Consider as Exhibit A the contents of a recent report from the Environ-mental Audit Committee of the UK Parliament entitled "Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport." In it, the committee calls upon the Blair government to "construct a new approach to aviation which constrains its future growth" and urges it to adopt a punitive tax policy in order to achieve the desired result.
Adding insult to injury, it even suggests that the monies raised from the new levies intended to throttle air travel could go "toward investment in high-speed rail links," which as every green-thinking European politician knows don't despoil the landscape, don't make noise, don't harm animals and birds and don't derive their energy from fossil fuels. What makes this proposal even more of a howler is that aviation arguably already subsidizes other forms of fossil-fuel-based transport that are far less efficient.
As the Air Transport Action Group has noted, UK aviation not only pays for all its own infrastructure costs but also makes a net payment to the treasury of E11 per thousand RPKs while the rail sector receives E35 per 1,000 passenger km. from the public pocketbook. Conversely, using that money to improve the airways rather than tearing up more countryside in Europe could reduce airline fuel burn by up to 12%, cutting CO2 emissions by 1 million tons annually.
To give the full flavor of the EAC report, we would like to submit the following passages into evidence as well: "The Government should study how best to raise public awareness of the climate change impacts of flying, and of the undesirabilityand ultimately impossibilityof ongoing increases in flights within a declining carbon budget [emphasis supplied]. As part of this, the [Transport Dept.] should force airlines which operate services from and within the UK prominently to displayon all their adverts, tickets, and web pagesa fuel efficiency label, similar to that for new cars, based on the average fuel efficiency of their entire fleet which flies out of UK airports . . . It is scandalous that governments around the world have failed to grasp the nettle of taxing aviation fuel. It is equally scandalous that no Member State within the EU charges VAT on international air tickets. While this would require co-ordination across the EU, individual States are free to impose VAT on domestic tickets."
Were these the idle musings of a member of Europe's Green Party, we could relax in the knowledge that it would take at least a few more years for them to be accepted in the mainstream of environmental thought. Alas, these are the policy recommendations of an ostensibly responsible part of the UK government and the composition of the EAC appears to be a representative cross-section of UK political viewpoints.
We admit to taking a certain pleasure in watching politicians, King Canute-like, trying to hold back the rising tide of air travel, which itself is of course both a sign of and a contributor to the economic expansion the EU requires. However, if the ideas mooted by the UK committee catch on, airlines there are fast approaching the day when their wings are clippedeven as competitors in Asia, India and the Middle East are set loose by governments that recognize the value of the airline industry to trade and tourism.
Perhaps, since logic has failed, airlines should consider a new strategy. We would suggest that given politicians' infatuation with mass transit (for everyone else of course), airlines point out what should be obvious to all: Air travel is mass transportation and has been for some time. Indeed, it fits all the criteria: It is usually crowded and delays are not uncommon, it takes you near to where you want to go but not all the way; you have to travel on someone else's schedule, fares are higher at rush hour and you have little or no say in deciding who sits down next to you.
All joking aside, we believe that the kind of thinking reflected in the EAC's recommendations is dangerous not only to airlines but to the lifeblood of Europe's economies. We hope others do as well.