When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
This is pretty much where I am. I feel that although the mantra of “every little helps” can’t be dismissed, it’s in the great scheme of things irrelevant. I still rage at supermarket packaging. Again, small but slow improvements can’t be ignored but I get the feeling it’s generally more companies virtue signalling rather than some sort of drive to eradicate the tons of package waste. This simply must be led top down. It needs government intervention yet where is it ? Straws and plastic bags isn’t enough. I fly probably twice a year and I won’t change that because the options for me and my family to do something different simply aren’t there. I recycle what’s required of me but what else can I do. Change simply must be led top down. Force packaging to be green. Put a (?) £20 levy on each air ticket. Drive forward subsidies for insulation and home improvement to reduce energy consumption. The list is virtually endless. I am completely convinced that the world is fucked. This won’t impact me I doubt I’m 68 but I fear for my grandchildren’s future.
Thankyou for the information. I actually was aware of this but my point, badly put was to increase the levy to raise more money.
Despite the UK experiencing its coolest summer since 2015, temperatures were above average across much of Europe, according to the EU's climate monitoring service, Copernicus.
Increasing air passenger duty would be an excellent way to raise revenue at a time it is badly needed, without hurting the poorest in society.
A big problem is that there are many people who are being influenced by social media misinformation, put out by those who have a vested interest in the industries that cause the most damage to the planet. I often see phrases like 'climate scam' and claims that cloud seeding' is taking place.
We need all politicians to make looking after our planet a priority, instead of using it to score political points.
As a matter of interest. Although we’ve had a cool summer. If the average temperatures we’ve experienced in summer 2024 were moved into the 1960 decade, it would have been the warmest of that decade. Quite a shocking stat.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
This is pretty much where I am. I feel that although the mantra of “every little helps” can’t be dismissed, it’s in the great scheme of things irrelevant. I still rage at supermarket packaging. Again, small but slow improvements can’t be ignored but I get the feeling it’s generally more companies virtue signalling rather than some sort of drive to eradicate the tons of package waste. This simply must be led top down. It needs government intervention yet where is it ? Straws and plastic bags isn’t enough. I fly probably twice a year and I won’t change that because the options for me and my family to do something different simply aren’t there. I recycle what’s required of me but what else can I do. Change simply must be led top down. Force packaging to be green. Put a (?) £20 levy on each air ticket. Drive forward subsidies for insulation and home improvement to reduce energy consumption. The list is virtually endless. I am completely convinced that the world is fucked. This won’t impact me I doubt I’m 68 but I fear for my grandchildren’s future.
Thanks for posting this. That's all well and good, but if I've read your extract and this correctly, APD is treated as a part of the general tax basket. As citizens we all (in theory, at least, although it's often hard to see in practice) benefit from the taxes raised and paying tax in one tax regime presumably keeps other taxes lower, i.e. we are effectively paying ourselves (though not as much as we are paying Michelle Mone and her ilk). It strikes me that what we really need are a range of green taxes that not only discourage damaging activities, but pay to help ameliorate or even reverse the damage that is being done. The money raised from APD should be ring-fenced for green initiatives, be that reforestation projects, mechanical air filters or investigation into initiatives such as seaweed farms. When we take part in activities that are destructive to the environment, our debt is to the environment, not to UK PLC, any resulting taxation should be used accordingly. If this is happening already, then the links need to be more visible.
Politicians can't fix this mess, you're kidding yourself if you think so. How do you fix something when you are the problem?
Homo sapiens are the worst species to have evolved. We're greedy, selfish and fickle. Self awareness and free choice hasn't empowered us to become better, it's driven us into groups where we grab as much as we can without ballance.
Commercialism has ruined us, we take until we break.
We can fuck it and choke ourselves, but the earth will recover with or without us.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
This is pretty much where I am. I feel that although the mantra of “every little helps” can’t be dismissed, it’s in the great scheme of things irrelevant. I still rage at supermarket packaging. Again, small but slow improvements can’t be ignored but I get the feeling it’s generally more companies virtue signalling rather than some sort of drive to eradicate the tons of package waste. This simply must be led top down. It needs government intervention yet where is it ? Straws and plastic bags isn’t enough. I fly probably twice a year and I won’t change that because the options for me and my family to do something different simply aren’t there. I recycle what’s required of me but what else can I do. Change simply must be led top down. Force packaging to be green. Put a (?) £20 levy on each air ticket. Drive forward subsidies for insulation and home improvement to reduce energy consumption. The list is virtually endless. I am completely convinced that the world is fucked. This won’t impact me I doubt I’m 68 but I fear for my grandchildren’s future.
Thanks for posting this. That's all well and good, but if I've read your extract and this correctly, APD is treated as a part of the general tax basket. As citizens we all (in theory, at least, although it's often hard to see in practice) benefit from the taxes raised and paying tax in one tax regime presumably keeps other taxes lower, i.e. we are effectively paying ourselves (though not as much as we are paying Michelle Mone and her ilk). It strikes me that what we really need are a range of green taxes that not only discourage damaging activities, but pay to help ameliorate or even reverse the damage that is being done. The money raised from APD should be ring-fenced for green initiatives, be that reforestation projects, mechanical air filters or investigation into initiatives such as seaweed farms. When we take part in activities that are destructive to the environment, our debt is to the environment, not to UK PLC, any resulting taxation should be used accordingly. If this is happening already, then the links need to be more visible.
You are correct. When APD was first introduced in 1994 part of the rationale was to offset the environmental impact of air travel - it was set at £5 for European flights and £10 for long haul flights (the chart above shows how that has "progressed") - it has morphed into an easy to collect general tax.
I attach two articles which may be of interest. Reading both in conjunction would support my view that simply stating "increase APD" is over-simplistic and counterproductive.
The airline industry is not going to disappear (quite the opposite) and therefore the most appropriate approach is to secure the economic benefit of that growth whilst supporting investment in the path to sustainability (the two go hand in hand).
Politicians can't fix this mess, you're kidding yourself if you think so. How do you fix something when you are the problem?
Homo sapiens are the worst species to have evolved. We're greedy, selfish and fickle. Self awareness and free choice hasn't empowered us to become better, it's driven us into groups where we grab as much as we can without ballance.
Commercialism has ruined us, we take until we break.
We can fuck it and choke ourselves, but the earth will recover with or without us.
When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
As my decisions and actions contribute to a problem, I'm making changes which inconvenience me to take more personal responsibility for them. I know I can't save the planet, but when it's too late, which it will be, at least I can look my nephews and nieces in the face and say I did my bit, not say I was waiting for others to do theirs, or offer up any other lame excuse laying the blame elsewhere.
The personal changes, in order of priority need to be: 1. Accept there is an emergency 2. Vote for policies that address the emergency. 3. Gradually change your lifestyle to address the emergency. 4. Advocate (where reasonable and safe) for others to change.
I'd swap 2 and 3 round. Policies are offered on the basis of popular appeal,a good indicator of which is patterns of consumption. 3 & 4 as you have them are the ones I find most challenging.
This. I've posted before about the signalling effects of seemingly small changes I your lifestyle on businesses and government policy. There is a lot of evidence out there that shows every person making a small, incremental change actually adds us to larger changes than just that change. It may feel like passing in the wind but if enough people do it businesses and governments take notice. That's why I urge everyone to make whatever small changes possible. It can make a difference.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.
Alturistic or clever business. Looking like the Chinese are going to corner the market on electric cars and I suspect they see a massive opportunity to do the same with other green tech. I’m afraid I’m pretty cynical when it comes to China.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.
Not just for fun, but also for soft power across Africa.
Comments
Homo sapiens are the worst species to have evolved. We're greedy, selfish and fickle. Self awareness and free choice hasn't empowered us to become better, it's driven us into groups where we grab as much as we can without ballance.
Commercialism has ruined us, we take until we break.
We can fuck it and choke ourselves, but the earth will recover with or without us.
I hope those who are yet to come do a better job.
You are correct. When APD was first introduced in 1994 part of the rationale was to offset the environmental impact of air travel - it was set at £5 for European flights and £10 for long haul flights (the chart above shows how that has "progressed") - it has morphed into an easy to collect general tax.
I attach two articles which may be of interest. Reading both in conjunction would support my view that simply stating "increase APD" is over-simplistic and counterproductive.
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/sustainability/sustainable-aviation-fuels/
https://airlinesuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Impact-of-Air-Passenger-Duty-on-Airline-Route-Economics-4.pdf
The airline industry is not going to disappear (quite the opposite) and therefore the most appropriate approach is to secure the economic benefit of that growth whilst supporting investment in the path to sustainability (the two go hand in hand).
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.