Air travel is liberating, but we must pay the true price

Sunday 01 December 2002 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Air travel is one of the great liberations of modern technology; people should travel to the four corners of the earth, but they must pay for the environmental damage they cause.

Now is a good time to fly, despite – or, rather, because of – all the bad news. Paradoxically, our awareness of the terrorist threat makes air travel safer than ever. And, in a longer-term view, air travel has never been so cheap, and may never be so cheap again. It is certainly desirable that air travel should become much more expensive in the next few years.

This is not merely in order to pay for the "sky marshals" proposed by the Government's review of airline safety. (Whatever the pros and cons of guns on board, enhanced security will cost money.) Nor for higher airline margins in the wake of United Airlines' teetering on the edge of bankruptcy in the US.

Above all, it is about ensuring that passengers pay the full environmental cost of air travel. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution reported last week on the effect on climate change of the rapid growth in aircraft emissions. This is a long-term challenge to the world's leaders, who have only just begun to notice the blip on the radar. Although noise pollution and the planning of new runways are important, and have dominated the debate in this country, the question of global warming is the most serious in the long run.

Unfortunately, the members of the Royal Commission tend towards the typical green activists' mistakes. They urge the Government to stop building any more airports or expanding any existing ones. That is a crude and counter-productive way of engineering higher ticket prices. It was not helped by snobbish comments about the ease with which people fly to Venice for the weekend now instead of, as in the old days, for two weeks.

The first problem is that aviation fuel is too cheap. It should be taxed as heavily as fuel for other forms of transport. The second problem is that landing slots at airports are too cheap, and allocated by governments to favour national carriers. They are a scarce resource which should be sold to the highest, most efficient, bidder.

Air travel is one of the great liberations of modern technology. People should travel to the four corners of the earth – for the weekend if they want. But they must pay for the environmental damage they cause, including the local costs of building new airports.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in