The Enviro-Nuts in Britain are at it Again...

At first, it was simply an awareness campaign. Environmental groups in the UK used the disdain many people have with the proliferation of low-cost airlines to discuss the environmental consequences of air travel growth. That was such a good thing, for consumers who were mostly unaware of the dangers of pollution caused by air travel, for governments, who could use the campaign to call for improved measures to curtail climate change, and for low-cost airlines, because Europe's largest LCCs operate some of the newest and cleanest fleets in the world and they could demonstrate to customers that the problem is much bigger than the growth of cheap flights. But then, this campaign evolved into criticizing most increases in air service. The open skies deal signed in Europe was attacked because it's projected to increase the amount of travelers crossing the Atlantic, even though it would provide enormous benefits for consumers and the global economy. But now the message transmitted by environmental groups has evolved into all-out hysteria, with a UK think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, suggesting Thursday that advertisements for air travel and new cars contain bold warnings similar to those on cigarette packets, such as "flying causes climate change". While their efforts at attempting to reduce climate change are respected, they have gone way too far. Unfortunately, while their proposal discusses some alternatives Britons can utilize, these alternatives are unrealistic for most. Their press release suggests that Britons use rail services for longer routes, such as London to Madrid, even though a train takes far longer and is significantly more expensive in most cases. The IPPR, like other environmentally-aware groups, should instead be proposing specific solutions to fixing Britain's and Europe's transportation mess, particularly for rail travel, which is seen as the most palatable alternative to aviation. The IPPR says that rail transport needs to be improved, but nearly everyone says that. What they don't answer is: "how do Britain and its European counterparts do that?" That's what makes the IPPR and many environmentally-conscious groups like it so ineffective, they don't propose the nitty gritty solutions, only the ones that will receive media coverage. In Britain, the rail system is in chaos, with late and crowded trains becoming the norm. Traffic on Britain's rail lines is expected to climb in the next several years, and current problems are only expected to exacerbate. Moreover, rail fares have increased, while airfares have decreased, making trains a less realistic option for many price-conscious travelers who will instead fly. Politicians have few bold solutions to solve the problem, and think tanks could be an asset to help them find solutions, but instead they are simply spouting too many cursory, unworkable ideas.

Part of the problem is that Britain's political situation isn't very conducive to constructive solutions on solving Europe's transportation and emissions crisis. In a few months, Britain's Chancellor, Gordon Brown is expected to take over leadership of Britain's Labor Party, becoming the Prime Minister. Brown was the author of plans, announced in December and implemented in February, to double the Air Passenger Duty (APD) for passengers traveling to or from the UK. Unfortunately, taxing aviation isn't a solution to the problem, but Brown is appeasing the groups who believe that air travel needs to be slowed by any means necessary. That includes raising the price of a ticket, even if the tax isn't proportional to the emissions produced. Given Brown's poor record dealing with aviation, it would be a miracle if he could reform Britain's rail network, which the next Prime Minister must do if he wants to effectively lead Britain down a path to reduce emissions from transport.

Now I believe there's nothing wrong with government using taxes and incentives to change behavior. But if those programs aren't proportional and effective, then they won't help solve the problem. Not only is the APD a tax that's disproportional to the emissions produced, and one that doesn't directly fund environmental programs that reduce emissions, but it isn't effective at slowing air travel growth. This is primarily because on the routes where it's most likely to slow growth, such as intra-UK routes, including London-Manchester and London-Glasgow, the gap between air and rail travel fares is so huge that an extra 10 GBP won't come near closing it. If politicians in Europe want to tax aviation to once again make it a domain of the wealthy, which may be inevitable if aviation emissions continue to skyrocket, then they at least need to tax in such a way that accomplishes their goals. That means each ticket would need to be given a tax of at least 50 GBP, and possibly more, if governments wanted to dissuade the masses from flying. But a significant airline tax increase would only work if those who couldn't afford to fly had some other way (most likely rail) to travel cheaply and quickly. Otherwise, a tax that hefty would never, ever, get passed. Governments shouldn't use a tax which simply fuels the government (which is what the APD does) and one which makes it more difficult for lower- and middle-class passengers to travel when they lack a realistic alternative.

A comprehensive plan must be implemented covering transport in the UK that facilitates its environmentally-friendly development. That may mean that airport expansion, an idea currently popular with many UK airports, may be severely curtailed or prohibited. Slot restrictions may need to be implemented at many airports, including Gatwick, Stansted, and others, depending on their traffic levels and growth projections. Rail networks will need to be expanded, and politicians must be willing to expand high-speed services, including maglev trains on popular corridors. Imports by sea must be curtailed, and industries at home must be given the government support they need to thrive. Finally, road pricing must be implemented in a smart fashion which protects low-income drivers from over taxation but which taxes gas-guzzling vehicles. However, taxes and incentives alone aren't an effective plan, and if Britons want to seriously help the environment, they must demand the politicians present full, detailed, comprehensive plans that cover all forms of transport. These plans must target the most profligate uses of transport and provide solutions for implementing eco-friendly alternatives. Those plans may deal little with aviation in the short-term, because it pollutes far less than road transport, and somewhat less than marine shipping, although since aviation emissions are projected to grow significantly in the next several decades, they need to be controlled somehow. Without real solutions for targeting the right forms of transport, Britain will lag behind the industrialized world in emissions control, and the country will continue to listen to propaganda over effective proposals. But Britain isn't alone in needing to find transport alternatives. I pick on Britain because environmental groups in that country scream the loudest about the problem with aviation emissions. However, all industrialized nations face similar challenges in reforming their transport networks to make them cleaner, and the same proposals outlined in this post for Britain's needs can be applied to other industrialized countries.