-
Aircraft will get ‘clean’ at some point. Properly taxing travel on the current jets will only help speed this process along.
The same for shipping.
miro_o-
Shipping is only this year getting low sulphur bunker fuel.
The Shipping Industry has successfully lobbied governments to exempt them from the costs of either low sulphur fuels, or fitting de-sulphurisation units.
UK Drivers have had ulsp since '97.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1014912.stm -
shipping
-
Aircraft won’t be getting ‘clean’ for a good while yet, I’m afraid. Turbofan engines are far more efficient these days and aircraft design means they’re a lot more aerodynamically efficient, but this all means that the cost of travel comes down and makes more people want to fly, which means more flights which then negates the savings in fuel by being more efficient. It’s the same with cars - build a car that runs on hydrogen that’ll be really clean and cheap and every fucker will want one and so that means more roads, congestion etc. You can’t win.
Aircraft are wonderful things (I’m an ex-civil aircraft engineer) but the issue isn’t the aircraft itself, it’s the fact that travel is being so heavily touted so everyone want to fly. Right now there is no hydrogen or electrical alternative to kerosene engines because the technology is nowhere near ready (burning oil still has by far the best calorie value).
It’s our mindset that has to change, and seeing as so much is tied up in air travel, from airlines to airports to the travel industry itself and the reliance on tourism as a primary income for entire nations, I can’t see how that’s going to happen any time soon. I personally think that business travel will fade out as technology means that people simply won’t need to travel to NY for meetings anywhere near as much in the near future, which is clearly a good thing, but that means that airlines and the associated industries will then focus on leisure travel even more. It’s all pretty depressing.
mespilus
rhb
jj72
Yes, and the two issues (luxury/lifestyles of the rich and famous) and 'desirability' of travel are closely linked. If you're a (n international) celebrity, supposedly representing the best of society, part of that will always involve popping up in all sorts of places, whether you're on an international concert tour or going to all the glitziest parties in New York City, London, Paris, LA ... so if you jack up the price without changing people's fundamental idea that 'travelling' makes them more virtuous, you're not going to get very far (people might just go into more debt, starve their children of food, etc. to fulfil their 'dream').
Another important thing is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's clearly something good about mobility, and despite the evils of hypermobility, shared out quite unequally, there are still many people for whom 'you're in your place, and you know where you are' is an inescapable reality. Likewise, there is clearly something good about travelling. There is nothing wrong, of course, with the general idea that it's beneficial to see a bit of the world when you're young (quite on the contrary), but much of the 'travelling' from tourist trap to tourist trap, or fragile historical sights/sites, obviously doesn't correspond.
However, building a consensus about the appropriate mean is extremely difficult when your departure point (pun intended) is such rampant injustice as today.