Danny Lawson/PA Archive/PA Images
Planning to go somewhere hot this summer? Well, it’ll be all the hotter for you going there – or at least it will according to a new analysis on the impact of tourism on global warming. Kate Wheeling of the Pacific Standard reports on the findings:
“A new study, out today in Nature Climate Change, finds that global emissions from tourism are over three times higher than previously thought.
“Global tourism is a $1.2 trillion industry, and it’s growing every year. Previous estimates of the tourism industry’s carbon footprint put it at between 2.5 and 3 percent of total global carbon dioxide emissions.”
The study calculates emissions for all the goods and services involved in tourism, not just the transport element.
The good news is that a lot of that can be decarbonised. For instance, Costa Rica – a leading ‘eco-tourism’ destination is, according to the Independent, set to become the world’s first fossil-fuel-free economy.
Except that the eco-tourists flying into the tropical paradise are doing so on a fossil fuel dependent form of transport. Indeed, air travel is one the biggest obstacles to decarbonising the global economy.
With no technological solutions on the horizon, we have no choice but to artificially constrain demand, says Sonia Sodha in the Guardian. But how?
“…increasing the government levies on air travel – forcing up prices to get people to fly less – isn’t the answer. This would have little impact on the most affluent travellers, while hitting the poorest in society… Instead we should look to carbon trading schemes for inspiration…
“Everyone could be given an air mile allowance – say enough for one long-haul return flight a year, or three short-haul flights, so people with families on the other side of the world could see them once a year. If you don’t want to use your allowance, you could sell it off in a government-regulated online marketplace. If you’re keen to do a holiday a month, you’ll have to buy your allowance from someone else.”
Sodha’s proposal has provoked cries of ‘rationing!’ from free marketeers; but what is the free market if not a means of rationing the distribution of scarce resources through the price mechanism?
Our ability to spew out greenhouse gases without screwing up the climate is also a scarce resource. It isn’t automatically priced by the market because no one owns the global climate (especially not those who’ll have to live with it in 50 or 100 years time).
If, however, government steps in to price the resource, then the market can do its thing. Free marketeers shouldn’t have a problem with the ‘invisible hand’ getting a helping hand.
In any case, Sodha’s proposal doesn’t actually ration the number of flights per person, but rather the number of flights each person can take without having to purchase someone else’s allowance. As long as you can pay, you can fly as much as you like.
The real problem with it, though, is that it isn’t nearly as fair to the poor as she thinks it is. In theory, it avoids the unfairness of pricing them out of the skies completely. In practice, however, there’d still be a cost to flying – in this case the opportunity cost of using an allowance instead of selling it. As with all financial costs, this would be felt most heavily by those with the least money.
Admittedly, Sodha’s system would give the poor a source of income – which would surely be fairer than a tax or a levy whose revenues would fill the state’s coffers. Or would it?
In London, as in other cities, road congestion charges help to fund public transport – to the disproportionate benefit of the poor. A carbon tax on air travel could be used to benefit the very poorest people in the world – such as those already suffering as a result of climate change. Arguably, this would be more equitable, and more efficient, than a complex system of tradable permits that transfers wealth from flyers to non-flyers irrespective of their incomes.
The irony of the Sodha’s proposal is that both sides have got it wrong – it isn’t contrary to market principles, but nor is it necessarily fair.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_ 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat I struggle to understand is what pressure these radical trans-activists can realistically bring to a scientific publisher?
Is there money (or loss of income) floating around somewhere hidden?
Is it pressure from a few employees?
I really don’t get it.
I’m with you on this Andrew. I can’t see how a tiny minority of, admittedly very shouty, people can exert this amount of pressure over an issue that most people (the ones I speak to) don’t take particularly seriously.
The investigative reporter Jennifer Bilek exposes some of the powerful forces, big money and creepy perversions of the super-rich behind the trans-activist movement. This recent YouTube video is a good example:
She deserves a wider audience.
This is a very important point! How are are these trans activists so effective? Do they visit the publisher in person or in their home. How do they do it!
There is a global movement to flatten the concept of ‘gender’ so that men and women become entirely interchangeable. When traditional masculine and feminine identities are finally destroyed they can be replaced by a far more compliant identity – one that is disembodied from religion, history, culture, and sex – a kind of neutered consumer-worker drone if you will.
An interesting insight, which I’ve heard before but not so neatly put. In America, most are already consumer worker drones. Why not neutered, as well? It’s clear that our many “woke” corporations see dollar signs in marketing to consumers captured by gender ideology.
An interesting insight, which I’ve heard before but not so neatly put. In America, most are already consumer worker drones. Why not neutered, as well? It’s clear that our many “woke” corporations see dollar signs in marketing to consumers captured by gender ideology.
Cowardice is in the mix there somewhere.
It’s because publishing these days, including scientific publishing, is a hotbed of wokeness. Look at what recently happened to Prof Nigel Biggar and his attempt to have a nuanced book on Colonialism and the British Empire published. The publisher — Bloomsbury, I think — having commissioned and received the manuscript, suddenly announced it wouldn’t be published due to ‘public concerns’. He managed to get released from the contract and has managed to successfully publish elsewhere.
Activists say jump, and the publications merely reply ‘how high?’
While most people are apathetic on these things, Activists can rally a small but highly motivated group to support “victims” against oppressors, by attracting those who sympathize with the supposed injustices, even if those sympathies were coerced based on blatant lies. The Activists and their mob then attack not only the individuals and companies deemed oppressors, but groups, friends, family, acquaintances, partners, and businesses that work or associate with the supposed oppressors. The pressure relies primarily on boycotts and blackmail, by including threats of coordinated public campaigns of negative publicity.
The defamed real victim may try to weather the storm, and can possibly sue for the personal and professional damages caused by the spreading of the false information, but sue who? Everyone posting or sharing the rumor? Can a specific leader even be located and then proven as the catalyst? Probably not. Certainly not with the help of Social Media platforms. And what about those platforms carrying the garage? We all know they have immunity – and may very well join in the attack by promoting the negative propaganda and suspending and canceling those that defend you. Heck, they can even eliminate your self defense and rebuttal ability by shadow banning or canceling you: all the while letting the mob continue their beat down, unimpeded.
There’s simply no effective and efficient rapid response defense mechanism for this kind of coordinated attack, often of lies. And there are no deep pockets to punish or pay retribution. Therefore, it’s usually a simple risk assessment that concludes something like, “Ok, then…this is NOT the item we are willing to fight to the death about, so we’ll retract the article”.
Then comes the final insidious step. Before capitulating to the mob the targeted individual or company defends themselves by taking precautions to insure their actions are cloaked in some sort of legitimacy. So, basically, they end up doing the extremely dirty and disgusting work of laundering their decision through justifications that end up benefiting the mob that unjustly attacked them in the first place.
Why? Because the trans activists are now inside the institution (including in positions at the top of the editorial chain of command), and the institution is no longer committed to editorial integrity and objective standards, but rather to the particular result.
I’m with you on this Andrew. I can’t see how a tiny minority of, admittedly very shouty, people can exert this amount of pressure over an issue that most people (the ones I speak to) don’t take particularly seriously.
The investigative reporter Jennifer Bilek exposes some of the powerful forces, big money and creepy perversions of the super-rich behind the trans-activist movement. This recent YouTube video is a good example:
She deserves a wider audience.
This is a very important point! How are are these trans activists so effective? Do they visit the publisher in person or in their home. How do they do it!
There is a global movement to flatten the concept of ‘gender’ so that men and women become entirely interchangeable. When traditional masculine and feminine identities are finally destroyed they can be replaced by a far more compliant identity – one that is disembodied from religion, history, culture, and sex – a kind of neutered consumer-worker drone if you will.
Cowardice is in the mix there somewhere.
It’s because publishing these days, including scientific publishing, is a hotbed of wokeness. Look at what recently happened to Prof Nigel Biggar and his attempt to have a nuanced book on Colonialism and the British Empire published. The publisher — Bloomsbury, I think — having commissioned and received the manuscript, suddenly announced it wouldn’t be published due to ‘public concerns’. He managed to get released from the contract and has managed to successfully publish elsewhere.
Activists say jump, and the publications merely reply ‘how high?’
While most people are apathetic on these things, Activists can rally a small but highly motivated group to support “victims” against oppressors, by attracting those who sympathize with the supposed injustices, even if those sympathies were coerced based on blatant lies. The Activists and their mob then attack not only the individuals and companies deemed oppressors, but groups, friends, family, acquaintances, partners, and businesses that work or associate with the supposed oppressors. The pressure relies primarily on boycotts and blackmail, by including threats of coordinated public campaigns of negative publicity.
The defamed real victim may try to weather the storm, and can possibly sue for the personal and professional damages caused by the spreading of the false information, but sue who? Everyone posting or sharing the rumor? Can a specific leader even be located and then proven as the catalyst? Probably not. Certainly not with the help of Social Media platforms. And what about those platforms carrying the garage? We all know they have immunity – and may very well join in the attack by promoting the negative propaganda and suspending and canceling those that defend you. Heck, they can even eliminate your self defense and rebuttal ability by shadow banning or canceling you: all the while letting the mob continue their beat down, unimpeded.
There’s simply no effective and efficient rapid response defense mechanism for this kind of coordinated attack, often of lies. And there are no deep pockets to punish or pay retribution. Therefore, it’s usually a simple risk assessment that concludes something like, “Ok, then…this is NOT the item we are willing to fight to the death about, so we’ll retract the article”.
Then comes the final insidious step. Before capitulating to the mob the targeted individual or company defends themselves by taking precautions to insure their actions are cloaked in some sort of legitimacy. So, basically, they end up doing the extremely dirty and disgusting work of laundering their decision through justifications that end up benefiting the mob that unjustly attacked them in the first place.
Why? Because the trans activists are now inside the institution (including in positions at the top of the editorial chain of command), and the institution is no longer committed to editorial integrity and objective standards, but rather to the particular result.
What I struggle to understand is what pressure these radical trans-activists can realistically bring to a scientific publisher?
Is there money (or loss of income) floating around somewhere hidden?
Is it pressure from a few employees?
I really don’t get it.
Can’t they just go somewhere else?
.
.
Can’t they just go somewhere else?
Transes’ star is hitched unalternatively to the Progressive movement. The only human distinction is class. Race and sex are caused by class. Every difference manifested in human condition is caused by class. The remedy is to eliminate class.
Words like alternative, only, other don’t exist because they might result in difference or lead to not class.
Race and sex are caused by class?
Your are even more deranged than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Even Pol Pot sounds saner than you.
What??!?
Race and sex are caused by class?
Your are even more deranged than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Even Pol Pot sounds saner than you.
What??!?
Transes’ star is hitched unalternatively to the Progressive movement. The only human distinction is class. Race and sex are caused by class. Every difference manifested in human condition is caused by class. The remedy is to eliminate class.
Words like alternative, only, other don’t exist because they might result in difference or lead to not class.