For all the reasons I noted yesterday I am disappointed to note that the government appears to have bailed out Flybe.
I might add that I am almost as disappointed that it appears that they still do not understand the EU rules on state aid, which undoubtedly do not apply to all of Flybe's activities.
But most of all I am worried about the implications of this. If every time a significant producer of unnecessary carbon gets in to trouble over coming years is the government always going to give them a subsidy to bail them out? What chance is there in that case that we will get to net zero carbon evert, let alone within the hopelessly inadequate timescale they already propose?
And as for real, radical transformation of the type that the Green New Deal demands? The prospects do not look good. This is very depressing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] is undoubtedly true of the UK government: its reaction to Flybe proves it. Making people quite literally save for their planet is a way to change this mindset. It is, I […]
It’s more about leaving Cornwall isolated and people losing their jobs. Politically motivated as Cornwall is a Tory bedrock.
Obviously with regard to flying eventually it will be regulated /rationed. Until that point people will hide behind the hypocrisy of others to continue business as normal. Bit like Barry Gardiner telling the world his plane is late coming back from a climate change conference..
It is tremendously frustrating that no one is articulating the points you made about this particular bail out in the mainstream media.
I run a small business. If I had been collecting VAT from my clients and pocketing it, using it to cash flow my affairs for over 12 months I would expect society to look harshly upon me. If I had been deducting PAYE from my employees pay and not handing it over to the government I would expect to have the system come down on me like a tonne of bricks (let’s ignore the fact that this often doesn’t happen, but hey).
For a company to be in possession of over £100m of funds, which have been collected on behalf of the state, and then have the brass neck to demand taxpayer bailouts because it has us over a barrel because of its “essential” role in the UK’s internal travel markets… it just goes to show how upside down our conceptions of capitalism are in this country. Vampire capitalism at its highest, and a failure of market regulation. We should never allow monopolies to arise which are essential to life and living without strong regulatory oversight.
As for the environment implications of reducing air passenger duty, well, tragically, the case was point to the country recently, and it chose the worst option. It’s obvious that nothing will ever change. It’s obvious that we pay lip-service to green issues, and then find that, for political reasons, we just can’t make the efforts to change our ways. It has been since the 1970s.
Hello richard
I do wish you’d stop referring to ‘carbon production’. there is nothing wrong with carbon. Carbon is a solid element essential for all life on the planet.
The issue is CO2. Which is a molecule and a gas.
I’m sure you’ll accuse me of being pedantic but it won’t help educate people if you keep using incorrect language. Quite frankly it makes it look as though you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
Reduce carbon? Stop using pencils.
OK
Noted
But I do not think anyone is confused
@ Steve
If we’re being pedantic, you’re correct that “carbon production” is not technically correct, although I would argue that everyone understands what is meant in the vernacular. It gets a bit unwieldily saying CO2 all the time, carbon is a much nicer phrase to use. (Incidentally, if you search for `carbon production’ the first page is entirely about greenhouse gasses)
Possibly worth putting in a little comment here about other, actually potentially more problematic, greenhouse gasses such as CH4 (carbon quite nicely covers CO2 and CH4) and nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2)
But, to pedant your pedantic comment. I don’t think anyone would be technically correct using the phrase “carbon production” anyway. Nobody on earth produces carbon, we don’t have fusion capable of that yet (it’s 30 years away, we promise…)
Thanks
On that note – ‘carbon emissions’ implies releasing carbon in gaseous form, so it is chemically accurate (and includes most of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, chloro-fluorocarbons, arguably CO, though not nitrous oxides), without being unwieldy.
An aside from the carbon issue, but if Flybe is a viable business, it will find a private buyer. The fact it has not found such a buyer suggests it is not viable. If it is a strategic interest, the government should acquire it as an national asset. The current solution seems to suggest that if you run a business badly the government will give you more money to carry on running it badly.