Simon Jenkins can be the most annoying of commentators in The Guardian. He can also get things right. He did when discussing the need for a rethink of long-distance travel both post-Covid and in anticipation of the increasing climate crisis by saying:
Climate-sensitive transport policy should capitalise on this change. It should not pander to distance travel in any mode but discourage it. Fuel taxes are good. Road pricing is good. So are home-working, Zoom-meeting (however ghastly for some), staycationing, local high-street shopping, protecting local amenities and guarding all forms of communal activity.
Britons should rediscover the virtues of locality and neighbourhood. The way to protect life on Earth is not to fly to Glasgow for the Cop26 summit. It is to stay at home. That would be the real silver lining to the Covid cloud.
He is right. We have to change. Unless we realise that behavioural change is key to our survival we simply won't make it. But right now that message is simply not getting through. And that is a big concern
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
Unfortunately the behavioural changes that would offer most support for our survival would be those that need to be made by the rich. But the price incentives favoured by Jenkins (fuel taxes, road pricing) hit the poor, while providing little incentive for the rich to change their consumption patterns.
Will price incentives to change behaviour ever be effective if they are not accompanied by measures to substantially reduce inequalities in income and wealth?
Of course they are needed as well
But not to change climate behaviour – because they will have little impact on that, but because inequality needs to be tackled
“Global CO2e emissions remain highly concentrated today: top 10% emitters contribute to about 45% of global emissions, while bottom 50% emitters contribute to 13% of global emissions.” (Chancel & Piketty, Carbon and Inequality, 2015).
Chancel & Piketty suggest that carbon taxes should be progressive – both to be fairer and to be more effective in reducing emissions.
Some e.g. on car mileage and air travel are easy to do
Household fuel much less so….
Think global act local, we are doomed if we don’t.
The downsides to home working (such as more screen time, less human interaction, blurring of lines between home and ‘office’) can be easily be overcome. So, if there needs to be less travel and more staying local in order to help deal with the climate crisis then that’s what needs to be done.
The question is do governments have the guts to implement what is needed or will it be watered down because it doesn’t suit those with power, influence and wealth?
Craig
“Some e.g. on car mileage and air travel are easy to do
Household fuel much less so….”
Household fuel should be easy. Change the VAT levied on it.
That is not equitable….
Beware road pricing in particular, which is and for decades has been a warcry of the neo libs. It is intimately associated with the most reactionary sectors of economists. Norway makes extensive use of it and it has merely become a (high) expense of motoring. It is also part of their neo lib economic policy which they use to argue that their sovereign fund from oil revenues should not be used for infrastructure. Consequently, every bridge and tunnel attracts tolls for periods far longer than necessary to pay for them. Jenkins is an economic reactionary who opposed the entire infrastructure programme of the Labour Party at the last two elections on magic money tree arguments. Road pricing fits in nicely.
Last Sunday, cycling in the Ardenne, up & down we went on mostly silent roads/through quiet forests, until the last long climb through a gorge & on to the “sunlit uplands”. Gorge had some twisty bits and guess what? the motorcycle hooligans were out. They split into two groups, sad old men on Fartly Davidsons and young chaps hurling 240kgs of sporting machinery around bends (quite damp in many cases). As my companion remarked “I’m not bothered if they come off, I am bothered if they come off next to me and I meet 240kg doing 100kph”. We saw more later at a bar looking like armoured beetles. Again my firend noted that lifestyle changes were not getting through to many sections of society. And as I observed – the Ardennes is beautiful place – what, exactly do you see of it @ 100kph (or indeed faster speeds). Couple of years back, a representative of motocycle manufactures in Bx admitted to me that what they sell is “toys”. He missed out the polluting bit.
By the way – once upon a time I rode motorbikes – mostly to get me to work – then I grew up (& in answer: home working and shopping on a bicycle – I don’t think I’m a good person or a better person but sure as hell there are better ways to get enjoyment than on a motorcycle & if I never fly again – I won’t miss it).
I do not understand the motorcycle thing, at all
I entirely agree with you about flying
What about doing what we did in the 70’s when speed limits were reduced to save fuel after the oil price hikes?
It wins in many ways, reduced emissions, reduced congestion & reduced travel.
I also suggest that we need to ensure all vehicles are fitted with a limiter that cannot be over ridden to reduce maximum speed and acceleration
And you also get there just as quickly – which is bizarre until you understand how wave patterns slow traffic
Undoubtedly, we need to dramatically reduce emissions to limit the impact of global warming. ‘Our World in Data’ suggests that aviation produced 3.5% of effective global radiative forcing in 2018 and emissions free flying is a distant dream. Airbus are developing hydrogen fuelled civil aircraft, which should enter service in 2035, these will emit no CO2, may produce significant NOx, and will continue to leave contrails. However, are there unintended consequences of reduced flying.
Firstly, planes are expensive to design and the price of tickets relies on lots of planes being built and lots of people flying. If fewer people fly, it will become the preserve of the rich and super rich.
Secondly, planes are essential to provide support following natural disasters. Getting rescue teams, equipment and supplies to disaster areas quickly relies on planes.
Thirdly, developing countries rely on planes to send exotic produce to market in the rich west. Will the reduction in the export of exotic produce cause serious unemployment?
Fourthly, many developing countries are switching to eco-tourism to support their national parks and indigenous peoples. This relies on the tourists flying in. If the local wildlife doesn’t provide income from tourism, will it provide income from the black market sale of ivory, rhino horn and useless TCM cures?
Of course short haul flights within developed countries should be discouraged as rail can almost certainly take the strain.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but the demise of civil aviation is not a solution that looks desirable to me.
I do sometimes wonder whether aviation has been made a bogeyman because it doesn’t consume as much oil as road transport. The oil industry will lose far more from conversion of road transport to zero emissions than they will from the conversion of aviation. Maybe I’m getting paranoid about conspiracies!
I suspect there will be aircraft
For essential purposes this is an area where licensed emissions may be permitted
But essential purposes might be rather narrow. They will not involve airfreighting food.
One problem in the UK is, that we’ve spent decades turning the places where we live, into places that we’re desperate to get away from…
🙂
Simon Jenkins made a brilliant start to his article with ‘All domestic plane journeys in Britain should be banned … ’ but he misses the need for an exponentially increasing flying levy. Worse, he only urges ‘discouraging’ casual hyper-mobility.
He is on the ball by condemning the ‘predict and supply’ transport policy, but he wants to discourage it only ‘slowly’.
‘Slowly’? Which planet does he hope to live on?
While personal behaviour change is wise and to be commended, what Simon Jenkins fails to recognise, is that it is much too late for nudges and incentives.
On Twitter yesterday, Leeds Professor Julia Steinberger wrote ‘we are at the doorstep of absolute ecological and social disaster if we don’t massively transform all our production-consumption systems & economies.’
Another Guardian headline yesterday was ‘Halt destruction of nature or risk a dead planet’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/halt-destruction-of-nature-or-risk-dead-planet-leading-businesses-warn-aoe
We are losing the ‘war’ to save the human biosphere restrict the ‘destruction of nature’. It is much worse than when, in 1940, the UK was losing the war in Europe. Then, all non-essential motoring was forbidden.
NOW, it is time for energy rationing or TRADABLE ENERGY QUOTAS (TEQs) https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/
THEN, food, clothing, furniture and soap were rationed.
NOW, supermarkets stock 50 or more varieties of shampoo – in distinctive single-use plastic bottles – often with an aperture that makes quantity control difficult and many have been heavily advertised.
Taxation is not voluntary. Widespread compulsory and enduring restrictions on many aspects of consumption are now … vital!
Joe, you;re right. I was buying grocers earlier today and counted 32 different womens magazines on the news shelf. Who on earth “needs” THIRTY TWO different womans magazines?
The readers do
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/11/just-in-time-supply-chains-logistical-capitalism
Worth a read
Simon Jenkins can be either annoying or brilliant.
I liked his suggestion that the UK disbands its armed forces because their existence simply tempted our politicians to get involved in unnecessary foreign wars.
He has also stated that we should be giving much more support to bus services.
I’m sitting here in an office looking at a car park full of new SUVs.
Next week I’m back on the train and my bike.
But sitting here this morning, I have the feeling that we aren’t going to make it to be honest.
I sometimes have that feeling
Worryingly, so too do my sons
Surely the real problem is that there are just too many of us.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. As a rough guide 60% of global emissions are produced by 31% of the global population. Most areas of high population growth, particularly Africa, have very low per capita emissions.
It is also difficult to reduce the population size, taking at least several decades to make a big impact. Global emissions have to be reduced to near zero within two, or at most three decades. I have seen some suggestions that the Chinese population will halve by 2100, about 50 years too late to be of use.
In any case, most countries that have adopted a near western living standard have a reducing population.
Simon Baylis is right.. everyone talks about dramatic action to save the planet
1) Birth control to limit the family size
2) No pets (exception guide dogs etc)
3) Limit the use of medicine to keep people living longer.
All of theses are harsh and I bring them to the fore for that reason. Do we want to save the planet or not? It we do then such difficult decisions need to be made otherwise we are just messing about at the edges.
Birth control doesn’t seem to work from the statistics. The UK birth rate is 1.65 per woman, population scientists claim that should reduce the population, they claim we need a replacement rate of 2 per woman, but the population has increaed by seven million in the last 20 years.
That is migration….
Also, as the internet causes more carbon emissions than the entire civil aviation industry.
So, time/ severely restrict access to google, zoom, Netflix etc??!
And how much does it save as well?
During lockdown I was waiting for my wife while she had a hospital appointment.
Now my Kia Carens estate car isnt small but I had no real issues parking it – it was a little cramped but watching the 4×4’s none of which looked like they came from a farm trying to get in & out was a bit like trying to take the QE2 for a cruise through the Norfolk Broads.
The emissions of SUV’s are quite massive, indeed after power generation they are the largest cause of increased CO2 emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/01/suv-conquered-america-climate-change-emissions
Hi Richard. Did you see the WWF Demos report on a climate consensus as reported here https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/uk-public-backs-carbon-tax-high-flyer-levy-and-heat-pump-grants-study-shows?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Maybe worth a blog post?
I will take a look