Would you fly less to help the environment?

[Helen May]

We are constantly being asked to help the environment. The lastest tack is to cut carbon emissions and flying adds large amounts every time we travel.

Our Prime Minister fresh from his Christmas break has said we should continue to fly! Is he right in saying this?

Our own Trent Iffy has just indicated that he won't so will anyone else?

H

[Deckerd]

I don't go on holiday abroad, so I rarely fly. It's not necessary but most people consider it an essential part of their life's routine to travel to the sun, so he's right - people shouldn't have to give this up. They should pay realistic prices for the amount of spent aviation fuel that gets vented into the atmosphere.

[Mrs Icarus]

Three chances of getting me on a plane...

much prefer boats.

[neill999]

I prefer to travel by train while in the UK and by boat if its just across the channel. Not only do you get to see the scenery but you get to relax more.

I do wish the government would do more to encourage people not to fly around the UK. They could firstly tax fuel used by planes and further tax planes around the UK, perhaps raise airport tax. This money could be used to subsidise rail fares, and make rail fares generally cheaper than air fares (as they should be).

[Helen May]

With regard to stopping people flying around the UK. My other half often has to go to meetings in Scotland or the South of England, with road congestion as it is, it's not always possible to do it in one day. Would you rather someone did a 15 hour day driving in sometimes atrocious weather conditions or for them to take a flight? I'd prefer that he took the flight. The other option of course is to make a night stop which adds £££ to the cost.

That said I don't enjoy flying these days so am quite happy not to have to!

H

[neill999]

Has your other half thought of travelling by train. It omits only 15% of the carbon emmissions that a flight over the same distance omits. Also, the chances are it gets you much nearer your final destination than a plane would.

[Helen May]

Unfortunately it's mainly airports that he has to visit or just off airport sites, unless it's central London. If he flies he can often fit in 2 as he's there that much earlier by flying.

H

[Riitta]

When visiting daughter in Reading or when she visits me here in the Highlands we usually fly :(
She did try Megabus a few times, but it's just too uncomfortable.
Trains? Who can afford trains?
There are cheap flights aplenty, without them we just wouldn't see each other much at all. I'm on benefits due to disability, she temps at a call centre at the mo. Trains are just not within our price range :(

[Poodlepan]

To get the train from here to London for a day costs over £150.00 - it only costs £14.00 to fly. It's pretty easy to see why people are flying more.

[Rabid]

Nice to see the eco-planks calling for a rise in tax on air travel and NOT a reduction in tax on rail travel :scratch:

[neill999]

If you are referring to my post Rabid I guess you didn't read the whole thing properly. Money obtained from taxing air travel should go to subsidise the cost of rail travel. At the moment rail travel is too expensive.

[Rabid]

I did read it, I don't suppose motorists pay enough in tax to make rail and bus travel free to all?

Once again, we hear the same boring rubbish about air travel harming the environment.

WAKE UP!

Coal burning power stations without emission controls cause most man-made pollution, by a huge factor. Stop wasting your energy trying to change the habits of the travelling public and concentrate on the real polluters.

[VictorLaslo]

If we realy wanted to do anything about the environment, we would boycott goods made in China.

Any other measure is futile.

VL

[Ian Mac]

Pressure groups are always banging the same drum.

Want to reduce road miles? raise the price of fuel/road tax. Want to reduce air miles? raise the price of aviation fuel/airport tax. Want to reduce alcoholism? raise the price of alcohol. Want to reduce smoking? raise the price of tobacco.

The bottom line is that none of these things is affected by increases in price. The guy/girl who drives to and from work will continue to do so and will simply pay a larger percentage of their wage to do so. The alcoholic will simply divert money from other areas. The smoker will smoke the same number of fags and simply divert money from other areas etc etc etc.

And more to the point, the government then becomes reliant on the income from these activities, and far from trying to stop them, they will bend over backwards to try to keep the flow of money coming in.

Hence the shilly shallying over smoking. If they were so dead set against it, they would declare tobacco illegal, but they wont do that because they need the tax money, so they try to look like they're being tough on it when in actual fact they're bricking it at the thought that people might decide to stop en masse.

Ps, I'm against prohibition in any form.

[Rabid]

Funny how it is mostly city dwellers, with access to reasonable public transport, who bang the eco-drum?

[CZ_Ste]

We are constantly being asked to help the environment. The lastest tack is to cut carbon emissions and flying adds large amounts every time we travel.

Our Prime Minister fresh from his Christmas break has said we should continue to fly! Is he right in saying this?

Our own Trent Iffy has just indicated that he won't so will anyone else?

H

I flew to Gran Cannaria about 3 years ago on a B757 from Manchester. These things can carry about 300 people, there were approx 50 pasengers on board!

All those empty seats. All that fuel converted into bad green house gas stuff.

Ste

[turnipsock]

it's a good few years since I have been allowed to go out of the country but I remember getting annoyed at the useless waste of fuel on the flight.

It was back in the duty free days. The heavier the plane is the more fuel it needs to get off the ground. You were allowed to buy a litre of whiskey in the airport and another litre on the plane. If 300 people did this that is now 600kg extra on take off. You were allowed to do the same on the return flight as well as bringing back you original stuff. That would be 1200kg which is about 1.5 tonnes if you allow for people smuggling stuff.

What a stupid waste of fuel and effort.

[Gadget]

The reasons people don't use the trains instead of flying is the extortionate cost of train travel in the UK.

A day return ticket to London from Hampshire is close to £30.00

A trip from Singapore to Bangkok in a 1st Class Sleeper is £29.00. This is a journey lasting 48 hours and covering nearly 2000 miles.

No wonder we feel we are being ripped off!

Gadget

[SoFarSoGood]

Gadget

Too true. Unless you stick to the same route every day there is no way that train travel is cheaper than running a car.