It’s time for some plane speaking
With recent rumblings of multiple airports wanting to increase capacity and expand UK domestic flight paths, it seems more important than ever to remind ourselves that we are in a climate emergency.
Currently, the aviation industry seems intent on solving the emissions issue by relying on the development of zero-emission flight technology, electric aircraft or sustainable aviation fuel for guilt– free flying. While the need to cut emissions is certain, the development of this new technology is not. Simply put, rather than wait for a breakthrough in zero-carbon flying, we need to start flying less.
Our latest report, Plane Speaking: moving journeys from air to rail, sets out how we can begin to reduce the number of flights and target a sector that has seen a staggering increase in emissions of 124 per cent from 1990 to 2019.
It found that by reducing the most popular domestic flights by half, we could save 409,598 tonnes of carbon: the equivalent of taking 283,000 cars off the road. Whilst this may sound like a tall order, our report revealed that the majority of the most popular domestic and near-Europe flights can be completed more quickly and cheaply by train, making a switch to rail immediately possible for thousands of journeys.
As well as switching journeys away from air to rail, we need to start taxing aviation fairly. For starters, the Government should introduce a tax on aviation fuel, a tax that many other counties already use, which would be applied like fuel tax is on petrol and diesel. Ideally this tax would increase over the years, to incentivise further development of aircrafts that require little to no kerosene fuel. Our report also calls for a reversal of the cut in Air Passenger Duty (APD) for domestic flights and a new ‘super’ rate of APD for private jet passengers, along with adding VAT to each and every private flight to price out unsustainable travel habits, specifically for those domestic flight routes with viable green rail options identified in our research.
Our report also busted some aviation myths…
Myth #1: ‘Flying is always cheaper’. Often, we have this belief that flights are cheaper than rail travel, probably due to them being significantly undertaxed in comparison to other travel modes. But in actual fact, more than half (57 per cent) of the top 23 routes we identified (that could be substituted for rail, and have their journey conducted within a reasonable time limit), were either cheaper or there was no significant price difference. And where they may be similar in price, ALL trains, are more environmentally friendly than flying, with rail producing at least seven times less emissions per passenger than its flight equivalent.
Myth #2. ‘But flights are faster’ …but… are they? Consider the amount of time it takes to get to an airport, let’s say 30 minutes to be generous (from where I live in London, it takes me an hour and a bit to get to Heathrow) then arriving two hours early as recommended (because we Brits love to queue) plus checking in, 30 minutes to disembark after the flight has been conducted, and an additional 30 minutes travel from that airport to the nearby city centre. That’s three hours and 30 minutes, without accounting for the travel time itself (which could be an hour or two for domestic flights). What have I done within that time, other than being stressed and hoping I make my flight in the first place, and then stressfully trying to figure my way out of the new airport to my destination city? Of course, on a train I’d get on, take my laptop out and get work done, with the value of productive time per hour on the train being estimated by the Department for Transport at £40.72.
Myth #3: ‘But not all flights could be substituted by rail, even if they are cheaper, greener, and more productive to do so’. Ok so to be fair, this is not a total myth, but for those that are (and our report proved more than half of the most popular domestic and near-Europe ones are) the train should be the transport mode of choice with investment prioritised for areas with poor rail connectivity to increase the capability to substitute air travel with rail travel.
So what have we learned? Flights are NOT always the cheaper option (so check the equivalent rail journey when making travel plans domestically), but flights are ALWAYS more environmentally damaging, producing 246g of CO2 emissions per passenger km travelled – at least seven times more than rail. And do they save time? Not really!
You can help with our campaign to tackle domestic aviation emissions by writing to the Transport Secretary, Mark Harper MP, to ask him to introduce measures to curb emissions. We’ve created an easy online form so please take our supporter action today.
Read our report, Plane speaking: moving journeys from air to rail, in full here.
