A radical new plan to reduce international air travel from Europe to minimal levels over the next few years has been proposed by a group of Net Zero fanatics led by the New Economics Foundation (NEF). Massive charges under a ‘frequent flyer levy’ are proposed, the effect of which could quickly destroy large sections of the international air transportation industry. Some of the money raised – or not as the case may be – will be sent abroad as ‘climate aid’ to less developed countries forced to stay poor by mandated restrictions on their use of hydrocarbons. Needless to say, the work is the product of what Ben Pile recently termed “bog-standard Green Blob fronts”. Writing and promoting the NEF publication involved a number of operations heavily funded by the usual suspects including the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and ClimateWorks.
The fantasy plan calls for large European surcharges to be added to ticket prices for multiple annual trips. Financial details are not provided in the press release but the report suggests €50 for a medium distance trip and additional levies of €100 for long and “comfort” classes. This would appear to suggest an extra €250 charge for long-distance business and first class travel. George Monbiot of the Guardian boasts of the report having been shared exclusively with his newspaper and writes that the €100 levy on both distance and class will rise with each trip. It is hoped the surcharges will raise €64 billion, a sum said to be equivalent to 30% of the entire EU annual budget. This would be spent, at least until the golden goose is killed stone dead, on accelerating Europe to a “fairer, greener economy”. More virtuous bungs can be sent to countries to stop them using hydrocarbons and recompense them for the non-existent climate crisis.
Although the report talks of reducing travel by around 25%, the blow will be much worse in financial terms. Many airlines rely on premium travel to keep economy tickets low and severe reductions would affect the economics of aviation, both in the air and on the ground. Reducing passenger traffic by a suggested 25% and very likely much more, would require massive restructuring across the board including air traffic control, baggage handling, security and border activities and airport management. Yet more lost jobs to be added to the increasing pile of Net Zero casualties.
Not that this is the end of the attack. Air travel has enabled countless millions to travel for pleasure, holidays, education, business and to connect with family over the last few decades. In pursuit of ther mad Net Zero policies, the eco-zealots tell us, further restrictions “would therefore be necessary”. These would include caps on the number of flights, airport slots, night flights, private jets and “limits on the more damaging comfort classes of travel”.
Want to know what is being planned by the Net Zero fanatics – look at what their Blob-funded puppets are writing. In this case, forget about flying within just a few short years.
The New Economics Foundation has been around for a few years pumping out Left wing propaganda. It is no surprise that the hard Left’s favourite money tree the Rowntree Trust has funnelled in cash, although much larger amounts have been supplied by the Laudes Foundation and the ECF. As Ben Pile noted recently in the Daily Sceptic, most of the organisations active in the climate domain in the U.K. are funded by the ECF directly, or by one of the half dozen or so of the ECF’s grantor philanthropic foundations. As Pile also observes, the “hapless consumer” is ensnared by the phantom institutions that represent the green-ideology-addled British Establishment.
The NEF report is co-written by the Stay Grounded Network which, perhaps to nobody’s surprise, is funded by the ECF. The aviation campaigner at this outfit, Magdalena Heuwieser, says that the single trip flyer is paying the same tax as a traveller making 10 trips. Except that the more frequent flyer is actually paying 10 times more tax. Designed to fit a political narrative, Left wing sums often diverge from reality. In his article, Monbiot notes that air travel, heavily taxed as most passengers are aware, is “heavily subsidised” since the fuel is exempt from duties. In Monbiot’s world, a lack of a specific tax is often seen as a ‘subsidy’, while an actual £12 billion annual subsidy loaded onto U.K. electricity consumers to pay for unreliable renewable power is passed off as an ‘investment’. One reason fuel duty is not levied on aviation is that mobile jet aircraft will ‘tanker up’ at cheaper locations.
Monbiot reports on the view of Marlene Engelhorn who states that the “mile-high club of private planet combustion, where wealthy people like me can ferment in our comfort zones, needs to close it doors”. Easy to say of course when you are a wealthy heiress who has inherited a fortune from the BASF chemical operation. Other people who work for a living and need holidays and some modest comfort as they travel to drum up business might take a different view.
According to Monbiot, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) reviewed an early draft of the NEF report. Another Green Blob-funded operation of course, mostly it seems through ClimateWorks. This large operation channels considerable flows of money from other billionaire foundations such as Hewlett and Packard. These two latter operations are also direct funders of ICCT. Flying less is obviously the most effective solution to cutting emissions, states Sola Zhang, described by Monbiot as an aviation “expert”. Another operation quoted by Monbiot, More in Common, found that rich people would be most affected by a frequent flyer levy because they fly more. Again such value, such insight – funders ECF, the George Soros Open Society Foundation and Hewlett must be very pleased.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Thanks for this – interesting.
Seems like governments were responsible for a lot of it, directly and indirectly. So much for the government being pushed into action by the public clamour.
I think the biggest reason the press followed government policy on covid is money. Always follow the money. At the beginning of lock down most corporate advertising plummeted, at the same time money from government advertising for covid measures rocketed, along with money from “vaccine” manufacturers. No journalist was allowed to bite the hand that feeds.
Spot on. They were paid. Who are the biggest financiers of the fake news? Government and Pharma. UK Guv spent some £500 million on the BBC et al to spread the propaganda?
Funny how the ‘money’ never makes into these useless whitewashing Covidiot inquiries.
Medical Nazism. TPTB learnt that the sheeple love to follow and will happily kill themselves ‘if it saves one life’.
Which shows they were and are in the wrong job.
They could have parroted the official line perhaps with a quizzical look to imply their hands were tied. Algorhythms are not so clever as to pick up body language.
No – I firmly believe the vast majority of journos were as stupid and credulous as my neighbours and swallowed the lies whole.
Honourable exceptions exist but they had to speak via podcast or substack- I’m thinking Planet Normal and the many people of integrity on substance.
“We had no such thing as printed newspapers in those days to spread rumours and reports of things, and to improve them by the invention of men, as I have lived to see practised since.”
Lines from the preamble to “Journal of the Plague Year”, Daniel Defoe’s forensic reconstruction in the year 1722 of London’s Great Plague of 1665.
Meaning British media has been going for over three hundred years. Over the last thirty years, the silicon chip has taken invention to a whole new level. Witness the pandemic that never was and the climate heist.
The madness of crowds has a lot to answer for. Keep those critical faculties primed.
In my mind there is no question it was ordered at a global level, which applies to the whole ‘pandemic’ narrative – and not only the latter: where is the media questioning of Net Zero, of the gender narrative, of the billions and billions senselessly spent on Ukraine?
Unlimited immigration is only now being questioned – after how many years? – because so many populations are becoming sick and tired of the various atrocities performed by our invited guests.
Richard Nixon warned in 1983 in this short video against the power of the media – perhaps hardly surprising – but his comments were very intelligent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEX6ONLvJg0.
The world’s media are currently owned by a surprisingly small number of individuals. The questions is, who are they taking their orders from?
Thanks for that Richard Nixon link. Can’t find link to cassette recordings, but Nixon tapes from inside Oval Office make for interesting hearing:
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/white-house-tapes
Very interesting, thank you. Does every ex-President have such a library? That would make a lot of fascinating reading.
The saddest thing is that the mass psychosis and hysteria of the Covid crisis is nothing unusual. Which, unfortunately, implies it can happen again.
In Adolph’s Germany most of the population believed in and supported the great leader.
Likewise Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all totalitarian systems were capable of whipping up mass hysteria.
We laugh at the medieval witch hunts – human nature hasn’t changed that much.
It is happening again right now – Climate hysteria!
I never understood why journalists were afraid to do their job. But it’s clear they were psychologically nudged by government groupthink and captured regulatory agencies in cahoots with big pharma to peddle a false narrative. David Southwell’s article is an honest and articulate exposé of what went wrong during the pseudo pandemic. Well done.
Money – they have mortgages to pay and families to feed like everyone else…
The BBC was probably one of the worst. I recall a highly plausible story of a BBC reporter sent to cover an anti-lockdown protest, with the sole purpose of capturing any violations of social distancing rules. The reporter admitted this when asked.
“..is fed to us by governments, authorities and experts even in, or especially during, ’emergencies’.”
Like so many well meaning articles what is missing is what really matters. Nothing about the paymasters of all those listed. The Big Pharma. Strange omission for an experienced journalist.
6. Unlimited taxpayer funded government advertising in MSM, printed and broadcast.
No excuses.
The only questions were asked by Mark Steyn, who was sacked, is now wheelchair bound, bankrupted by the establishment.
Every ‘journalist’ who submitted copy to either justify or disregard the greatest crime in British history should resign.
Now.
Articles such as these tend to discount the enthusiasm with which ordinary citizens were torch-carriers for extreme Covid policies. Determining whether media was responding to that, or driving that, is chicken and egg.
Julia Hartley Brewer of Talk Radio appeared to be a lone voice of sanity. The BBC a government mouthpiece, as it is with the Climate lie
I always found it strange we were shown videos of Chinese people collapsing in the street with covid but never saw any such thing in the West. Was it a Chinese invention Psy Ops to break Western economies.
They are still not doing their job now. They should be calling out the climate nonsense all those dangerous clowns in Davos, questioning Nut Zero and basically anything that comes out of a politician’s or scientist’s mouth. There are some brave ones Neill Oliver, Mark Steyn, Bev Turner and of course all those at TDS to name a few but the rest are just abject cowards.
Indeed, and look at what happens to them; quietly sent into the dusty attic, if they keep their jobs at all.
What this article fails to mention is the role played by the mainstream media (and the BBC in particular) in bullying the Johnson government into adopting such over-the-top and excessive policies in the first place. If you remember, Boris Johnson was initially favouring a ‘herd immunity’ approach, one which might well have seen the UK following a similar path to Sweden during the pandemic, a country whose population suffered far less economic and societal dislocation and whose excess deaths ended up the lowest in Europe. The general media ‘pile-on’ during that period in March 2020 when scare stories from Italy and elsewhere were circulating daily proved far too much for Boris and his ministers to withstand. So the path we eventually chose reflected possibly a lack of moral fibre amongst Conservative ministers and the change that seems to have taken place during the last 30 years in which governments, lamentably, often change course and have their policies shaped by the hue and cry emitting from a generally shallow, left-leaning and holier-than-thou media.
If journalism has a public policy role beyond mere description or stenography, it should be to relentlessly question what governments, authorities and, yes, even ‘experts’ are saying and doing.
I would suggest from that paragraph – especially experts!
So-called Experts got us into that mess (and others – Climate, Ukraine). In the case of “Covid” only a small subset of credentialed experts were listened to, other critical experts were shunned, shamed and silenced, and that is why the whole horrific debacle was as bad as it was!
Neil Fergus – Good
Sunetra Gupta – Bad
Jay Bhattacharya – Bad
Martin Kulldorf – Bad
Anthony Fauci – Good
Bill Gates (!!!!!) – Good
“This is Why the Media Failed During Covid”
And failed over immigration, rape gangs, climate change, the 70 year long failure of the NHS, anti-white racism, “transgender” crap, wokery, debanking, EEC/EU and Brexit… it’s a long list.
Is there a pattern I wonder?