If you've been reading my work for a while, you probably know that I had a career before I entered into the world of punditry. For 30 years I worked in the medical device industry, with 20 of those years as an independent corporate consultant. Yes, I was one of those jacket-and-tie types, and like so many corporate consultants, I found myself at the airport on a lot of Monday mornings, getting on a jet airliner to fly off somewhere for work. For most of those 20 years, I spent more nights away from home than I spent at home. The money was, candidly, great, but my living depended in large part on affordable airfare, as I was buzzing all over North America, from Boston to Los Angeles, from Guadalajara to Montreal, with places like Japan, China, and South Africa thrown in.
So imagine my consternation when I ran across evidence of a "green" plan to lay heavy fees on air travel out of Europe - which, in my previous career, would have cost me a lot of work.
And here's the thing: As usual, it's not about climate at all.
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.
There's an apocryphal quote attributed to Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, who railed against passenger railways as they would "...cause unrest by allowing the lower orders to travel too freely about." I've never been able to confirm that quote but from what I've read of the Iron Duke, it wouldn't surprise me. It's the same attitude that is in play here; these fees won't affect the largely wealthy elites who push these schemes.
But it's not about climate. It's about control. It's always about control.
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.
The surcharges, of course, won't raise anything near €64 billion, because as the left so often does, they completely misread how punitive taxation affects behavior. Incentives matter, and if they viciously disincentivize travel like this, then people won't travel. This will have a chilling effect on travel out of Europe, and for people like corporate consultants - people like I used to be - it would be a direct slam in the wallet.
This is, of course, what the climate scolds call a "good start."
See Related: Why Net Zero Schemes Will Inevitably Lead to Energy Rationing
Climate Colonialism: Western Climate Scolds Campaign Against Energy for Africa
The greens have no intention of stopping with fees.
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”.
These fees wouldn't just hurt people whose livelihoods depend on air travel. They have the potential to separate families, preventing people from visiting parents, children, and grandchildren who have moved to another part of the world. It would damage the tourism industries in places where visitors provide a good portion of the area's income - places like Alaska.
Feature, not bug. When you encounter these proposals and the people who push them, remember, it's not about climate. It's about control. It's always about control. When you apply that reasoning, everything else they do makes sense.
