This is another one of those pat phrases that people like to trot out to refer to something that can be universally regarded as A Bad Thing, a bit like people turning up their noses at "'urban sprawl", despite the fact that ninety per cent of us choose to live in urban or suburban areas.
But what on earth does it mean? It is perfectly possible to imagine a world without air travel. For example, had there been many more plane crashes in the early years then aeroplanes might have gone out of fashion in the same way as airships did after The Hindenburg crashed. Or there might have been better lobbying from the shipping and rail industries, and so on. In that case, can it be said that any single (non-military) flight is 'essential'?
But conversely, can it be said that any flight is truly non-essential?
A surprising amount of perishable goods are transported by air, epecially flowers, exotic vegetables from land-locked African countries with little infrastructure apart from an airstrip*. The produce may hardly be 'essential' to the rich consumer in the West, but that income is 'essential' for the grower in Africa.
Yer average Brit could survive without his week or two away in a nice, hot Mediterranean country (given exchange rate movements, it looks like a lot will have to manage without this year), so is that 'essential'? Perhaps not, but what about the economies of the Canary Islands or Malta or Cuba (OK, that's in the Caribbean), without air travel, their income from tourism, a large part of their GDP, would more or less disappear, so is each flight not 'essential' to their economy?
I suppose I could ask whether it is 'essential' for actresses to fly from London to Los Angeles to attend an award ceremony, not really, I suppose, but if that actress can further her career and future income by doing so, why shouldn't she?
Just sayin', is all.
* It is broadly accepted that the total CO2 emissions are often a lot less than what they would have been had the same produce been grown in electrically heated and lighted greenhouses in Europe, but that still does not answer the question of whether that produce is 'essential', of course it isn't - we could live off potatoes and do without flowers.
Sunday 1 February 2009
"Non-essential flights"
My latest blogpost: "Non-essential flights"Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 13:19
Labels: Air travel, Economics, Emma Thompson, Hypocrisy, Logic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"But conversely, can it be said that any flight is truly non-essential? "
No doubt the likes of the 'Guardian' reading classes will say that. What they mean is 'any flight the lower classes take'.
Skiing in Biaritz? Essential!
A fortnight in Benidorm? Non essential!
JM, in which case the analogy with 'urban sprawl' holds up well. My existing house is 'essential' and part of the fabric of the town; but the new estate on the edge of town is 'urban sprawl'.
I'm thinking the way these lot are going we'll see special Roads for the political classes for their essential travel.
Oops too late, it's all planned for the 2012 Olympics.
I wonder will they disappear afterwards?
During the last fuel problems there was a list circulating of jobholders worthy of having access to go-juice. Doctors, nurses, police, financial services workers (yes they were there!) etc. Can't find it now.
economicvoicedotcom
"Non essential", "Key workers", "Hard working falilies", "...which started in America"; are all thought management by people who seem the think that 1984 is a manual, not a caution. Death's too good for them.
Do you really want to live off potatoes and cabbage in the winter months Mark?
NHL, nope*. But those who try and categorise some flights into "non-essential" and by definition others into "essential" obviously do. Take up the argument with them!
* That said, I quite like potatoes and cabbage.
There is a long running ad on my local radio in which two women prattle on about the airmile 'footprint' of various goodies and how 'bad' they are. As you point out MW, those are essential to the developing countries supplying the mange tout, daffodils or whatever.
The ad in question is for a supposedly local kitchin bits supplier but the self-satisfied smugness of the two chatters is extremely irritating.
Is it up to us to judge the reckless pollution of others? I don't think so. It is up to us to help them understand the facts though surely?
So my question would be, how much wealth is being created and/or destroyed by discretionary flights. I assume that it is wealth we are all interested in creating ? Let me know if there is something more important to you.
See here for my point:
http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2007/12/carbon-century-club.html
Post a Comment