British environmentalist George Monbiot writes in The Guardian that the expansion of London's Heathrow airport is about class war.
His ludicrous articles are embarrassing and a disservice to the green movement.
Everyone with minimal common sense agrees that the planned third terminal for Heathrow is simply crazy. Opposing the expansion of the airport has nothing to do with being pro or against business, and still less to do with socio-economic status. It has a lot to do with being consistent with a commitment to tackle climate change and of course with the additional issue that the airport is already as it is a great noise and pollution nuisance to millions in the capital. The UK government must live up to its obligations to reduce emissions, in the spirit of the Climate Change Bill that was passed in 2008, and ensure that the airport and its immediate environment meet environmental standards.
Even at its present size, Heathrow will fail to meet all those targets.
I find Monbiot comical but given that he has so much impact I think the whole thing is really tragic. He begins his article moaning about all the middle-class Brits who have Agas and this somehow builds up the argument that it is really the rich and their second homes in France that is the cause of the increase in air traffic and ultimately the expansion of Heathrow airport.
He presents some statistics to show that 54% of people using budget airlines are in fact rather affluent. From this it follows (apparently) that we should dispel the myth of the "anorak tourist" who flies to Sicily for the weekend on a flight that's cost him less than a cab fare, stays at a cheap hotel and eats out at fast-food joints. No, it turns out they are a well-heeled lot jetting off to their home at la Dordogne - and it's just one of those funny things that they pay less for their flight than for their organic camembert.
The angle of the analysis misses the point completely. If Ryanair had to rely only on Brits with second homes in France and Spain, they would fold up tomorrow. Naturally there are passengers from all income brackets, and most are simply spending a few days abroad, whether they earn £30,000 a year or £90,000. This does not discount the fact that it all amounts to excessively frequent, unnecessary and frivolous travel. And that's the key of the problem. It's not a class issue, it's an issue of bad habits.
Naturally it is no miracle that the more affluent will be able to indulge in budget travel more frequently, just like they have a greater share of most goods and services. After all, consumption is correlated to income.
It is quite clear that the second home owning travellers are a very small minority. In the routes to France that Ryanair decided to wind up because of a drop in passenger numbers (and high fuel costs), the Brits who'd purchased second homes there were left to hang and dry. Not only they couldn't get there for the weekend cheaply as before, but also the value of their properties plummeted. Clearly they were not the driving force of the demand.
If then we look at the really rich, then we are talking about tycoons jetting off in their private planes. Their carbon footprint is astronomical, and thankfully the a still smaller minority. All I can say is that they should offset their footprint if they can't reduce it. But they remain outside of the argument because this is such a tiny contribution to the bulk of total aviation emissions.
Brunella Bell
brunella@carbonica.org
CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS
Click here to reduce your carbon footprint