It Depends On The Definition Of Essential Internal Flights, Doesn’t It?


The latest little proposalette over what we should do about climate change:

Some solutions are simple: state intervention to nationalise the railways and further subsidise prices would be a start. Meanwhile, banning all non-essential domestic flights within England, Scotland and Wales is common sense thinking. Simply increasing taxes on air travel isn’t going far enough. Restricting flight numbers might initially sound drastic, but with 8% of global emissions coming from travel, and the sector set to grow at 4% per year internationally, there is no other choice.

This is to ignore the most basic economics of course. The most efficient manner of rationing anything is by price.

That though runs into that equity problem. But so too does this idea of banning non-essential. For who is it that determines what is essential? We know damn well that MPs will be declared as essential travellers. So too civil servants. And we can no doubt look forward to those attending climate change conferences as being so. Possibly those who work in woke NGOs – after all, combating the societal exclusion of the ill-gendered snowflake is a vital function, is it not?

And the Senior Lecturer must be allowed to visit Scotland, his time is far too valuable to waste on a train.

Who determines essential then? And why in buggery would we trust in those who claim that it should be them doing the determining?