Stalled on the runway: why the avian industry is refusing to innovate.

After your diet, which I have previously untangled (link below), the most meaningful environmentally conscious action is to stop flying. In fact, a single return journey across europe can undo all of the emissions saved from a meat free diet in a year.

The huge greenhouse gas release from planes isn’t catastrophic at the moment, as flying is only available to the absolute elite and so only accounts for 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, by 2050 this is expected to grow to 25%, for two reasons:

First, as global affluence increases, the demand for flights increases.

Secondly, and most importantly, the rise is due to the expected decarbonisation of other industries, which have recognised the threat of climate change and have started to adapt.

Disappointingly though, the aviation industry is not looking to follow suit. Instead, more and more planes will be bellowing out greenhouse gases thousands of kilometers up, exactly where they can have the biggest warming effect. The reason, is that governments view flying as a means of economic prosperity and a grab for power on the foreign market. As such, the tax on plane journeys are absurdly low (I got a return flight last year from the UK to Italy for £14).

Companies claim to be trying to reduce emissions, but they do this by increasing efficiency. However, efficiency is reaching its peak and only marginal gains are being made. Really, there is no incentive for the aviation industry to innovate because they have almost finished improving efficiency, and there is no economic gain from being environmentally friendly.

Simon blakely, from the University of Sheffield explains that two possible solutions exist: either reduce the number of flights, or replace the fuel with a sustainable alternative. Unfortunately, he explains, fuel replacement technology seems a world away, as biofuels would require huge amounts of deforestation to be viable.

Therefore, the only option is to reduce the number of flights. Considering that 70% of flights are from frequent flyers, changing tax so that it doubles per flight made in a year, rather than staying the same for everybody, could be an option.

Diet impacts: https://swiftscience971095579.wordpress.com/2019/05/24/just-how-bad-is-eating-meat-for-the-planet/

Car impacts: https://swiftscience971095579.wordpress.com/2019/04/13/the-car-a-self-necessitating-parasite/

Advertisements

Politics and policy are not the same. They are at war and this is a major problem.

Ever get frustrated that nothing seems to get done nowadays, even if it has a simple solution? As a society, we have realised the failings of a multitude of issues for decades that has resulted in a sexist, racist, unequal world that is under unprecedented threat. Yet still we bulldoze on, destroying everything in our path and perpetuating these issues on a bigger and bigger scale. So why, if we know these problems exist, and we know the answers, don’t we simply do something about it?

This is not a politically charged article, but one that identifies a fundamental issue with the current political system, regardless of right or left wing views. That issue is the difference between policy and politics.

There are two basic differences, both of which seriously undermines finding solutions.

Firstly, policy, in theory, aims to use science and reason alone to solve problems. Politics, on the other hand, aims to wins votes. This difference is important because it turns out basing policy on science and reason is not effective in winning votes. For example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes social, economic and environmental sense, but it doesn’t win votes and so governments won’t make it policy.

Second, policy works on whatever timescale is needed. Fitting a village with electricity maybe a policy on a monthly scale, but other issues, such as providing housing to everybody, works on a long-term, decadal scale. Politics, however, only works on a short timescale. Politicians make policy only for the next few years, and nothing beyond. This is because long term plans will benefit future governments, not their own and they can be brought down with ease, as soon as another government gets into power.

What is the point then for a politician to think to the future when it firstly won’t get them votes, and will probably be rejected as soon as a different government get into power?