solutions

Source: Flickr

Lord Adonis has unveiled a plan which has O'Leary and others apoplectic: he wants to wipe out the market for domestic flights in the UK by expanding the high speed rail network. While the Government has often hinted that High Speed 2 (the link between London, Heathrow and the north) would steal some market share, they're only now admitting that fast trains = no planes - domestically, if not internationally.

Across Europe, intercity flights have been decimated by the growth in high speed rail. In December 2007 the Spanish Government opened new lines connecting Madrid to Valladolid and to Málaga. Aberlado Carrillo, the director general of the state rail operator Renfe's high-speed service, described the success of these two lines as "unprecedented and well ahead of what we expected. Traffic has doubled on the Málaga line, and grown by 75% on the Valladolid line."

But don't hold your breath too tightly. Adonis and others were keen to explain that we'd still have to expand all the airports, to cater for predicted growth in demand (which is generated by the expansion, but don't let that spoil anything). I do wish the Government would wake up to the fact that expansion isn't happening and, while we're at it, stop pretending it's ok for the Environment Secretary to support regional airport expansion.

Michael O'Leary, the industry's rent-a-clown, was wheeled out to perform tricks. He's unhappy because he won't make any money if we're not all sitting on his horrid little planes. He doesn't believe in climate change, so finds the Transport Secretary justifying modal shift on eco-grounds a tad irritating. Sorry Michael, now you know how we feel everytime your smug face pops up on the telly crying about Greedy Gordon's Tax on Fun or whatever it is you complain about. No more Ryanair or Flybe is a good thing.

Source: Flickr

It's a dilemma we all face now and then. I want a holiday and I don’t fancy Skegness. I want sun, sea and sex. I might even settle for two out of the three. Or just the sex…..if the person’s right. But not in Skegness.

This year three places take my fancy. Rome and then on to the Italian coast. A week exploring the delights of old Prague. Or a leisurely holiday in Austria. I’ve checked out the flights to Rome, Prague and Vienna. Even allowing for the hidden charges added by the likes of Ryanair, I can still get a bargain if I book in good time.

But then I start to read about what flying is doing to the planet. It is the fastest-growing source of CO2 emissions. In the UK it accounts for 13% of our greenhouse gas impact, if you include what is known as radiative forcing. That’s a lot from one industry - even if it does take me on holiday.

I check out Rome and Prague. I discover that a train would have to travel from London to Madras and back before polluting the air as much as a 747’s return flight to Prague and a tourist could drive around Rome on a scooter non-stop for more than six months and still produce fewer emissions than a flight from London. Not good!

I check out the trains. I go to The Man in Seat 61. I am surprised how quick the journey times actually are. I can leave London early afternoon and be in Rome, Prague or Vienna in time for breakfast the next morning. The cost is more of a problem: anything from £120 return to Rome to about £180 to Prague or Vienna.

But what does strike me is that, potentially, rail is an alternative for many flights to Europe. Where fast and reasonably affordable rail services have been introduced, people have switched from plane to train in sizeable numbers. For example, when the train journey between Paris and Brussels was reduced to about an hour, the air service ceased. Or take the Paris-Marseille route. Rail held only 22% of the air-rail market before TGV Mediterranean went into service (2001), but in four years that market share rose to 65% and in 2006 it was 69%.

Rail can provide an alternative for many air trips. The evidence shows that when journey times are no more than about 3½ - 4 hours, people like the train. That covers about 500 kilometres, the distance from London to the Scottish border. And the hard fact of the matter is that around 45% of air trips within Europe are 500 kilometres or less. But my exploration of The Man in Seat 61 shows that even for much longer distances trains become viable alternatives.

Life has changed a bit now that I’ve decided to avoid flying whenever I can. It means that quick weekend breaks to Bucharest, Belgrade or Budapest are off the agenda. But, realistically, they didn’t happen much anyway because I lacked the time and money. It also means I’ve learnt - or re-learnt – that the enjoyment of getting there is part of the holiday, be it a scenic train journey down the Rhine or a coffee in one of Europe’s splendid rail stations. I’ve even begun to explore some of the forgotten corners of the UK.

I admit that if I could afford to go to Australia, America or the Far East, flying might be the only option, but for the kind of holidays that are realistic for me – and most people – on a regular basis, the train, and sometimes the coach or ferry, is a real alternative. Even when the destination is not Skegness.

It finally seems like we might just be getting through to people - maybe even the hard-working British families the aviation industry likes to blame for their plans to turn Britain into Airstrip One. According to the 25th British Social Attitudes Report, 70% of Brits now agree "that air travel has a serious effect on climate change." This may not strike readers of our website as an especially mind-blowing revelation - but it's worth remembering that only 83% of Brits currently agree that bears shit in the woods.

Of perhaps greater significance is the news that "The proportion who agree that people should be able to travel by plane 'as much as they like' is 63%, down from 78% in 2003. When asked the same question but with the extra words 'even if it harms the environment', agreement falls from 63% to 19%."

Taken a short-haul flight recently? What about a long-haul trip? If you have, you'll have paid Air Passenger Duty, which recently rose a little bit (roughly to where it was in the 2000 Budget, before then-Chancellor Gordon Brown decided to cut it to encourage more people to fly). According to the Daily Telegraph, the Government has "admitted" that the cost of APD paid by passengers outweighs the cost of the emitted carbon by £100 million.

This is the culmination of monetisation, a dangerous trend that sits at the heart of the emissions trading scheme, the Kyoto Protocol and pretty much every market-driven solution to rising CO2 emissions. Monetisation is the principle that things without economic value - such as an eco-system, ancient woodland or a Norman church - can be given a value. From that it follows that if business and Government damages or destroys this invaluable thing, they can merely pay its value for doing so - always less than the profit made from the damage or destruction.

As anyone who has ever had a road or runway built through their community, seen a beauty spot ruined by the roar of jet aircraft overhead or watched rising sea levels wipe out their home knows, there are some things you cannot put a price on. How can you put a value on the right to breathe clean air, to eat unpolluted food, to live without fear of global climate breakdown? Some things simply cannot be bought and sold, and we must recognise that those who would put a price on life do so to make it easier for them to take it from us.