easyJet report makes easyMistake

What is it with economists that gets them so confused about climate change? The poor fools seem convinced that they can 'cost-benefit' the planet, and just pay for any damage that they cause.

The latest example of this comes from self-proclaimed environmental airline easyJet, who've released a new report which claims that aviation pays its full environmental costs four times over.

Unsurprisingly the report is aimed at scrapping APD, which then-Chancellor Gordon Brown returned to its 2000-2001 budgetary level late last year - and any media coverage will no doubt focus on their suggestion for a replacement based on taxing the plane not the passenger. This would be a pity, as the report is based on some very dodgy economics.

Easyjet's claims to pay the cost of the damage four times over are based on a misconception that the earth is a closed-system of infinite resources. Under this model, damage done can be valued and someone paid to clear it up - a bit like trashing a hotel room and footing the bill.

It may be a nice idea, but in practice it's fatally flawed. The earth isn't a china shop, where all breakages can be paid for. New furniture can be ordered from the factory, but there's no planet factory ready to churn out a new Bangladesh when the old one sinks under rising sea levels.

The damage from climate change is not wrought on fixtures and fittings, but on people and their livelihoods. We can't just offset a few million people's lives by chucking a fiver at them all and talking about our prototype 'ecojet' that will never enter production.

Ill-thought out reports like this claim to be seeking the truth about aviation's impact on the climate. Instead, they demonstrate just how out of touch industry is with the real effects of global warming, and how dedicated to 'business as usual companies' who profit by carbon emission have become.