Germany is discussing possible bans & taxes on (short) flights & so conservative daily Welt is claiming that "for the poor, the costs of climate change mitigation are more threatening than climate change".
Which means it's *debunking thread time again*
If you want to argue that climate policies are particularly bad for the poor, there are plenty of examples where this claim is more or less plausible.
But you really, really don't want to pick air travel as it's the best *counterexample*. See thread.
More than 60% of German don't fly in a given year. Just 8% fly more than 3 times.
But I hear you say: maybe the poor fly little, but still spend a lot of their little income on flights?
Yeah, well: no. The richest 20% of Germans spends 4% of its income on flights. The poorest? A figure so low that it's been rounded to 0%
BTW such extreme inequalities are not just a German thing. They're found in most European countries.
...and since we're talking about air travel, inequalities and injustice, I would be remiss not to mention this study doi.org/10.1016/j.gloe…
➡️2%-4% of global population flew internationally in 2018.
➡️ 1% of world population emits 50% of air travel CO2
So why do the likes of Die Welt & The Sun make such unlikely claims.
Well it's a classic discourse of climate delay (doi.org/10.1017/sus.20…): argue that climate policies will hurt the poor, when in fact you're more interested in preserving the status quo than in social justice
as a side note - for those of us who really care about the social impacts of climate change mitigation, and spend time studying them, there's nothing more annoying than such misleading claims, often put forward by outlets with a poor track record on social issues
/END
[the discourses of climate delay cartoon is by @leolinne. Pinging @_mtiemann since I saw the Welt article first on her feed]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We first review existing cross-sectional evidence on the deteminants of air travel - summarised in this table (which the reviewers didn't like so didn't make it into the final paper :) )
Why it's interesting to use panel data?
1. How travel behaviour changes over the life course is interesting in and of itself
2. It provides better evidence of causality than cross-sectional data
3. Shows which groups & trends are driving rapid growth in air travel
Having grown up in Berlusconi's Italy, I can feel it in my bones that when they win the first time, it's tough, but when they win *again*, after all they've demonstrated, *that's* the really hard one to take
When it happens the first time, you can think "This is an aberration, this was a tantrum, people don't really stand behind this, this is not who we are". The second time around really brings home that yes, this is what many of "us" are & stand for.
But in a way, it cures you from populism. No there is no innocent, well-intentioned mass of people who have been misled. We live in liberal democracies with a lot of people who fundamentally reject key principles of liberal democracy.
[Little pedantic note before we start. For various good reasons the analysis in this paper refers to "fuel burnt", not CO2 emissions. But there is an almost perfect equivalence between the two so it doesn't matter in the end]
More than half of flights globally (54.5%) are over distances of less than 1,000km. The kind of flights you could imagined substituting with trains
The problem is that these flights account for *just 17.9% of fuel burnt*. Why? Because they're short
When my German-Italian son was born in the UK, with my family name despite us not being married, the German officials initially wanted to give us a passport with the mother's name, despite him having my name on both the UK birth certificate and the Italian passport 🤦♂️
There is something deeply amusing (and annoying ofc) in this "We refuse to acknowledge that foreign countries exist" when dealing with foreign countries that you sometimes encounter with Behörde.
OFC this attracted the usual responses along the lines of "How dare you question the holy rules"
Aviation emissions are booming. With climate targets looming, you would expect governments to act. And yet they don't - if anything they work to make sure that emissions increase even further. But why?
We tend to think of the aviation problem as one where we have this problematic sector, aviation, and then the State sitting outside of it. And we want the State to act as a REGULATOR so that emissions decrease.
What this study shows is that this is a very naive way of thinking.