In the last post I talked about the EU-US Open Skies Agreement, which demonstrated how it is necessary to take more than just the environmental impact of the aircraft itself into consideration when looking at the overall impact of aviation. I aim to build further on this today by looking at the types of people who fly and how and why this would affect things.
I will be looking at an article (Freire-Medeiros and Name, 2013) exploring the attitudes people living in Rio de Janeiro's largest favela, Rocinha, have towards flying, often for the first time. I will compare it with a report (Collins et al. 2008) about private jets.
On the subject of the environment, most of the people interviewed did not dispute it was an important, man made problem, and that steps were needed to reduce global carbon emissions. When quizzed about green taxes on flights however, although they saw themselves as part of the problem, they justified their reasons for continuing to fly because it is something that they do not do often. Instead they believed people who travelled more often (like their boss) should pay an extra green tax. Through talking to the residents of this "middle class poor" in Rocinha, it demonstrated that despite their economic prosperity increasing in that they could now afford to buy plane tickets, the people were still economically very conscious and that despite an increase in economic status, they remain aware about their expenses and environmental impact.
In contrast to some of the people of Rocinha, who have just been able to afford to fly, Collins et al. (2008) refer to private jets as "one of the most powerful symbols of extreme inequality". The report makes the point that private jets not only burden taxpayers (the report is from the USA), shareholders and other air travellers, they also degrade the environment, social cohesion and public security.
To put some of this into perspective, The environmental impact of flying in a private jet for an hour is the equivalent to driving for a whole year. And general aviation, which includes private jets, pays 3% air traffic control costs despite using 16% of the services, whilst commercial aviation pays 95% when it uses 73%. Private jets emit the same types of pollution and emissions as commercial airliners that I have talk about in previous posts, however they do not carry half as many passengers and the report highlights that 40% of private jet flights in the U.S fly empty with no passengers on board.
In a world where such inequality prevails, many people that are just beginning to see the benefits of flying believe that their circumstances mean that they should not have to pay of for the environmental burden of flying. This is in contrast to the minority where the world is not only their oyster but they are most likely having an entrée of oysters in their private jets whilst en route to Oyster Bay!
The general consensus that was reached by the people interviewed in Brazil (Freire-Medeiros and Name, 2013) was that a shift from taking a bus to travel, compared to a plane reflected the changing economic status of a person. By being able to fly, the people perceive themselves as leading a better life (along with a trip to Disneyland and a shopping stopover in Miami - a common "strategy" to define middle class!). One family came to the conclusion that even though they lived in the favela, they were not poor because they could afford to fly.
On the subject of the environment, most of the people interviewed did not dispute it was an important, man made problem, and that steps were needed to reduce global carbon emissions. When quizzed about green taxes on flights however, although they saw themselves as part of the problem, they justified their reasons for continuing to fly because it is something that they do not do often. Instead they believed people who travelled more often (like their boss) should pay an extra green tax. Through talking to the residents of this "middle class poor" in Rocinha, it demonstrated that despite their economic prosperity increasing in that they could now afford to buy plane tickets, the people were still economically very conscious and that despite an increase in economic status, they remain aware about their expenses and environmental impact.
In contrast to some of the people of Rocinha, who have just been able to afford to fly, Collins et al. (2008) refer to private jets as "one of the most powerful symbols of extreme inequality". The report makes the point that private jets not only burden taxpayers (the report is from the USA), shareholders and other air travellers, they also degrade the environment, social cohesion and public security.
To put some of this into perspective, The environmental impact of flying in a private jet for an hour is the equivalent to driving for a whole year. And general aviation, which includes private jets, pays 3% air traffic control costs despite using 16% of the services, whilst commercial aviation pays 95% when it uses 73%. Private jets emit the same types of pollution and emissions as commercial airliners that I have talk about in previous posts, however they do not carry half as many passengers and the report highlights that 40% of private jet flights in the U.S fly empty with no passengers on board.
In a world where such inequality prevails, many people that are just beginning to see the benefits of flying believe that their circumstances mean that they should not have to pay of for the environmental burden of flying. This is in contrast to the minority where the world is not only their oyster but they are most likely having an entrée of oysters in their private jets whilst en route to Oyster Bay!
 |
| Window seats for everyone! |
This is really interesting! It's interesting that some of the people who live in Rocinha don't consider themselves poor because they can afford to buy a plane ticket. I'm shocked that private jet owners/users don't pay more taxes for their pollution. What do you think should be done to improve this?
ReplyDeleteYes its interesting how optimistic they are about moving to and living in the city! I think that may have something to do with the fact that places like Rocinha are incorporated really well into the city, so residents don't feel so "outside".
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think it's really bad that they would have such a significant environmental impact, and not mind as long as private jet companies remain in profit, or for the sake of saving a few hours of travel time, or just because some people can! I believe they should pay more (i'm not quite sure of breakdown of costs involved with private jets?!) but then I believe that money is not really a substitute for the damage they cause considering the few people that benefit from them. The same can be said for flying in First or Business class though on a commercial flight. There is a lot of energy and waste expense for the benefit of a few people, but then airlines need to fill these seats as they are the sources of greatest income on a flight, so where do you draw the line?!