A Glasgow granny
Consider, if you will, a Glasgow granny. She poses a tricky problem for the idea which David Cameron is about to embrace - charging VAT on domestic flights.
Today's Tory argues that:
• The growth of aviation needs to be curbed.
• Most short haul journeys could be undertaken just as quickly by train.
• Many of them are taken by relatively wealthy businessmen including regular commuters thus, if you could use taxes to give people an incentive to let the train take the strain you would cut greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the need to expand airports without hurting poorer people who need to get around the UK.
µþ³Ü³Ù…
• Glasgow is not well served by trains.
• The journey's much slower than it is by air.
• Granny isn't a businessman and there are lots of grannies in Glasgow [or Aberdeen or Inverness grannies] with relatives down south. And, of course, vice versa. What if granny can't travel but is sick and needs to be visited regularly.
When I put this to the report's author Zac Goldsmith yesterday, he suggested that you could treat Glasgow flights differently from those to, say, Manchester.
µþ³Ü³Ù…
Imagine trying to levy VAT only on certain domestic flights and not others. What if the flight starts not in London but Exeter or Southampton or Newcastle? Would the tax depend on distance travelled or speed of alternative rail travel? And what about Paris which will now be as quick for many Londoners to get to by train as Manchester or York?
The party's answer appears to be - I am still checking this out - to keep it simple ie to charge VAT on all domestic flights. Er, except those to Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands.
Now, of course, I realise there are losers to any tax change and that can't stop politicians suggesting them.
µþ³Ü³Ù…
Stand by for granny to protest…
I'm 
Comments
I'm not quite sure where the curb in air travel has come from. It's not air travel per se that is the problem. It is the environmental impact of the aircraft.
What you do is set a carbon limit on the airport that decreases every year. When they run out of carbon - they stop flying out of the airport.
Very soon you get cleaner aircraft, less environmental impact and economic benefits to boot.
But then why do something simple when something complex will do - particularly if the real sleight of hand is to fill a hole in the tax calculations.
"Glasgow isn't well served by trains"
I'd be delighted to hear how you arrived at that conclusion as both the east coast and west coast mainlines start and terminate at Glasgow Central.
Having a Glasgow granny or any other Scottish granny moan about Tory plans is hardly going to worry the party leader - there's no votes North of the Border worth taking about.
Could 'we' not apply the Barnett Formula to VAT on domestic flights, this would alleviate the disadvantage of the ‘Glasgow Granny’, such a move would obviously have the support of the whole of the British population. Like most of the products of Conservative tanks, plenty of resonance with little actual understanding of the problem, lack of in depth analysis, addressing only the problems of the 500 Old Etonians whose opinion was sought.
How timely that John Selwyn Gummer and foot and mouth appear together, true a differing bovine disease however the coincidence is spooky; burger anyone.
Goldsmith, Gummer and the other Tory Greenies are complete idiots. I think the Conservatives are on a collective suicide mission to avoid governing after the next General Election - what do they know that that we don't?
The other option is that young Zac is enacting out some kind of revenge on his late fathers behalf...
I've been opposed to a tax quick fix on air travel from the start. The real issue is one of investment and desire. A sound infrastructure and shifting the desire of travel to something more local look like better solutions. Business users are only going to pass the cost on and it will disproportionately impact those less able to pay. Overall, this tax is a substitute for investment and planning.
I note the government has put the planned national high speed rail network on hold. Given the spending pressures this is understandable. With more investment and shifting attitudes towards the regions, some momentum may start developing to change this. Perhaps, if the domestic leisure and tourist industry can shift up a gear things might change even quicker.
I've learned a lot from Japan and America. The lessons of quality and connectedness, and investment and marketing aren't too difficult to absorb but Britain is atrocious. Yes, it's creative and less bound by formality but it also makes it cluttered and backward looking. We procrastinate instead of striving single-mindedly for developing better alternatives. Pick your focus.
Nic,
The whole debate about green taxes is absurd. First of all, the mere suggestion to change the focus of taxation from taxes that generally discourage beneficial behaviours (e.g., work and wealth creation) to taxes that discourage not-so-beneficial behavious (e.g., pollution) is met by outrage.
Secondly, if you consider your VAT argument, this applies to all things where VAT is levied, including food, clothes, nappies (even those for grannies) and so on. People with higher income will always be better placed to afford the VAT than poor grannies in Glasgow, this does not mean VAT is not levied on other essentials.
As a matter of fact, grannies would be far better off relaxing on the 15.10 from Glasgow central rather than stressing out to Prestwick international for the cheapest Ryanair ticket (other airlines are available) - the overall journey time, by the way, would not be too far away from the 6 hours the train takes.
I don't disagree with the Granny analysis, but what about all the voters that now either regularly get flooded, or those who regularly suffer water shortages. There is growing realisation that urgent action has to be taken on climate change and that part of that has to be tackling emissions from aviation.
Putting VAT on the flights will only affect consumers like 'Granny'. I would assume that relatively wealthy businessmen will pass on the expense to their company, which will simply claim the VAT back. The same applies to regular commuters. They will either expense the flights and do the same thing, or register an umbrella company and do the same thing.
VAT is designed as a consumer tax - it can't gouge anyone else!
"Many of them are taken by relatively wealthy businessmen including regular commuters" - who can both afford the rise, justify it through business expenses and probably find a way to offset it against tax. Which leaves the already disproportionately taxed middle income workers to shoulder the price hike.
We need alternatives not punitive measures; monorail anyone?
Hi Nick, What a load of RUBBISH coming out from the Tories. When pressed by the media to quantify or indicate what they have in mind, the replies from Zac Goldsmith were, quote - (Mmmm ehhh no, yes emmm, not quite, ohhh emmmeeeehh) - unquote.
These are the same half backed ideas to please Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Nick, we are more interested to know what would Cameron do with the requests of the Unions if he had to be in office tomorrow? Would he give in, and therefore spend more then Labour = inflation = more taxes to fund, or stick to what Cameron had said 2 weeks ago whereby he pledged to stick to Labour's planned spending and taxing for the next 3 years? Have a nice day Nick. Oh by the way Nick! What kind of vehicle does Goldsmith drive?
Tut, tut, tut. In spite of the fact that the idea being floated is a bad one, I don't think picking on a single example of a granny (presumably the one you had in mind still had possession of all of her faculties) in the way you have is very nice. You could pick on a single example for virtually any situation anywhere for anything. The only way not to affect someone is by doing anything, but I guess that by doing nothing everyone is affected. By the way, while we're on the issue of greenery, I thought the car park charging idea was so ridiculous I could hardly believe it was true - and I'm naturally disposed to the Tories. The trouble is, and this is the rub, are they still disposed towards me!
Now this idea requires a complex database - you know, one of those things that you can pick up for free on the internet but the government pays millions for.
How about your fair gets more expensive the more you fly each year?
So, granny or relative gets their one or two trips each year dirt cheap, but that wealthy business flyer (whom the Tories admit wont be affected by THEIR plan) ends up by paying an absolute arm and a leg.
All subsequent income is thrown at the rail industry (without going via the treasury to reduce the admin)
Of course, this will only be short term as those business flyers suddenly remember that the other great 20th century invention, the internet, was meant to cut down the amount of time they had to travel to meetings.
Oh, they were just Jollies! Now why didn't you say so?
I have had to fly to Glasgow at short notice twice this year on business. Why? Because I consult for government departments shipped up there to boost regional development targets. Now I'm under fire for wanting to get their the cheapest way. You can't win.
Rather than increase taxes on 'bad' behaviour why don't we decrease taxes on 'good' behaviour?
For example, the proposed charge on parking at supermarkets is daft. Cut the parking charges in town centres instead to create a level playing field. You regenerate town centres without any public expenditure then and save people money.
Isn't that what the Tories used to be about, lower taxes?
Glasgow is indeed well served by trains, and those in the know avoid Heathrow - you can get from central London to central Glasgow in 4.5hrs on a fast train - there's no chance of doing that by flying. A don't forget the Caledonian sleeper, a much healthier and stress-free option for grannies - I certainly wouldn't put mine through the hassle of 100ml toothpaste tubes just to get on a plane at Glasgow.
All that aside, airlines are effectively subsidised at the moment by the lack of tax, while rail subsidies are obviously not enough because fares keep increasing - as do the profits of the train operating companies.
What a shame none of the major London based parties have the guts to just renationalise. They are all in hock to the aviation industry and will no doubt be enjoying many grand BAA etc soirees at their conferences over the next few weeks
Granny or not, it's often cheaper to fly nowadays. Making trains a better and cheaper alternative might help climate change. We have the most expensive trains in Europe (I believe).
I'm still waiting for the (young) Conservatives to come up with a Good Idea. The Glasgow Granny could do better!
The way to help Nick's 'Glasgow Granny' is to boost her pension, not to subsidise the most polluting form of transport on the planet for everyone.
You could use the VAT revenue from the flights to do that and then all old people would benefit, not just the ones that happen to take flights.
Why should the pensioners who take the bus, and therefore pay a fuel tax indirectly, subsidise those who take the plane, and don't pay any?
This is wonderfully symptomatic of something we've discussed on your blogspot before, Nick - namely the truly awful quality of modern policy analysis and prescription.
It's now a disease spreading from New Labour's reckless 20-something policy wonks - all 'out of the box thinking' and 'brave new departures' projects sketched on the back of the proverbial fag packet - to all other parties. What seems to be happening is that, in a desperate attempt to appear whizzy, novel and creative, the fine detail that actually determines whether the 'brave new departure' will work is totally ignored.
Please, please, can we have PROPER grown-up policy thinking, from grown-ups who know that the little details are actually more important than the grandstanding rhetoric? If not, we're in for more policy lunacy like this from all parties. That, by the way, leads directly to the NAO and the PAC issuing damning reports - and didn't that used to matter?
If the government - or the Tories - are serious about moving people away from cars and aeroplanes towards trains, they need to invest in the railway system first.
I have recently spent some time in Taiwan. Their new high-speed railway is fast, clean, efficient and highly reliable. Travelling at over 300km/h they cover large distances quickly. Our dirty, unreliable and slow trains are an embarrassment by comparison.
Show us some serious investment in railways, and I'll believe that there is a serious attempt to change our travelling habits.
Raise taxes and claim it's to improve the environment, and I'll see it for what it really is - a tax increase.
When will people realise that if one wants to encourage rail travel over air travel then rail prices have to be reduced? Heavier taxes on flights just make two forms of transport expensive. Make trains cheaper and more people will use them.
I'd like to thank multi-millionaire Zac Goldmsith for his plan to price the middle classes out of air travel. I'm always astonished at how keen the rich left are to pull the ladder up behind them.
The idea that taxing domestic flights will lead to fewer flights is utterly misleading. As our economy grows and as more and more people can afford to fly (yes Mr Cameron as more and more people can afford to) so the trend of flying both domestically and internationally will grow as well.
The effect of such a tax would, at the very best, result in a short-term slowing down of this growth. It would not result in a reduction.
Politicians should concentrate their efforts on finding a means to channel taxes and industry profits into more effiscient and environmentally friendly technology. This is the only fair way to clean up our skies. The alternative is to return to the days when only the rich could reap the benifits of air travel.
Something the likes of Mr Goldsmith's heritage would know all about.
As a grandad in Edinburgh the plane is the best way to go south of the border, to family, friends and my religious community.
Having experienced the train. On several occasions running late. Another filled with passengers from another train, no trolley service, although in first clas. This train was going to Glasgow via Edinburgh/
So you metropolitan bound 'thinkers' keep your hands off our planes, the best mode of transport.
Fr John
Ole Thoresen hints at the pointlessness of your argument Nick. I could propose thousands of infinitely worse scenarios than granny-Glasgow-who-can't-catch-a-plane that will arise unless global greenhouse gas emissions are curbed, and fast. Indeed, yours is short-sightedness of the worst kind. While you bumble and procrastinate the clock ticks on and the time to act reduces. If they had any grasp of the severity of the pending problems the Tories would scrap short-haul flights entirely, prevent further airport and road expansion and look at industrial measures that would signal to the watching world that Britain is serious about reducing emissions and is willing to take drastic steps to safeguard future generations.
Cameron is tying to convince the public that putting up taxes is a good thing for the envionment and that you'll feel warm and fuzzy when paying extra for doing, well, just about anything.
This is bait and switch politics. Come a Tory Government we'll see these policies gradually put to one side as the they return to the only place they feel comfortable, the right.
Why are the Tories trying to save this planet?
They don't even live here.
You show your colours on this issue supporting the air haulers over the climate and the people on this one... for shame.
Why should we be taxed incessently driving our cars when looking up in the skies is a huge polluter who is avoiding taxation on nearly everything to run it, zero rated fuel, no VAT, have you ever considered how much money is being lost here in revenue?
And Glasgow not well served by rail? Thats a new one on me, I could of sworn it had two major termini, very regular trains to and from London direct or if you wanted a quicker journey, its only half an hour from Edinburgh to Glasgow by train...
Perhaps if Labour made good on its promises over the railways, renationalise and use the profits from that to overhaul the network, whatever happened to Blair's promise of new track and stations connecting sub regional hubs?
A great deal of the trackbed left by Beeching's cuts are still there, put track on it, take away the need to use road and give incentives to use rail, connect the people outside of the cities and watch the economic growth rurally boom.
That will take the need for HGV's on long hauls, generate local growth and income and reduce the damage to the planet at the same time.
As a cabin crew member forced to work out of London Heathrow as my company no longer has bases outside london my journey by train from where I live would be as follows.
20 minute walk to station with cabin bag and suitcase.
30 minute train journey to Manchester Victoria.Either 30 min walk or 15 minute tram ride to change to Picadilly station.
If I am lucky a 2 hr 55 min train journey to London Euston. (On some occasions especially weekends it has taken over 5 hours often with a replacement bus service to Milton Keynes.)
Transfer fron Euston to underground to Picadiily line up and down stairs with suitcase and cabin bag as the underground stations i have to use often dont have lifts .Another journey that takes 1 hour and 40 minutes to Heathrow.
Arrive Heathrow and then wait for company bus to take me a 10 minute bus ride to the office.
I have to do this every week. I am being taxed off the flight between manchester and London and the drive can take up to 7 hours.
I don't do this for fun I do it to pay a mortgage, put food on the table and pay taxes to keep the country going. Forget the granny in Glasgow it sure is getting grim up North!!!
Going green is great in practice the reality is a nightmare!!!
The tories need to speak to people who live in the real world not the London bubble.
Having several times travelled by air from London to Glasgow on business I know that the choice of transport is a no brainer as the cost by rail, combined with a necessary overnight stay because of the time taken, is more than the cost of flights that can be accomplished in the same day. Perhaps the choice of transport would change if internal flights were to be disallowed as a business expense for Corporation tax purposes. It would not directly hit granny in the pocket but it could encourage more business travel by rail.
Glasgow and Edinburgh may not be a real problem, but as a relatively new resident of Inverness, I think that definitely is! The train service is good, and cheap if booked well ahead, but while it takes 3 hours from London to Newcastle, it takes another 1 1/2 hours to get to Edinburgh, and a further 3 1/2 hours (for a total of 8 hours) to get to Inverness!
Once you get north of the Central Belt we have to contend with single line tracks and average speeds of 40 mph!
It doesn't matter if you are Granny or travelling on business, air travel from the Highlands has no quick alternative.
Of course, if they were to build a decent hi-speed train track up to here, things would different. 200 mph trains would be credible, but politicians don't seem to notice much north of Watford!
the greatest trick politicians have ever pulled of late is to convince us that increased taxation solves all these problems. Ha ha, take the money AND appease the thick. these solutions never solve the problem because the people that can afford to do all these bad things will NEVER stop doing what they do.
I live in the midlands but im from glasgow. Its easer to get to london than nottingham by train. Cheaper too.
I have no problem with short haul flights, until they find a way that can affect the rich i will continue to fly.
The tories are no more out of touch with the needs of the economy than the current government. I fly every week from Northern Ireland to either mainland UK or Europe to work. Stupid unrealistic suggestions by a group of people who don't have to work for a living just annoy me. Around 45% of the carbon emissions in this country come from electricity generation. Is the current airport taxes going to be invested in carbon reducing investment in this country's outdated infrastructure or just to employ yet more freeloading wasters to tell the people who REALLY earn money for the country that they're hurting the environment!
Hows about reducing public sector employment on all the unwanted and unnecessary burocracy that this country loves - and loves to hate....
Mmmmm, thought so, unpopular decisions take balls to impliment. Ironically, that's something that none of the current politicians display. What about that nice old lady that Gordon invited to lunch? She had some................
Perhaps the Belfast granny or the Jersey granny would have been a better analogy...
For those of us that are based in the over-populated south east of England, rail is clearly not just the way of the past, but also the way of the future.
During September and October I will be spending every weekend traveling around France, Scotland and Wales to follow the Rugby World Cup; I'll be doing all of this travel by train not only because it's greener (although it is), but also because it's cheaper and quicker than air travel in most instances when door-to-door travel times are truly accounted for.
When comparing train and air prices people would do well to compare like with like - booking a similar period in advance and including the travel time and cost and waiting/airport security time in their calculations.
@ Fr John - is that similar to the situation encountered when a plane is cancelled then?
To get people onto the rail network and off the planes requires a billion pound overhall of the existing network and rolling stock. Now normally government would say that the VAT from air flights could cover some of this, but as they have already secured the VAT for other uses it would come from the public once again. So people wont leave the planes as the train system just isnt good enough. The only way to force people to stop flying is to stop allowing the planes to fly in the first place. But with the air industry so valuable to the treasury taking it away from them will ensure once and for all that the rail network will never get sorted. Catch 22 really.
Hey thats a good one about taxes that would not be charged to the Highlands and islands!Very generous! Have you seen the fares? Due to a monopoly connived at by the Government these fares are some of the highest in Europe per mile..It costs less to fly North America from Glasgow than it does to many Scottish Island destinations!!
Glasgow train services are actually quite good and, save a few awful gaps in decent routes, the other public transportation services we have are excellent. I'm speaking from experience as a student using buses most days of term time.
What needs to be clear, and it's the same issue with local Vs. global produce in carbon emissions, is that you can't just make blanket legislation. Just as the carbon footprint for produce from another country can be lower compared to somewhere else in the UK, surely there are scenarios where a larger carbon footprint is potentially created by a train journey than the equivalent plane journey.
It's nice to at least see consensus on green issues from the different parties but I'm still very sceptical about the Tories ability to pull it off.
P.S. Nick, we're not helpless just cause we're North of the Border, and the over-80s I know are some of the most active people I know as well.
Surely the best idea would be to impose limits on the amount of travelling by air that anyone can undertake in a year, using some sort of "carbon credits" scheme, that isn't linked to one's income.
It seems very unfair to campaign against cut price air travel - the message seems to be that if only a few people should travel by air, it should be the rich.
Poorer people may even be more deserving of being allowed to travel by air, since they are less likely to do it as often as rich people.
2005: UK CO2 emissions:
Road: 120 million tonnes
Energy industries: 208 million tonnes (and we don't have electric cars yet!)
Industry: 99 million tonnes
Residential: 83 million tonnes
Public sector/commercial: 46 million tonnes
Aviation: 8 million tonnes !
The greens and now the conservatives can't see the wood for the trees! So much for the latter's new logo!
Aviation is a 2 to 5 % global CO2 problem! Cutting down on runway infrastructure will increase pollution! Aviation is the life blood to the UK economy and hundreds of other nations - especially poorer ones. Take away air freight and millions of farmers suffer worldwide.
Having aeroplanes circling in the hold burning tonnes of Jet A1 fuel at their most inefficient altitudes is a far worse for the environment and air quality and local noise than giving them a 2 mile piece of tarmac to land on.
The cost of producing a mile of high speed rail track (186mph) track is £73.5 million per mile and a 3 lane motorway (70mph) is £28.4 million per mile.
The environmental impact of building/revising rail lines to cope with high speed trains is rarely considered in the public domain.
Even eco warrior George Monbiot agrees that flying is more carbon efficient than a high speed train from London to Edinburgh:
Assuming we had the infrastructure (whcih we cannot afford!) a fast train traveling at 350kph would use the quivalent energy of 22 litres per seat. Today's Airbus A321 would use 20 littres per seat on the same journeyn and travel at 900 kph !
Oxford university Environmental Change institute said it is more polluting to travel by Eurostar London to paris than to go by cheap flight!
How about a journey from Manchester to Guernsey:
A Saab 340 turbo prop aeroplane produces 103kg per passenger on that route. A Nissan Micra on thae same route would push out 226 kg with one on board.
Target the BIG issues like household energy use , loft insulation, car emissions first and use any green taxes to help develop green technology to improve homes and transport.
Good reporting, very detailed, good questions. Shame you can't provide the same quality of reporting when dealing with any Labour issues. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and ITV are still campaigning on Labours behalf.
What you say may be true today but with proper planning, investment, and regional development, a high speed rail network is affordable, and point to point travel takes less time. With nuclear power fully on stream the carbon cost of rail plummets to zero. The most important issue is approach and attitude to this issue. Get that right and everything falls into place like magic.
London-obsessed M25-centric nonsense from Gummer and millionaire ecologist Goldsmith, exposed beautifully Mr. Robinson.
I got a train from Exeter to Newcastle (and back) the other month and lost 2 days of my life. Next time I flew - only saved about 7 hours each way. If Cameron accepts this drivel, he simply won't get near making a dent in Teignbridge, Torbay, Taunton and all the other west country seats beginning with T that he needs to win to form the next government.
The only logical way that the UK can apply tax to folk travelling by air without diverting revenues abroad is through airport tax on the passengers flying in and out.
Similarly for goods shipped by air, compared with more environmentally friendly sea, rail or even river & canal.
I'm a 20 year old student from the Isle of Wight and I fly from Southampton to university in Liverpool as this has proven quicker and cheaper than the train. While I will probably have to stop flying the businesses targeted by this plan will easily absorb such costs.While UK emissions are low (some 2% of total) why should an impoverished student like myself carry the financial burden for this miniscule contribution while carbon munching superstates like the USA and China largely ignore it?
Nick. Individuals purchasing their own tickets would get the early bird cheap option, i.e. those flights for 1p etc. The pricing mechanism of airlines is to maximise profits on late booker - perhaps, usually business men on company business, these companies are more likely to be VAT registered and hence reclaim the VAT back.... no impact just circularity. Has this policy been thought through?
I'm really interested to see whether there will be a tax on short haul flights or not. Whilst I obviously agree with anything that will help save the planet for any grandchildren I may have one day, I wonder about the possibility of having 'concession fares' for people like myself and the Glasgow Grannies. My mother-in-law lives in Scotland and is finding it harder to travel (even by plane) to Suffolk to see us. I like to pop up a couple of times a year at least to spend time with her. I am disabled and whilst very self sufficient, can't drive the 8 hour trip or go by train for the equally long journey. The plane really does provide independance for me and let me be 'good daughter-in-law'. Any thoughts?
I still dont understand why we subsidise the aviation a foreign aviation industry to fly our passengers abroad to spend their money elsewhere. An improved rail network sounds like a far better idea.
Anyway, VAT applied in the right way to businesses / frequent users would not affect us anyway - or granny in glasgow!
The Tories are just leaping on the environmental bandwagon without thinking through the consequences - I live in Aberdeen and if I want to go to London my first choice would be to travel by plane - does this make me a snobbish, wealthy businessman type? No... I'm a student from a hard-working middle-class family which is already in the firing line for taxes on income, travel, property ownership, lack of young children etc.
And in any case, the obsession with hitting the air travel industry hard about its environmental impact is nonsensical as it contributes a tiny fraction of the gases pumped into the atmosphere in this country and around the world.
And as for the suggestion that a Glasgow granny would suffer - she'd probably get a tax break for her old age on top of all the other benefits we already gift to her generation, and in terms of the rail links - Nick, have you ever been to Glasgow? One major rail station serving the whole of the Scottish network, one major station serving both the East Coast and West Coast main lines, and a fairly comprehensive semi-subterranean network serving just about every suburb in the city as well as both airports, as well as the usual city-wide fleet of buses and taxis... Glasgow Granny could be the most environmentally friendly traveller in Scotland!
Nick,
All these green tax proposals assume that carbon dioxide increases are causing global warming. Where were all the cars, aircraft and industries when gobal warming was occuring millions of years ago in between the four ice ages. How do the politicians explain those and hence the current one. As for sea level rises and falls, again that has been going on for millions of years. The North Sea was once a shallow sea, hence all the deep 1000 ft thick salt deposits. (try Plate Techtonics for that one - not aircraft)
Ask our leaders how they explain millions of years of undisputed climate change without refering to recent industrialisation.
Regards
Tony
Most grannies are retired - they can afford to take their time to go and visit the grandchildren. If people want to travel quickly by air they should pay a premium. Business travellers can weigh up the cost against picking up the telephone and not traveling at all. For the rest of us, we make our own choices depending on the circumstances. Polluter pays must be the principle. On that basis, why is short-haul travel the focus? What about long-haul? A round trip to places like Hong Kong takes 12 hours each way and consumes 900 litres of fuel per passenger. That's the equivalent of 18 50-litre tanks of petrol. So this argument that air travel is the undeserving target of the green lobby doesn't wash - on a per capita basis it can be much more damaging even than cars.