What if aviation doesn’t recover?
economist.com
economist.com
Think about how research is done, the aircraft makers get fat on their defense grants, airport land and infrastructure are built with subsidies, the transportation to and from the airport are usually public buses, metro, or public roads, the regulation of airspace by the FAA is taxpayer funded, the security theater is provided by DHS, it goes on and on. Only the most visible part of the system is really "deregulated" and run by people trying to make money. Even then they get bailed out whenever they whimper.
But that's kinda the GP's point, that the state WANTS you to be able to travel. Travel encourages trade, which generates more tax revenue. Of course the govt will support any sufficiently large mode of travel.
"That covid-19 has exposed the fragility of globalisation is particularly apparent in the case of aviation. [...] historians will write that it was not radical environmental movements such as Extinction Rebellion that killed the trend. Instead it was the combination of a microscopic virus and free-market capitalism."
This reminded me of accelerationism [1], which seems more relevant now than ever. To quote Wikipedia: " [Accelerationism may refer] to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse"
(Then again: 140 characters not flying cars.)
I wouldn't, and I like trains more than most people do. I'n sticking with my own car for transportation for the foreseeable future, and everyone else who owns a car is doing the same. I'm not going to put myself in a large metal box full of other people who might be sick.
Building more rail lines ... well that's another matter.
Now maybe a train stuffed with non-mask wearing people talking constantly would be a different issue.
Why, yes. I remember taking the high-speed train from Madrid to Barcelona some years ago in the preferente+ class, which cost me about 90€, and there was so much room that, with the exception of my side chair, I couldn't touch anyone else if I reached out in any direction.
And IIRC each carriage had about a 50-seat capacity.
That's a far cry from your typical sardine can experience in any airline, including in high-end seats.
Tell me if I read it wrong, but you meant to say that €90 is a small amount right?
Trains (the long-distance sort, at least) tend to be a lot less crammed than airplanes, and you can open the windows.
The engineering considerations of air exchange with the outside environment are admittedly far simpler than jetliners.
Being able to cheaply and quickly travel practically anywhere makes us see others as much less different from us and helps us see global issues as our issues
In terms of absolute consumption, yes it would be great if people stopped spending so much on things that are damaging the environment... but it would be FAR better to instead spend money on renewable energy and electric cars, which are by far the most effective ways to reduce CO2.
Yes, I think everyone should stop driving as well.
I agree about the renewable energy but we need to take action on both fronts.
Flying enables burning more fuel to go farther in the same amount of time.
Your comparison is simply bogus and structured to favor flying.
In a world without flying, those travel miles don't get replaced by automobile miles. They simply don't occur for the most part.
For such comparisons you should really hold the travel time constant, not the distance.
It's from this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/best-lifestyle-choice-s...
TLDR: One transatlantic flight is just under giving up driving altogether.
http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
World Bank, passenger growth 1970--2018: 0.3 to 4.2 billion.
(Not paxmiles, but closely related, and available data.)
Right of way is (mostly) cheap.
I was curious so I looked it up, the term "jet set" originates from the 1950s when it probably was romanticized as only the very wealthy could afford to fly.
Even if everything got relaxed, with the virus still around, the paranoid will still avoid gatherings, etc, and the economy will not return to normal. Maybe a draconian takeover of the world by a government that then suppresses information and says "We solved the virus!" convincingly enough would be such an event.
Meanwhile at least 1 "leader" is saying the above sentence, but he's only convincing a dwindling number of die-hard supporters.
As Orwell said:
> We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
Maybe I get to go overseas if I make a commitment to offsetting the CO2 that I use (e.g. carbon credits) ... but that's hardly very progressive (why should only the wealthy only get to travel).
I suppose we could try to clean up shipping [bunker fuel] so we could go via some sort of gas turbine / wind powered cruise ship.
Or maybe this change in economic fortunes makes solar powered airships viable! Slow(-ish), but clean (& maybe fun!), I'm thinking the Mark Twain airship in "The Long Earth".
... I think I like the Mark Twain airship idea ... it sounds fun.
This is because there's I'd either have to waste a week or two of my leave time just traveling, or would have to convince my employer to let me work remotely.
For sure though, it's a different life-pace.