Would a FF tax stop you chasing BAEC status?
Sep 26, 2019, 5:49 am
#106
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
Your analysis of China is incorrect, a guess that you are not Chinese? (Sorry if I guessed wrong) Well, I am (but not from China) and can understand their mentality, upbringing, etc. (NOTE: Again, I have to stress that I am not from China, so my personal views are somewhat different from theirs)
The Chinese people always strive to "go higher" than the previous generation, this message is "drilled into" every child. The farming class will "push" their children to "do better" in the cities and not to stay and do a "low class" job like farming, for example. The reason they do this is to have more earning power, and therefore purchasing power, for modern stuff.
I remember 30 or so years ago, when I visited China with my grandmother, her family will "request" her to bring a motorcycle back with her, a Honda CB100 if I remembered correctly. They had bicycles get around like everyone else, but want "something better". Also with money remitted, they build bigger houses with aircon, flushing toilets, etc... They have no desire to cook with off cuts of wood or plant waste, they want the "easy life" with gas cooking. They want on demand hot water. Having all these modern cons makes them the "king of the village" so to speak, a title that everyone in China desires. That was 30 years ago, my grandparents had since died and I have zero contact with these distant relatives, but what I last heard, they are now into cars not motorbikes.
Even 30 years ago, they "admire" my grandparents, for moving to a better place which allows her to have children that can afford to put her on a plane (flying 30 years ago is far more expensive than today). To be able to do the same was their aspiration, and looking at the boom in aviation in China and the opening of PKX yesterday, my guess is that they are achieving that.
So while your current figure of 471 v 179 cars maybe true, today, China is already a boom market for cars, with companies like VW, etc setting up factories there to meet local demand. I will not be surprised that their car ownership will overtake UK in the next 10 or so years as almost everyone there desires to have a car, and more and more people are being able to afford to do so everyday. (no one "desire" a bicycle out there, trust me) Also, their per person CO2 emissions numbers seems small, because they still have a large rural base population to "dilute" the pollution. However, there is wave after wave of movement out of the poorer rural community into the richer urban areas, I expect to see their per person pollution to skyrocket.
So back to your logic, UK is responsible for more pollution, at the moment, but according to the charts, they are falling. Whereas China has lower pollution now, it will only increase greatly in the next few years due to them wanting to move to a "better life".
You (or anyone else) can try to "educate" China, but it will not work anytime soon as such values are instill into a China Chinese person's mind since birth. Like it or not, this is the real "inconvenient truth" on the ground out there. Easy for us to talk when sitting in a first world western country without a good understanding of what life is out in the third world.
Which goes by to my original saying, "You (or Greta) may have your dreams, someone else have a different dream from you.". It is really funny that you (or her) is expecting someone else gives up their dreams for your (or her) dream.
The Chinese people always strive to "go higher" than the previous generation, this message is "drilled into" every child. The farming class will "push" their children to "do better" in the cities and not to stay and do a "low class" job like farming, for example. The reason they do this is to have more earning power, and therefore purchasing power, for modern stuff.
I remember 30 or so years ago, when I visited China with my grandmother, her family will "request" her to bring a motorcycle back with her, a Honda CB100 if I remembered correctly. They had bicycles get around like everyone else, but want "something better". Also with money remitted, they build bigger houses with aircon, flushing toilets, etc... They have no desire to cook with off cuts of wood or plant waste, they want the "easy life" with gas cooking. They want on demand hot water. Having all these modern cons makes them the "king of the village" so to speak, a title that everyone in China desires. That was 30 years ago, my grandparents had since died and I have zero contact with these distant relatives, but what I last heard, they are now into cars not motorbikes.
Even 30 years ago, they "admire" my grandparents, for moving to a better place which allows her to have children that can afford to put her on a plane (flying 30 years ago is far more expensive than today). To be able to do the same was their aspiration, and looking at the boom in aviation in China and the opening of PKX yesterday, my guess is that they are achieving that.
So while your current figure of 471 v 179 cars maybe true, today, China is already a boom market for cars, with companies like VW, etc setting up factories there to meet local demand. I will not be surprised that their car ownership will overtake UK in the next 10 or so years as almost everyone there desires to have a car, and more and more people are being able to afford to do so everyday. (no one "desire" a bicycle out there, trust me) Also, their per person CO2 emissions numbers seems small, because they still have a large rural base population to "dilute" the pollution. However, there is wave after wave of movement out of the poorer rural community into the richer urban areas, I expect to see their per person pollution to skyrocket.
So back to your logic, UK is responsible for more pollution, at the moment, but according to the charts, they are falling. Whereas China has lower pollution now, it will only increase greatly in the next few years due to them wanting to move to a "better life".
You (or anyone else) can try to "educate" China, but it will not work anytime soon as such values are instill into a China Chinese person's mind since birth. Like it or not, this is the real "inconvenient truth" on the ground out there. Easy for us to talk when sitting in a first world western country without a good understanding of what life is out in the third world.
Which goes by to my original saying, "You (or Greta) may have your dreams, someone else have a different dream from you.". It is really funny that you (or her) is expecting someone else gives up their dreams for your (or her) dream.
I don't doubt that Chinese people strive for their future generations to do better and haven't even hinted that I don't think that's the case. What you suspect they'll do in the future is not only irrelevant to what they're doing now, it's irrelevant to the discussion full stop given I have stated I also think they should be forced (or more specifically forcibly assisted - the developed world has a "carbon debt" to the developing world) to cut their emissions.
China doesn't need to be educated. It knows it needs to constrain emissions and has pledged to do so.
I don't find it remotely funny that I expect people to refrain from destroying the planet. Your characterization of my desire to not see millions of people suffer as being comparable to someone wanting to contribute to destroying the planet for personal gain is bizarre. I understand how someone could see me as being wrong if they didn't believe in climate change, but to see those as morally equivalent?
Sep 26, 2019, 7:12 am
#107
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KOI
Programs: BA
Posts: 309
I don't doubt that Chinese people strive for their future generations to do better and haven't even hinted that I don't think that's the case. What you suspect they'll do in the future is not only irrelevant to what they're doing now, it's irrelevant to the discussion full stop given I have stated I also think they should be forced (or more specifically forcibly assisted - the developed world has a "carbon debt" to the developing world) to cut their emissions.
By your own admission, you did very little analysis of China and yet you questioned according to who?
You remind me of the people who throw hissy fits because someone called them racist when they were just "pointing out some facts" about black people. Much like with those people, if you're being accused of bullying her, then it's most likely because you're bullying her.
A Chinese person with an understanding of China comes along and explain to you the statistics you used were flawed and you threw a hissy fit and say that person is irrelevant. Well done. Perhaps you will also like to accuse me of being racist towards Chinese as well? Just to add to your charge of me bullying her?
So the same back to you, "Why on Earth should China care about what you (or that little girl) "believe" about climate change? You've already demonstrated you lack even a basic grasp on what's actually happening in that country."
Last edited by alvinlwh; Sep 26, 2019 at 9:50 am
Sep 26, 2019, 7:17 am
#108
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,353
In 2000 the Chinese produced half the Co2 emissions of the United States, by 2007 they exceeded the US, by 2021 they will have tripled that of the United States. In 2010 they flew only twice as much as the UK, they now fly four times as much as British people, in a decade or will be 8 times as much. Regarding cars, in the major cities they rival the UK in car ownership and have not exceeded it solely because they have our a limit on number plates, not for environmental reasons, but because the roads are literally full, otherwise each one of the top ten cities would have significantly exceeded UK numbers 5 years ago, these to ten cities have a population in their own 50 percent larger than the entire UK population . A British person who flies ten times a year in long haul business class pays 20 to 40 times more in APD taxes than the three person who flies once a year on a short haul package holiday. Much like APD, any new guilt tax would just go into the kitty and make no real difference than to make certain progressive members of the angst ridden Middle class feel good about itself.
Sep 26, 2019, 2:33 pm
#109
Join Date: Jul 2019
Programs: OneWorld
Posts: 14
Good link, I was looking for something similar recently and struggled to find such a site.
Perhaps we could take some pointers from the way company cars are taxed if we looking at ways that the tax system could drive behavioural change. 18 years ago, when I first got a company car (a Vectra SRi belching out a mighty 212g of CO2/km), the company car tax payable was a factor of the list price of the car and my annual business mileage. However since 2002, the system has been based on a factor of the list price and the CO2 emissions of the car with the thresholds gradually being tweaked over the years to "encourage" drivers to choose cars with lower emissions. This has clearly had an effect on my car choice as the CO2 emissions on my cars have gone from 212 (the Vectra) > 152 > 134 > 119 > 103 (re-evaluated at 121 after the emissions scandal) > 112 (current car). It would be cost prohibitive for the majority of company car drivers to choose a high emitting car today due to the tax bill they will incur.
Now, if APD followed a similar system and the tax due was dependent on the actual emissions of the aircraft scheduled on the route, it would encourage airlines to fly newer, more efficient planes on their UK routes. Either customers would see a price advantage in picking the airline with less polluting planes or the airline would be able to charge more for their newer aircraft, knowing that the end customer price would come down as there would be less APD to pay than their competitors operating planes with higher emissions.
A 747-400 emits 2,875g CO2 on LHR-JFK whereas the A350-1000 only produces 2,139g for the same route - 25% less. It is simply not realistic to reduce UK demand for air travel by 25% but we can still drive down emissions by encouraging airlines to fly (or passengers to choose) more efficient aircraft.
Perhaps we could take some pointers from the way company cars are taxed if we looking at ways that the tax system could drive behavioural change. 18 years ago, when I first got a company car (a Vectra SRi belching out a mighty 212g of CO2/km), the company car tax payable was a factor of the list price of the car and my annual business mileage. However since 2002, the system has been based on a factor of the list price and the CO2 emissions of the car with the thresholds gradually being tweaked over the years to "encourage" drivers to choose cars with lower emissions. This has clearly had an effect on my car choice as the CO2 emissions on my cars have gone from 212 (the Vectra) > 152 > 134 > 119 > 103 (re-evaluated at 121 after the emissions scandal) > 112 (current car). It would be cost prohibitive for the majority of company car drivers to choose a high emitting car today due to the tax bill they will incur.
Now, if APD followed a similar system and the tax due was dependent on the actual emissions of the aircraft scheduled on the route, it would encourage airlines to fly newer, more efficient planes on their UK routes. Either customers would see a price advantage in picking the airline with less polluting planes or the airline would be able to charge more for their newer aircraft, knowing that the end customer price would come down as there would be less APD to pay than their competitors operating planes with higher emissions.
A 747-400 emits 2,875g CO2 on LHR-JFK whereas the A350-1000 only produces 2,139g for the same route - 25% less. It is simply not realistic to reduce UK demand for air travel by 25% but we can still drive down emissions by encouraging airlines to fly (or passengers to choose) more efficient aircraft.
It would be great to see the climate discourse being a bit more positive. Whether you believe in climate change caused by humans or not, green solutions are good for the bottom line. We should focus more on this.
Also, when you put doom and gloom as the main message, there's a lot of people who may even be put off finding a fix since it is said to be so impossible. May as well just live it up for the time they have left.
It's good that everyone wants to be more affluent and the focus is on cities rather than suburbs now. People moving to big cities will be much more sustainable if we get the solutions right. Deliveries can go to multiple households over a smaller area, cars can be eliminated, public transport can be increased. We can do this right, but a lot of cities right now are exemplifying the way to do it wrong.
Sep 27, 2019, 12:50 am
#110
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
Your current numbers is correct. "Forcibly assisted" to do so, that is a good choice of words, just like how Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were "forcibly assisted" to have freedom, really reflects your supremacy stance.
By your own admission, you did very little analysis of China and yet you questioned according to who?
A Chinese person with an understanding of China comes along and explain to you the statistics you used were flawed and you threw a hissy fit and say that person is irrelevant. Well done. Perhaps you will also like to accuse me of being racist towards Chinese as well? Just to add to your charge of me bullying her?
So the same back to you, "Why on Earth should China care about what you (or that little girl) "believe" about climate change? You've already demonstrated you lack even a basic grasp on what's actually happening in that country."
By your own admission, you did very little analysis of China and yet you questioned according to who?
A Chinese person with an understanding of China comes along and explain to you the statistics you used were flawed and you threw a hissy fit and say that person is irrelevant. Well done. Perhaps you will also like to accuse me of being racist towards Chinese as well? Just to add to your charge of me bullying her?
So the same back to you, "Why on Earth should China care about what you (or that little girl) "believe" about climate change? You've already demonstrated you lack even a basic grasp on what's actually happening in that country."
I don't care that they apparently have "an understanding of China" - THEY WERE WRONG (in capitals because you and the other skeptics are actively choosing to ignore that important point - a perfect illustration that your overall position is based on ignorance). A perfect illustration as to why facts always trump anecdotes. I also didn't say that the person was irrelevant - I said a point that they made was irrelevant. Nor did I say that you bullied her. Whether you're lying to try and boost your argument, or just couldn't be bothered to read anything I've written properly, it's annoying and I'm going to lose all interest in talking to you if you insist on doing this...
China shouldn't care what I, or Greta, believe on climate change. They should care what experts demonstrate about climate change (note I said demonstrate - you should not just take pronouncements as fact no matter who they're from), and incidently they do care because they fully accept it and have produced plans to combat it. How on Earth have I demonstrated that I lack a basic grasp of what is happening in the UK? That makes no sense whatsoever - this whole argument is a bit of a joke!
Sep 27, 2019, 1:10 am
#111
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
In 2000 the Chinese produced half the Co2 emissions of the United States, by 2007 they exceeded the US, by 2021 they will have tripled that of the United States. In 2010 they flew only twice as much as the UK, they now fly four times as much as British people, in a decade or will be 8 times as much. Regarding cars, in the major cities they rival the UK in car ownership and have not exceeded it solely because they have our a limit on number plates, not for environmental reasons, but because the roads are literally full, otherwise each one of the top ten cities would have significantly exceeded UK numbers 5 years ago, these to ten cities have a population in their own 50 percent larger than the entire UK population . A British person who flies ten times a year in long haul business class pays 20 to 40 times more in APD taxes than the three person who flies once a year on a short haul package holiday. Much like APD, any new guilt tax would just go into the kitty and make no real difference than to make certain progressive members of the angst ridden Middle class feel good about itself.
1. If China triples the amount of the US, they are still emitting less per capita. Though as I mentioned above (before bizarrely being accused of supremacy), I think that their emissions also need to drop and, given the vast amount of manufacturing outsourced there, a huge proportion of those emissions are actually being generated by other developed countries - just shifted to a different location.
2. If they fly 8x the amount of the UK in a decade, they are still flying significantly less per capita.
3. I'm not sure what the size comparison between the ten biggest cities combined and the UK is meant to be demonstrating?
4. That is still not remotely the same as what this proposed tax would do. Each successive business class flight is costing another Ł150 odd. Under the proposals, the first will be (illustrative figures) Ł100, the second Ł200, the third Ł300 etc. By the time you get to flight number 10, it might be Ł1000 - every time it increases in price, you will be reevaluating whether it's actually worth it and will eventually reach a point where you stop.
5. Again, I am not middle class. In fact, it's the upper and middle classes that I "target" most - they are disproportionately responsible for climate change.
6. APD generates around Ł4bn per year. Not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, but that absolutely does make a difference.
7. A guilt tax like APD would go into the kitty (yet arguably still make a difference), but there's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be an environmental tax and be ring-fenced for environmental protection. Why do so many of you keep insisting this isn't possible?
Sep 27, 2019, 1:52 am
#112
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond *, IHG, Couples Romance Rewards
Posts: 2,354
6. APD generates around Ł4bn per year. Not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, but that absolutely does make a difference.
7. A guilt tax like APD would go into the kitty (yet arguably still make a difference), but there's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be an environmental tax and be ring-fenced for environmental protection. Why do so many of you keep insisting this isn't possible?
Of course it's possible to impose a tax but people will find ways to avoid it like they avoid APD now. They will start their journeys in Dublin or Paris, Amsterdam or Inverness or fly there in economy before starting their long hauls in business
What about people who need to fly regularly because they live on the hebrides or shetland?
Businesses who export, the uk airports that will lose business to other places will all complain and lobby. Your only hope is an eu wide scheme, but can't see that happening.
Sep 27, 2019, 2:40 am
#113
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
4bn is equivalent to a 1p change or slightly more of income tax -not small change
Of course it's possible to impose a tax but people will find ways to avoid it like they avoid APD now. They will start their journeys in Dublin or Paris, Amsterdam or Inverness or fly there in economy before starting their long hauls in business
What about people who need to fly regularly because they live on the hebrides or shetland?
Businesses who export, the uk airports that will lose business to other places will all complain and lobby. Your only hope is an eu wide scheme, but can't see that happening.
Of course it's possible to impose a tax but people will find ways to avoid it like they avoid APD now. They will start their journeys in Dublin or Paris, Amsterdam or Inverness or fly there in economy before starting their long hauls in business
What about people who need to fly regularly because they live on the hebrides or shetland?
Businesses who export, the uk airports that will lose business to other places will all complain and lobby. Your only hope is an eu wide scheme, but can't see that happening.
They do indeed - though of the course the majority don't do that. And as I mentioned before, embarking on this path would require international cooperation to prevent people just flying from surrounding countries instead. I'd only support it if it reduced flying as opposed to just shifting the problem elsewhere. One way to overcome the APD issue is to also have an arrivals tax - though again, if it just pushes people to fly elsewhere instead then that's not necessarily productive. Maybe halving APD and splitting it equally between arrival and departure would help there?
I don't think I'm too qualified to state what should happen in those remote islands as my gut reaction is "don't live there if you can't pay to regularly fly to the mainland", which I don't think is a particularly fair thing to say.
It should be fairly obvious from my posting that I don't think economic growth is sacrosanct, but you're right, it will require international cooperation. To paraphrase a nice segment I saw from Gina Miller the other day, important things aren't always easy to achieve but it's important to try.
Sep 27, 2019, 2:48 am
#114
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,204
4bn is equivalent to a 1p change or slightly more of income tax -not small change
Of course it's possible to impose a tax but people will find ways to avoid it like they avoid APD now. They will start their journeys in Dublin or Paris, Amsterdam or Inverness or fly there in economy before starting their long hauls in business
What about people who need to fly regularly because they live on the hebrides or shetland?
Businesses who export, the uk airports that will lose business to other places will all complain and lobby. Your only hope is an eu wide scheme, but can't see that happening.
Of course it's possible to impose a tax but people will find ways to avoid it like they avoid APD now. They will start their journeys in Dublin or Paris, Amsterdam or Inverness or fly there in economy before starting their long hauls in business
What about people who need to fly regularly because they live on the hebrides or shetland?
Businesses who export, the uk airports that will lose business to other places will all complain and lobby. Your only hope is an eu wide scheme, but can't see that happening.
Sep 27, 2019, 2:49 am
#115
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: HKG
Programs: BA GGL & CCR
Posts: 600
The number crunchers are very smart, they almost never offer up a seat that would have otherwise been filled with a paying passenger for redemption.
Thus it could be argued they are environmentally positive, they utilize capacity that would have otherwise been left empty, unsold and generating the same environmental impact. Wastage is far more environmentally damaging than usage.
Hate this new new breed of environmentalist, they don’t live in the real world. They are unintelligent, uneducated, can’t grasp or are just too belligerent to understand concepts outside their own narrow agenda/brainwashing...
Thus it could be argued they are environmentally positive, they utilize capacity that would have otherwise been left empty, unsold and generating the same environmental impact. Wastage is far more environmentally damaging than usage.
Hate this new new breed of environmentalist, they don’t live in the real world. They are unintelligent, uneducated, can’t grasp or are just too belligerent to understand concepts outside their own narrow agenda/brainwashing...
Sep 27, 2019, 2:52 am
#116
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KOI
Programs: BA
Posts: 309
I lived in Shetland and now live in Orkney. People living in Colonsay, Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles, Islay, Jura, Caithness and North West Sutherland are entitled to the Air Discount Scheme, where 50% of the core airfare is covered by the Scottish Government. Route covered are Islands to Scotland for LM flights and Island to LON for BA flights. Recently I did a Jan 2020 booking for KOI - ABZ - LHR - SIN and the cost is Ł1 cheaper than to just fly LHR - SIN direct on the same date. Non ADS members will cost about Ł200 more for the same flight.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exemptio...ds-and-islands
Also, outgoing flights FROM these region are APD exempted. (although I don't think I will see too many BAECers going to take the boat to KOI to start their TP run...)
FYI, an example:
With ADS
18 Jan
KOI - ABZ BA4031
ABZ - LHR BA1305
Ł72
8 Feb
LHR - GLA BA1482
GLA - KOI BA4012
Ł114
Without ADS
18 Jan
KOI - ABZ BA4031
ABZ - LHR BA1305
Ł97
8 Feb
LHR - GLA BA1482
GLA - KOI BA4012
Ł186
We also fly regularly for hospital appointments but that is covered by NHS, and there is the boat option for that.
https://www.ohb.scot.nhs.uk/service/patient-travel
Sep 27, 2019, 3:11 am
#117
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: HKG
Programs: BA GGL & CCR
Posts: 600
China was the first country to pass 100GW of solar capacity in 2017, hit 174GW by 2018. The UK total for 2017 was 12GW.
Then theres the fact you attribute the pollution generated from manufacturing to the Chinese producer, not the end consumer of the manufactured products in Europe/USA.
I pose your own question... back on you, do you actually know anything about China?
Sep 27, 2019, 3:33 am
#118
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC GGL/GFl, HH Diamond, BW Diamond, Virgin Voyages Deep Blue Extra, Blue Peter Badge Holder
Posts: 3,937
They also put 4,000km of high speed rail into service last year and 6,800km this year... In two decades you will deliver 100km of HS1, 230km of HS2 phase 1.
China was the first country to pass 100GW of solar capacity in 2017, hit 174GW by 2018. The UK total for 2017 was 12GW.
Then theres the fact you attribute the pollution generated from manufacturing to the Chinese producer, not the end consumer of the manufactured products in Europe/USA.
I pose your own question... back on you, do you actually know anything about China?
China was the first country to pass 100GW of solar capacity in 2017, hit 174GW by 2018. The UK total for 2017 was 12GW.
Then theres the fact you attribute the pollution generated from manufacturing to the Chinese producer, not the end consumer of the manufactured products in Europe/USA.
I pose your own question... back on you, do you actually know anything about China?
Sep 27, 2019, 4:14 am
#120
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,353
Yet with all that high speed track and trains there are still 55+ flights in each direction between Beijing and Shanghai in any given day. There are 50+ high speed train pairs each day and another dozen or so regular trains. 15 years ago it was about 20 flights, there were no high speed trains and the regular train service was about the same as now, furthermore many of the flights are on wide body aircraft. Want to look at HKG-Shanghai? Also had high speed trains. 19 years ago you had about 10 flights a day, now is about 40. You want to talk post capita? HKG, which has one tenth the population of the UK (and which is in actual fact a part of china, despite the two systems) had half as many passengers as the UK (well maybe it will actually have less this year....) so if you add that in, the Chinese in fact already fly about 5 times as much as the UK. And this is a nicely important point, because if all of china are to reach anything near Hong Kong levels, then we would be talking Chinese numbers 30 or 40 times the UK and you would be happy because you could Drone on about some sort of Gini coefficient Gdp parity. 15 years ago, there were now many flights between EDI and all London airports? Slightly more today due to LCC's to remote London airports. Furthermore you may have noticed that since this thread started the Chinese just built a new airport in Beijing that is our will soon be larger than LHR by almost every measurement, for runways, no debate and that is in addition to the existing airport.
To say the Chinese are investing in green technologies does not mean what you think it means. Chinese cities especially in the winter are like Armageddon, often you cannot see more than 10 meters due to pollution, and every pollution index has been off the chart for years. So they are moving nicely into green technologies because they have to. The difference is that other than obliging people to use new technologies (I remember fondly how over a three month period they made petrol powered scooters illegal and overnight seemingly everyone bought battery powered ones) they would never dream of instituting anything that would hinder economic growth more penalize people from living "better" lives, in fact it is because their standards have constantly been raising that allows the party to survive.
While the UK stupidly dithers about a third Runway for 20+ years, no one else anywhere really bad such qualms. Even the Germans who are 20 times more ecologically "woke" than the Brits build runways with barely a murmur, same for the French and almost anyone else.
So while you cheer on your own luddites with made up names who write dubious manifestos that are promoted and embraced by the Guardian, that would "punish" your perceived "haves" and even if implemented would have absolutely little or no effect on improving the environment, every one else will eat your lunch.
To say the Chinese are investing in green technologies does not mean what you think it means. Chinese cities especially in the winter are like Armageddon, often you cannot see more than 10 meters due to pollution, and every pollution index has been off the chart for years. So they are moving nicely into green technologies because they have to. The difference is that other than obliging people to use new technologies (I remember fondly how over a three month period they made petrol powered scooters illegal and overnight seemingly everyone bought battery powered ones) they would never dream of instituting anything that would hinder economic growth more penalize people from living "better" lives, in fact it is because their standards have constantly been raising that allows the party to survive.
While the UK stupidly dithers about a third Runway for 20+ years, no one else anywhere really bad such qualms. Even the Germans who are 20 times more ecologically "woke" than the Brits build runways with barely a murmur, same for the French and almost anyone else.
So while you cheer on your own luddites with made up names who write dubious manifestos that are promoted and embraced by the Guardian, that would "punish" your perceived "haves" and even if implemented would have absolutely little or no effect on improving the environment, every one else will eat your lunch.