So said a post the other day from ‘I Fly Bernard’, one of the new social media accounts that have sprung up in France to highlight the cost of private jets on the planet. Bernard refers to Bernard Arnault, head of luxury group LVMH, although the particular post was about a jet owned by the business of media mogul Vincent Bolloré, who did not respond to a request for comment. Both men belong to a tiny club of the super-rich that is responsible for a huge share of carbon emissions, as “I Fly Bernard” points out. And that message is resonating with unusual force right now, as France staggers from a scorching summer of forest fires to the threat of a winter energy crisis so dire that people are being urged to embrace “energy sobriety”. With outrage among non-billionaires, France’s transport minister has called for restrictions on private jet flights and the head of the country’s Green Party is calling for a total ban. Resentment is also growing in the United States, where websites that have long tracked celebrity flights are suddenly being used to shame flights as evidence of climate extremes mounts. Kylie Jenner, the reality TV star, has been labeled a climate criminal after a website showed her private jet making a flight of just 17 minutes in July, the same month the US was hit by record-breaking heat and wildfires. Public anger at the coal-burning elite is understandable, although the elite lifestyle is nothing new. Researchers showed years ago that the world’s richest 10 percent accounted for more than half of the increase in emissions between 1990 and 2015. And before the pandemic, just 1 percent of people caused half the emissions of all passenger flights. However, if private jets were banned tomorrow, it wouldn’t make as much of a difference to the climate as you might think. These flights account for only about 4 percent of global aviation emissions, which in turn accounted for only 2.4 percent of global CO₂ emissions in 2018. That 2.4 percent is nothing. If the aviation industry were a country, research shows that its total emissions would rank 6th in the world between Japan and Germany in 2019. However, even when you take into account nitrogen oxides and aircraft pollution other than CO2, only the entire sector accounts for about 3.5 percent of the effects of human-caused warming, scientists estimate. The problem is the explosive growth in flying, which has driven the highest and fastest single emissions growth since before Covid — plus the industry’s slow pace of decarbonisation. Electric or hydrogen-powered airplanes are years away from widespread commercial use, and truly green versions of jet fuel are expensive and rare. Countries that lobbied hard against EU efforts to regulate their airlines’ pollution a decade ago have since agreed to a global aviation carbon offset scheme that will shock if it proves effective. But what if private jets are the answer to this contingency? Instead of banning them, should regulators turn them into a testing ground for a greener aviation future? This elegant idea comes from a 2021 report by Transport & Environment, a European group that has spent more than 30 years campaigning for cleaner transport, often with success. The study says private jet owners are worth an average of €1.3 billion, so they can afford the development of technologies such as green aircraft. Also, the first electric or hydrogen planes will carry only a few passengers over relatively short distances, which most private jets do. Adding these two factors together, the report recommends that a ticket tax of at least €3,000 be imposed on all private flights departing from Europe. The money raised should be used to finance greener alternatives, and by 2030, regulators should require private planes flying less than 1,000 kilometers in Europe to be powered by green hydrogen or electricity. The industry will grumble of course. But it has been running well for a long time. Flying has enjoyed decades of light taxation, even when it’s on a private jet that’s up to 14 times more polluting than a commercial airliner per passenger. Banning private jets would make a lot of people happy, but in reality, it might be better for the climate to keep them in the air. [email protected]
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here. Curious about FT’s commitments to environmental sustainability? Learn more about our scientific goals here
title: “Don T Ban Private Jets Make Them A Green Testing Ground Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-11” author: “Clark Michaud”
So said a post the other day from ‘I Fly Bernard’, one of the new social media accounts that have sprung up in France to highlight the cost of private jets on the planet. Bernard refers to Bernard Arnault, head of luxury group LVMH, although the particular post was about a jet owned by the business of media mogul Vincent Bolloré, who did not respond to a request for comment. Both men belong to a tiny club of the super-rich that is responsible for a huge share of carbon emissions, as “I Fly Bernard” points out. And that message is resonating with unusual force right now, as France staggers from a scorching summer of forest fires to the threat of a winter energy crisis so dire that people are being urged to embrace “energy sobriety”. With outrage among non-billionaires, France’s transport minister has called for restrictions on private jet flights and the head of the country’s Green Party is calling for a total ban. Resentment is also growing in the United States, where websites that have long tracked celebrity flights are suddenly being used to shame flights as evidence of climate extremes mounts. Kylie Jenner, the reality TV star, has been labeled a climate criminal after a website showed her private jet making a flight of just 17 minutes in July, the same month the US was hit by record-breaking heat and wildfires. Public anger at the coal-burning elite is understandable, although the elite lifestyle is nothing new. Researchers showed years ago that the world’s richest 10 percent accounted for more than half of the increase in emissions between 1990 and 2015. And before the pandemic, just 1 percent of people caused half the emissions of all passenger flights. However, if private jets were banned tomorrow, it wouldn’t make as much of a difference to the climate as you might think. These flights account for only about 4 percent of global aviation emissions, which in turn accounted for only 2.4 percent of global CO₂ emissions in 2018. That 2.4 percent is nothing. If the aviation industry were a country, research shows that its total emissions would rank 6th in the world between Japan and Germany in 2019. However, even when you take into account nitrogen oxides and aircraft pollution other than CO2, only the entire sector accounts for about 3.5 percent of the effects of human-caused warming, scientists estimate. The problem is the explosive growth in flying, which has driven the highest and fastest single emissions growth since before Covid — plus the industry’s slow pace of decarbonisation. Electric or hydrogen-powered airplanes are years away from widespread commercial use, and truly green versions of jet fuel are expensive and rare. Countries that lobbied hard against EU efforts to regulate their airlines’ pollution a decade ago have since agreed to a global aviation carbon offset scheme that will shock if it proves effective. But what if private jets are the answer to this contingency? Instead of banning them, should regulators turn them into a testing ground for a greener aviation future? This elegant idea comes from a 2021 report by Transport & Environment, a European group that has spent more than 30 years campaigning for cleaner transport, often with success. The study says private jet owners are worth an average of €1.3 billion, so they can afford the development of technologies such as green aircraft. Also, the first electric or hydrogen planes will carry only a few passengers over relatively short distances, which most private jets do. Adding these two factors together, the report recommends that a ticket tax of at least €3,000 be imposed on all private flights departing from Europe. The money raised should be used to finance greener alternatives, and by 2030, regulators should require private planes flying less than 1,000 kilometers in Europe to be powered by green hydrogen or electricity. The industry will grumble of course. But it has been running well for a long time. Flying has enjoyed decades of light taxation, even when it’s on a private jet that’s up to 14 times more polluting than a commercial airliner per passenger. Banning private jets would make a lot of people happy, but in reality, it might be better for the climate to keep them in the air. [email protected]
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here. Curious about FT’s commitments to environmental sustainability? Learn more about our scientific goals here
title: “Don T Ban Private Jets Make Them A Green Testing Ground Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-17” author: “Calvin Liberto”
So said a post the other day from ‘I Fly Bernard’, one of the new social media accounts that have sprung up in France to highlight the cost of private jets on the planet. Bernard refers to Bernard Arnault, head of luxury group LVMH, although the particular post was about a jet owned by the business of media mogul Vincent Bolloré, who did not respond to a request for comment. Both men belong to a tiny club of the super-rich that is responsible for a huge share of carbon emissions, as “I Fly Bernard” points out. And that message is resonating with unusual force right now, as France staggers from a scorching summer of forest fires to the threat of a winter energy crisis so dire that people are being urged to embrace “energy sobriety”. With outrage among non-billionaires, France’s transport minister has called for restrictions on private jet flights and the head of the country’s Green Party is calling for a total ban. Resentment is also growing in the United States, where websites that have long tracked celebrity flights are suddenly being used to shame flights as evidence of climate extremes mounts. Kylie Jenner, the reality TV star, has been labeled a climate criminal after a website showed her private jet making a flight of just 17 minutes in July, the same month the US was hit by record-breaking heat and wildfires. Public anger at the coal-burning elite is understandable, although the elite lifestyle is nothing new. Researchers showed years ago that the world’s richest 10 percent accounted for more than half of the increase in emissions between 1990 and 2015. And before the pandemic, just 1 percent of people caused half the emissions of all passenger flights. However, if private jets were banned tomorrow, it wouldn’t make as much of a difference to the climate as you might think. These flights account for only about 4 percent of global aviation emissions, which in turn accounted for only 2.4 percent of global CO₂ emissions in 2018. That 2.4 percent is nothing. If the aviation industry were a country, research shows that its total emissions would rank 6th in the world between Japan and Germany in 2019. However, even when you take into account nitrogen oxides and aircraft pollution other than CO2, only the entire sector accounts for about 3.5 percent of the effects of human-caused warming, scientists estimate. The problem is the explosive growth in flying, which has driven the highest and fastest single emissions growth since before Covid — plus the industry’s slow pace of decarbonisation. Electric or hydrogen-powered airplanes are years away from widespread commercial use, and truly green versions of jet fuel are expensive and rare. Countries that lobbied hard against EU efforts to regulate their airlines’ pollution a decade ago have since agreed to a global aviation carbon offset scheme that will shock if it proves effective. But what if private jets are the answer to this contingency? Instead of banning them, should regulators turn them into a testing ground for a greener aviation future? This elegant idea comes from a 2021 report by Transport & Environment, a European group that has spent more than 30 years campaigning for cleaner transport, often with success. The study says private jet owners are worth an average of €1.3 billion, so they can afford the development of technologies such as green aircraft. Also, the first electric or hydrogen planes will carry only a few passengers over relatively short distances, which most private jets do. Adding these two factors together, the report recommends that a ticket tax of at least €3,000 be imposed on all private flights departing from Europe. The money raised should be used to finance greener alternatives, and by 2030, regulators should require private planes flying less than 1,000 kilometers in Europe to be powered by green hydrogen or electricity. The industry will grumble of course. But it has been running well for a long time. Flying has enjoyed decades of light taxation, even when it’s on a private jet that’s up to 14 times more polluting than a commercial airliner per passenger. Banning private jets would make a lot of people happy, but in reality, it might be better for the climate to keep them in the air. [email protected]
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here. Curious about FT’s commitments to environmental sustainability? Learn more about our scientific goals here
title: “Don T Ban Private Jets Make Them A Green Testing Ground Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-30” author: “Marie Soldner”
So said a post the other day from ‘I Fly Bernard’, one of the new social media accounts that have sprung up in France to highlight the cost of private jets on the planet. Bernard refers to Bernard Arnault, head of luxury group LVMH, although the particular post was about a jet owned by the business of media mogul Vincent Bolloré, who did not respond to a request for comment. Both men belong to a tiny club of the super-rich that is responsible for a huge share of carbon emissions, as “I Fly Bernard” points out. And that message is resonating with unusual force right now, as France staggers from a scorching summer of forest fires to the threat of a winter energy crisis so dire that people are being urged to embrace “energy sobriety”. With outrage among non-billionaires, France’s transport minister has called for restrictions on private jet flights and the head of the country’s Green Party is calling for a total ban. Resentment is also growing in the United States, where websites that have long tracked celebrity flights are suddenly being used to shame flights as evidence of climate extremes mounts. Kylie Jenner, the reality TV star, has been labeled a climate criminal after a website showed her private jet making a flight of just 17 minutes in July, the same month the US was hit by record-breaking heat and wildfires. Public anger at the coal-burning elite is understandable, although the elite lifestyle is nothing new. Researchers showed years ago that the world’s richest 10 percent accounted for more than half of the increase in emissions between 1990 and 2015. And before the pandemic, just 1 percent of people caused half the emissions of all passenger flights. However, if private jets were banned tomorrow, it wouldn’t make as much of a difference to the climate as you might think. These flights account for only about 4 percent of global aviation emissions, which in turn accounted for only 2.4 percent of global CO₂ emissions in 2018. That 2.4 percent is nothing. If the aviation industry were a country, research shows that its total emissions would rank 6th in the world between Japan and Germany in 2019. However, even when you take into account nitrogen oxides and aircraft pollution other than CO2, only the entire sector accounts for about 3.5 percent of the effects of human-caused warming, scientists estimate. The problem is the explosive growth in flying, which has driven the highest and fastest single emissions growth since before Covid — plus the industry’s slow pace of decarbonisation. Electric or hydrogen-powered airplanes are years away from widespread commercial use, and truly green versions of jet fuel are expensive and rare. Countries that lobbied hard against EU efforts to regulate their airlines’ pollution a decade ago have since agreed to a global aviation carbon offset scheme that will shock if it proves effective. But what if private jets are the answer to this contingency? Instead of banning them, should regulators turn them into a testing ground for a greener aviation future? This elegant idea comes from a 2021 report by Transport & Environment, a European group that has spent more than 30 years campaigning for cleaner transport, often with success. The study says private jet owners are worth an average of €1.3 billion, so they can afford the development of technologies such as green aircraft. Also, the first electric or hydrogen planes will carry only a few passengers over relatively short distances, which most private jets do. Adding these two factors together, the report recommends that a ticket tax of at least €3,000 be imposed on all private flights departing from Europe. The money raised should be used to finance greener alternatives, and by 2030, regulators should require private planes flying less than 1,000 kilometers in Europe to be powered by green hydrogen or electricity. The industry will grumble of course. But it has been running well for a long time. Flying has enjoyed decades of light taxation, even when it’s on a private jet that’s up to 14 times more polluting than a commercial airliner per passenger. Banning private jets would make a lot of people happy, but in reality, it might be better for the climate to keep them in the air. [email protected]
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here. Curious about FT’s commitments to environmental sustainability? Learn more about our scientific goals here
