The market price of cutting airline emissions
other parts of the world is much worse than it was before the Crunch, there are
some who always respond that they’re delighted.
the world’s governments and big businesses will never reach agreement on stemming
emissions sufficiently – because the benefits are always slightly further away
than the immediate financial pain of producing less or investing in expensive
we’d all be so much better off in the long term – because we would not be incurring
tomorrow’s climate-change costs for today’s nebulous and transient (in their view)
the right direction.
– because the industry does not expect to stabilise emissions until 2020. Which
most psychologists would say is too far away to serve as much of a deadline.
on average is vitiated (or so critics would say) by the inclusion of the words
“on average” – it allows plenty of wriggle room for semi-worthless promises to
do better if CO2 efficiency were not to improve.
worries that the promised cuts – large as they may seem – are not enough.
have been growing fast, so the offer of cuts by the industry may be seen as too
little in the context of gains in energy-efficiency made in other parts of the
more widely, has been the global recession. When all those factories shut down
in China and other parts of East Asia, when airline travel slumped, the impact
on emissions was significant.
more than 2% this year – with most of the decline the result of the weakness of
the economy, rather than the fruits of deliberate government policies.
recession is good for us and should be prolonged indefinitely, so world leaders
are still on the hook to make difficult sacrifices at the climate-change summit
in Copenhagen later this year.
morning in a rising stock market.