Its a commonly held view among green advocates that the cost of fuel at the pump and the plane ticket do NOT reflect the true cost of environmental impact those have.
In car dependent cities this would be a certain disaster in my opinion. Those cities would have to reinvent themselves for masses of people priced out of personal vehicles using public transit. Public transit projects are slow to complete and often encounter cost overruns, which would require taxing the public more. Examples are the boondoggle that has been California’s attempt at high speed rail.
However,
Imported goods would be cost prohibitive and produce would be limited to stuff available in the regional area. We do not need bananas from South America or single use instant coffee packets from Southeast Asia.
Traveling would also be significantly impacted. Increasing fuel costs would lead people to stay home and airlines to scrap their older less fuel efficient jets. Maybe return to the regulation era of civil aviation where governments dictated routes, frequencies and aircraft used, with an added emphasis on efficiency and low environmental impact. Add flight shame that is increasingly a thing in Europe, where people who do air travel are seen as selfish. Do we need several dozen flights between Los Angeles and New York City every day?
Making these changes would be a double edged sword. On one hand, pricing people out non-essential travel and imported goods would make a significant decrease in fossil fuel emissions. On the other hand, advocates would quickly alienate a significant amount of the population.
In car dependent cities this would be a certain disaster in my opinion. Those cities would have to reinvent themselves for masses of people priced out of personal vehicles using public transit. Public transit projects are slow to complete and often encounter cost overruns, which would require taxing the public more. Examples are the boondoggle that has been California’s attempt at high speed rail.
However,
Imported goods would be cost prohibitive and produce would be limited to stuff available in the regional area. We do not need bananas from South America or single use instant coffee packets from Southeast Asia.
Traveling would also be significantly impacted. Increasing fuel costs would lead people to stay home and airlines to scrap their older less fuel efficient jets. Maybe return to the regulation era of civil aviation where governments dictated routes, frequencies and aircraft used, with an added emphasis on efficiency and low environmental impact. Add flight shame that is increasingly a thing in Europe, where people who do air travel are seen as selfish. Do we need several dozen flights between Los Angeles and New York City every day?
Making these changes would be a double edged sword. On one hand, pricing people out non-essential travel and imported goods would make a significant decrease in fossil fuel emissions. On the other hand, advocates would quickly alienate a significant amount of the population.
