Posted on 10/25/2019 9:26:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Consumers are paying more attention to their carbon footprint and it could cost airlines billions of dollars, Citi said in a note to clients Tuesday.
The firm said that "flight shaming," which it defines as "the inherent guilt that an individual feels as a result of one's aviation-related carbon footprint" is causing consumers to explore alternative modes of transportation when possible and to look for ways to offset their carbon emissions.
Citi estimates that over the next five years the cost of carbon offsetting economy flights will grow to $3.8 billion per year. It will either be absorbed by the consumer or the airline. But really the airline gets hit in both scenarios since if the price is absorbed by passengers the higher cost could lead to an overall slowdown in air travel.
"If this burden were to be fully absorbed by the consumer, our price elasticity analysis shows that there would be a shortfall in volume growth of -0.4% per annum vs. current forecasts. And while this does not sound detrimental, if this onus were to fall on the (largely fixed cost base) airlines, the cost of carbon offsetting all leisure consumption could be as much as c.27% of airlines' profits by 2025," analysts led by Mark Manduca wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I have a sign in my office ‘Large Carbon Footprints Make For Happy Trees.’ Drives the libtards crazy.
What we actually need is TSA shaming.
This writer is reporting from lala land.
If appeal to hypocrisy were a convincing argument, no one would take global warming hysteria seriously. (Maybe no one does, maybe they're all just virtue signaling hypocritical jerks.)
An environmentalist is someone who believes that country homes and two car garages are bad, when other people want them.
Hollywood shames peons, they still fly to the awards shows, chat shows, movie sets, and parties and vacations.
I was just on a project where they will developing some new homes on a hillside pasture with beautiful views. One of the guys mentioned how the homes just up the hill on the other side of the road aren’t too happy about it.
“Yeah - and just like THEIR neighbors weren’t too happy about it when THEY built.”
Even in my suburban neighborhood we hear the stories of how the kids used to love playing in the woods where our 40-year old house now stands.
However, I AM glad that the developer of our neighborhood saved as many old trees as possible. I’ve seen some newer developers that will cut down every single tree leaving it a barren wasteland. They pay a fine - but probably make more on the timber than the fine costs.
Same here, have to fly for business but for personal stuff, unless its off the mainland I drive.
The airport/flying experience is unpleasant.
Where I live there is a new development going in behind us. Our developers had meetings with the developers and town planning board in the town library to voice concerns of our community.
We are about 10 miles west of Walden Pond. When my neighbors were wrangling with the developers I was struck by the irony of the fact that Thoreau wrote four times about his visits to our town around 1858, writing effusively about the ancient stand of oaks trees, about a mile square, the last such in New England. Not a single tree remains, the stand occupied by our homes and the library.
The premise here is that all flights will have to be offset, either by the airline or the customer. This is a false premise.
Yet. Plastic straws and plastic bags were not a thing 5 years ago. They already have the option of carbon offsets on your airline purchase if you want it. Instead of option, it will be added to the ticket price mandatorily. And liberals still wont be satisfied.
I haven’t set foot on a plane in years, but it has ZERO to do with flight shaming.
If the airlines are having issues, bet it’s not because of that lunacy. Bet folks in addition to me have a problem with: high ticket prices, lost luggage, no legroom, scratched flights, seat bumping, security gropers, filthy airports, fewer and fewer direct flights...
Jeez louise, I’ll just fricking drive.
Welcome to suburbia - where we cut down all the trees and name roads after them.
“This might have greater success in Europe, where there is greater conformity on Climate Change.”
My current job requires tons of travel but almost none by plane. I drive a company F-150 and pull a large demonstration trailer. I burn lots of fuel and don’t care.
Total BS...something a millennial thought up on his blog. Watch the numbers, this one cant be faked.
Makes me think of Hanoi Jane Fonda, getting arrested in D.C. every Friday for protesting climate change. Is she flying back and forth to Hollywood every week? Or is she hiking or riding a bicycle?
Nope, no *inherent* guilt here over some concocted, man defined "evil" of having a *carbon footprint*.
I limited my flying long ago, not due to any SJW virtue-signaling, but because the whole flying experience is a pain.
Between TSA, smaller seats, nickel and diming flyers in every possible way, and every flight packed like it was the last helicopter out of Saigon, I’d rather drive.
These days, I only fly for work, and I make sure that it is absolutely necessary for me to be there. I’m glad there is video conferencing and collaboration.
I completely agree with you. The whole flying experience is a pain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.