Hi Alastair,

 

I wonder if anyone can confirm this 1/3 proportion because I would imagine
that it is far higher for long haul flights than short haul. And even if it
does apply to long haul, even if the jump from £90 to 120 sound manageable,
the jump from 300 to 400 is a lot more painful. 

 

I suspect that that the relationship between demand and price is quite
flexible for flying - of course there are always flights for family crises,
relocation, very important business deals etc for which people would pay
nearly any price, but what are these...maybe 10% at most. In reality though,
if we look at people's flying decisions, price is an issue behind whether to
go here or there, this year or next year, have a long distance relationship,
work overseas. I imagine (from my basic degree economics) that there is a
pretty direct relation between price and demand just as there is for
alcohol. 

 

What do others think or know

 

X

George 

 

 

 

From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair McIntosh
Sent: 12 September 2010 19:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the role of identity in denier motivation .... strategy ideas?

 

I agree with you, Brian. I think the peak oilers are right in a literal
sense, about peak oil, but they overlook the price elasticity of energy and
that the higher the price the more that non-conventional fossil fuels will
be pulled into play - like filthy uses of the vast quantities of coal and
tar sands/shales in the planet. Peak oil will squeeze the poor, but it won't
stop climate change, and in my view it is a distraction in the climate
change debate. Much of the problem is that most people have no idea just how
cheap energy is. For example, on airlines the fuel cost is on average one
third of the ticket price (or so IATA's economist told me 3 years ago). This
means that if you slapped a 100% tax on aviation spirit, a ticket costing
say, £90, would rise only to £120, which might scare off some of the bottom
of the market but not much else. 

 

I keep coming back to the observation that there is no satisfactory and
politically acceptable path out of climate change if the science is right.
In the very long term only a balancing up of population and consumption can
stabilise the planet. I wish somebody could refute that argument and its
dismal implications. 

 

Again, where does this leave the climate change campaign in strategic terms?
If we care about the Earth, in which directions are we best investing our
energies without hitting our own internal peak oil burnout points? 

 

Meanwhile, I see that climate contrarian Roy Spencer's UAH data continues to
show high world temperatures, August having been 0.51 C above the satellite
based average since such records began in 1979. Ho hum. 

 

A.