Private jet use is increasingly under scrutiny as the effects of climate change become apparent. Credit: zorazhuang via Getty Images.
As public pressure grows, some governments are attempting to reduce the number of private and commercial short-haul flights.
Recent coverage of celebrities like Taylor Swift and politicians using private jets for short journeys has reignited a debate about the justifiability of their use. As public pressure to curb carbon emissions grows, some governments are attempting to reduce the number of short-haul flights undertaken by commercial and private jet aircraft.
A 2021 report from Brussels-based campaign group Transport and Environment found that private jets are five to 14 times more polluting per passenger than commercial flights and 50 times more polluting than trains.
“Aeroplanes are one of the most polluting methods of transport due to the variety of released gases,” explains GlobalData analyst Will Tyson. “It is not just CO2 emissions, but also nitrogen oxides and the effects of vapour trails.
“The altitude from which the gases are emitted also has an impact due to the greenhouse effect being stronger the higher in the air you are.”
As a whole, air travel accounts for 2% of CO2 emissions. In contrast, militaries around the world contribute 5.5% of CO2 emissions.
Global NGO Greenpeace is part of a growing number of organisations lobbying to ban private jet use once and for all, arguing that, despite 80% of the world’s population having never taken a flight, the super-rich 1% are responsible for half of the world’s aviation emissions.
The BMW X5 is among the large SUVs with a low vehicle excise duty in the UK compared with other countries in Europe. Photograph: Tony Vingerhoets/Alamy
First-year vehicle excise duty is a fraction of that in countries such as France and the Netherlands
Low taxation on petrol SUVs in the UK compared with much of Europe is inviting a glut of large, polluting luxury cars, according to an analysis by a green thinktank.
The tax paid when buying a new petrol or diesel SUV in the UK is only a fraction of the levies in neighbouring countries, including France and the Netherlands, and lower than many others in Europe, making it a “tax haven” for the bigger, less environmentally friendly vehicles, the report from Transport & Environment (T&E) found.
Britain’s first-year vehicle excise duty (VED) charge does relatively little to incentivise the purchase of less damaging cars, with the difference in buying a petrol SUV or a battery electric equivalent smaller in the UK than under most of Europe’s comparable acquisition taxes.
The first-year VED for a medium-large SUV, such as the BMW X5, costs £1,565 in the UK compared with a €60,000 (£51,400) tax in France, which also has a further surcharge on heavier cars.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg is joining local residents, Extinction Rebellion activists and climate change campaigners outside Farnborough Airport today (27 January) to protest against plans to increase private jet flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The protesters are also calling for a total ban on private jets, which are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners.
Greta Thunberg said: “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality.
“There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.”
Hundreds of protestors will gather in Farnborough town centre at 11am today to march alongside Thunberg to Farnborough Airport, setting off pink smoke flares and waving banners proclaiming ‘Flying to Extinction’, ‘Stop Private Flights Now’, ‘No to Airport Expansion’ and ‘Private Flights = Public Deaths’.
This is the latest in a series of protests against the airport’s planning application, which seeks to more than double weekend flights and boost the use of heavier, more polluting private jets. In 2022, there were 33,120 flights to and from the airport, a 27% increase compared to 2021’s total of 26,007. Flights to and from Farnborough averaged just 2.5 passengers per flight. Currently 40% of flights to and from the airport are empty, according to research by campaign group Possible. Despite claiming the majority of flights are for business use, the research showed that most Farnborough flights are headed to holiday destinations. Last September a ‘pets on jets’ service launched to fly dogs and their owners from Dubai to Farnborough and back.
Todd Smith, former airline pilot and Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet, and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. Surely it’s a no brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.
“For most people, life has become more difficult. The cost of heating our homes, buying food and paying our bills has increased massively. So imagine looking out our windows to see yet more private jets flying billionaires around.
“Is this a fair society that we live in, or is there one set of rules for the majority, and another for the elites? Plans to expand the UK’s largest private jet airport seem to make this clear.”
Godalming resident Chris Neill, 67, a retired psychotherapist, said: “We’re in a global climate and ecological emergency. We need to reduce carbon emissions fast and there’s no realistic plan for taking the carbon out of jet fuel. Until there is, we need to fly much less, not more.
“This plan to expand a luxury airport used exclusively by very wealthy people at a time when ordinary people are struggling to manage everyday life is reckless, stupid and selfish. We need a government which has the courage to stop this.”
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch attends an event in Hagerstown, Maryland on March 11, 2022. (Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)
The conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a pair of cases taking direct aim at a critical precedent that, if overturned, would gut federal agencies’ ability to set and enforce regulations—a potentially massive blow to the climate, civil rights, public health, and more.
Central to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce is the so-called Chevron doctrine, which stems from a 1984 Supreme Court opinion that said judges should defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed the issue.
The precedent has long been a target of the fossil fuel industry and right-wing groups that are backing the plaintiffs in Loper and Relentless, both of which involve herring fishermen who challenged federal rules requiring them to pay for onboard compliance monitors.
Organizations that have received millions of dollars from the oil-soaked Koch network are supporting the effort to overturn the Chevron doctrine. In Loper, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are “working pro bono and belong to a public-interest law firm, Cause of Action, that discloses no donors and reports having no employees,” The New York Timesreported Tuesday.
“However,” the Times added, “court records show that the lawyers work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by [Charles] Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.”
Relentless plaintiffs are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a right-wing group that has received millions from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Don’t look away. Huge stakes are at issue here. “If SCOTUS either restricts or overturns the Chevron Doctrine…, it could throw into Q thousands of regulations affecting civil rights, the environment, food safety, airline safety, consumer protection, health care, education, etc.” https://t.co/4I8aiVhTmT
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement Wednesday that “the special interests who spent big to stack the court may get their way if the Supreme Court weakens the government’s ability to hold industry accountable when they pollute for profit.”
“Everything from the climate to consumer safety could be worse off thanks to this potential decision and the corporate lobbyists who brought us to this point,” Ciccone added.
Earlier this week, Accountable.US urged right-wing Justice Neil Gorsuch—who has criticized the Chevron doctrine—to recuse from Loper, citing his ties to a billionaire oil tycoon who is positioned to benefit from a ruling that scraps the decades-old precedent. Justice Clarence Thomas also faced calls to recuse over his ties to the Koch network.
Neither agreed to step away from the case.
At the start of the Supreme Court’s hearing Wednesday, liberal Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern that gutting Chevron would give judges who lack subject-matter expertise power over policy decisions previously made by agencies staffed with scientists and other experts.
“You think that the court should determine whether a new product is a dietary supplement or a drug, without giving deference to the agency where it is not clear from the text of the statute or from using any traditional methods of statutory interpretation whether in fact the new product is a dietary supplement or a drug?” Kagan asked Roman Martinez, an attorney for the plaintiffs in Relentless. “You want the courts to decide that?”
"You think the court should determine whether a new product is a dietary supplement or a drug?" — Justice Kagan explains how overturning Chevron deference would turn the courts into non-expert policymakers. pic.twitter.com/gTDjNP6QwH
The U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, has recently shown a willingness to curb federal agencies’ power to enforce key laws. In its 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court’s conservative supermajority limited the EPA’s authority to regulate power plants under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
But environmentalists and others warned that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in Loper and Relentless would strike a far more sweeping and devastating blow.
“The consequences of this case will be serious for fishery management, yes,” said Meredith Moore, director of Ocean Conservancy’s fish conservation program. “But it also puts at risk all of the environmental and social programs that keep our air and water clean, our homes and workplaces safe, and ourselves and our children healthy.”
“If the Supreme Court eradicates Chevron deference, it will overturn 40 years of foundational administrative and environmental law that has provided stable public resource management,” Moore added. “It will allow science-based management and agency expertise to be replaced with the inexpert policy and ideological preferences of unelected judges, potentially resulting in dramatically different interpretations of law across the country.”
Tishan Weerasooriya, senior associate of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, echoed those concerns, saying in a statement that “if the MAGA justices of the court overturn another decades-old precedent, it will greatly reduce the ability of scientists and experts at government agencies to defend every Americans’ right to clean water and air, worker protections, healthcare, and more.”
“Billionaires and elite corporations have been gunning to overturn this precedent for years, hoping to increase their profits even further if experts and scientists are no longer setting safety standards,” said Weerasooriya. “If the Roberts court overturns Chevron, it will continue to erode our fundamental freedoms and safety in deference to the wealthy and corporations.”
