The pandemic was to the climate what a handful of water is to the exhausted marathon runner’s face. We took it easy for a while to drive, sail, fly as usual as soon as the virus was contained. However, the climate is not to be messed with. The warm weather and drought are setting in (in Pakistan the mercury has already hit 50 degrees) and we’re starting to talk some more about saving the climate. First rule in the climate talks: propose measures that affect the group, community or class to which you belong as little as possible.
I believe that a year after the outbreak of covid-19 reports appeared about the cleaner canals in Venice. Thanks to the absence of the millions of tourists, fish swam in those waters again. I don’t know what the status of those fish is now, but that humanity has picked up its well-known pace, there is no doubt about it. For example, Schiphol is well on its way to the prepandemic capacity of half a million flights a year. And while the greatest challenge of this century is supposedly fossil-free living, news came last week that Saudi oil tycoon Aramco has overtaken competitor Apple and is today the world’s most valuable company.
Human hypocrisy
So the complete pollution is back. With it all the excesses of human hypocrisy. For example, what should we do to reduce the number of flights? Everyone who, thanks to a big grant, is able to fly around the world all year round, even after the introduction of a hefty flight tax, agrees: yes, of course, make flying more expensive.
If you bring up the unfair nature of this measure, you will certainly be snapped: flying is not a human right. The reality is that not everything is affordable for everyone.
Do they have a point? In a world that has been completely transformed into a large village according to the wishes of the business community, is flying a negligible luxury? Who will then say to all those people who have been displaced and torn apart in a world shaped by big capital in their search for bread and peace since the 1990s, say that from now on only the truly rich go to the motherland, the family, the friend? and may the beloved fly?
Therefore, my answer to anyone who advocates more expensive flying is: affordable flying is indeed a human right. For me, for my children, for all the people who have flown to put their hands and their brains at the service of the system of neoliberal greed. We are entitled to an annual meeting with family, friends and loved one, far from where we live. Especially in this time of scorched identities and the endless search for a ‘home’.
Moreover, it is a human right for young people that travelling, studying, making friends in other parts of the world should not depend on the thickness of the parents’ wallet.
I am by no means arguing for unlimited flying for everyone. Let there be no doubt; the least we can do for the climate is to limit flying as soon as possible. But not just for the lower and middle classes, but for everyone. That’s why I say: introduce an annual flying quota. Two round trips per person per year. Exceptions only for people in government and in the medical sector who have to fly for work.
shamelessness
The shamelessness of flying all the time without any professional, managerial or medical need must be over. The current practice is that, provided they have sufficient resources, the offspring still travel to three different continents in the same year, while people themselves do not see the point of crossing the ocean for the umpteenth time for a weekend away. I know someone who, to ease his heartbreak, flew to Mexico to hang out at his hotel for two weeks.
If the earth will go down, it will be because of the human being who is now juggling at the highest level of egoism. A new type of people that says: make flying unaffordable for the plebs, we have more seating space in the planes. Then I think: curb the behavior of these wretches so that at least the next generations are saved.
Erdal Balcic is a writer and journalist and writes an exchange column with Tim ‘S Jongers every other week.