I had a conversation yesterday with your wonderful aide ███████████████████. I mentioned the idea of bringing ‘conservation’ into the discussion of air travel and she must have thought I was nuts.
It is hard to explain to younger people how much Americans used to glamourise cars. The idea that we might ever feel otherwise was just as insane. We promoted auto travel as an intrinsic good. Even so, after the Oil Embargo, there was a period where government at every level made efforts to get the public to reconsider that love affair. For example, there were many, many ads on TV asking “Is this trip really necessary?” We improved the ‘tech’ of cars for sure. But slowly we also worked to change the culture around driving and that also has made a significant improvement to our world. Most young people drive less and support transit far more now as a result.
To a certain extent, we’re still locked in that older mindset with air travel. In the past year, we’re now doing many things remotely that policy makers always agreed were good but could never actually get people and organisations to try. But it turns out that a lot of these tasks work better done remotely! A lot of air travel was (and is) simply habitual. And a lot of flying came down to the constant promotion–even when there were better alternatives.
With all its tragedy, the pandemic forced the world to make a much needed shift away from unnecessary flying–something we never would’ve had the will to do otherwise.
But that change is fragile. If it is not actively encouraged, just like after the Oil Embargo, we will rush back towards unnecessary air travel–despite all the benefits. And it will happen because market forces, the FAA and operators like the Port Of Seattle will do everything they can to make it happen. That’s not a rant; it’s their stated missions.
So just as in the 1970’s, when we started coming to terms with the problems of automobile travel, the government has an interest in providing in promoting a culture of conservation. In fact now even more so given the urgency of climate change.
I’m asking you to make “Is this flight necessary?” a part of the Quiet Skies Caucus agenda. We can do a great deal to help with climate change and the negative impacts to airport communities simply by encouraging the public and business to keep moving forward and to not return to the status quo ante. Give this new ‘remote culture’ a chance to take hold. Reducing the number of flights–by even a few percent–would improve the health of our residents (and the nation) far more than any near-term interventions like sustainable aviation fuels.
We all have to do our part. To address climate change, conservation of air travel must be put on the table as it is with automobiles and every other sector of the economy. Even more so with flying because we now have proof as to how much of it we can happily do without.
Sincerely,
—JC