Saving money news
Brits still shirk environmental responsibility
5 February, 2007
Renewed efforts to combat the excessive carbon emissions produced by air travel have fallen on deaf ears according to the latest research, with a fifth of people still apathetic about the environmental impact of flying
Even after recent concerns over escalating levels of climate change and the further depletion of the ozone layer, the population show a distinct lack of concern over the impact their habits are having on the environment around them.
Considering that the next twelve months will see 24 million people jet off abroad, a massive 75 per cent will not be changing their travel plans as a result of the doubling of Air Passenger Duty – with 26 per cent of travellers admitting that they had no idea about the 1 February increases.
Only 11 per cent of Brits are committed to shrinking their carbon footprint by flying less in the future, and a mere 3 per cent have been greatly discouraged by the increase in passenger duty.
A spokesperson for Prudential Travel Insurance, Phil Southgate, comments: “We all have a responsibility to protect the environment so it will be interesting to see what impact, if any, the tax will have on the travel industry, and whether travellers will become more conscious of the amount of flights they take each year.”
In addition, the general attitude is similarly bleak where smaller gestures are concerned and people are only willing to go green if there are adequate financial benefits.
One in four consumers does not recycle household waste and just 4 per cent use green energy tariffs, yet more than three-quarters will turn off electrical appliances rather than leave them on stand-by and six out of ten declare that at least a quarter of their household lighting is energy saving.
David Kuo, head of personal finance at fool.co.uk believes that; “Consumers are frequently torn between a desire to help the environment and a need to be financially prudent. Sadly the two are often diametrically opposed.”
“The Government can help by addressing issues that affect ordinary people without using a sledgehammer approach through green taxes,” adds Kuo. “Why does it cost twice as much to travel from London to Manchester by train than by air, despite the huge public and private investments in Britain’s railways?”
“We should not expect to be financially compensated for saving our planet – it’s in all our interests to keep it habitable. Killing good trees to print bad legislation is not the answer – the Government can certainly do better.”
Bookmark with:
