The Argument for France's Short-Haul Flight Ban is a Load of Hot Air

There are those who think that climate change is the single greatest threat to mankind. Climate change activists think they are reaching for the stars in helping the world....or in France's case, reach for the skies. A couple of weeks ago, the French government banned flights that could be taken by train in 2.5 hours or less. The purpose of such a ban is to lower carbon emissions in the fight against climate change. Whether it is regulations encouraging electric vehicle production, banning gas stoves, or a carbon tax, we should ask about the merits of the policy of a short-haul flight ban. 

First, as I brought up in April, climate change is not a crisis. Using implausible assumptions in climate change modeling does not do any favors, especially when it comes to environmental policy. However, for argument's sake, let us assume that climate change is something we need to address urgently. The short-haul flight ban is still a problem, and I am not talking about my more general kvetch with economic bans. 

It is unlikely that this ban will have any major impact on carbon emissions. The three routes being prohibited under the ban are from Paris to three cities: Nantes, Bordeaux, and Lyon. These three routes account for 5,000 out of the 200,000 domestic flights (or 1 out of 40 flights). It is not simply a matter of how many flights, but how much fuel is burnt. A study from the Journal of Transport Geography shows that flights shorter than 500 kilometers across 31 European countries accounted for 27.9 percent of departures but 5.9 percent of fuel burnt (Dobroszkes et al., 2022). Airplanes are responsible for 2.5 percent of global carbon emissions (Oxford). Assuming that a) the European rates above apply to overall trends, and b) the whole world banned short-haul flights, 5.9 percent of 2.5 percent is only 0.15 percent of global carbon emissions. 

As Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy points out, this ban comes with the other negative consequence of it being more deadly. Macron's idea of banning short-haul flights is to incentivize greater train usage. Forget that extra time spent on the train or that taking the train burns about 57 percent more fuel per capita than a plane ride (ibid). Harvard University found that the probability of dying in a plane crash is about 1 in 11 million; it is 1 in 5,000 for an automobile. That is an increased likelihood of death by a factor of 2,100! Given that at least some French citizens would divert their travel from plane to automobile, it would not be a surprise if we see an increase in French traffic deaths.     

I can think of larger examples of political theatre, whether it was the harmful lockdowns, ineffective COVID travel bans, plastic straw bans, or the Transit Security Administration's security checks at the airport. At the same time, France is trying to focus on low-hanging fruit that do not solve major problems while causing bigger problems. This potentially harmful symbolism is par for the course with political theatre. La plus ça change, la plus c'est la même chose.