Fairness and taxing flying

I'm very sympathetic to some of those mentioned in this article.A tax on the Caribbean | Floella Benjamin | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk. I have been too poor, at one time, to be able to go to a funeral in this country of a loved relative because the fare would have meant I wouldn't have been able to pay my rent and eat that month. So while I am about to make myself feel better by having a little rant, please do hold the bigger picture in mind. The rant is set off by thi: "A proposal to raise duty on flights to the Caribbean by almost 100% is unfair"
Unfair? Let's put some perspective here: unfair is that our emissions of CO2 and the methane from animals we can do without eating are what are depriving millions in low-lying countries of land and livelihood. Unfair is that our emissions may deprive our and everyone else's grandchildren of a quality of life we have come to feel entitled to.Unfair is that our flights are contributing to pushing us over the edge climatically and we are not the ones who will bear the brunt of the effects.
That said, The system should be fair, nonetheless in the way that it is applied. But let's beware that we don't take such 'tweakable' details as some excuse not to do anything serious and substantial to begin to address the global issue.

ASLEF - Re-nationalising rail could save

From Aslef's briefing on why the railways should be renationalised:

Ministers have suggested that we cannot afford to take the railways back into public ownership. The reality is that we cannot afford not to. Continuing with the status quo means continuing with low growth, poor performance, compromised safety – and spiralling cost escalation. The Exchequer will not bear this increasing burden indefinitely – sooner or later there will be pressure to shift the costs of privatisation to passengers, through fare rises and cuts in services. Either way, the public loses.

And there is a little more to it than TU nostalgia:

Drawing on research by Professor Jean Shaoul of Manchester University, it shows that this could produce immediate savings of at least £500m a year on the government’s annual rail bill of £4.5 billion, as well as leading to further savings and service improvements over the medium term as the industry was reintegrated.

It kind of echoes concerns I myself have expressed publicly before now.

ASLEF - Re-nationalising rail could save:

Faster trains for UK

I'm cautiously optimistic about thisas faster trains will help disable the 'case' for short haul flights. However, there are trade-offs.

there are concerns about the increase in energy required to power super-high speeds.
Critics also say Britain is too small to warrant spending large extra sums on speeding up journeys and say money would be better spent on increasing capacity on Britain's trains, not speed. 'If you speed up movement people will take advantage of that to travel further,' said David Metz, visiting professor at University College London and a former chief scientist at the Department for Transport.

Natioanl Express doubt biofuels

It's been my concern for a while that biofuels are best seen as a transitional measure since they would eat up food crops and make matters worse in terms of the other environmental impacts globally. It seems one company have been courageous enough to question the greenwash:

National Express said there is "considerable concern" that biofuel production - from crops including sugar cane and rapeseed - will destroy natural habitats and increase the cost of food farming in developing countries.