Give up flying?

[661-Pete]

Plenty of people, it seems, have nothing but insults to pour on Greta. Remember, she's only 16 - though she's achieved more in her few years than most people (like me) have done in their threescore-and-ten. The latest ugly attack comes from one Arron Banks - wishing her to meet with a "freak yachting accident"... Yes of course he says it's a joke. Well, Mr Banks, how about I say, I've got a good sharp stiletto (a family heirloom) locked away in a drawer, I'll just see if it's got the name Arron Banks inscribed on the blade? Of course I'm "only joking", too........

But for the others - the ones who can't quite stomach the thought of death threats, that is, but are still abusive - my guess is, it's the hedonism factor playing a part here. Guys are just too much in love with their cars, their hamburgers and beefsteaks, their far-flung holidays, whatever. Greta has been showing them an uncomfortable truth. So they deny climate change, even when it's staring them in the face. They just can't take it.

Even some on this forum, it seems....

[mattheus]

Why travel at all? Only for selfish reasons. Greta could appear by video call, but where is the adventure/publicity in that? I don't blame her by the way, she is only 16, but these adults believing she will lead us to a bright, new, pollution free future, whilst not a perfect example herself, that is more worrying. Perhaps the answer would be "something, something, raising awareness", as though awareness itself will pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Freddie, your post is misguided, and needlessly negative.

What harm is she doing? Do you really think that raising awareness is unhelpful? Is it inconceivable that some folks will actually move from being apathetic do-nothings, to people that actually care a little for the environement and and then change their lifestyle a little?? Stop micturating on her parade, and maybe do something useful yourself!


And as for this nonsense:

... believing she will lead us to a bright, new, pollution free future, whilst not a perfect example herself, that is more worrying

How absurd! You think that the only human beings that can be useful campaigners have to be perfect examples??

Have you actually thought that through?

[Oldjohnw]

Any middle aged male who makes fun - publicly especially - of a teenage child , regardless of their environmental stance, merits nothing but disdain, as far as I am concerned.

[mattheus]

Plenty of people, it seems, have nothing but insults to pour on Greta. Remember, she's only 16 - though she's achieved more in her few years than most people (like me) have done in their threescore-and-ten. The latest ugly attack comes from one Arron Banks - wishing her to meet with a "freak yachting accident"... Yes of course he says it's a joke.

I saw that. What a pathetic waste of DNA he is.

[pwa]

Whether one agrees with her or not, the girl is trying to walk the talk. She is young and she won't get everything right first time. Who does? But she shows up the "greens" who do all the recycling but still fly to Bali for an "eco-holiday". Sooner her than me on that small vessel in the middle of the Atlantic though!

[Freddie]

I just think the Greta worship is silly. I have nothing negative to say about her particularly, more so the people of middle age sitting in awe of a 16 year old. She is from a very influential family and is being used as a prop for publicity, if she wasn't from such a family you wouldn't have heard of her, activism or not. I imagine she (and her entourage) has a higher level of carbon emissions that the typical Swedish child of her age, who is she to preach? (and she is rather preachy, but then she is 16, who isn't at that age)

Is it inconceivable that some folks will actually move from being apathetic do-nothings, to people that actually care a little for the environement and and then change their lifestyle a little?? Stop micturating on her parade, and maybe do something useful yourself!

She is singing to a choir of the converted (middle class, Guardian readers), who make up a tiny proportion of the world's population. Maybe that is useful, but how useful exactly, and do we all have to sing her praises for it?

I'd like to see her visit some truly unglamorous locales, an Indian slum perhaps, but it is always somewhere safe, clean and full of Guardian readers. Not the worst thing in the world, but that will hardly save us from climate catastrophe (if that is round the corner).

I hope she is having a lot of fun and enjoying herself, but why others are so enamoured with her, I just don't know.

[661-Pete]

She is singing to a choir of the converted (middle class, Guardian readers), who make up a tiny proportion of the world's population. Maybe that is useful, but how useful exactly, and do we all have to sing her praises for it?

No way is it "a tiny proportion", but it may still be a minority, and that is indeed the problem. Until a majority proportion of the world's population wake up, we are still heading for extinction.

Why do all those who show concern about Climate Change have to be "Middle class Guardian readers"? You are simply stereotyping. OK, go back to drooling over your rabidly rightwing, sexist Daily Mail then! That's me stereotyping!

I'd like to see her visit some truly unglamorous locales

Perhaps she will.

why others are so enamoured with her, I just don't know.

You say that because you despise her, and are uncomfortable with admitting the fact directly. I wish people wouldn't talk about 'worship'. We simply take note of the message she's putting out, and search our own consciences. I don't 'worship' anything, there are no gods or saints in my vocabulary: I'm an atheist.

[661-Pete]

But she shows up the "greens" who do all the recycling but still fly to Bali for an "eco-holiday".

Indeed. Mea culpa. Yes Mrs P and I did an awful lot of flying recently: my excuse is I wanted to go and see a total eclipse. I now regret the trip, and that's not merely because of the things that went wrong on it. Some of the people on our trip were "on their thirteenth or fourteenth eclipse". Not for us! they must be loaded with dosh. This one trip took a sizeable chunk out of our pensions, but that's not the point. I no longer think about 'eclipse-chasing'. Two (plus a failed attempt back in 1999) are more than enough!

Sooner her than me on that small vessel in the middle of the Atlantic though!

The point. Her choice of travel isn't realistic for the rest of us - and she freely admits that. What are the prospects of a sustainable means ot travel between the Old World and the New? Something that everyone who wants to make the journey, can go on?

Sailing passenger ships, perhaps with battery backup for when the wind isn't blowing?

[Freddie]

Pete, take a deep breath.

Despise her? LOL (as the kids say), I have neither the will nor the energy to despise her. You are trying to read my mind and failing.

I don't believe that worship stops just because people don't worship God. The most fundamental people I have met have often been non-believers in God, but very strong and proselytising believers in some other cause. I don't think the instinct for worship is done away with as easily as doing away with belief in God.

I'm sorry to say, I see a tinge of worship around the way some people behave towards Greta. I don't blame her for this, she is 16 and having a good time as far as I can tell. More power to her.

[pwa]

I imagine travelling by sea could be quite energy efficient but it would always be time-inefficient. Great for bananas, not so great for families with two weeks before work resumes. Present day sea travel tends to be fuelled by nasty tarry oil. The only practical and green solution at the moment is not travelling far, and if that means never seeing the Grand Canyon, that's just how it is. Do you want to save the world or do you just want to see it? That seems to me to be the choice.

[Freddie]

I imagine travelling by sea could be quite energy efficient but it would always be time-inefficient. Great for bananas, not so great for families with two weeks before work resumes. Present day sea travel tends to be fuelled by nasty tarry oil. The only practical and green solution at the moment is not travelling far, and if that means never seeing the Grand Canyon, that's just how it is. Do you want to save the world or do you just want to see it? That seems to me to be the choice.

But then, do we really think it is possible to drop the number of planes flying in the sky to the point where a possible extinction event (if that is where we are heading) is averted?

I just don't see it. The digital book (e-book) has been around for more than a decade now, but there are still millions (billions?) of books printed every year. The book is superfluous, wasteful and energy inefficient, but try and 'smash the printing press' and see how far you get.

I just don't think planes will stop flying in any number to make a particular change. I don't think we have the collective ability to turn back technology like that. I don't think Pete or anyone else should feel bad about the odd flight (even though my last was 14 years ago), because it is, sadly, a drop in the ocean.

What is needed is cleaner fuel and better technology, expecting technology to go backwards is like expecting people to give up their fridge freezer, car or internet. If you had to give up those things to save the planet, would you? How many sacrifices are people willing and able to make. Should we stop burning fossil fuels for electricity all together and only have electricity for 3 hours a day? Is it feasible that people would accept living like that if it meant, according to current climate models (disputed by some scientists, accepted by others) it averted potential catastrophe.

I just think turning the clock back is impossible and, even if we reduce excess waste and pollution to the bare minimum (which we shouldn't not try and do), the future probably lies in cleaner energy and scientific and technological breakthroughs.

[661-Pete]

but very strong and proselytising believers in some other cause.

That's because Climate Change is not a 'cause', not a religion or system of beliefs, but an established, proven fact. We don't try to proselytise, we try to make people understand this.

Maybe Greta is going about it the wrong way. But her heart's in the right place - if you'll forgive the cliché.

[661-Pete]

I don't think Pete or anyone else should feel bad about the odd flight (even though my last was 14 years ago), because it is, sadly, a drop in the ocean.

Quite right. In any case, those planes that we boarded would still have flown even if we hadn't been on them. I just feel that by going public about the fact (and I admit, it was I who started this thread ) seems to 'justify' flying for all and sundry.

I don't think flying will ever go away. There are just no other practicable solutions, whatever message Greta puts out. You are right to suggest, research into more sustainable means of flying - or other equally-rapid transport - is paramount.

Most people whom I've spoken to about flying, have the same misgivings as we do. And many of them, like us, dislike flying. It's not so much about the being in an aircraft. It's about the airports, the queueing, the hassle, the security checks, the delays, all that stuff. Of course, there are some people who are indeed afraid of flying itself, but they're a minority.

So what then? High speed trains? MagLev perhaps? When I was a student, I went to a conference on cryogenics, held in Eindhoven way back in 1972. It seemed to me that more than half the papers read at that conference were about the prospects of MagLev technology for high speed trains. It was certainly put across that this was the 'transport of the future'. You must understand that MagLev is heavily dependent on superconducting magnets which (at that time) would only function at extremely low temperatures. Hence the cryogenics connection.

And all this happened when Climate Change wasn't even heard of yet.

It's a pity the technology has hardly progressed in the nearly 50 years since then - and the planet is not yet criss-crossed by 500mph railways...

[pwa]

I imagine travelling by sea could be quite energy efficient but it would always be time-inefficient. Great for bananas, not so great for families with two weeks before work resumes. Present day sea travel tends to be fuelled by nasty tarry oil. The only practical and green solution at the moment is not travelling far, and if that means never seeing the Grand Canyon, that's just how it is. Do you want to save the world or do you just want to see it? That seems to me to be the choice.

But then, do we really think it is possible to drop the number of planes flying in the sky to the point where a possible extinction event (if that is where we are heading) is averted?

I just don't see it. The digital book (e-book) has been around for more than a decade now, but there are still millions (billions?) of books printed every year. The book is superfluous, wasteful and energy inefficient, but try and 'smash the printing press' and see how far you get.

I just don't think planes will stop flying in any number to make a particular change. I don't think we have the collective ability to turn back technology like that. I don't think Pete or anyone else should feel bad about the odd flight (even though my last was 14 years ago), because it is, sadly, a drop in the ocean.

What is needed is cleaner fuel and better technology, expecting technology to go backwards is like expecting people to give up their fridge freezer, car or internet. If you had to give up those things to save the planet, would you? How many sacrifices are people willing and able to make. Should we stop burning fossil fuels for electricity all together and only have electricity for 3 hours a day? Is it feasible that people would accept living like that if it meant, according to current climate models (disputed by some scientists, accepted by others) it averted potential catastrophe.

I just think turning the clock back is impossible and, even if we reduce excess waste and pollution to the bare minimum (which we shouldn't not try and do), the future probably lies in cleaner energy and scientific and technological breakthroughs.

More or less my own thoughts when I'm in one of my more pessimistic moods. And like you I don't want to have a go at Pete for being less than perfect.

I don't subscribe to the idea that flying is a technology that we have to embrace because it has already been invented. Same with cars really. We can and should express dissatisfaction and point out the inconsistency of wanting action on climate change whilst carrying on flying because we like to visit nice places. But like yourself I suspect it will all end badly because we are short term creatures and will continue grabbing whatever we can today even if it messes up things tomorrow.

[661-Pete]

The only people I really want to have a go at are the deniers - the people who not only refuse to believe the established facts, but wish to indocrinate others into refusing to believe them. Because I see such individuals as a threat to everyone.