Has anybody noticed the error in the motion below?
The motion asks for the Reduction of the promotion of holiday flights.
It does not mention who or how the notes are not part of the motion so can't be counted.
So if we take the motion at face value the CUK will have to campaign for the reduction in the promotion of any holiday flights in the entire world.
MOTION 6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.
Proposer’s note: The CTC (Cycling UK) Articles of Association state four Objectives of the Club. Three are related specially to cycling. The fourth states ‘promote
the conservation and protection of the environment’. The member survey indicated 71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. We would like to
propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying. An organisation whose stated
objective is to protect the environment should not be promoting flying as it so massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to
climate change. The current promotion is in the form of: CTC branded holidays, which involve flying; articles in the magazine; and the adverts in the magazine selling holidays involving flying.
Proposer: Martin Crane
Seconder: Alison Hill
The Board accepts this motion.
Cycling UK wishes to be part of both this and wider discussions on the part that flying contributes to carbon footprints and climate change.
Cycling UK’s policy on climate change is downloadable from (and summarised at):www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/viewsand- ... ate-change
This is an issue that has already begun to be discussed within the Holidays and Tours subsidiary