Disagreement with AGM resolutions

[Philip Benstead]

AGM 2020

ORDINARY RESOLUTIONS
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

I find this motion to be laudable but unrealistic.
Even if it gets passed it will have limited/Noo effect upon members or others if they wish to fly to forging part.
IMHO it is gesture politics
any action by a person or organization done for political reasons and intended to attract public attention but having little real effect:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... e-politics

It could cause the closer of CTC Holidays and Tours.

Should the CUK campaign for reduction and the complete cessation of all non-essential flights.
That would cause the collapse of tourism both in the UK and worldwide

Using the same logic should we should campaign for all members not to use a car for non-essential pursues and in time not at all.

What would be more of ues if we campaign for their establishment of train and ferry service that would maximise traveling that would currently be undertaken short-haul flights.

Environmental concern implicate in this motion is shallow, taking it on a much wide bases should the CUK be campaigning for a reduction in world population.

According Sir David Attenborough on Over population is the problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPmLWYbUqA
One reason is the lack of Carrying capacity of the environment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
Kenneth E. Boulding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_E._Boulding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_E ... arth,_1966

[simonhill]

I agree that it is essentially gesture politics. Nonetheless, I can see that they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are, after all, CUK not CTC. Again, I agree it will make little if any difference apart from CTC holidays and a few articles in the magazine.

Once this is 'accepted' will there be further things they don't want to be associated with down the road. Surely the TdF must be one of the most wasteful and carbon emitting way of putting a guy on a bike for a 3 week tour, or maybe start at home and ban the Tour of Britain unless ridden completely unsupported. Professional teams must have many air miles under their wheels, not just the riders travelling, but bikes, spares, kit, food etc. Unlikely much of this stuff comes by sea. What about the Olympics.

Of course once the Chinese have finished their belt and road project you will be able to get a high speed train to Beijing or Bangkok, provided you are allowed to cross all the borders and don't mind waiting a few weeks for your bike to follow on a goods train.

[pwa]

CJ's argument centres on (paraphrasing) we actually don't want to fly but we do so because we have no alternative because the train provision is inadequate. Well there is an alternative, which I have been practising for twenty years, which is not to go to places I can only (practically) get to by flying. That is my solution, but that isn't popular because it involves an element of sacrifice and people don't like sacrificing things.

CUK can promote what they like, but forgive me if I laugh when they also make themselves out as guardians of the planet.

[CJ]

CJ's argument centres on (paraphrasing) we actually don't want to fly but we do so because we have no alternative because the train provision is inadequate. Well there is an alternative, which I have been practising for twenty years, which is not to go to places I can only (practically) get to by flying. That is my solution, but that isn't popular because it involves an element of sacrifice and people don't like sacrificing things.

My sacrifice pre-dates yours by twenty-five years. Between the ages of 20 and 50 I sacrificed not much freedom to start with, but more as time went on and the services supporting a car-free lifestyle were cut back. I thought my good example might change things for the better. But it didn't. The rest of British society - that's probably YOU dear reader and/or your parents - continued to drive and fly wherever whenever you pleased and could afford to and got more lucrative but environmentally damaging employment than working as technical officer at little old CTC. Had you done as I did WHEN I did, we might have headed off global warming before it became inevitable.
In 2005 it all got too much, too restrictive and probably too late. I'd paid my dues already, done what good I could, and the rest of you took no notice - or took me for a fool. So it's my turn now, to have some freedom with what little time and fitness I have left and what little cash I've been able to save.
And by the way, a large chunk of my savings are invested in renewable energy. Effectively, I own a 1/140th part of a wind turbine, which every year replaces about twice as much carbon as I'm ever likely to burn in a year, whilst also returning a small dividend. So my conscience is clear.

[pwa]

CJ's argument centres on (paraphrasing) we actually don't want to fly but we do so because we have no alternative because the train provision is inadequate. Well there is an alternative, which I have been practising for twenty years, which is not to go to places I can only (practically) get to by flying. That is my solution, but that isn't popular because it involves an element of sacrifice and people don't like sacrificing things.

My sacrifice pre-dates yours by twenty-five years. Between the ages of 20 and 50 I sacrificed not much freedom to start with, but more as time went on and the services supporting a car-free lifestyle were cut back. I thought my good example might change things for the better. But it didn't. The rest of British society - that's probably YOU dear reader and/or your parents - continued to drive and fly wherever whenever you pleased and could afford to and got more lucrative but environmentally damaging employment than working as technical officer at little old CTC. Had you done as I did WHEN I did, we might have headed off global warming before it became inevitable.
In 2005 it all got too much, too restrictive and probably too late. I'd paid my dues already, done what good I could, and the rest of you took no notice - or took me for a fool. So it's my turn now, to have some freedom with what little time and fitness I have left and what little cash I've been able to save.
And by the way, a large chunk of my savings are invested in renewable energy. Effectively, I own a 1/140th part of a wind turbine, which every year replaces about twice as much carbon as I'm ever likely to burn in a year, whilst also returning a small dividend. So my conscience is clear.

We can compare sacrifices made till the cows come home, and I respect those you have made and continue to make. And yes, we all compromise here and there to make our lives easier. But CUK is not an individual, it is an organisation, and I view its promotion of holidays one can only reasonably fly to much as I would view it advertising the services of Betfred. I don't condemn my mates who bet on sport, but I wouldn't encourage them to do it. And I wouldn't encourage them to fly. Both are bad habits undertaken by good and decent people. My own weakness? Occasional use of a car to do the shopping and other errands, though my annual mileage is relatively low. I'm working on it.

[Suffolk audaxer]

I suggest there is a very big flaw in the proposal.

I believe CUK gets overseas enquiries about advice and routes for cycle-touring in the UK. Does it mean if they get enquirers from America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, they will be told we don't send the information to residents of your country because you have to fly here? In effect saying the UK's national cycling organisation does not welcome you cycling in the UK? Surely it has to work both ways.

I believe there are also some overseas participants on LEJOG rides and the birthday rides. Will the organisers be told to not accept bookings from those countries in case they fly here? How will those from mainland Europe prove they came by ferry or Eurostar?

While flying does produce considerably more carbon emissions than driving, nevertheless, if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, I suggest all driving to/from CUK events should be banned.

By all means, let's actively encourage the use of alternatives as much as possible but stopping it altogether is a step too far.

One person has suggested CTC tours could save even more CO2 if they were all vegetarian. It could also apply to UK tours.

[Neil Wheadon]

Interesting debate
A little appreciated fact cited by the journal Nature a few years ago is that cloud computing will overtake aviation as of this year for emissions. All those photos, videos, CUK website and yes this forum are all burning fuel to keep those servers in South Carolina cool (other servers exist, where google etc are buying hydroelectric plants in an attempt to stay green)
Anyone noticed flickering adverts on your computer, Each of those take a tiny bit of electric.
Anyone calling for a downsizing of the CUK website, why not? Less pages fewer emissions. Yes I'm being slightly ridiculous but the point remains.

I feel we have to live and let live, the participants I take on planes are pretty environmentally conscious, we each make our choices in life, for some it's a brand new car, for others it's a yearly trip to somewhere they would like to go, with friends they like the company of and after all we were a touring organisation so why throw everything away when in reality the impact is pretty small

Neil

[Jdsk]

This?

"How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06610-y

Jonathan

[pwa]

Interesting debate
A little appreciated fact cited by the journal Nature a few years ago is that cloud computing will overtake aviation as of this year for emissions. All those photos, videos, CUK website and yes this forum are all burning fuel to keep those servers in South Carolina cool (other servers exist, where google etc are buying hydroelectric plants in an attempt to stay green)
Anyone noticed flickering adverts on your computer, Each of those take a tiny bit of electric.
Anyone calling for a downsizing of the CUK website, why not? Less pages fewer emissions. Yes I'm being slightly ridiculous but the point remains.

I feel we have to live and let live, the participants I take on planes are pretty environmentally conscious, we each make our choices in life, for some it's a brand new car, for others it's a yearly trip to somewhere they would like to go, with friends they like the company of and after all we were a touring organisation so why throw everything away when in reality the impact is pretty small

Neil

"We were a touring organisaton...", and if CUK were still just a cycle touring organisation with no aspirations or pretensions about green issues, this would be a matter for each member and absolutely nothing to do with the CTC as an organisation simply promoting the enjoyment of leisure cycling. But CUK seems to want to be cast in a green hue. You can't do that and encourage people to make their way down to Gatwick.

[roberts8]

I am staggered at this and other proposals and it concerns me that this what I think is a vocal minority taking a lead based on their agenda. It does sound like a conspiracy theory but it has happened in other charities.
Rail travel is good but we should be getting the facility improved and cheaper.
When I can fly to a destination in hours for a fraction of the price of rail travel, food and accommodations it is sadly the fly option.
We must make our own judgement on our impact and respect the judgement of others while pointing out options but I am not keen on having things imposed on me. My continued membership is certainly in doubt.

[Graham]

It's extrapolation-itis gorn mad here ?

The AGM motion is that CUK not take advertising (money) where the product involves travel by flight.
. . . .
A bit different to - making CUK members walk-the-plank for using flights to travel.

[mattsccm]

As a cycking irganisation CUK shouldn't even be involved in any discussions not directly involved in cycling. Environmental issues are not directly involved.
I regard much if the campaigning not directly involved actually.
Most of CUK nowadays is political chicanery and points grabbing.

[pwa]

I am staggered at this and other proposals and it concerns me that this what I think is a vocal minority taking a lead based on their agenda. It does sound like a conspiracy theory but it has happened in other charities.
Rail travel is good but we should be getting the facility improved and cheaper.
When I can fly to a destination in hours for a fraction of the price of rail travel, food and accommodations it is sadly the fly option.
We must make our own judgement on our impact and respect the judgement of others while pointing out options but I am not keen on having things imposed on me. My continued membership is certainly in doubt.

We are all free to make our own grown up decisions about eating full fat full sugar cake, but we don't expect to be sold it through a slimming club. In a similar way, we can all decide to compromise and take a flight, but it seems odd to say the least to be encouraged to do that by an organisation that purports to be concerned with environmental matters. Perhaps CUK needs to drop the eco angel garb then there will be no conflict. A body that just promotes cycling without an eco message could offer people the choice of holidays in places only easily reached by plane, without looking two faced.

[Oldjohnw]

Green matters affect every single area of life and everything an organisation does should be run through that lens.

[LittleGreyCat]

Interesting debate.

There seems to be a lot of focus on disapproving of people who fly and/or drive cars.

Trying to prevent people using transport types which are fast and cheap and pushing them to use transport types which are slow, expensive and in many cases difficult if not impossible to use by a group of cyclists is not going to stop people using the cheap, fast, convenient option.

Stepping back from flying and looking at cars.
Most train journeys are slower and more expensive for two or more people than covering the same trip in a car.
Often for a single traveller there isn't a direct route and so it is faster and cheaper to go by car.
If you travel as a family then the public transport costs get even larger and the logistics more complicated.

To make best use of environmentally friendly travel the travel option has to be efficient and cost effective.
Making it the most attractive option is the way to encourage people to choose that option.
Passing motions not to advertise it seems a pointless gesture.

Telling people that they shouldn't be travelling anyway may have environmental credentials; go back to the days when travel was by foot, or by horse if you were rich, and visiting the next town was a major adventure.
Of course, mobility of the work force would suffer, as would education and innovation.
Currently I am not convinced that it is worth the cost.

TL;DR - if rail travel was cheap and fast, people wouldn't fly as much.