unnecessary flights

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15031
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Postby Si » 15 Aug 2007, 4:43pm

I think that the press will turn this in to another Either-Or thing.

It's like driving - being a cyclists and a yogurt knitting tree-hugging soap dodger, doesn't mean that I am anti-car. But it does mean that I am anti the use of cars where reasonable alternatives exist.

Likewise, I'm not anti flying as such, but am anti-flying when it's not needed. People simply do not need to jet off to a holiday resort several times a year, especially when they are only going to do nothing but lie next to the pool for two weeks and drink them selves stupid. It's easy to travel around the UK and western Europe using less damaging means of transport and IMHO a much more fulfilling holiday can be had.

But I'm expecting the press to turn this into a "mad-commie-greenies want to ban all flying and take us back to the stone-age" thing.

ransos
Posts: 247
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 12:29pm

Postby ransos » 15 Aug 2007, 5:01pm

I agree entirely Si. I take the view that I should minimise my impact so far as practical, whilst still maintaining a decent quality of life. I don't need to fly for several foreign breaks a year to have a decent quality of life. Similalrly, I am not anti-car (why is it that people assume I must be because I cycle to work?) yet why on earth people drive round Bristol given the congestion is a continuing mystery to me.

It's far easier to knock the protesters by attributing a false viewpoint to them (live in a cave and knit yoghurt) rather than face up to the fact that the way the majority live their lives is deeply damaging to the environment.

That said, people are not going to take fewer flights unless it becomes less attractive to do so. Now, social pressure may make a small difference, but ultimately, I think it is dictated by simple economics. It cannot be right that it's sometimes more expensive to take the train!

I heard an argument that cheap flights are a victory for democracy. This is balls - if you look at the figures, all that has happened is that middle class people are taking more foreign breaks. The proportion of poorer people flying hasn't really changed that much.

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 15 Aug 2007, 6:39pm

ransos wrote:-
Now, social pressure may make a small difference, but ultimately, I think it is dictated by simple economics
.

Economics are running the show, where theres a buck,quid,euro, to be made the sharehholders will be following the best return.
We are a species that does not know how not to,we know how to do almost anything ie our technical ability is fantastic,we are clever enough to know how to,but not wise enough to know when not to.
Bob Dylan did a song once called "90miles an hour down a dead end street"it seems quite prophetic in light of the current "climate".
We seem to run as Lemmings to the cliff, only the Lemmings don't appear to know there fate, we on the other hand know what lies ahead but simply cary on running toward it.
I wonder how close we will get to the edge before we stop.
I have three children (all now grown up) and five grandchildren,I really do fear for their future.

LaStradaGiusta
Posts: 25
Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 12:57pm
Location: Briton Ferry, Neath

Postby LaStradaGiusta » 15 Aug 2007, 9:25pm

reohn2 wrote:We seem to run as Lemmings to the cliff, only the Lemmings don't appear to know there fate, we on the other hand know what lies ahead but simply cary on running toward it.
I wonder how close we will get to the edge before we stop.
I have three children (all now grown up) and five grandchildren,I really do fear for their future.


Actually, lemmings don't really jump off cliffs en masse - it's a myth that Disney made up (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmings).

Chapter 11 of George Monbiot's Heat is quite revealing; he believes that air travel is completely unsustainable if we want the planet to survive. In other words, we have to give it up completely rather than just cut down. Of all the issues we face, it's going to be the hardest I think, which is odd, because we all coped very well without flying only a few years ago.

- matt

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 15 Aug 2007, 10:26pm

LaStradaGiusta wrote:
reohn2 wrote:We seem to run as Lemmings to the cliff, only the Lemmings don't appear to know there fate, we on the other hand know what lies ahead but simply cary on running toward it.
I wonder how close we will get to the edge before we stop.
I have three children (all now grown up) and five grandchildren,I really do fear for their future.


Actually, lemmings don't really jump off cliffs en masse - it's a myth that Disney made up (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmings).

Chapter 11 of George Monbiot's Heat is quite revealing; he believes that air travel is completely unsustainable if we want the planet to survive. In other words, we have to give it up completely rather than just cut down. Of all the issues we face, it's going to be the hardest I think, which is odd, because we all coped very well without flying only a few years ago.

- matt


Sorry about the Lemmings mistake,I suppose I should have looked before I lept.
As for giving up flying.Ever tried to put a cat back in a bag.
We(humans) won't give up anything we like unless we have to,take chocolate for example..............

dropout

Postby dropout » 16 Aug 2007, 6:54am

reohn2 wrote:I wonder how close we will get to the edge before we stop.

Why do you think we will stop? All the evidence is that we won't. If we were going to stop we'd be doing it now - we're pretty much at the edge already, given the timescales involved.

Paradoxically the best strategy for any individual to survive the impending ecological and social collapse is to acquire as many resources as possible now, which means being more economically active and therefore more environmentally destructive.

When it comes to the crunch it's the poor and weak who will go under. The rich and powerful will survive, even though they are the ones who are most responsible for the crisis in the first place. Those of us that hold back for the sake of the environment will simply reduce our (and our children's') chances of survival.

pliptrot
Posts: 551
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Postby pliptrot » 16 Aug 2007, 10:15am

Well,

I wasn't around in the 50s, and in fact never held a job until the 1990s, but if I was working back then I bet I could have found something useful to do in the UK - work in a factory being creative, perhaps. Not much option for that these days. The world has changed hugely since the 50s, and as the current workforce don't have access to the sorts of pension schemes which keep many of my retired CTC club mates in comfort in a way many of will never know (I speak here of the many, many people who retired early on defined benefit pensions) we must do what we can. If the UK offered jobs with reasonable pay and conditions, I'd be home tomorrow. But, of course, I'm an engineer, and thus consider myself one of tomorrow's coal miners.

I've yet to find a way to drill oil wells over the internet - if you know a way, send me a drawing.

LowPlainsDrifter
Posts: 185
Joined: 23 May 2007, 4:12pm
Location: E. Yorks.

Postby LowPlainsDrifter » 16 Aug 2007, 1:35pm

AlbionLass wrote:
tb wrote:I'm encouraged by your'e enthusiasm Albionlass, but you must admit that there are many people who believe that financial stability / social welfare depend wholy on economic growth which comes from extra runways, more flights & the rest.





I wouldn't say no to a 1970 Dodge Challenger if anyone wants to buy one for me though. I don't want to drive it, just gaze at it.

Honest.


and I'll have the 68-70 Dodge Charger or a Barracuda, with the Hemi 426 or Magnum 440. I'm not too picky :D ! Or a Chevy SS 396 or SS 454 or or..... 8) :wink:
But the real cause of the worlds probs is overpopulation. Sort that out we wouldn't have the probs with the airport etc. But thats another whole thread. :twisted: :wink:
zero population growth.
no to the rat race thanks.

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 16 Aug 2007, 1:40pm

LowPlainsDrifter wrote:
AlbionLass wrote:
tb wrote:I'm encouraged by your'e enthusiasm Albionlass, but you must admit that there are many people who believe that financial stability / social welfare depend wholy on economic growth which comes from extra runways, more flights & the rest.





I wouldn't say no to a 1970 Dodge Challenger if anyone wants to buy one for me though. I don't want to drive it, just gaze at it.

Honest.


and I'll have the 68-70 DodgeCharger or a Barracuda, with the Hemi 426 or Magnum 440. I'm not too picky :D ! Or a Chevy SS 396 or SS 454 or or..... 8) :wink:
But the real cause of the worlds probs is overpopulation. But thats another whole thread. :twisted: :wink:


I thought this was an enviromentalist thread?

ThePinkOne
Posts: 215
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 9:21pm

Postby ThePinkOne » 16 Aug 2007, 2:17pm

meic wrote:Best to just put the blame on all those evil Chinese and Indians as being the real problem and claim that what we do isnt important.
.


Forgetting completly that most of the goods being made in China/India are for Europe/US of course......

Not only do they get cheap prices from outsourcing and not only does it "outsource" the carbon produciton for your nation's consumption frenzy, but also it avoids all these pesky H&S laws that say you cannot work your employees until they drop (dead).

Sorry to be cynical. Just been reading an article about asbestos use in China/India and the way that the workforce are being treated/exploited. It's very depressing.

P.

LowPlainsDrifter
Posts: 185
Joined: 23 May 2007, 4:12pm
Location: E. Yorks.

Postby LowPlainsDrifter » 16 Aug 2007, 2:24pm

reohn2 wrote:
LowPlainsDrifter wrote:
AlbionLass wrote:
tb wrote:I'm encouraged by your'e enthusiasm Albionlass, but you must admit that there are many people who believe that financial stability / social welfare depend wholy on economic growth which comes from extra runways, more flights & the rest.





I wouldn't say no to a 1970 Dodge Challenger if anyone wants to buy one for me though. I don't want to drive it, just gaze at it.

Honest.


and I'll have the 68-70 DodgeCharger or a Barracuda, with the Hemi 426 or Magnum 440. I'm not too picky :D ! Or a Chevy SS 396 or SS 454 or or..... 8) :wink:
But the real cause of the worlds probs is overpopulation. But thats another whole thread. :twisted: :wink:


I thought this was an enviromentalist thread?


It is. I answered that question at the bottom of my piece. Sorry. :roll: :wink:
zero population growth.

no to the rat race thanks.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 16 Aug 2007, 4:05pm

LowPlainsDrifter wrote:
and I'll have the 68-70 Dodge Charger

Yes, I wouldn't mind a Two Lane Blacktop Charger. So long as I didn't have to put petrol into it's seven litre gobbler.

Unfortunately, until green attitudes filter into suburban normality we really are scratching at the surface. Monbiot may have a point but like Richard Dawkins shrill rationalism, the packaging puts people off before they open their mouths. There's also a barrel load of self justification going on, Monbiot lectures overseas by using air travel which summons up a ream of relative carbon science most people can't equate and care about even less. It smells of one law for them however it's put.
People are still catching up with the notion that travel is the preserve of the open minded adventurer but perhaps that's for back packing aesthetes, not pleb families red-eyeing it to the Costas.

I rarely fly but that's because I loath airports. It has to be some trip to justify sweating it out at Heathrow at 2am after a long drive. Likewise I cycle because I enjoy it, not to save the planet. That will come when governments take political risks. And it may be a long wait.

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 16 Aug 2007, 5:19pm

dropout wrote:
reohn2 wrote:I wonder how close we will get to the edge before we stop.

Why do you think we will stop? All the evidence is that we won't. If we were going to stop we'd be doing it now - we're pretty much at the edge already, given the timescales involved.

Paradoxically the best strategy for any individual to survive the impending ecological and social collapse is to acquire as many resources as possible now, which means being more economically active and therefore more environmentally destructive.

When it comes to the crunch it's the poor and weak who will go under. The rich and powerful will survive, even though they are the ones who are most responsible for the crisis in the first place. Those of us that hold back for the sake of the environment will simply reduce our (and our children's') chances of survival.


I don't think we will stop, I think the "ride" is going to get an aweful lot rougher from here on in.The rich will get richer (after all thats the USA's agenda)the causes are quite clear (we don't know how not to),the cliff edge is looming and we can't help ourselves LPDrifter is right there are to many people on the planet but the planet has a way of shedding the irritant.
There will be a culling of the human race of that there is no doubt.
Watch China closely!

dropout

Postby dropout » 16 Aug 2007, 5:36pm

LowPlainsDrifter wrote:But the real cause of the worlds probs is overpopulation.

Are you volunteering then? No good culling the poorest people - they contribute practically nothing to our environmental problems. If a cull is going to make sense it would need to be the wealthiest section of the population, but since they pretty much run the show there's not much chance of that.

Lady Python

Postby Lady Python » 16 Aug 2007, 6:00pm

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is the "fashion" for building shopping centres out of town. Where we live we have a regular bus service (every 10 minutes) right into the centre of town. It's also easy cycling distance. About 3 miles from where I live there is a large shopping complex which is fine for the people who live near it (I'm easy cycling distance :D ) but people come from the other side of town to go to it - by car. If it were in the town centre instead many people would travel to it by bus. Any day of the week the car parks at this complex are full.

Until town planners get their acts together things won't get any better. One of the things that puts prospective businesses off using the town centre for their premises is extortionate business rates. It is cheaper for them to build on the outskirts of the town.