Flying in the face of climate crisis: Part 1 - The Problem
Here's a question that might make you feel a wee bit uncomfortable: Does a commitment to living local mean an end to air travel?
For the last couple of weeks I have been pondering, with a little discomfort I admit, the question of taking to the air. The key issue is: can I claim to be environmentally conscious while continuing to fly?
You may have heard people proclaiming to bemused friends and family that, for environmental reasons, they have committed to reducing or even banishing air travel from their lives. 'Really, never get on a plane again!'
These people are definitely not the majority. ABS figures show that on average half a million Aussies leave the continent, for short-term travel, every month. We are indeed a nation of globetrotters. It could even be said to be a defining cultural trait.
However, the harsh reality is that from an environmental perspective our preference for air travel is less than desirable. The stats are that a return trip to Europe pours as much C02 (approximately 9-11 tones per passenger) into the atmosphere as the average car does over 1-2 years.
This means a whole year of carbon consciousness can be undone by a single return trip to London, Paris or Berlin. Gulp!
But the dilemma deepens; because plane travel is only available to the world's wealthier inhabitants – which means most Australians – and is so carbon intensive, the question to fly or not to fly becomes one of social equity.
SO HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION: would a commitment to staying home, in your state or within the borders of our great continent, really be so bad? Would we feel an acute deprivation?
What may at first seem like a rough deal may in fact be a great opportunity. The climate crisis may provide the impetus for Australians to take the time to discover our own back-yard. After all, millions of foreign tourists flock to our shores every year to experience our exquisite landscapes and unique culture.
But travel is not just about seeking out beautiful landscapes. It is about building political and business relationships, family reunions and cultural discovery.
Are these things simply too precious to give up? Are they worth the risk of climate insecurity?
Here at live local we would love to hear your thoughts on flying. Why do you choose to fly and could you give it up?
Stay tuned for next week's blog 'Flying in the face of climate crisis: Part 2 - Possible Solutions'
Page 1 of 1
Experiment categories
Live local groups
Recent comments
-
The live local challenge!
-
Making Our Home Sustainable
-
We are what we do
Comments (9)
Unfortunately, some travel international is unavoidable. Business travel accounts for a huge percentage of air travel and I think this could be reduced substantially through technology/conference and video calls etc.
I think encouraging people to holiday in Australia (or even closer to home) makes a lot of sense. But, given the size of our country, it's difficult to do this without some air travel too!
Hi Beth!
Thanks for your comments :)
I think that you are correct in identifying the exciting potential of new and ever faster communication technologies to eliminate, at least some, business travel.
It seems crazy that some people do 72hour return trips to Europe for business.
I think we should do some research on the impact of national transport options. For example, is the train to Melbourne more efficient than taking the plane or driving? It certainly costs more than flying and that brings up another point. Why is it that things that are bad for the environment often cheaper to the consumer than the 'greener' option? I don't believe that this reflect the real cost of production. This goes for flying as well as things like food and grocery items.
Roni: Yup, the bad things = cheaper issue arises only because the true cost of the supposedly "cheap" things tend to be handed off. So, the cost of dealing with, say, the particulates that come from fuel exhaust (respiratory illnesses are more concentrated in neighbourhoods near busy motorways, for example) isn't included in the price of a car or a tank of gas. Somebody else pays, whether they drive or not.
As far as flying goes, it's a tough question. Now that the option to fly anywhere for relatively little exists, it's hard to reverse, even if we know it will have terrible consequences. People are bad at balancing short term benefits against long term problems that won't become apparent for years, and won't be somehow visibly connected to the original act.
Personally, I'm into the idea that flying for business should be reduced dramatically, first. I think most people would stop flying to see business contacts way before they'd stop flying to see friends or family. And I think most of the arguments for the importance of business travel are pretty flimsy – especially if nobody else was doing it either.
hi amy - yes indeed this issue has been on my mind of late and in many conversations with my partner, we've also dragged it out as our 'set piece' at dinner parties lately (somehow not getting as many invites now haha!)
it's a big deal, i think, because it's one of the first concessions that we in the developed world need to make that we really feel as a constraint: we bridle at this threat to our personal freedoms, and it does necessitate a major change to our lifestyle.
also, being early adopters, as i assume many on this site are, it's a concession to make when it seems that no-one else around you is or even sees your point, no posters at bus-stops talking about your noble choice etc etc - only your good conscience (and the souls of people yet to be born, to be a little more poetic and dramatic) will really thank you.
also! being way down under here in aus is a blessing and a curse - if we are to be mostly bound to this island, then it's a pretty beautiful and varied place to be bound to - but it is an island. and it is at the opposite end of the earth (meaning a long-haul flight away) from the places where many (i know, not all!) of us come from and feel a cultural heritage with.
problem, hey!
yet, as the dude in 'the age of stupid' says (something like) 'my flight is causing the death of people in the future'...if you think of it that way, then what are we saying: my freedoms are more important than other's lives?
i suppose this only works if you have heard some detail on why flight is so much worse than other things in terms of eco-stuff - and if you agree with it. but if you do....
the other thing to think about is that we're not saying travel is bad - just flight, or really, high-speed travel. so we need to re-think our notions of travel, of holiday etc etc and in an ideal world annual leave policy would need to change too.
we'd also need to think very seriously and carefully about where we choose to live ie not a long-haul flight away from anyone we need to see regularly!
my partner and i are currently planning our wedding for 2011 and are thinking of asking our international friends to not come, as a gift to us - so as to save the flights...will make for some interesting conversations...
Not wanting to fly (to reduce the pollution) actually opens up a whole bunch of exciting alternatives. For example, rather than fly to Europe from Australia, you could fly to Hong Kong and then take the train through China to Beijing and then take the Trans-Mongolian to Moscow, then train via St Petersburg to Europe. Or, if you were even more determined to stay on the ground, you could take boats through Indonesia and then travel up through South East Asia.
Hi all- I think Vaike is right in arguing that if we, as individuals and a collective, are prepared to accept that our actions now, such as flying, will have potentially disastrous future consequences we are required to seek new notions of travel.
As Chris points out this could open up 'exciting alternatives'.
The idea of traveling by sea and overland is quite a shift from the current travel habits of most. But, what great new adventures could be had!
It would definitely require a slow down of the general pace of our lives, which may not be such a bad thing.
Hi Amy
Sea travel was mentioned, but believe that the ocean liners are very heavy on fossil fuel. Sailing doesn't sound like an option at the moment.
Since the global market is at the bottom of a lot of fuel being burned either for travel or transport, I don't see any solutions in the near future, unless we have efficient solar/wind ships.
Hi Anonymous. I have heard similar criticisms of travel by ocean liners, which rules out mass sea travel as a less carbon intensive option at present. And yes, I agree that sailing is not a viable option for most overseas travel.
A solutions that we can act on now is to only travel overseas when it is essential. For example visiting loved ones. An ideas is to take less frequent trips but for longer. For more ideas see Flying in the face of climate crisis: Part 2: Possible Solutions
Leave a comment