SubscribePledge to be free from flying for 12 months
Take the LowFlyZone pledge
Take the pledge because you recognise that the choices you make affect how happy you are, and work best when you feel part of nature and respect the needs and happiness of others.
Choosing to be free from air travel will help to reconnect you with the people and places around you, and is probably the single biggest step that you can take to help prevent climate change.
Take a pledge and enter our monthly competition
August 15th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I’ve not been on a flight since February 2004, and although I would love to travel abroad, I’m reconciled to the idea of holidaying at home, or going to Europe by train, which is what I used to have to do anyway (and I’m only talking about the 1980s!)
October 12th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I made the decision to stop flying in 2004. Since then I have enjoyed more of the UK’s beauty. On the occasions that I needed to travel to Switzerland and Germany I went by train which was far more exciting than flying and actually saved time. Rather than wasting a day getting to and hanging around in airports I got the train from my local station and travelled overnight, arriving rested in the morning.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
hey, so I gave up flying and decided if I neede to travel abroad I’d go by bus, Rail and ferry.
I am now, however, being told that Ferry is more polluting that air.. Is that true?
October 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I have had no problem this year, so far, but it does seem that my efforts have no spin off on friends or family: Nigerian friend twice here and back to Nigeria; Czech friends (who once refused planes totally and will not use cars) here and back, their daughter here and back twice; other friends various venues, brother, various venues (work related) niece and fiance twice long haul…etc. So the question is, how to help others be more thoughtful about their travel….
Note I have changed from the unethical yahoo to the green/campaigning green net!
Pat
October 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Try thinking of aircraft vapour trails as airoplane turds.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
We stopped flying in january 2002. We gave up the car in 1990.
We travel by train and bus for trips around Canada, the USA and Mexico. and love it! We stopped vacationing in the Carribeean and don’t plan to go overseas until there is a low carbon boat. Plames are 15 times more polluting than a train or bus.. Around Toronto where we live we travel mainly by bicycle. For shopping for appliances and heavy groceries etc. we use a cargo trike and bicycle trailer. and thats year around. When the weather is really terible ie way below freezing we walk and take public transit. We are pleased to cut back. We’re trying to cut our footprint to minimal, like a stump print! Keep up the good work.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
This in addition to my last comment. We have changed our electricity provider to a firm called Bullfrog which supplies power from windmills and other renewable sources.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I have never flown and have no intention of ever doing so.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I fear it’s too little, too late for Al Gore and all of us who had any hope we might avoid the collapse of our debt and consumption lifestyles and our tendency to carry on fiddling while we burn the planet. All of us here are part of the one fifth of the world’s people who are doing bfour fifths of the Earth-gobbling consumption. Does anyone sane even dream we’re going to stop?
The upcoming Global Economic Collapse is Our Best Hope, and even that is likely to be too little, too late.
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/capacity.html
In sadness,
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
October 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Flying is the devil’s work!
October 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I have no issue with everyone here pledging not to fly but I just thought I needed to inform you that I plan to fly as much and frequently as possible. It is the most efficient way for me to get from place to place to do business. Without the Aviation industry I would find it hard to do business or take the vacations I want to.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I shall not fly today, tomorrow, or next year. p
October 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Hi Gerard,
This pledge is all about making a positive choice.
Can I ask what kind of business you do that requires lots of frequent flying? I don’t imagine that air travel will disappear altogether especially for some business reasons.
However, you might find that some of your business relations are improved by adopting a more future oriented low carbon business model by promoting your business with this as part of your brand.
There are lots of options however for meeting people virtually. You can book high quality teleconferencing facilities in most cities (e.g. http://www.eyenetwork.com/) and this saves time and money. Give it a try and let us know your experience by putting them up here. For most European destinations the train is a viable alternative.
As for holidays, well, trust me on this and try taking leisure trips free of flying for a year and see if you have a better time of it. Go on take the Silver pledge!
October 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
GOLD. Took the pledge 5 years ago !!!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I have not flown since the end of 1999. My sister and her husband have gradually bitten the bullet. Some friends too are coming round to it. But I find it very hard when close friends announce to me that they’re flying to Australia and “What can we do about offsetting?”
How do other people cope with this? When you have been friends for a long time with people who you think share your values - and then you discover that they don’t…
November 5th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I’m so inspired by all of you, and have thus just booked my sleeper train back to London from Berlin where I am studying.
Why fly and skip all of the excitement that our world has to offer? Planes are for pussies.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I stopped flying around 5 years ago because of I realised that flying is a non-essential luxury that contributes to climate extremes, which kill hundreds of thousands of other people. Those currently dying are in the poorest countries of the world. I simply could not justify my bit of fun - it was at the expense of another person’s right to life. It was a big sacrifice, I won’t pretend it’s easy. I earn a very good salary and could probabaly afford to fly 4 times a year. I have seen a bit of the world and would like to see much more - but not if that means contributing to mass loss of life. While it’s a simple ethical decision to stop flying, it remains a tough one. The question I put to people is: “Do you think you can get into heaven by creating hell here on earth?”
December 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
good pledge, but I think gold should be “not to fly until airplanes are xx % more efficient”. Once a year is actually quite a lot of flying.. do you really need to go on holiday abroad more than once a year?
I second comments about seeing more of your own and neighbouring countries.. it’s good fun!
December 19th, 2007 at 6:16 am
I have not been in an aeroplane for seven years, nor a car for three; living the slower, cleaner, life is great!
December 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
In reply to Tom (No. 3), I think in terms of carbon emissions, ferries are not far behind, but according to RCEP who did a report on the effects on the environment of civil aircraft in flight, The main issue is that they will always emit water vapour into the high atmosphere, which is many times more damaging than carbon emitted from the planet’s surface.
The efficiencies of planes may be increasing with new structural plastic technology and better engines, but planes will always emit vapour and gases into the upper atmosphere. Lighter planes will travel higher still, where vapour trails are more damaging.
I’m afraid that those banking on the efficiency of planes improving to the point where they are benign to the environment will be waiting a very long time.
I am against flying for any reason other than emergencies as it is the single most environmentally damaging human activity around.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Hi, I am a pilot (please don’t stone me kthanks). I know this movement is geared towards boycotting air travel (via airliner i assume) and I appreciate the reduction in consumption that you all are achieving. However, I feel the need to at least try to convince you to open your mind a bit towards pilots of small aircraft like myself. I fly a 2 place biplane that burns 11 gallons per hour at 140mph. This may seem like quite a bit of fuel (and my wallet agrees), but I fly about half an hour a week at most, and the experience just makes my week much better. I’ve been flying all my life, and I can tell you that even though you do indeed miss out on a lot of what the world has to offer by jetting across the country, flying in an open cockpit biplane on a nice spring day makes up for it in my mind. Essentially, what I am asking is that people be mindful of the legislation they support regarding aviation. General aviation is suffering while people like Al Gore cruise around the country in airplanes that burn 500 GALLONS OF FUEL AN HOUR, and experience little to no SIGNIFICANT reaction from the public. Airliners and corporate jets burn ungodly amounts of fuel, and for what? Al Gore doesn’t feel at peace with hisself when he screams across the country, burning more fuel than I do in a YEAR. I would link to think I get infinitely more gratification from my half-hour-per-week flying experience than he ever does in his jet. If we really want to reduce consumption as a nation, let’s not only focus on reducing air travel, but let’s invest money in R&D for more fuel-efficient means of travel BOTH in the air AND on the ground (and at sea
Anyway, thank you very much for reading this far, and I hope you make your voice heard; we are all entitled to as human beings, but PLEASE choose your words carefully. Pilots aren’t all rich, well-dressed preps with no regard for Mother Earth, and we certainly do not mean any harm. As for myself, I try hard to make a positive impact on the environment through less consumption in my daily life. If any of you ever get the chance to go flying in a J-3 Cub, you’ll see what I mean. They burn 4 gallons per hour and cruise at 80mph. 20 miles per gallon is pretty damn good for an evil form of transportation dating back to 1946 :-). Thank you.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I fly about once a month and have flown about 150k miles in the past two years. I have even flown from New York to LA, LA San Francisco, San Francisco Miami and then back to New York in 24 just to pick up the frequent flyer miles. I just wanted to thank of you guys for staying home by candle light to offset my travel. I don’t drive at all so I’m not the Anti-Christ of carbon but figure in comparison to expectations of this forum, quite bad. Thanks guys.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
WOW, this is such a wonderful website. As someone who makes damn sure he flies over 100,000 miles each and every year, I commend you on the sacrifice you make so the rest of us can enjoy everything the world has to offer, including planes. I salute you and thank you for your sacrifice.
I’d say more but ufortunately I have a flight to catch in a few minutes.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
On 16 December I said what motivated me to make the sacrifice I did. The WHO was telling me 160,000 people were dying annually due to increased disease caused by global warming, and the UN Environment Programme was telling me billions of people faced starvation this century unless we stopped pumping out CO2. Dan simply doesn’t address these issues.
Since we now know the basic science on global warming is sound, there really is no ducking the core moral issue here - do we expect others to die so we can have fun? I am one of those that doesn’t feel others should die. So, I make lots of sacrifices - not just the flying but other things too.
Personally, I feel Dan is both defending and promoting evil - to kill for fun is profoundly immoral. I would urge him to think again.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I am going to do my part to offset the efforts of this group by flying for leisure more often.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:07 am
The sort of flying that Dan (21) is talking about seems to me to be fairly similar to driving a car: in terms of fuel consumption, experience of the natural world, enjoyment, etc. (the latter not quite, of course). So, in that sense, I would agree with him: if you accept that some level of emissions and oil extraction is sustainable, then his sort of flying is probably okay.
However, if the ultimate goal is to be completely free from using any non-renewable or carbon-releasing fuels, then the fuel efficient argument doesn’t get us anywhere (or, rather, it gets us to the same place, only slower
).
February 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Tim Garner, that’s a very sensible response, thanks for your input.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Completely green personal aircraft will be possible with improvements in battery technology and material research (Google the Sunseeker). However, attacking aviation in general shows that you are either misinformed, or just selfish. At some point you must consider reduction in consumption an acceptable step forward, because it’s better than the alternative, which would be MORE consumption (which actually is happening in the country now). I’ve taken many steps in my life to make my impact lower, and I hope you have too, because if you haven’t, we really shouldn’t be having this conversation. Anyway, if you attack general aviation as well as the airlines and corporate jets that REALLY use fuel, you’re not giving us a fair chance to research sustainable ways to fly. Trust me, I would be fine flying a sailplane with an electric motor supplemented with Li+ batteries and a small electric motor with solar cells on the wing, just like Sunskeer. Unfortunately, that airplane costs waaaay more money that I currently have, so until the materials are improved upon and are more widely used (so people produce more), it’s hard to fly with no fuel. However, if you give general aviation a chance, it will make improvements. Actually, the FAA is pretty much in bed with the airlines (the airlines aren’t sustainable even financially. look at how they were bailed and and how they are subsidized). Sooo the FAA makes it next to impossible for new, experimental airplanes to get certified because we are a “nuisance.” I think if you want to drastically reduce consumption in America you have to address 4 main things: 1) Airlines/FAA 2) House size 3) Public transportation 3) source of food (local/organic vs. wal-mart sh1t). I think if we concentrate our efforts on those three things instead of picking on small groups of people who limit their usage immensely, we’ll have better results.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Let’s face facts, not dodge them. It would be cowardly to do so.
The world’s scientists (I refer principally to the IPCC) have made it perfectly clear that if we exceed 450ppm of CO2 we run the risk of exceeding the 2 degree C threshold. At that point the planet will start to emit CO2 rather than absorb it. There are a series of positive feedbacks which then come into play - rainforests burn, peat bogs die, methane hydrates released from the oceans, etc.
We then get a 6 degree C rise in temperatures - that’s a global killer. At the 2 degree rise we kill hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet. At 6 degrees, agriculture will collapse in Europe and North America - and we kill our own offspring through starvation.
The planet will probably just about support a small number of hunter-gatherers in the high Arctic.
Ours is the first generation to understand that. The wealthy 1 billion on this planet can choose to support an energy hungry lifestyle which will kill perhaps 6 billion people, or we can cut back. But we don’t have much time.
Depending on how you look at it, those of us that promote the energy intensive lifestyle and live it, are either guilty of killing 6 people each, or they/we are guilty of contributing to the mass murder of unimaginable numbers of people.
The world’s scientists have made it perfectly clear that we are looking at the start of the most extreme act of genocide ever committed. (They confirm broadly how many lives are at risk - I add the invective “genocide”).
Set against that, loads of people argue for the right to their bit of fun and point the finger of blame elsewhere. Dan, quite understandably, points the finger at Al Gore for all his flights. Others who drive gas-guzzlers might point the finger at people with large, well lit homes.
But, you can’t solve climate change by finding a hypocrite, or by making yourself feel a little better by finding someone who emits more CO2 than you.
I won’t bore you with all the sacrifices I make but, like Al Gore, I’m carbon neutral - except I don’t fly, don’t have an energy hungry house, etc!
We have 15 - 20 years before we commit the planet to 2 degrees C. The only way we are going to prevent that is to make massive cuts in emissions and do so now. Where there is a technical fix (e.g. renewable technologies and energy efficiency) we must use it. Where there is not (aviation and driving gas-guzzlers) we must cut back - dramatically! If, someday, someone events a zero emission plane we can all fly as much as we like but, since we are not going to get that technology installed any time soon, we have got to start reducing all aviation. We have also got to switch off those TV sets, eat less meat, drive less, cycle and walk more, shower not bath, etc etc.
So, sorry Dan, I firmly believe that people that promote polluting activities, promote a lifestyle that will kill millions or billions. And, in my book, killing millions of people IS evil.
To Tim (23) I would say he is a coward. He doesn’t have the courage to face up to the harsh scientific reality, he doesn’t have the courage to make the necessary sacrifices and he doesn’t have the courage to protect his own off-spring from the greatest threat they will ever face.
I’m in the business of preventing the greatest act of genocide ever committed. I am not inclined to make people, who promote any polluting activity, feel better about themselves. There’s just too much at stake.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I can’t see myself ever getting on a plane again, I just couldnt do it, it would be complete hypocrisy.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
i will not stop flying, flying is one of the co2 emission transportation on earth, how many of u drive? the idiots that climbed on top of the plane, did they know that that is one of the cleanest planes flying…no i don’t think so. they are showing terrorists how to get into building and past security, all they had to fly down there so there…GREENPEACE ARE USELESS
February 28th, 2008 at 2:58 am
“If, someday, someone events a zero emission plane we can all fly as much as we like but, since we are not going to get that technology installed any time soon, we have got to start reducing all aviation.” I understand your point about flying being an unsustainable mode of transportation (like most other forms), but getting rid of it would NOT promote research and development of new, possibly fully green airplanes. Also, I sincerely hope that your approach to carbon neutrality is not the same as Al Gore’s. If you purchase carbon offsets then you are merely rationalizing away consumption, thereby completely voiding your whole ’sacrifice’ in the first place. Carbon offsets are complete horsesh1t because they forgive consumption as long as there is money at stake. As you probably well know, our dollar is loaned into existence AT INTEREST by a private institution (the Federal Reserve), which means if the economy is not growing (i.e. money changing hands and/or production of goods), then we are losing money. A steady-state economy is not possible with our current system. If you actually knew how the world around you functioned, then you would realize that the only TRUE ways to be carbon neutral include 1) Revolution or 2) not paying any tax whatsoever (basically move out of the country), because as soon as you spend a dollar in the U.S., you are “promot[ing] a lifestyle that will kill millions or billions” (your context, not mine). Basically what I’m saying to you is if you want to claim that you are truly neutral, meaning you have no negative effect on Carbon levels in the atmosphere, then find a place to live that doesn’t expect anything more than self-sustainment from you. Either that, or start dissenting to people that make a difference. Until then, you are contributing to everything I am contributing to by flying. You calling me a hypocrite is hypocritical. Accept the fact that as a human living a relatively modern lifestyle, you are having a negative effect on the environment. Lets either find a way to help become greener as a national community, or change the way the country is run (by whatever means necessary).
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Tim Garner and Steven Evans (above) - I have listened and can see there are 2 choices - 1. extreme selfish with no care for others or 2. personal sacrifice. To avoid climate catastrophe, it’s got to be personal sacrifice. I have family abroad but put me down for the gold pledge.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Thanks Jon (29.).
March 19th, 2008 at 2:41 am
yes plane travel takes alot of energy but did you know that all the worlds transport equals 13% while livestock contributes to 18% of the world green house gas emissions? the best think you can do for the environment is to stop eating meat. eating chicken will result in the next pandemic (avian flu.) it would have never happen if we did not cultivate meat. real buddhist dont eat meat and real christians with all their love and compassion should not either. i live in third world country and land is being stolen from us so that people in richer countries can have the pleasure of eating meat raised from our stolen land and robbery of natural resources.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Seth,
I agree broadly with your point although I am not sure on what the exact figures are for the role of livestock in global warming. Where did you find those figurese?
I am a vegetarian for those and other ecological reasons and more more generally we need to move to organic based production methods not dependent on fossil fuel inputs. Have you heard about the Transition movement?
BUT, it is important to remember that these things are both important and a ‘one or the other’ approach does not achieve enough. So yes I agree, go easy on the meat and go organic. . . . combined with being free from flying it makes a very meaningful difference and can actually improve your health too.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I will fly when necessary. It is a means of transportation that if economically feasible, I will continue to choose.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
John,
can I ask, do you ever take into account the impact your actions may have on others or is it always a purely financial approach you take?
To take a parallel situation, all else being equal, would you always buy the cheapest clothing irrespective of the conditions and age of those working in the factory that supplies you with said clothing?
In the end I guess it is important to remember we expect good governance so we don’t have to perpetually investigate our every action for such negative impacts, but until then. . . .
April 29th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Jon Fuller, I’ve never found someone who has argued the case more convincingly, thank you!
just as an addition, I think that because there are so few like-minded people relatively speaking, to some people the absolute cut seems extreme. people have to change gradually.
Although I disagree with Dan’s flying in principle, I understand that everyone’s human and everyone has a hobby that is damaging. I think the key here for Dan is to reduce his flying and try to find pleasure in activities that don’t have such a huge impact on the environment.
It really annoys me when people start calling others hypocrites. The point here, like Jon says, is that we’re in it together. We shouldn’t compete with each other, we shouldn’t always be so concerned about tarnishing each other’s image, we should all be genuinely intending to cut back, and of course people will be at different stages to others.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:57 am
John Fuller have you tried your hand at script writing? I would love to watch your movie.
You people are funny. I drop into this website every few months for a good laugh. Not only do I fly 100,000+ miles per year, but next week alone I will be flying a total of 13,000 miles–in one week, can you beleive it?! Haha.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Hi Superflyer, I guess it makes sense for some people to just carry on doing whatever they want to do and not consider the consequences. . . . In the world we live in that’s often our choice. I think the thing that made me feel motivated to behave in a more thoughtful way was having a daughter. It’s important for our kids future that we accept the way we do things might need to change, no matter how normal it might seem right now.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Dear Friends,
Hi, I dropped into this website for the first time today and was impressed by the mostly decent and reasonable tone of the comments here, compared to so much bile that you often find.
I haven’t flown since 2003 and have enjoyed wonderful walking, dancing and singing holidays here in the UK. My motivation is that I see flying as directly causing death and suffering to people because of climate change, but I don’t think most people find it persuasive if you say to them ‘you’re killing people for fun’. They just don’t relate to that and it causes the defences to come up. People have to realise it for themselves, given the facts. I think it’s best just to tell our own stories, explain our own motivations and leave it to people to make the links.
Here’s a story I was reminded of when I read Dan’s posts: William Penn was an aristocrat, used to wearing a sword as the symbol of his station in life - part of his ordinary dress. He became a Quaker, and came under pressure, as a pacifist, to stop wearing his sword. But I don’t know, maybe it had been his grandfather’s, or he couldn’t see any harm in it ’cause he wasn’t about to use it to hack someone’s head off, but anyway, he didn’t want to lay it aside. So he asked George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, for advice. Instead of going on about glorifying war by wearing swords for ornaments, or anything like that, Fox recognised a good, thinking man and simply replied “Wear it as long as thou canst.” The next time they met, Penn had stopped wearing his sword.
Great to hear from you guys who don’t fly.
All the best,
Rachel
May 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Rachel’s comment worries me. The problem with the environmental movement is that the vast majority of people are sensitive, caring, compassionate, and above all … gentle people! The primary force we face is the brutal reality of the profit motive. Generally, politicans will pursue any policy which generates short term growth and profit.
We have to change the mindset of those politicians - and we have very little time to do that. We know with absolute certainty that gentle language won’t stop big business and politicians from building new airports, new coal fired power-stations, etc, etc. We have to use language which is appropriate to the scale of the threat and call for policies which will make those in power think again. That could, for example, mean criminal sanctions against politicians who promote polluting activities - prosecuting them for contributing to, for example, the imminent mass loss of life in Bangladesh.
Campaigners have got to become far more imaginative and dynamic. I wish Rachel were right but we don’t have sufficient time for her approach.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I agree that there is a great and urgent need for radical change and I fully appreciate Jon Fuller’s call for appropriately forceful language. I don’t know that this is incompatible with Rachel’s approach which is focused on a personal awakening. Rachel and others like her remind me that we need their values to be more present in the public realm. That way others can see that there is another way to be, we have a choice to live in a different way that is much more fulfilling and less damaging to others. This is complimentary to the use of strong language demanding the changes we need politicaly, economically, legally etc.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Hi Jon,
Let me say first that I agree with you on several points: (a) that flying on holiday is basically ‘killing people for fun’ in effect; (b) that campaigners have to become more imaginiative and dynamic when it comes to trying to stop airport expansion etc; (c) that I would be happy to see coercive measures coming in; (d) that we have to use language which is appropriate to the scale of the threat.
However, the point I was making was about the effectiveness of different ways of using that language. In my experience, nobody likes being told ‘you are killing people for fun’ when they don’t see that themselves, so the defences come up and people stop listening and start getting annoyed. But if I say “I don’t fly because *I* would feel guilty about being implicated in the deaths of people in Bangladesh from flooding” then the person listening might feel a bit threatened by the ideas, might argue with them, but they’re not being personally attacked themselves, so I believe that leaves a little more room for the ideas to get through. It’s about telling the truth in a different way. I know it’s terrifying how few people seem to take up the invitation and how long it seems to take, but I don’t think the other way works so well. If my way seems too slow it doesn’t make another way faster, unfortnately. I think a gentle way is more likely to change mindsets, and for those who don’t change, there has to be legislation to bring in something like personal carbon allowances.
My original comment was about persuading individuals about personal behaviour change, whereas your reply was about persuading politicians about policy, and the two are different things. Since policy is not personal, we can be tougher making our calls about that and still hope that they will listen. I suppose I agree with Ciaron about the complementary use of strong language in that sphere. But there too I think we have to remember that politicians are actually people, and anything that is experienced as a personal attack (even if not intended as such) is likely to hit a brick wall rather than change mindsets.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
This is a great site, I’m glad I found it.
I wish you could add some kind of bronze pledge that would reward people who are making a big effort to cut down but haven’t been able to cut out flying entirely yet - sort of as a step up to the silver pledge.
I haven’t flown within the UK for over 5 years - for either business or leisure - even when that has meant a significantly higher financial cost to myself and the organisation I work for (which, funny enough, is an environmental campaigning organisation).
If I travel in Europe, for business or leisure, I take the train wherever possible. I’ve maybe taken 3 European flights in the last 5 or 6 years.
However, my partner is American, and his family are all still back in the States, so we usually visit them once a year. I would find it very hard to tell him that he couldn’t visit his family, and the alternative (taking several weeks and a lot more money to go by boat) simlpy isn’t practical.
We are extremely lucky, in that if we choose to go on holiday within the UK or Europe, we can afford to go by train. I speak to an awful lot of people who would love to have that luxury, but simlpy can’t afford it. If you have a family, limited finances and limited holiday allowance, then flying off for 2 weeks in the sun in Spain is often about half the cost of a week in Skye.
I completely agree that initiatives like this ebsite have a place - individual action is crucial. But I also believe it has to go hand in hand with political pressure, and changes in Government policy.
We need to change the economics so that it is affordable for people to holiday within the UK, and to travel by train. We need longer holidays so that if we want to visit family in the States we can take three or four weeks to do that slowly, rather than having to take a quick flight there and back…
I do love this site, and find it massively inspiring to read people’s stories. I have great admiration for all of you that have given up flying entirely. I am fully aware of my own hypocricy - I spend my entire working life trying to persuade other people to give up environmentally damaging activities when I haven’t been able to fully give up the most damaging of my own.
Our own actions are so important, but I also wanted to highlight the need for political leadership to make those difficult choices a little easier for us.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thanks Rachel for your comment, very thoughtful.
We considered having a bronze pledge similar to that which you describe, but in the end we decided it is better to send a strong message and accept that modern life today means some will not feel able to take such a pledge.
Many of my family and friends are overseas and there is little I can do about that now. I think, as we turn around the assumption of easy, fast, global travel, we will take such things into account more when starting relationships or moving away from our families?
It is not an easy issue to address compared to choosing holidays, but these things too, over time, will also need to change.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hi Rachel (no.s 42 & 45). I wonder if your approach might work on the Tim Garner’s of this world (25). That said, my approach wouldn’t either. Some people are simply not up to the greatest challenge that has ever faced humanity. Which brings us back to influencing the policy makers.
I am based in the UK. The government here plans to double aviation capacity despite the fact that it knows full well how many lives are at stake. The UK Cabinet has received compelling evidence that modest sea level rise and increased extreme weather events will lead to a significant reduction in agricultural capacity - necessitating food rationing. But this isn’t set to happen some time next century - scientists have been warned it could happen as early as 2050.
Environmentalists in the UK are putting up a spirited fight. In June my group is leading a mass leaflet campaign in the constituency of the relevant government minister. We hope to get to virtually every home with the hardest hitting message possible. The language (relating to the minister’s contribution to “climate genocide”) is uncompromising: “abhorent”, “depravity”, “squalid”etc. We must wait & assess the impact.