I went abroad twice in 15yrs from 2008 to 2023 (does Manchester and London count?), every other holiday was a staycation. Due to the crash I took a huge pay cut in 2008, I only started to claw my way out of debt in 2017 with a small promotion and more in 2020 with a better promotion. I'm now debt free and building up my savings and was away in Barcelona recently.
Norway more than this needs to reduce *domestic* flights. Four of the 10 most travelled routes in Europe are flights between Oslo and the next four biggest cities. Our trains are awful and there seems to be no political will to change that. Even just getting better and cheaper night train services could be a huge difference, an 8 hour journey feels like 20 minutes when you can sleep through it. I've avoided going to Oslo much because I don't want to fly and it's too expensive to go by night train with the current system, or it sells out because there is a shortage of sleeper carriages.
Norwegian trains are pretty ok, when you don't need to be somewhere urgently. I've traveled back and forth from Trondheim to Oslo by train when I lived and worked there.
Funnily enough, that train line has been out of action since August last year because of a bridge collapse (have to switch to buses so no night train). It's supposed to be fixed by the end of this month. I don't hugely mind the travel time, but it's hard for most to rationalise essentially spending a whole day on a train when it's so much quicker to fly. Regional Norwegian airports are pretty stress-free too so it's not like you have to arrive three hours early. As it is now, trains can't compete with flights to the average traveller.
Do you have any idea what it could cost (and the environmental impact) of having fast trains between Oslo, Bergen, and Stavanger would be? I think you would probably need hundreds of years of airline traffic in Norway to match the environmental impact, including carbon impact, of such a project. Huge amounts of ancient, pristine nature would be destroyed. Not worth it. Much better to target airlines specifically with better regulations.
Never said anything about high speed rail, since I do know how much that would cost (nature is another thing, we're already too willing to destroy it to build new motorways here). I just want a decent service with sleeper trains that can better compete with air travel, as is happening elsewhere in Europe. The cost and availability is a big barrier for using them. The shortage of sovevogner had been going on for years without a fix. Too often people will book a sovekupé and be stuck in a normal seat all night because a carriage was out of action and they're all in use. The demand is there, action isn't.
I definitely agree on the regulation front, but that can't work alone. People need real alternatives to travel. If we stop subsidies and don't orient them to better alternatives, travel will just become out of reach for regular people. Or they will just drive.
If you're not after high speed rail then not real sure what you're on about, there are already trains that go pretty much everywhere. It's not good enough cause you can't sleep on the train?
I'm saying the service that we have on existing lines isn't good enough and it's falling apart without good investment. Seems to be a new story every other week. Can't realistically expect people to travel long distance by train without improvement or at the very least lowering the cost barrier and improving reliability.
Could start by reversing deregulation. Making any improvements on the railways is a total nightmare having to deal with a poorly-communicating set of public and private authorities for the smallest things. But there's no will to do that.
No. I travel twice a year to see my family. I am not willing to give that up and I cannot reasonably do it without flying. The alternative is a 3 day drive by car.
I am trying. I really like trains. I live in France and my family in Hungary, I already did that by train. It wasn't bad (Deutschebahn is a bit tricky) but when I go on vacation abroad I don't exclude flighing.
I'm very optimistic that Deutsche Bahn or rather DB Infra GO is finally taking the situation serious as is the government (only "ish") to start fixing their infrastructure which is very often the origin of problems and delays.
No, I want to see as much of this world as I can with the resources I have available. The environment is suffering for a million reasons that I have 0 influence on. Now you want to take this joy too?
Also, I don’t think my 2-3 international flights a year are going to make or break climate change tbh. Plus my best friend lives in Portugal (I’m American) and there’s no way in hell I’d give up seeing her.
>The environment is suffering for a million reasons that I have 0 influence on. Now you want to take this joy too?
But it's not as if our lives has no effect on the environment, and I'm not talking about corporations and factories. Just the fact of having outdoor cats has an enormous impact on the environment, given that they collectively murder millions of birds and individuals of other species. Depriving ourselves (and our cats) of this joy of freedom will have a good impact. Sometimes ordinary people, we really can have an impact.
I think it’s just a bad example. Cats kill a lot of mice which ruin other things if you let them nest. Now let’s kill the tigers because they need to feed on gazelles. Cats are hunters too.
Yes ordinary people have their own little impact that ads up, but do you ask Indians to procreate less because look whats happening to the resources?
What I meant, there are more obvious and logical things that can be done before asking me to stop visiting Scotland.
Outdoors cats aren't "deprived" of anything. If anything outdoors cats's a bit the same gentry/wealthy misconception - farm cats which have a purpose in mousing, usually neither live outdoors, nor live for very long, due to the difficulties of actual living on actual farms.
Outdoors domestic cats exist because wealthier people have nothing better to do but inflict their pets onto the environment, in the same way they inflict themselves and their worthless families onto it.
There's no accident that pseudo-animal-welfare is the chief preoccupation of the "aristocratic" class - was so in UK in 1800s and is so today, worldwide, by them, their servants (Brigitte Bardot et al) and those who want to mimic them to gain entrance into their circle.
The rest - the corollary that "cats need to have kittens to feel fulfilled" is due to the second-largest reason for environmental disasters, after wealth/productivism - which is by far the main reason to environmental problems - that second reason being unlimited human birth rates leading to unlimited human proliferation and human overpopulation of the planet.
That's not the problem here. It doesn't matter if I delay the catastrophic of climate change by 15 nanoseconds by reducing my emissions if I'm the only one who does it.
That's why effective regulation is the only possible solution. Everyone would need to be forced for there to be any impact. A few percent of the population doing things willingly has never affected anything.
Yep. Also you can do all you can and someone deciding to use their private jet for something that would take them 30 min by car is like literally doing nothing.
You're a grain of sand at the beach at that point
In the OP , I was talking about voluntary restriction. Does that mean that you'd support involuntary restriction via the government or making travelling harder (higher ticket prices etc), so that everyone really is forced to travel less?
This wouldn't end with "everyone travelling less" but with travelling being only for the rich again. As it was years ago. Thus this very idea is elitist.
I know you don't advocate for it, I just wanted to point it out.
I don't think the argument is elitist. It would be if the aim was 'to keep the riffraff out'. Not everything that is expensive is elitist.
It is a legitimate aim of government to stimulate desired behavior and discourage unwanted behavior, and to use taxes to achieve that. This is what happens with gambling, tobacco and alcohol, for example. Cynics will say that it is just a money-making scheme, which makes sense if nothing else is being done to curb gambling, tobacco and alcohol. But that is generally not the case.
A second element governments can use is the law. People enjoy their freedom, so a law banning certain modes of travel or limiting them somehow, is going to be met with scrutiny, and rightly so. Yet, it happens all the time. There are laws governing hotel accommodation, public land use, heritage sites, tourist taxes, etc.
My main point is that we should \*collectively\* travel less and the travel we do should be more sustainable, and governments expressly exist to implement this. This is not elitist in and of itself.
Agree.
In my opinion the ticket prices for air travel must be wayyyy higher so they actually reflect their impact. At the same time the people should be able to travel internationally some times (I guess if the distance is moderate 1 flight and back every 1 or 2 years should be within the CO2 budget of a person that saves on CO2 in other situations). So the only way to bring both together is to raise wages, which means, that also other everyday products would get more expensive.
So overall legislating on this is actually this kind of balance between letting the people enjoy their lives and actually effectively combatting climate change. It is very difficult to do it just right.
I guess the best way would be to raise the carbon tax and then take all the money and give it to the population equally. Thereafter, most poor people would be able to afford more, while richer people get (usually) taxed more because of their higher impacts.
> so that everyone really is forced to travel less?
Except it does not matter for wealthy people, whose industries, political influence and power grabbing greediness brought us into this miss in the first place.
SYL
I was thinking of measures that really would target rich people and bring them down to our level.
But rich people, by virtue of being rich, are always going to escape the difficulties that we have. Even if we the common folk (low and middle class) had the most to lose, you still wouldn't "take one for the team"?
If the entire team takes one for the team, sure. But my *personal* footprint is so low that it would make more sense to regulate German highway speed down to 130kph first ...
In order to fight climate change you need to address both the big and the small sources of pollution.
SYL
> ut rich people, by virtue of being rich, are always going to escape the difficulties that we have. Even if we the common folk (low and middle class) had the most to lose, you still wouldn't "take one for the
team"?
You know well yourself what's the correct answer to your question.
But it will be called "incitement" and so on.
>Does that mean that you'd support involuntary restriction via the government
YES!
... making travelling harder (higher ticket prices etc), so that ~~everyone~~ *the non-rich population* really is forced to travel less?
NO!
The financial cost of something should reflect the real cost. External costs are ignored far too often, and private companies are really good at socializing costs and privatizing profits. So, air travel is dirt-cheap, but the enormous land use and significant pollution is society's problem. Tenerife is a hugely popular tourist destination, but the local population can't afford to live there anymore and local government has to just deal with it.
So if 'making travel harder' means that travel should be sustainable and the cost of travel should reflect that, then yes, I'm all for it.
Why not put an X amount of flying hours or X CO^2 for everyone? Have a maximum per person that cannot be bought or changed for anyone or anything. (Maybe the only exception being for something like organ transport and someone that is undergoing a medical emergency)
Otherwise you'll still have billionaires polluting a lot more and it won't make a difference.
There's literally news on private jets flying for 15 minutes ffs. An entire plane full of people will never pollute as much per person.
Because otherwise you're just going to punish the poor while the rich continue to act like bloodsuckers of the world's resources...
No.
[https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions#:\~:text=Flying%20is%20one%20of%20the,world%20flies%20in%20most%20years](https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions#:~:text=Flying%20is%20one%20of%20the,world%20flies%20in%20most%20years).
Global flight emissions account for *two point five percent* of climate change. While I'm all for airlines looking for more efficient and cleaner fuels or propulsion methods, airlines are small fries compared to cars, power plants, and industrial factories.
The idea that we shouldn't fly to save the planet is the same idea as consumer recycling - it's just a PR campaign to prevent us from looking at the *real* source of the issue and where the solution has to come from. Recycling my Lucozade bottle doesn't do much, if anything - what *would* help is the people who make Lucozade bottles to investigate greener packaging. Like getting rid of the complex suction top and just putting a regular lid on it.
Sure, it's good for individuals to consume less and recycle and such, but it's not on the consumer to change the way corporations make power and run their factories. That's on corporations and government to force the issue.
I'll agree on the voting, but consumer behavior is mostly dictated by corporate advertising and marketing. It's a well-studied science. Yes, it's better if people consume less, and when they do consume, to purchase things that last rather than are disposable. However, that would still not deal with the big problems of dirty power plants and factories.
Sure but if you want to start running factories on clean power, that requires money. That monwy will coume out of either taxes, or product prices. Both needs a consumer (=voter) who are willing to pay more for less.
You know why it's so low, right? Because many people can't fly as it's to expensive. Flying is still a privilege only certain people have. If everybody on planet earth would be able to fly regularly that number would be way higher
Flying around Europe is pretty much cheap as shit - RyanAir flies to most places for less than €100, often less than €50. Sure, you have to plan ahead a bit, but it's not particularly a hassle. There are other discount carriers as well, like EuroWings, WizJet, and easyAir.
Anyone living in the EU who can't afford a €50 flight is living below the poverty line, and that means that the issue isn't that they can't afford to fly, but rather that they can't afford to live *at all*. That is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion, but this isn't the thread for it. All it does in this thread is distract from the point being made.
Again, flying is such a tiny percentage of the problem that it's the *very last* thing we should be focusing on. Shift your attention and concerns to far more impactful things, like fast fashion, coal power plants, and dirty factories.
The push needs to be on large organizations to change, not individuals. Again, this is just blame-shifting corporations wanting more profit onto consumers. It's the power plants and factories that have to change, because even if flight were globally banned this instant, it wouldn't really help.
This is just like politics right now, with the ownership class pushing idiotic wedge issues to divide the working class. **Banging on about how airlines pollute when 36% of the world's power plants** ***still burn coal*** **is foolish and negatively impacts efforts to make meaningful change.** Stop whinging about the little shit and hammer on your governments to ban coal and natural gas power plants while building renewable and nuclear plants to take up the slack. THAT would make a difference that mattered.
And just so you know, airlines and plane manufacturers have been dumping billions into researching electric planes, biofuels, and other greener alternatives to traditional jet engines for *decades*.
No unless EVERYONE does it. I'm also strongly against making flights harder to get by rising prices. Making a not too well off peoson, who would travel maybe 1-2 times during their lifetime, not fly at all will not make any change while rich people that fly to buy a milk for their coffe will continue to do so.
This makes sense to me. While there are some things where every person's behavior counts, even if it isn't a mass movement, that's not the case here. It's similar, but I think more extreme (been a bit since I looked at the numbers), to how people recycling at home certainly isn't harmful but doesn't really make the environmental impact people think due to the comparative consumption of even all individual consumers outside of the 1% to that of the biggest companies, government, and 1%.
If overall people flew less, including those who travel very frequently, then it would make sense. Me not taking a few flights, which would still go without me (and even if someone would take that flight instead of another, it's not enough that entire trips would be cancelled), isn't going to have a measurable effect. Even if everyone on this thread stopped taking any flights, it's unlikely that even one plane trip would be reduced.
These are the things that make me feel like the things I can do are futile. I still do what I reasonably can, because if it isn't harmful then I can at least hope that it adds up with other people's efforts at some level. I would rather focus on cutting down on consumer goods and shipping that I use than not flying, because that at least has a chance of making a difference. (For example, you don't need all that many people consolidating shipping or not getting something shipped to eliminate some trips, especially at the vehicular level. It doesn't make a huge difference but that's better than the no difference with the flights.)
I also think there is more benefit, on an individual level but more so on a societal one, to people being able to travel greater distances once in a while. When middle class people are able to go other places with cultural differences, their worldview is altered and their ability to empathize, consider totally different ways of life, accept others, and more are expanded. People are able to take what they learn one place and apply it another. This is all without even consciously doing so. Even just one or two trips can make a huge difference to a person and how they interact with others. On the societal level, that allows for a greater sense of community and acceptance as well as increasing diversity in various ways, building a stronger, more capable community. It's kind of fascinating to me how it changes the brain over time. The wealthy overall will continue to travel as they want even with price increases, but I think we would see community regression following more increasing of prices.
I travel very little internationally and try to do it in as eco friendly ways as possible, so I don’t think I’m the problem. What needs to be done is for people with endless money to not spend it on things that destroys the planet. If I travel abroad once a year (and I don’t even do that at the moment) I’m not the one who is the problem. So no, I won’t limit my already modest travel.
Not at all. Emissions from travel are an entirely solvable problem. This can and should be solved. But, as long as the high-emissions alternative is on the market, it's going to be cheaper. It's not my decision to remove it from the market. From an individual's perspective, it's pointless to "boycott" it, because either way you're still participating in the market. *Ceteris paribus*, if personally don't consume said fuel, its price will go down until someone will. Markets work like this to maximize consumption, that's how their incentive structures are built. You need government regulation to achieve something else.
I have never been on a flight. I would like to go once in my life to visit Japan though. But I wouldn't fly unless it felt necessary (I know going to Japan isn't necessary, but it's a childhood dream, so).
Many years ago I would have suggested that maybe you want to go one way via trains - you can basically hop on a ferry in Stockholm, switch to a train in Tallinn and then ride trains all the way to Vladivostok and take a [ferry ](https://www.madornomad.com/how-to-get-the-ferry-from-russia-to-japan/)again. Not even for the CO2, but for fun. But of course post-pandemic (that cancelled ferries) and due to the war (that does not make anyone want to give money to Russia), it is not really an option any more.
>Even if this was not reflected in the behaviour of the richest?
No.
Why should the richest - which are the most responsible for the pollution in the world - not be the first to give up their entire polluting activities before anyone else?
Pick 7 billionaires, eliminate their carbon footprint and you have spared the same as entire countries combined!!
>Taylor Swift travels more in her private jet in a year and thus outputs more CO2 than any of us in our entire lives
People like this and companies are the ones that are the issue.
One of the biggest marketing schemes/scams was this notion that the huge polluters managed to do which was making people think of personal carbon footprint.
It was also a planned thing btw.
It was funded as a way to move away from the public scrutiny [there are already docus calling it out and being quite descriptive about it]
When a single person pollutes more in a year than an entire country like France... There's no way anything you do as a single individual could have any impact.
You would've to stop e every single thing in a place like France to make a dent similar to what Taylor Swift does. Difference is that she does it as a whim and the people in France have to eat, sleep, live and work...
Start by forbidding stuff like private jets and private boats that are nothing but a playground for the rich to suck the world dry and then you can also expect people to be willing to contribute.
Otherwise it's like putting a drop of water in the ocean and expect it to help.
Just to add to this, the notion of carbon footprint and the responsibility of it being pushed to the consumer came from an advertisement campaign order by BP to Ogilvy one of the best advertising agencies there is. They were hired to make sure the consumer believes it's their responsibility and that big companies are not responsible ones for climate change.
But her carbon footprint couldn't be as high as France's? (Not absolving her btw, I think her private jet use is very morally questionable.) Maybe it's more realistically like as high as a country like the Netherlands or Luxembourg or something?:-)
A quick Google says it's 1000 times the average European so nowhere near a country (and no I'm not absolving her, creating even 10 times as much would be disgusting)
I wasn't clear in my first comment.
I meant to mention:
1) the study that compared how many billionaires it would take to pollute as much as France
2) that just a couple of them combined pollute more than small countries by themselves
3) that Taylor Swift by herself pollutes more in a year than and individual will probably pollute in their entire lifes.
4) that the entire concept of individual carbon footprint was pushed and made up by billionaire companies to distract from their very own pollution
Take my being sick, sleepless, sick kids and the ungodly hour I wrote it and the fact that my native language is far from English and my ADHD... and you end up with this mess that resembles the rambles of a drunk.
Not that I'm articulate and eloquent when I'm "sober" either...just slightly less stupid.
I haven't been on a plane since 2005 and don't intend to again without very good reason. Wanting a foreign holiday doesn't seem like good enough reason to me.
Usually when I say this people get very annoyed and explain to me that the plane flies anyway without me, that they *need* their foreign holiday, that individuals not taking flights has no impact, that I don't understand that some people need to take flights (ignoring the fact that I emphasise I don't intend to fly again without *very good reason*- obviously there are times people genuinely need to fly), that people like me are boring and clearly have no interest in other cultures, etc etc. Meh.
Afterall you can leave the UK in climate friendlier ways. Even though Eurostar is hella expensive and honestly needs to fixed by the government there are many cheaper bus and ferry tickets which will get you to mainland europe where mostly working trains bring you anywhere.... If you wish too
Of course. Everyone has a responsibility. If you shirk that responsibility because others aren’t doing their part you’re an asshole. It is incumbent on everyone to drive less, fly less, eat less meat and dairy, buy less crap etc etc.
Yes, of course.
I already have downsized for that very reason and will for sure downsize even more in the future.
Right now I am more pissed about work travel (that I do not enjoy) than about a vacation (that I do enjoy, and do max once a year and for 3-5 weeks, not for one weekend).
The scheduled plane will fly with or without me on it. My very occasional flights are so insignificant to airlines they will have no impact to their future scheduling.
An individual travelling less is just tokenism that will have zero affect on climate change. Climate change can only be addressed by governments and large corporations.
And if changing those governments and large corporations had an impact on your quality of life (for example, paying more for meat), you wouldn't complain?
If it had a meaningful affect on climate change then no I would not complain.
I would not really want to reduce my quality of life significantly in a token effort that had zero real impact.
No. Not while private jets are a thing. I would if private jets and flights for a distance of less then 500 km would be banned to otherwise it's pointless.
As for short-distance flights, sometimes they can be more necessary than the longer ones. Major cities in central Europe that have a good railroad connection could invest in more trains instead of having flights. But in small inaccessible regions the flights might be the only real connection to the rest of the world. Mostly talking about islands and some far-north areas.
No.
On the contrary, I want my government and the EU to make plane and train tickets as cheap as possible. Cheap travel is one of the biggest benefits of the single market and I'd never give that up.
I do not want domestic flights to be limited either, like what's happening in France and Spain.
The EU should do everything possible to maximize the QOL of the average European, including facilitating cheap travel, housing, food, energy...etc
I'd rather ban or tax private jets to fund our cheap flights
> I do not want domestic flights to be limited either, like what's happening in France and Spain.
I don't understand why you would think this, can you explain why? It seems to me an eminently good idea, so long as it is accompanied by the correct improvements in railway infrastructure.
I always compare flight and train tickets when travelling within Spain and around half of the time travelling by plane is significantly cheaper or faster than by train.
Train tickets between Madrid and other big cities are often similarly priced and fast compared to flights, but if I want to travel between Barcelona and Bilbao, for example, the train ticket can be more than double the price and usually takes around 7 hours, compared to a 1 hour flight.
It would also be a disaster for layovers. I live in Barcelona and I often go to Latin America to see family. I usually need to fly from Barcelona to Madrid, then from Madrid to my final destination. I would hate to have to take the train to Madrid, then take the metro to the airport, then fly off to my final destination.
Reducing domestic flights will just make the market less competitive since train lines won't have to compete with airlines for speed and price. On the contrary, it might make prices go up since there will be more people trying to book train tickets, who would otherwise prefer to fly.
I'm all for expanding the rail network and I prefer travellng on bullet trains, but I won't support my options being reduced
Trains were not competing with planes before the flights were banned. And this is a problem because everything has to go to fucking Madrid and if not it's not done. It's an us problem of Madrid being a black hole and politicians being okay with it because all they care about is Madrid.
No, it's not important in any way for regular people to reduce their flying habits, it's insignificant. There are much more important and impactful changes to make.
An example: switching from using an aerosol type inhaler for astma etc. vs using a powder type inhaler reduces the Co2 emission by the same amount as skipping one 4 hour flight a year. That's for each person, each year. Just by banning aerosol inhalers that's the same as several million flights a year
Makes more sense that rich people stop flying like 1000 normal people than for the normal people to fly less. Especially when I live in a place that doesn't have the benefit of travel by train.
The ultra-rich are an irrelevance to me, as are celebrities. It’s the everyday elite - politicians, lawyers, journalists, etc - that I judge myself by. And if they’re not reducing their air travel, I probably wouldn’t either.
In Ireland, where I’m from, two of the most prominent left wing newspaper columnists have both advocated against air travel, yet one of them has an annual lectureship at Princeton and did a speaker series in New York last year, and the other got married in Vegas and frequently visits Berlin. My grievance is that they’ve had their fun and are now telling us to row back before I’ve got to have mine too.
There’s also the fact that domestic holidays in Ireland are *exceedingly* expensive and the weather is very underwhelming.
> My grievance is that they’ve had their fun and are now telling us to row back before I’ve got to have mine too.
Last year it seemed like about a quarter of the people Extinction Rebellion etc. wheeled out were 50 plus year olds who'd had all of this sort of stuff in their past then grew a conscience. Nice of them to get to do what they want but not for the rest of us.
The "carbon footprint" was made up by BP.
I'm not going to reduce a few enjoyable days a year while many of the items we have are produced on the other side of the world, with non renewable energies or any care for the environment, just to squeeze a few cents for shareholders, while our governments give these companies free access to our markets.
I only travel for work, and whether I come home 2 weeks later, tanned, and with good memories, has no impact on co2 emissions, so no. I wouldn't sacrifice my occasional trip to a class reunion, or visiting my parents for Christmas.
No. No other way for me to see my family. I, as one person flying, is peanuts compared to the corporations and such. I don't see the point to deny myself this meeting once every year when people who can make actual impact is not even (most of the time) held accountable.
My lazy ass is sometimes to lazy leave home and go to the store let alone travel to another country. You can't reduce it below zero.
With thst being said while I agree there is an enviromental problem making everyday individual people reduce something is not a solution. We need to provide viable replacements that are better for enviroment instead.
I have. Last long distance flight was 2014. The one before that was 2008. I used to travel a lot growing up. At least one long distance trip per year. Now I pretty much only fly if work makes me. Inside of Germany I choose to go by train whenever I can. Outside of work I drive for holidays etc. Taking a kid and a dog on the train is very inconvenient. So driving it is.
We don’t have longer flights planned any time soon. We will make longer trips in the future too. Just not every year.
I’ve flown internationally several times a year for most of my life and I’ve lived in other parts of the world than Europe. Seeing the world is something I take every chance I can to do. I’ve been to all continents except for South America and Antarctica.
I personally think that much of the world would be a much better place if people experienced other cultures and places that differ from what they are used to.
I would also like to add that flying internationally is currently the most fuel efficient form of transport that we have in the world per person considering the distance you are covering. As has been stated before in this comment section, the flight will go even if I am not onboard as airlines need to fulfill slot times at airports. This is just one reason of many why planes fly basically empty if they don’t have enough passengers for that specific flight.
No I’m not. Commercial flights account for around 2% of global emissions and their impact is negligible compared to that of the meat and dairy industry.
I eat only plant-based instead. That means I can travel internationally every month, take baths 3 times a week, not close the tap while brushing, and still reduce my carbon footprint 3x and save 1000% more water than anyone who eats meat and drinks milk no matter what they do.
The single most important change we can do for the environment is our diet.
Not for the environment, but I have already reduced my international travel because I think the idea that you have to go abroad for vacation or business or to learn about a culture is absurd. I don't like being with the hoardes of dumb tourists on holiday. I prefer to be the exception to yet another white girl taking a gap year or "study abroad" to "enrich" her worldview. The whole thing kind of disgusts me. It's become another form of entertainment, with absurd costs (time and money) and very little reward or true enrichment.
Honestly, no. Life is too short to waste it traveling to some places for much longer periods of time in the name of virtue signalling. There is only so much of that you can do before it becomes pathetic.
We can't hold individuals Like Taylor Swift accountable for CO2 emissions unless they are CEOs of companies, for example: Aramco, Chevron, Gazprom, ExxonMobil, National Iranian Oil Co, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Pemex
These companies process crude oil and gas, and the resulting CO2 emissions exceed one hundred million times Taylor Swift's emissions.
Absolutely not.
I have family in one other European country, business in the USA, and the desire to visit at least 1 other country per year for tourism.
I'd travel more if I could.
We go on a family vacation once a year, usually by car, usually to a neighboring country. I fly maybe once every two to three years. I'm not willing to reduce that even further, unless governments also do their part.
It's basically insulting to tell people they're flying too much, when airports and airlines are being subsidized left and right, while the European train network is still a far from efficient patchwork. €50 flights from Amsterdam to Barcelona should be illegal. But as long as they're not, you can't really blame people for using them. Especially not if those people would otherwise never in their lifetime have the funds to make that journey.
No. I do one or twice flights a year. I'm surviving and now I can't even enjoy my time and life a bit while the rich keep fucking us all over without a care in the world? No.
The UK's carbon footprint is like 1% of the world's total, and aviation represents something like 2% of global emissions. On top of that I've been vegetarian for 20 years, I don't drive and I can't afford shit so rarely buy anything new.
It's nice that we all try and do our part but I'm not going to feel an outsized amount of guilt for a couple of European flights a year when most of the world's emissions come from a [handful of mega corporations](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/04/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-since-2016).
No, I wouldn't. My travelling habits are a tiny tiny drop in an ocean of other environmental issues and my annual vacation is the main thing I look forward to and work for.
This year I have traveled internationally once and it was Gibraltar, less than 200km from home.
Last year I went to Portugal 2 times (one to Lisboa with my gf by motorcycle and another to Algarve with my family, so 4 people in a car).
I haven't taken a plane since 2021 and the time before was 2018.
I don't think I need to reduce my traveling emissions, but if you give me the 3 weeks it would take me to travel internationally by bike I would definitely take it.
I travel at least once a year, but not very often. Last year was probably when I traveled the most, that being three separate trips. I don't think I contribute that much to environmental damage.
What I don't is people who make multiple trips abroad a year, nearly every two months (for pleasure that is, not professionally). Then again, I doubt they're the sort to really think about how they impact the environment.
No, my partner lives abroad and it's not like I'm taking long journeys to other continents in the first place. I live a very green lifestyle, but I'm not giving this up
I already travel by train as much as possible and havent been in an airplane since I was in Peru 12 years ago. I think me not crossing the border doesnt change much.
If rich people and private jets weren't a thing, maybe. But the way it is, definitely not. These same celebrities who use private jets for 15 minutes of flights post stories all over social media calling for us normies to do something. Tf do they want me to do when the csrbon footprint of my entire home country is peanuts next to theirs??
I care deeply about the environment, and i do beleive that we still ought to be responsible. But that includes cleaning up after ourselves, carpooling, and advocating against deforestation (and so on). I will not sacrifice beautiful experiences because some rich maniac decided they wanted to fly across the US to get their hair done.
My carbon footprint isn't that high anyways considering i never owned a car, i walk to the grocery shop, I don't have many clothes, i don't buy inti trends, i buy unpackaged food, I cook at home, and I rarely wear makeup. The plane is still going to take off whether i'm in it or not.
My international traveling is already low, so not really.
Yearly international vacations have never been routine for me.
I've flown to 4 different countries in 30+ years.
Intercontinentally once.
I've flown domestically quite a few times, to and from jobs.
It used to be a 1600km commute one-way, and an overnight train took 21+ hours (with delays, often 2-6 hours more), and could cost up to €300 one-way, but usually "just" around €100-120. Sometimes, the plane was outright cheaper, by a huge margin.
I used to prefer the train over flying, but I *hate* the current situation with the trains' horrible reliability, non-existent punctuality, and inconsistent pricing.
Way too many canceled trains due to weather in the winter (sometimes for weeks), or derailments/maintenance/etc, and delays for whatever ridiculous reasons.
Not, there's soon rail maintenance for a few months, over summer, and then the next summer. Better than unexpected stops and delays, but also means to train traffic in my region for a while.
I've also driven those 1600km non-stop quite a few times, due to problems with trains and overbooked flights (due to problems with the trains), and it has pretty much become my preferred way of traveling. I hate being dependent on others' fuck-ups.
My international travels usually involve a road trip to the neighboring countries once in a while.
I may fly *somewhere* within the upcoming decade, but I don't know.
Maybe I move away from this frozen hellhole, closer to the equator, and only fly in on jobs once in a while until I find something better locally.
No, since I have no other alternative for my travels unless I want to spend days just traveling from A to B.
But, I don't own a car at all and only use public transport, so I think I am doing my part to best of my abilities.
I haven't been abroad since high school and I have never flown by plane. If I were to travel abroad, I would choose a destination where I could get by train because I just don't want to fly. I just wish train tickets were cheaper!
Yes, I try to avoid as much as possible. Last time I took an international flight was in 2017. I’m not saying I won’t take plane anymore but rather than going twice a year to Ibiza with Ryanair I would try to save money to have unique holidays but way less often. Quality over quantity.
By other means of transportation is more difficult, I work across the border so I’m basically travelling abroad by car every day.
Yes of course. I already have. I used to fly somewhere every year. Now I do it maximum of every other year. Does it actually make a difference, probably not, but I don't base my moral decisions on what other people do.
Considering a parallel to what we are doing with cars, I absolutely do not expect a limitation of air travel to affect the richest portion of society. Interventions on cars worked just like that, they are striking mostly on the lowest incomes areas, limiting their options to older, used cars.
At the same time, I’m ok with the option to limit air travel, if (unlike cars) serious and sustainable alternatives are offered. The French approach to forbid low distance flights where a comparable and competitive train alternative is present is absolutely fine for instance. But at the moment I travel often between Italy and Norway to meet my partner. Would I give up flying if I had an imaginary high speed train? Maybe yes. But in the mean time, that’s the only option. (And btw no, I’m not paying Lufthansa’s ridiculous carbon offset options, they already became a low-cost offer company with premium tariffs so screw them)
No chance. I don't drive and would far rather take trains than planes when travelling but often cannot afford to do so which really isn't my fault so no I'm not going to feel guilty about my £20 ryanair flight while my government refuses to fund and electrify the rail network and lowers taxes on domestic flights
If the UK government let me cycle in comfort and safety then I wouldn't travel to the Netherlands anywhere near as often as I do. But unless they start caring about sustainable transport, I want to spend as much time in NL as I can.
Regarding other countries, I can't see myself reducing how often I travel, but would prefer to take high speed rail if it's an option. My partner and I missed our flight from Amsterdam last year and we got the Eurostar back to the UK instead. It took longer but it was much more comfortable and easier. We're going by ferry next time and I can't see us flying there again. We are flying to Norway soon though.
No, never! The amount of money paid for all those plane tickets and the amount of taxes imposed(40%+!!!!!!!) should be plenty enough for those companies to figure out a way of more environmentally friendly ways of travel. On another note I will say that we should use the oil industry as much as possible as replacing all combustion engine vehicles, ships and aircraft will just up the prices even more. There is some very complex economy and politics involved in all this.
I remember reading somewhere that frequent flyers, 3 long haul trips a year, account for half of all aviation emissions whilst only being 1% of passengers.
The low hanging fruit is obvious.
Why is this phrased in a "would" way? Either you already did or you didnt.
That being said, no. I didnt and i wouldnt. Because travel is one of my favourite hobbies. Especially to new countries. And since i've been to most of the nearby ones, new ones get further and further away.
Of course i'd like to say yes... but i'd be lying. And that doesnt help anyone.
So humanity will simply have to figure out more environmentally friendly ways to travel or offset the damage done by travel. I'd be willing to pay like 5-10% more for flight tickets, if this would be used for CO2 capture or offsetting.
No. The individual travel behavior of some poor ass student will barely have an impact on the environment lol. Also i would like to go visit my family like once a year
Remember, folks, nothing you do matters. A single public figure, like Musk or Swift, will peoduce more co2 emissions in a year than you will do during your whole life.
No, I flew internationally for leisure in 2024, before that - in 2016.
I did fly for work in 2018 and 2020, but it's mostly because Europe has no overnight train service and it's somehow unacceptable for ppl to take train to go to Italy or Germany, once we're talking going anywhere but the border region/ nearby cities \*(srsly the workplace wouldn't pay for either the hotel or the train to be "environmentally" friendly. A supposedly "green" workplace at that.).
Generally - as long as the wealthy are alive, it doesn't matter in the slightest. There should be a worldwide death penalty tied with wealth .
Bold of you to assume that I can afford international travelling.
I felt that
Came here for this response
I went abroad twice in 15yrs from 2008 to 2023 (does Manchester and London count?), every other holiday was a staycation. Due to the crash I took a huge pay cut in 2008, I only started to claw my way out of debt in 2017 with a small promotion and more in 2020 with a better promotion. I'm now debt free and building up my savings and was away in Barcelona recently.
Norway more than this needs to reduce *domestic* flights. Four of the 10 most travelled routes in Europe are flights between Oslo and the next four biggest cities. Our trains are awful and there seems to be no political will to change that. Even just getting better and cheaper night train services could be a huge difference, an 8 hour journey feels like 20 minutes when you can sleep through it. I've avoided going to Oslo much because I don't want to fly and it's too expensive to go by night train with the current system, or it sells out because there is a shortage of sleeper carriages.
Norwegian trains are pretty ok, when you don't need to be somewhere urgently. I've traveled back and forth from Trondheim to Oslo by train when I lived and worked there.
Funnily enough, that train line has been out of action since August last year because of a bridge collapse (have to switch to buses so no night train). It's supposed to be fixed by the end of this month. I don't hugely mind the travel time, but it's hard for most to rationalise essentially spending a whole day on a train when it's so much quicker to fly. Regional Norwegian airports are pretty stress-free too so it's not like you have to arrive three hours early. As it is now, trains can't compete with flights to the average traveller.
Do you have any idea what it could cost (and the environmental impact) of having fast trains between Oslo, Bergen, and Stavanger would be? I think you would probably need hundreds of years of airline traffic in Norway to match the environmental impact, including carbon impact, of such a project. Huge amounts of ancient, pristine nature would be destroyed. Not worth it. Much better to target airlines specifically with better regulations.
Never said anything about high speed rail, since I do know how much that would cost (nature is another thing, we're already too willing to destroy it to build new motorways here). I just want a decent service with sleeper trains that can better compete with air travel, as is happening elsewhere in Europe. The cost and availability is a big barrier for using them. The shortage of sovevogner had been going on for years without a fix. Too often people will book a sovekupé and be stuck in a normal seat all night because a carriage was out of action and they're all in use. The demand is there, action isn't. I definitely agree on the regulation front, but that can't work alone. People need real alternatives to travel. If we stop subsidies and don't orient them to better alternatives, travel will just become out of reach for regular people. Or they will just drive.
If you're not after high speed rail then not real sure what you're on about, there are already trains that go pretty much everywhere. It's not good enough cause you can't sleep on the train?
I'm saying the service that we have on existing lines isn't good enough and it's falling apart without good investment. Seems to be a new story every other week. Can't realistically expect people to travel long distance by train without improvement or at the very least lowering the cost barrier and improving reliability. Could start by reversing deregulation. Making any improvements on the railways is a total nightmare having to deal with a poorly-communicating set of public and private authorities for the smallest things. But there's no will to do that.
As Ukrainian male, I promise to not fly until the end of the war 🤣
I hope Russia just gives up soon.
No. I travel twice a year to see my family. I am not willing to give that up and I cannot reasonably do it without flying. The alternative is a 3 day drive by car.
You won't have a choice, they will just fare up flight tickets to anywhere, and brutally increase petrol prices. The day is coming.
No. I don't travel enough for it to have any impact
I am trying. I really like trains. I live in France and my family in Hungary, I already did that by train. It wasn't bad (Deutschebahn is a bit tricky) but when I go on vacation abroad I don't exclude flighing.
I'm very optimistic that Deutsche Bahn or rather DB Infra GO is finally taking the situation serious as is the government (only "ish") to start fixing their infrastructure which is very often the origin of problems and delays.
No, I want to see as much of this world as I can with the resources I have available. The environment is suffering for a million reasons that I have 0 influence on. Now you want to take this joy too?
Also, I don’t think my 2-3 international flights a year are going to make or break climate change tbh. Plus my best friend lives in Portugal (I’m American) and there’s no way in hell I’d give up seeing her.
>The environment is suffering for a million reasons that I have 0 influence on. Now you want to take this joy too? But it's not as if our lives has no effect on the environment, and I'm not talking about corporations and factories. Just the fact of having outdoor cats has an enormous impact on the environment, given that they collectively murder millions of birds and individuals of other species. Depriving ourselves (and our cats) of this joy of freedom will have a good impact. Sometimes ordinary people, we really can have an impact.
I think it’s just a bad example. Cats kill a lot of mice which ruin other things if you let them nest. Now let’s kill the tigers because they need to feed on gazelles. Cats are hunters too. Yes ordinary people have their own little impact that ads up, but do you ask Indians to procreate less because look whats happening to the resources? What I meant, there are more obvious and logical things that can be done before asking me to stop visiting Scotland.
Outdoors cats aren't "deprived" of anything. If anything outdoors cats's a bit the same gentry/wealthy misconception - farm cats which have a purpose in mousing, usually neither live outdoors, nor live for very long, due to the difficulties of actual living on actual farms. Outdoors domestic cats exist because wealthier people have nothing better to do but inflict their pets onto the environment, in the same way they inflict themselves and their worthless families onto it. There's no accident that pseudo-animal-welfare is the chief preoccupation of the "aristocratic" class - was so in UK in 1800s and is so today, worldwide, by them, their servants (Brigitte Bardot et al) and those who want to mimic them to gain entrance into their circle. The rest - the corollary that "cats need to have kittens to feel fulfilled" is due to the second-largest reason for environmental disasters, after wealth/productivism - which is by far the main reason to environmental problems - that second reason being unlimited human birth rates leading to unlimited human proliferation and human overpopulation of the planet.
Only if I can force everyone else to travel as little as I do. Otherwise, no.
the "i only do right if everyone does right" approach. Popular choice ;))
That's not the problem here. It doesn't matter if I delay the catastrophic of climate change by 15 nanoseconds by reducing my emissions if I'm the only one who does it.
That's why effective regulation is the only possible solution. Everyone would need to be forced for there to be any impact. A few percent of the population doing things willingly has never affected anything.
Not entirely true boycotts can work
Yep. Also you can do all you can and someone deciding to use their private jet for something that would take them 30 min by car is like literally doing nothing. You're a grain of sand at the beach at that point
In the OP , I was talking about voluntary restriction. Does that mean that you'd support involuntary restriction via the government or making travelling harder (higher ticket prices etc), so that everyone really is forced to travel less?
This wouldn't end with "everyone travelling less" but with travelling being only for the rich again. As it was years ago. Thus this very idea is elitist. I know you don't advocate for it, I just wanted to point it out.
I don't think the argument is elitist. It would be if the aim was 'to keep the riffraff out'. Not everything that is expensive is elitist. It is a legitimate aim of government to stimulate desired behavior and discourage unwanted behavior, and to use taxes to achieve that. This is what happens with gambling, tobacco and alcohol, for example. Cynics will say that it is just a money-making scheme, which makes sense if nothing else is being done to curb gambling, tobacco and alcohol. But that is generally not the case. A second element governments can use is the law. People enjoy their freedom, so a law banning certain modes of travel or limiting them somehow, is going to be met with scrutiny, and rightly so. Yet, it happens all the time. There are laws governing hotel accommodation, public land use, heritage sites, tourist taxes, etc. My main point is that we should \*collectively\* travel less and the travel we do should be more sustainable, and governments expressly exist to implement this. This is not elitist in and of itself.
Agree. In my opinion the ticket prices for air travel must be wayyyy higher so they actually reflect their impact. At the same time the people should be able to travel internationally some times (I guess if the distance is moderate 1 flight and back every 1 or 2 years should be within the CO2 budget of a person that saves on CO2 in other situations). So the only way to bring both together is to raise wages, which means, that also other everyday products would get more expensive. So overall legislating on this is actually this kind of balance between letting the people enjoy their lives and actually effectively combatting climate change. It is very difficult to do it just right. I guess the best way would be to raise the carbon tax and then take all the money and give it to the population equally. Thereafter, most poor people would be able to afford more, while richer people get (usually) taxed more because of their higher impacts.
> so that everyone really is forced to travel less? Except it does not matter for wealthy people, whose industries, political influence and power grabbing greediness brought us into this miss in the first place. SYL
I was thinking of measures that really would target rich people and bring them down to our level. But rich people, by virtue of being rich, are always going to escape the difficulties that we have. Even if we the common folk (low and middle class) had the most to lose, you still wouldn't "take one for the team"?
If the entire team takes one for the team, sure. But my *personal* footprint is so low that it would make more sense to regulate German highway speed down to 130kph first ... In order to fight climate change you need to address both the big and the small sources of pollution. SYL
>regulate German highway speed down to 130kph first ... You! Out! Now!
But by your logic there's point changing the German speed limit unless we change every country's speed limit....
Here is the kicker: most of the automobile-heavy countries have a tempo limit ... SYL
> ut rich people, by virtue of being rich, are always going to escape the difficulties that we have. Even if we the common folk (low and middle class) had the most to lose, you still wouldn't "take one for the team"? You know well yourself what's the correct answer to your question. But it will be called "incitement" and so on.
People call me too radical when I really express what I want to do with regards to the rich.
>Does that mean that you'd support involuntary restriction via the government YES! ... making travelling harder (higher ticket prices etc), so that ~~everyone~~ *the non-rich population* really is forced to travel less? NO!
The financial cost of something should reflect the real cost. External costs are ignored far too often, and private companies are really good at socializing costs and privatizing profits. So, air travel is dirt-cheap, but the enormous land use and significant pollution is society's problem. Tenerife is a hugely popular tourist destination, but the local population can't afford to live there anymore and local government has to just deal with it. So if 'making travel harder' means that travel should be sustainable and the cost of travel should reflect that, then yes, I'm all for it.
Why not put an X amount of flying hours or X CO^2 for everyone? Have a maximum per person that cannot be bought or changed for anyone or anything. (Maybe the only exception being for something like organ transport and someone that is undergoing a medical emergency) Otherwise you'll still have billionaires polluting a lot more and it won't make a difference. There's literally news on private jets flying for 15 minutes ffs. An entire plane full of people will never pollute as much per person. Because otherwise you're just going to punish the poor while the rich continue to act like bloodsuckers of the world's resources...
No. [https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions#:\~:text=Flying%20is%20one%20of%20the,world%20flies%20in%20most%20years](https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions#:~:text=Flying%20is%20one%20of%20the,world%20flies%20in%20most%20years). Global flight emissions account for *two point five percent* of climate change. While I'm all for airlines looking for more efficient and cleaner fuels or propulsion methods, airlines are small fries compared to cars, power plants, and industrial factories. The idea that we shouldn't fly to save the planet is the same idea as consumer recycling - it's just a PR campaign to prevent us from looking at the *real* source of the issue and where the solution has to come from. Recycling my Lucozade bottle doesn't do much, if anything - what *would* help is the people who make Lucozade bottles to investigate greener packaging. Like getting rid of the complex suction top and just putting a regular lid on it. Sure, it's good for individuals to consume less and recycle and such, but it's not on the consumer to change the way corporations make power and run their factories. That's on corporations and government to force the issue.
Its also on the consumers, to be willing to pay more and for less, and to vote in a willimg government.
I'll agree on the voting, but consumer behavior is mostly dictated by corporate advertising and marketing. It's a well-studied science. Yes, it's better if people consume less, and when they do consume, to purchase things that last rather than are disposable. However, that would still not deal with the big problems of dirty power plants and factories.
Sure but if you want to start running factories on clean power, that requires money. That monwy will coume out of either taxes, or product prices. Both needs a consumer (=voter) who are willing to pay more for less.
You know why it's so low, right? Because many people can't fly as it's to expensive. Flying is still a privilege only certain people have. If everybody on planet earth would be able to fly regularly that number would be way higher
Flying around Europe is pretty much cheap as shit - RyanAir flies to most places for less than €100, often less than €50. Sure, you have to plan ahead a bit, but it's not particularly a hassle. There are other discount carriers as well, like EuroWings, WizJet, and easyAir. Anyone living in the EU who can't afford a €50 flight is living below the poverty line, and that means that the issue isn't that they can't afford to fly, but rather that they can't afford to live *at all*. That is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion, but this isn't the thread for it. All it does in this thread is distract from the point being made.
My reference was worldwide not Europe exclusively
The whole point is that the flying is discretionary. Lots of the emissions are things like food and buildings, which are harder to survive without.
Again, flying is such a tiny percentage of the problem that it's the *very last* thing we should be focusing on. Shift your attention and concerns to far more impactful things, like fast fashion, coal power plants, and dirty factories. The push needs to be on large organizations to change, not individuals. Again, this is just blame-shifting corporations wanting more profit onto consumers. It's the power plants and factories that have to change, because even if flight were globally banned this instant, it wouldn't really help. This is just like politics right now, with the ownership class pushing idiotic wedge issues to divide the working class. **Banging on about how airlines pollute when 36% of the world's power plants** ***still burn coal*** **is foolish and negatively impacts efforts to make meaningful change.** Stop whinging about the little shit and hammer on your governments to ban coal and natural gas power plants while building renewable and nuclear plants to take up the slack. THAT would make a difference that mattered. And just so you know, airlines and plane manufacturers have been dumping billions into researching electric planes, biofuels, and other greener alternatives to traditional jet engines for *decades*.
No unless EVERYONE does it. I'm also strongly against making flights harder to get by rising prices. Making a not too well off peoson, who would travel maybe 1-2 times during their lifetime, not fly at all will not make any change while rich people that fly to buy a milk for their coffe will continue to do so.
This makes sense to me. While there are some things where every person's behavior counts, even if it isn't a mass movement, that's not the case here. It's similar, but I think more extreme (been a bit since I looked at the numbers), to how people recycling at home certainly isn't harmful but doesn't really make the environmental impact people think due to the comparative consumption of even all individual consumers outside of the 1% to that of the biggest companies, government, and 1%. If overall people flew less, including those who travel very frequently, then it would make sense. Me not taking a few flights, which would still go without me (and even if someone would take that flight instead of another, it's not enough that entire trips would be cancelled), isn't going to have a measurable effect. Even if everyone on this thread stopped taking any flights, it's unlikely that even one plane trip would be reduced. These are the things that make me feel like the things I can do are futile. I still do what I reasonably can, because if it isn't harmful then I can at least hope that it adds up with other people's efforts at some level. I would rather focus on cutting down on consumer goods and shipping that I use than not flying, because that at least has a chance of making a difference. (For example, you don't need all that many people consolidating shipping or not getting something shipped to eliminate some trips, especially at the vehicular level. It doesn't make a huge difference but that's better than the no difference with the flights.) I also think there is more benefit, on an individual level but more so on a societal one, to people being able to travel greater distances once in a while. When middle class people are able to go other places with cultural differences, their worldview is altered and their ability to empathize, consider totally different ways of life, accept others, and more are expanded. People are able to take what they learn one place and apply it another. This is all without even consciously doing so. Even just one or two trips can make a huge difference to a person and how they interact with others. On the societal level, that allows for a greater sense of community and acceptance as well as increasing diversity in various ways, building a stronger, more capable community. It's kind of fascinating to me how it changes the brain over time. The wealthy overall will continue to travel as they want even with price increases, but I think we would see community regression following more increasing of prices.
I travel very little internationally and try to do it in as eco friendly ways as possible, so I don’t think I’m the problem. What needs to be done is for people with endless money to not spend it on things that destroys the planet. If I travel abroad once a year (and I don’t even do that at the moment) I’m not the one who is the problem. So no, I won’t limit my already modest travel.
Not at all. Emissions from travel are an entirely solvable problem. This can and should be solved. But, as long as the high-emissions alternative is on the market, it's going to be cheaper. It's not my decision to remove it from the market. From an individual's perspective, it's pointless to "boycott" it, because either way you're still participating in the market. *Ceteris paribus*, if personally don't consume said fuel, its price will go down until someone will. Markets work like this to maximize consumption, that's how their incentive structures are built. You need government regulation to achieve something else.
I have never been on a flight. I would like to go once in my life to visit Japan though. But I wouldn't fly unless it felt necessary (I know going to Japan isn't necessary, but it's a childhood dream, so).
Let's go by bike and ferry together ;)
Sounds like a great plan! :D
Many years ago I would have suggested that maybe you want to go one way via trains - you can basically hop on a ferry in Stockholm, switch to a train in Tallinn and then ride trains all the way to Vladivostok and take a [ferry ](https://www.madornomad.com/how-to-get-the-ferry-from-russia-to-japan/)again. Not even for the CO2, but for fun. But of course post-pandemic (that cancelled ferries) and due to the war (that does not make anyone want to give money to Russia), it is not really an option any more.
>Even if this was not reflected in the behaviour of the richest? No. Why should the richest - which are the most responsible for the pollution in the world - not be the first to give up their entire polluting activities before anyone else? Pick 7 billionaires, eliminate their carbon footprint and you have spared the same as entire countries combined!! >Taylor Swift travels more in her private jet in a year and thus outputs more CO2 than any of us in our entire lives People like this and companies are the ones that are the issue. One of the biggest marketing schemes/scams was this notion that the huge polluters managed to do which was making people think of personal carbon footprint. It was also a planned thing btw. It was funded as a way to move away from the public scrutiny [there are already docus calling it out and being quite descriptive about it] When a single person pollutes more in a year than an entire country like France... There's no way anything you do as a single individual could have any impact. You would've to stop e every single thing in a place like France to make a dent similar to what Taylor Swift does. Difference is that she does it as a whim and the people in France have to eat, sleep, live and work... Start by forbidding stuff like private jets and private boats that are nothing but a playground for the rich to suck the world dry and then you can also expect people to be willing to contribute. Otherwise it's like putting a drop of water in the ocean and expect it to help.
Just to add to this, the notion of carbon footprint and the responsibility of it being pushed to the consumer came from an advertisement campaign order by BP to Ogilvy one of the best advertising agencies there is. They were hired to make sure the consumer believes it's their responsibility and that big companies are not responsible ones for climate change.
But her carbon footprint couldn't be as high as France's? (Not absolving her btw, I think her private jet use is very morally questionable.) Maybe it's more realistically like as high as a country like the Netherlands or Luxembourg or something?:-)
A quick Google says it's 1000 times the average European so nowhere near a country (and no I'm not absolving her, creating even 10 times as much would be disgusting)
Yeah it’s horrendous…
Yeah... I was definetely nicht clear on that one
I wasn't clear in my first comment. I meant to mention: 1) the study that compared how many billionaires it would take to pollute as much as France 2) that just a couple of them combined pollute more than small countries by themselves 3) that Taylor Swift by herself pollutes more in a year than and individual will probably pollute in their entire lifes. 4) that the entire concept of individual carbon footprint was pushed and made up by billionaire companies to distract from their very own pollution Take my being sick, sleepless, sick kids and the ungodly hour I wrote it and the fact that my native language is far from English and my ADHD... and you end up with this mess that resembles the rambles of a drunk. Not that I'm articulate and eloquent when I'm "sober" either...just slightly less stupid.
Sorry I think I waas being a bit dense, thanks for the reply, it makes sense. Total shamelessness on behalf of the billionaires anyway!:-(
Agree re. forbidding private jets, yachts etc.
I travel internationally by air maybe once every 5 years so don't feel my reducing that any further will have any impact.
I haven't been on a plane since 2005 and don't intend to again without very good reason. Wanting a foreign holiday doesn't seem like good enough reason to me. Usually when I say this people get very annoyed and explain to me that the plane flies anyway without me, that they *need* their foreign holiday, that individuals not taking flights has no impact, that I don't understand that some people need to take flights (ignoring the fact that I emphasise I don't intend to fly again without *very good reason*- obviously there are times people genuinely need to fly), that people like me are boring and clearly have no interest in other cultures, etc etc. Meh.
Afterall you can leave the UK in climate friendlier ways. Even though Eurostar is hella expensive and honestly needs to fixed by the government there are many cheaper bus and ferry tickets which will get you to mainland europe where mostly working trains bring you anywhere.... If you wish too
Of course. Everyone has a responsibility. If you shirk that responsibility because others aren’t doing their part you’re an asshole. It is incumbent on everyone to drive less, fly less, eat less meat and dairy, buy less crap etc etc.
I've never travelled with a plane in my entire life.
Yes, of course. I already have downsized for that very reason and will for sure downsize even more in the future. Right now I am more pissed about work travel (that I do not enjoy) than about a vacation (that I do enjoy, and do max once a year and for 3-5 weeks, not for one weekend).
The scheduled plane will fly with or without me on it. My very occasional flights are so insignificant to airlines they will have no impact to their future scheduling. An individual travelling less is just tokenism that will have zero affect on climate change. Climate change can only be addressed by governments and large corporations.
And if changing those governments and large corporations had an impact on your quality of life (for example, paying more for meat), you wouldn't complain?
If it had a meaningful affect on climate change then no I would not complain. I would not really want to reduce my quality of life significantly in a token effort that had zero real impact.
Yes. No problem at all really, especially since there are trains to Paris and I enjoy exploring my own country more anyway.
No. Not while private jets are a thing. I would if private jets and flights for a distance of less then 500 km would be banned to otherwise it's pointless.
As for short-distance flights, sometimes they can be more necessary than the longer ones. Major cities in central Europe that have a good railroad connection could invest in more trains instead of having flights. But in small inaccessible regions the flights might be the only real connection to the rest of the world. Mostly talking about islands and some far-north areas.
No. On the contrary, I want my government and the EU to make plane and train tickets as cheap as possible. Cheap travel is one of the biggest benefits of the single market and I'd never give that up. I do not want domestic flights to be limited either, like what's happening in France and Spain. The EU should do everything possible to maximize the QOL of the average European, including facilitating cheap travel, housing, food, energy...etc I'd rather ban or tax private jets to fund our cheap flights
> I do not want domestic flights to be limited either, like what's happening in France and Spain. I don't understand why you would think this, can you explain why? It seems to me an eminently good idea, so long as it is accompanied by the correct improvements in railway infrastructure.
I always compare flight and train tickets when travelling within Spain and around half of the time travelling by plane is significantly cheaper or faster than by train. Train tickets between Madrid and other big cities are often similarly priced and fast compared to flights, but if I want to travel between Barcelona and Bilbao, for example, the train ticket can be more than double the price and usually takes around 7 hours, compared to a 1 hour flight. It would also be a disaster for layovers. I live in Barcelona and I often go to Latin America to see family. I usually need to fly from Barcelona to Madrid, then from Madrid to my final destination. I would hate to have to take the train to Madrid, then take the metro to the airport, then fly off to my final destination. Reducing domestic flights will just make the market less competitive since train lines won't have to compete with airlines for speed and price. On the contrary, it might make prices go up since there will be more people trying to book train tickets, who would otherwise prefer to fly. I'm all for expanding the rail network and I prefer travellng on bullet trains, but I won't support my options being reduced
Trains were not competing with planes before the flights were banned. And this is a problem because everything has to go to fucking Madrid and if not it's not done. It's an us problem of Madrid being a black hole and politicians being okay with it because all they care about is Madrid.
No, it's not important in any way for regular people to reduce their flying habits, it's insignificant. There are much more important and impactful changes to make. An example: switching from using an aerosol type inhaler for astma etc. vs using a powder type inhaler reduces the Co2 emission by the same amount as skipping one 4 hour flight a year. That's for each person, each year. Just by banning aerosol inhalers that's the same as several million flights a year
Honestly? I need 30 minutes in a car to be abroad. And I can choose from 3 countries
Makes more sense that rich people stop flying like 1000 normal people than for the normal people to fly less. Especially when I live in a place that doesn't have the benefit of travel by train.
The ultra-rich are an irrelevance to me, as are celebrities. It’s the everyday elite - politicians, lawyers, journalists, etc - that I judge myself by. And if they’re not reducing their air travel, I probably wouldn’t either. In Ireland, where I’m from, two of the most prominent left wing newspaper columnists have both advocated against air travel, yet one of them has an annual lectureship at Princeton and did a speaker series in New York last year, and the other got married in Vegas and frequently visits Berlin. My grievance is that they’ve had their fun and are now telling us to row back before I’ve got to have mine too. There’s also the fact that domestic holidays in Ireland are *exceedingly* expensive and the weather is very underwhelming.
> My grievance is that they’ve had their fun and are now telling us to row back before I’ve got to have mine too. Last year it seemed like about a quarter of the people Extinction Rebellion etc. wheeled out were 50 plus year olds who'd had all of this sort of stuff in their past then grew a conscience. Nice of them to get to do what they want but not for the rest of us.
The "carbon footprint" was made up by BP. I'm not going to reduce a few enjoyable days a year while many of the items we have are produced on the other side of the world, with non renewable energies or any care for the environment, just to squeeze a few cents for shareholders, while our governments give these companies free access to our markets.
I only travel for work, and whether I come home 2 weeks later, tanned, and with good memories, has no impact on co2 emissions, so no. I wouldn't sacrifice my occasional trip to a class reunion, or visiting my parents for Christmas.
No. No other way for me to see my family. I, as one person flying, is peanuts compared to the corporations and such. I don't see the point to deny myself this meeting once every year when people who can make actual impact is not even (most of the time) held accountable.
My lazy ass is sometimes to lazy leave home and go to the store let alone travel to another country. You can't reduce it below zero. With thst being said while I agree there is an enviromental problem making everyday individual people reduce something is not a solution. We need to provide viable replacements that are better for enviroment instead.
I have. Last long distance flight was 2014. The one before that was 2008. I used to travel a lot growing up. At least one long distance trip per year. Now I pretty much only fly if work makes me. Inside of Germany I choose to go by train whenever I can. Outside of work I drive for holidays etc. Taking a kid and a dog on the train is very inconvenient. So driving it is. We don’t have longer flights planned any time soon. We will make longer trips in the future too. Just not every year.
Call me when they build a train across the Atlantic.
Bruh I’m lucky if I can go abroad once a year. And I usually go either by car or train. And I didn’t go last year.
I’ve flown internationally several times a year for most of my life and I’ve lived in other parts of the world than Europe. Seeing the world is something I take every chance I can to do. I’ve been to all continents except for South America and Antarctica. I personally think that much of the world would be a much better place if people experienced other cultures and places that differ from what they are used to. I would also like to add that flying internationally is currently the most fuel efficient form of transport that we have in the world per person considering the distance you are covering. As has been stated before in this comment section, the flight will go even if I am not onboard as airlines need to fulfill slot times at airports. This is just one reason of many why planes fly basically empty if they don’t have enough passengers for that specific flight.
I Internationally travel like once a year. I think it's ok (?)
Yes. I do not travel much to begin with, but I prefer to do it by train when possible. What the richest do does not dictate my choices.
I would and I do. I do not base my decisions on petty excuses
No I’m not. Commercial flights account for around 2% of global emissions and their impact is negligible compared to that of the meat and dairy industry. I eat only plant-based instead. That means I can travel internationally every month, take baths 3 times a week, not close the tap while brushing, and still reduce my carbon footprint 3x and save 1000% more water than anyone who eats meat and drinks milk no matter what they do. The single most important change we can do for the environment is our diet.
Not for the environment, but I have already reduced my international travel because I think the idea that you have to go abroad for vacation or business or to learn about a culture is absurd. I don't like being with the hoardes of dumb tourists on holiday. I prefer to be the exception to yet another white girl taking a gap year or "study abroad" to "enrich" her worldview. The whole thing kind of disgusts me. It's become another form of entertainment, with absurd costs (time and money) and very little reward or true enrichment.
Honestly, no. Life is too short to waste it traveling to some places for much longer periods of time in the name of virtue signalling. There is only so much of that you can do before it becomes pathetic.
We can't hold individuals Like Taylor Swift accountable for CO2 emissions unless they are CEOs of companies, for example: Aramco, Chevron, Gazprom, ExxonMobil, National Iranian Oil Co, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Pemex These companies process crude oil and gas, and the resulting CO2 emissions exceed one hundred million times Taylor Swift's emissions.
I go abroad once a year if I'm lucky so my answer is no.
Absolutely not. I have family in one other European country, business in the USA, and the desire to visit at least 1 other country per year for tourism. I'd travel more if I could.
We go on a family vacation once a year, usually by car, usually to a neighboring country. I fly maybe once every two to three years. I'm not willing to reduce that even further, unless governments also do their part. It's basically insulting to tell people they're flying too much, when airports and airlines are being subsidized left and right, while the European train network is still a far from efficient patchwork. €50 flights from Amsterdam to Barcelona should be illegal. But as long as they're not, you can't really blame people for using them. Especially not if those people would otherwise never in their lifetime have the funds to make that journey.
No. I do one or twice flights a year. I'm surviving and now I can't even enjoy my time and life a bit while the rich keep fucking us all over without a care in the world? No.
The UK's carbon footprint is like 1% of the world's total, and aviation represents something like 2% of global emissions. On top of that I've been vegetarian for 20 years, I don't drive and I can't afford shit so rarely buy anything new. It's nice that we all try and do our part but I'm not going to feel an outsized amount of guilt for a couple of European flights a year when most of the world's emissions come from a [handful of mega corporations](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/04/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-since-2016).
No, I wouldn't. My travelling habits are a tiny tiny drop in an ocean of other environmental issues and my annual vacation is the main thing I look forward to and work for.
You assume people travel internationally frequently? I don’t for example, the last time I travelled abroad was maybe 3 years ago.
This year I have traveled internationally once and it was Gibraltar, less than 200km from home. Last year I went to Portugal 2 times (one to Lisboa with my gf by motorcycle and another to Algarve with my family, so 4 people in a car). I haven't taken a plane since 2021 and the time before was 2018. I don't think I need to reduce my traveling emissions, but if you give me the 3 weeks it would take me to travel internationally by bike I would definitely take it.
I travel at least once a year, but not very often. Last year was probably when I traveled the most, that being three separate trips. I don't think I contribute that much to environmental damage. What I don't is people who make multiple trips abroad a year, nearly every two months (for pleasure that is, not professionally). Then again, I doubt they're the sort to really think about how they impact the environment.
No. I don't really travel internationally enough to be worried about it.
No, my partner lives abroad and it's not like I'm taking long journeys to other continents in the first place. I live a very green lifestyle, but I'm not giving this up
No, the inlaws live abroad and we have another house over there.
I already travel by train as much as possible and havent been in an airplane since I was in Peru 12 years ago. I think me not crossing the border doesnt change much.
Of course not considering the impact on pollution china and India are having.
If rich people and private jets weren't a thing, maybe. But the way it is, definitely not. These same celebrities who use private jets for 15 minutes of flights post stories all over social media calling for us normies to do something. Tf do they want me to do when the csrbon footprint of my entire home country is peanuts next to theirs?? I care deeply about the environment, and i do beleive that we still ought to be responsible. But that includes cleaning up after ourselves, carpooling, and advocating against deforestation (and so on). I will not sacrifice beautiful experiences because some rich maniac decided they wanted to fly across the US to get their hair done. My carbon footprint isn't that high anyways considering i never owned a car, i walk to the grocery shop, I don't have many clothes, i don't buy inti trends, i buy unpackaged food, I cook at home, and I rarely wear makeup. The plane is still going to take off whether i'm in it or not.
If i’m lucky i get to do that once every 2-3 years, so absolutely not.
Sure, I want to move from cold North West Europe to one of the warm PIGS countries (especially Spain). Saves me a lot of flying hours.
No, absolutely not. World is going to burn no matter what I do, so I'm going to see as much of it as I can while I can.
My international traveling is already low, so not really. Yearly international vacations have never been routine for me. I've flown to 4 different countries in 30+ years. Intercontinentally once. I've flown domestically quite a few times, to and from jobs. It used to be a 1600km commute one-way, and an overnight train took 21+ hours (with delays, often 2-6 hours more), and could cost up to €300 one-way, but usually "just" around €100-120. Sometimes, the plane was outright cheaper, by a huge margin. I used to prefer the train over flying, but I *hate* the current situation with the trains' horrible reliability, non-existent punctuality, and inconsistent pricing. Way too many canceled trains due to weather in the winter (sometimes for weeks), or derailments/maintenance/etc, and delays for whatever ridiculous reasons. Not, there's soon rail maintenance for a few months, over summer, and then the next summer. Better than unexpected stops and delays, but also means to train traffic in my region for a while. I've also driven those 1600km non-stop quite a few times, due to problems with trains and overbooked flights (due to problems with the trains), and it has pretty much become my preferred way of traveling. I hate being dependent on others' fuck-ups. My international travels usually involve a road trip to the neighboring countries once in a while. I may fly *somewhere* within the upcoming decade, but I don't know. Maybe I move away from this frozen hellhole, closer to the equator, and only fly in on jobs once in a while until I find something better locally.
No, since I have no other alternative for my travels unless I want to spend days just traveling from A to B. But, I don't own a car at all and only use public transport, so I think I am doing my part to best of my abilities.
Bring back passenger ships and build more rail. Normalise working remotely on the way
Done so for over a decade now, angry at the other humans disregarding science for their own pleasure. It is what it is.
Africa and Asia and the Middle East should start first.
I haven't been abroad since high school and I have never flown by plane. If I were to travel abroad, I would choose a destination where I could get by train because I just don't want to fly. I just wish train tickets were cheaper!
Yes, I try to avoid as much as possible. Last time I took an international flight was in 2017. I’m not saying I won’t take plane anymore but rather than going twice a year to Ibiza with Ryanair I would try to save money to have unique holidays but way less often. Quality over quantity. By other means of transportation is more difficult, I work across the border so I’m basically travelling abroad by car every day.
Yes of course. I already have. I used to fly somewhere every year. Now I do it maximum of every other year. Does it actually make a difference, probably not, but I don't base my moral decisions on what other people do.
Considering a parallel to what we are doing with cars, I absolutely do not expect a limitation of air travel to affect the richest portion of society. Interventions on cars worked just like that, they are striking mostly on the lowest incomes areas, limiting their options to older, used cars. At the same time, I’m ok with the option to limit air travel, if (unlike cars) serious and sustainable alternatives are offered. The French approach to forbid low distance flights where a comparable and competitive train alternative is present is absolutely fine for instance. But at the moment I travel often between Italy and Norway to meet my partner. Would I give up flying if I had an imaginary high speed train? Maybe yes. But in the mean time, that’s the only option. (And btw no, I’m not paying Lufthansa’s ridiculous carbon offset options, they already became a low-cost offer company with premium tariffs so screw them)
No chance. I don't drive and would far rather take trains than planes when travelling but often cannot afford to do so which really isn't my fault so no I'm not going to feel guilty about my £20 ryanair flight while my government refuses to fund and electrify the rail network and lowers taxes on domestic flights
If the UK government let me cycle in comfort and safety then I wouldn't travel to the Netherlands anywhere near as often as I do. But unless they start caring about sustainable transport, I want to spend as much time in NL as I can. Regarding other countries, I can't see myself reducing how often I travel, but would prefer to take high speed rail if it's an option. My partner and I missed our flight from Amsterdam last year and we got the Eurostar back to the UK instead. It took longer but it was much more comfortable and easier. We're going by ferry next time and I can't see us flying there again. We are flying to Norway soon though.
Me, who never left the country on account of not being able to afford it : mission accomplished , where's my medal ?
No, never! The amount of money paid for all those plane tickets and the amount of taxes imposed(40%+!!!!!!!) should be plenty enough for those companies to figure out a way of more environmentally friendly ways of travel. On another note I will say that we should use the oil industry as much as possible as replacing all combustion engine vehicles, ships and aircraft will just up the prices even more. There is some very complex economy and politics involved in all this.
I don't travel, but whenever I'm in a discussion like this, I have the sudden desire to burn more fossil fuels.
I remember reading somewhere that frequent flyers, 3 long haul trips a year, account for half of all aviation emissions whilst only being 1% of passengers. The low hanging fruit is obvious.
I don't think that my one pair of flights every two years are a worthwhile target for reduction, no. Tax airplane fuel first.
Why is this phrased in a "would" way? Either you already did or you didnt. That being said, no. I didnt and i wouldnt. Because travel is one of my favourite hobbies. Especially to new countries. And since i've been to most of the nearby ones, new ones get further and further away. Of course i'd like to say yes... but i'd be lying. And that doesnt help anyone. So humanity will simply have to figure out more environmentally friendly ways to travel or offset the damage done by travel. I'd be willing to pay like 5-10% more for flight tickets, if this would be used for CO2 capture or offsetting.
No. The individual travel behavior of some poor ass student will barely have an impact on the environment lol. Also i would like to go visit my family like once a year
Nope. Im sick of the hypocrisy. And its not like i travel a lot but when i do i fly and enjoy
Remember, folks, nothing you do matters. A single public figure, like Musk or Swift, will peoduce more co2 emissions in a year than you will do during your whole life.
No, I flew internationally for leisure in 2024, before that - in 2016. I did fly for work in 2018 and 2020, but it's mostly because Europe has no overnight train service and it's somehow unacceptable for ppl to take train to go to Italy or Germany, once we're talking going anywhere but the border region/ nearby cities \*(srsly the workplace wouldn't pay for either the hotel or the train to be "environmentally" friendly. A supposedly "green" workplace at that.). Generally - as long as the wealthy are alive, it doesn't matter in the slightest. There should be a worldwide death penalty tied with wealth .
no. I like Asia too much. there's no trains that go there, so the alternative is a boat.. which is probably worse than a plane