Very interesting discussion this. I have a number of questions/points from
a
purely subjective/less well-informed standpoint.

RE: The original facts/figures concerning the emissions of ships over
planes, aside from vaguely sensationalist delivery, they present an
interesting view - how do these figures relate in terms of cost (to the
individual)? To what extent do the ticket prices incorporate any sort of,
for want of a better term, "environmental tax"? A return cruise to New
York
on the QE2 is several thousand pounds whereas return flights on BA can be
had for under £300.
It is possible to compare ships with aeroplanes on an
emissions-for-emissions basis, but is it entirely fair? As already
mentioned, the types of journey taken on the two methods seem to have a
different function - how many ship-trips , where a faster, probably more
direct flight is available, for example, will really be made by business
users? The need is there for education, but at all levels - not just the
people who are making the trips. But experience shows that educating the
masses is a complex task, as e.g., the trial recycling schemes in e.g.
Southampton has proven, in some places relying on celebrities to get out
there and "spread the word". And how do the figures adjust when the likes
of
the new Airbus A380 are taken into consideration which take some 500
passengers? Distance-shrinkage has been a key component in globalisation
(corporatisation/commercialisation/development - however you wish to label
it), but the ship seems to have had a fairly negligible effect in the last
20 something years, whereas the growth and availability of cheap flights
is
having a profound effect. It seems to me that ferry prices are already
significantly more expensive (which for 95% of your every day user will be
the more important factor), so short of making ships cleaner, what else
can
be done?

Keep up the good work...

P.S.

I agree with the points raised regarding the need for a change in
perception
on the part of people taking these trips. I don't own a car and my only
"personal" form of transport (other than a pushbike) is a motorbike. It's
cheaper and I don't suffer from congestion. It's taken some adjusting to
since a weekly shop or carrying a cricket bag takes some planning and
serious commitment. The rain isn't much fun either. But it's doable. As
someone who commutes from Guernsey to Southampton on a reasonably regular
basis, I have a choice between a flight that flies me direct to
Southampton,
in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, I can get a bus (or
walk) to and from the airport, or a ferry, which is essentially the
opposite... I guess I should now be a little smug that the trip on the
plane
is fundamentally better than using the ferry?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Levene" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: SHIP IS 2.5 TIMES WORSE - strategic question


> Hallo!
>
>
> My turn to throw in a quick few words, which George's original email,
> dramatically sparked off.
>
> Yes, I, too, am on a personal level concerned by the issues here.
Recently,
> I took a boat for a conference in Denmark, for instance,, rather than
going
> by aeroplane. And most difficult it was too convincing my hosts that the
> extra cost (high irony there) would be worth it environmentally.( So
double
> irony again if in carbon emissions terms the boat made little difference
> -even if like Jonathan Ward, I found the change of pace utterly
> pleasurable).
>
> HOWEVER, I think Andy below gets much closer to the real issues at stake
> here. And especially for this group of avant-gardists.  Remember Crisis
> Forum came out of  the desire of a small group of university folk to
> challenge conventional wisdoms. And that means within universities
> themselves a very particular culture where academics assume it is
natural
> and proper as well as to the benefit of their careers, to go backwards
and
> forwards to conferences around the world on a regular basis, as if doing
> this they had never imagined such behaviour might involve a thoroughly
> deleterious environmental blow-back.
>
> It is that mindset which anybody who wants to make the 'connect' between
> 'conspicuous consumption' - in this case entirely excessive travel, way
> beyond our individual ecological footprints -  and climate change, needs
to
> and must challenge.
>
> So, - to reinforce Andy's tentative point -this surely does and must
mean
> attempting to shift the cultural goalposts, which in turn  means, not
simply
> practising what we preach, but also preaching it!  Thus, it would have
been
> purely self-indulgent to have gone to Copenhagen by boat without
notifying
> my colleagues at Southampton that I was doing this and why. By the same
> token, I have recently made written statements to two international
academic
> 'associations to which I belong gently declining participation in future
> conferences which would involve air travel of any sort.  This most
recently
> involved not going to a biennial conference I have previously attended
for
> the last twelve years.
>
> Predictably, the response to these missives has been on spectrum from
> silence to opposition (e.g. why do this when the time isn't right for
it,
or
> there are more important things etc etc etc). BUT there has also been
some
> more positive response, some quite thoughtful, some congratulatory, a
little
> trying to work this through themselves.
>
> Let me be passionate for one moment! The issue at stake here is not just
a
> technical one. It is fundamentally one of lifestyle, which is actually
> requiring of us who are privileged enough to travel, to make
self-denying
> ordinances' for the greater planetary commonweal.  I do not envisage for
one
> moment that such self-denial is going to be easier for academics than
for
> any other group, when so much hangs career-wise on their involvement in
> exactly such exchange. But like, for instance, the long trajectory
whereby
> cigarette smoking became reprehensible, and which actually began with
the
> scientific evidence as repeatedly propounded by those who understood
what
> was at stake, so here too, I think some of us -the cultural cutting
edgers
> of which Andy speaks -  have a responsibility to be even more vociferous
> facilitators -indeed visionaries - and not least as we have little time
in
> our favour.
>
> There is also  an answer within the academic community as to how we
reshape
> our exchange and discourse for the age of acute climate change. My next
> venture, having declined, yet another trip abroad, is to see if I can do
the
> seminar required of me, by teleconferencing. If academics more generally
> were to pick up on what was at stake, and act accordingly, its ripple
effect
> would become increasingly significant - I think.
>
> I urge my fellow Crisis Forumers, thus, to not only examine the science/
> make appropriate calculations etc etc but also think about what they
> actually do and how best those actions can influence those around them.
> Andy, is right: it is all symbolic  as of this moment. But so began
Gandhi's
> satyagraha. (lit. 'truth-insistence')
>
> cheers,
> mark
>
> ps my Crisis Forum energies are being devoted this summer to finding
some
> funding so that we can more seriously proceed on these lines above and
down
> other routes too. I'm going to send a resume of our funding case, for
your
> information, to you all this weekend. Needless, to say, if anybody's got
any
> bright ideas, or would like to assist, I would be very grateful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> on 20/7/05 8:47 pm, A Taylor (NVC Findhorn Slovakia) at
[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All
> >
> > Am getting worried that my "fly less" project as
> > currently framed is a no go (though perhaps I
> > could find a friendly way to target it towards
> > rich people flying 6 times per year for weekend
> > euro-breaks).
> >
> > So do we stop finding ways to encourage people to
> > switch to forms of transport which are currently
> > only marginally less polluting, and concentrate
> > on politicians and technologists; or do we try to
> > create a body of cultural cutting edge no-fly
> > citizens who will pull together and push for the
> > changes that are needed, even if right now
> > personal decisions not to fly are largely
> > symbolic?
> >
> > Let's face it - for the next 20 years or so the
> > only seriously sustainable transport is bike and
> > sailboat and even these have limitations if
> > you're not wanting to deplete at all.
> >
> > So don't we need to help people learn how to
> > enjoy being where they are, and getting the food
> > they need grown in their locality? (Or moving to
> > agricultural coops in Spain)
> >
> > Is anything else realistic?
> >
> > Andy Ray Taylor
> >
> > --- Jonathan Ward <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> hi all,
> >>
> >> this is making interesting reading as i decided
> >> earlier this year to holiday
> >> without air travel and private hire vehicles.
> >>
> >> firstly i travelled to the lake district using
> >> train and bus and got around
> >> on foot, bus and boat. secondly i went to
> >> norway via train, ferry (in which
> >> i happily shared a 4-berth cabin) followed by a
> >> bus (at close to maximum
> >> capacity) up through norway to oslo.
> >>
> >> so... was it worth it? it took 35 hours and was
> >> enjoyable, but i had perhaps
> >> inccorectly (roughly) calcuated a reduction in
> >> emissions by not flying to
> >> norway and by going to the lakes rather than to
> >> portugal. the message i am
> >> getting seems to be that people believe the
> >> emisisons would actually be
> >> higher than the same journey taken by air?
> >>
> >> some other points:
> >>
> >> regarding trains - it depends once more, upon
> >> efficiency, power source
> >> (electrical for instance - and how was that
> >> generated), occupancy and how
> >> the emissions are distributed.
> >>
> >> there does seem to some widely contradicitng
> >> sources of information on the
> >> level of emissions from different sources of
> >> travel.
> >>
> >> as someone has already alluded to the support
> >> needed for aircraft which can
> >> also contribute to total emissions, could we
> >> take this further and apply it
> >> to construction of the vehicle and
> >> transportation of fuels and consumables
> >> needed to run it? airport vs port?
> >>
> >> and again, something which has already been
> >> touched upon - which form of
> >> travel represents the greatest potential for
> >> low CO2 emissions?
> >>
> >> hope to hear more from this debate,
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >
> > Andy Ray Taylor is currently in Findhorn checking emails most weekdays
> >
> >
> > Contacts:
> > ---------
> >
> >
> > Pager messages   - 07666 778016
> >
> >
> > Work phone       - 0845 058 0537 (9-12.30pm and 2-5pm)
> >
> >
> > Texts            - 077654 77305
> >
> >
> > Home phone       - 077654 77305  (7am and 10pm are best times)
> >
> > Andy Ray Taylor
> > Posthouse
> > 305 The Park
> > Findhorn
> > Moray IV36 3TE
> >
>