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
>
|
