"ssuming many or most of us still do fly or use other long distance 
travel now and then, what do you do"

I have not flown for holiday since 2004, and managed to not fly for 
three years at all (i'm not looking for a medal here either)...since 
then only for medical treatment and moving to study and back again have 
i used flying...but the alternatives are expensive and i find i travel 
very little these days. I came back from sweden to england for my 
nephew's christening last year via trains and boat (trains were electric 
and it seemed on paper a lower CO2 emissions in total than flying)...but 
even with an interail ticket and cheap boat crossing from holland it was 
still very, very expensive, and took 24 hours each way (except on way 
back due to 6 hour delay and i had to get a sleeper train)...I enjoyed 
the journeys, despite 6 changes and lugging a backpack. But for less 
mobile people or with a young family, it's pretty difficult.

Going to most of Europe by train is easy, affordable and fun (I went to 
Budapest via Bavaria a few years ago for under a £100 return)...but it 
does take a reasonable amount of effort to source the the affordable 
tickets, and it helped speaking some german and being enormously 
flexible on times.

A greater problem for me has been that most of my friends are not 
English or do not live in England. Having returned from my studies in 
Sweden, it seems likely that most I will not travel to see again unless 
somewhere close. The internet sustains an image of a connected world, 
but we need to have a network of localities. I recognise I need friends, 
people, products and opportunities where I live, not far away or via 
some electronic medium.

Not flying has already cost me some personal ties, and upset some 
friends....the same with respect to other lifestyle choices (trying to 
not buy, and then if buying buying ethically sound products)...you see 
even if you are silent in your ways, not preaching, by living in a 
certain way, it creates friction with people and society around 
you...just as I Still feel guilty when I open the newspaper and see many 
things or see someone in the street, apparently I have made some other 
people feel guilty, and they would rather not, so they don't spend as 
much time with you.

trying to be environmentally and ethically sound can make you appear a 
little pious, even if it is done so you can live with yourself, to 
respect the knowledge you have learnt. it's an image that will get the 
environmental movement nowhere..it has to be a message of improvement on 
existing life or people are not going to take it...not until the impacts 
of climate change are so overwhelming we get a 'war' style economy where 
we gear everything towards one aim. of course, by then it may be too 
late for a lot of actions, and for a lot of impacts to be avoided.

Offsetting still allows us to transfer our problems, our 
responsibility...i accept it can have some benefits, but fundamentally 
it's not changing behaviour.

WE all say we have to work with the system, and that offsetting is the 
only way..but taking the example of a business meeting, is there not 
sufficient evidence to say no to a business and suggest a video 
conference? same for academic conferences? forget the perks, it's about 
changing behaviour....

The same for normal travel, when you have expenses do you travel with 
taxi or first class rather than normal public transport? Why?

As it appears that I am ranting ever so slightly, what about housing?

I have never owned a house and it seems unlikely in the near 
future...which frustrates me in terms of getting something efficient, 
because for all the demonising of flying, our home and office spaces and 
everyday transport remains a much bigger issue.Are we going to see 
offsetting of housing? What about old houses (I live currently in a 16th 
C wooden farmhouse, beautiful but efficient it is not, except for how it 
was built), do we modify them and change planning laws? Are there 
certain sacred things which environmentalism and efficiency should not 
touch? like cows (as the TImes suggested this week), or closer to home 
for me, Whiskey, which is very carbon intensive?

I personally don't think we have the faintest idea of what it means to 
make our lives sustainable through our own choices, we can see the 
bigger fixes, but the small parts add up greatly, and we all have blind 
spots (I have lots of photos stored online which I justify as artistic, 
but they serve no great purpose in the world whilst they take up server 
energy).

Offsetting prevents us from this kind of examination, and that is my 
problem with it.

Sorry for the length and lack of cohesion,

Jonathan





Oliver Tickell wrote:
> This is one of the key problems with the Kyoto Protocol. We need to be 
> reducing industrial emissions and conserving and enhancing natural 
> carbon sinks, not trading emissions off against each other via the 
> KP's 'flexibility mechanisms'. As far as the voluntary offset market 
> goes, it is surely better to offset than not to (how much better is 
> debatable), pending an effective, equitable global agreement without 
> which none of our efforts will add up to much anyway.
> Oliver Tickell
> --
> www.kyoto2.org/ <http://www.kyoto2.org/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discussion list for the Crisis Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Barker
> *Sent:* 12 June 2009 09:40
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Carbon Balanced by the World Land Trust. Offset your 
> carbon dioxide emissions
>
> One consideration may be that the atmospheric carbon balance is so 
> disrupted now (with the 40-year time lag of course), that we need to 
> stop flying, reduce our use of carbon fuels drastically, AND plant as 
> many trees as possible. Even if we offset all of the carbon fuels 
> burnt in flying, driving, heating etc., we would then only be treading 
> water. We need to capture atmospheric carbon as well as stop putting 
> it into the atmosphere.
>
> Tom
>
> At 09:04 12/06/2009, Willott, John wrote:
>> I share many of the concerns about C offsets, and saw some of the 
>> practical issues while doing some work with one scheme to replant 
>> rainforest a few years ago.
>>
>> However, I would be interested in what forumers do or advocate then? 
>> Obviously not flying and reducing C dependency is the best solution, 
>> but assuming many or most of us still do fly or use other long 
>> distance travel now and then, what do you do? Not purchase offsets at 
>> all?
>>
>> John
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [
>>     mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A&M Meikle
>>     Sent: 09 June 2009 10:18
>>     To: [log in to unmask]
>>     Subject: Re: Carbon Balanced by the World Land Trust. Offset your
>>     carbon dioxide emissions
>>
>>     Yes, it looks good on the surface but if we're not reducing
>>     energy demand and the use of fossil fuels, we won't make the
>>     changes needed. No one can argue against conserving endangered
>>     habitats but the inherent problems of commodifying & trading
>>     pollution shouldn't be overlooked.
>>
>>     There's also the worry that pollution could increase because
>>     people think the offset part is good & won't be funded otherwise.
>>     I'm thinking of the case of fees for late pick-up of children
>>     from schools (in US?). Rather than incentivising parents to be on
>>     time, the fee made them think that they were paying for this
>>     additional childcare service and late pick-ups actually increased!
>>
>>     Here's another example I discovered recently: “By driving, you
>>     will be saving the planet. And the more you drive, the more you
>>     prevent catastrophic climate change.” Biopact (which runs the
>>     Biochar Fund) on negative emissions energyþ
>>     (Ref:
>>     http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/10/strange-world-of-carbon-negative.html
>>     )
>>
>>     Unbelievable! Attitudes like this lead me to be highly sceptical
>>     about off-set but if the off-set was a real reduction in energy
>>     demand (i.e. reduce the source of emissions) rather than sink
>>     creation (e.g. tree planting) then it may stand more chance of
>>     working.
>>
>>     Mandy
>>
>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>         From: Chris Keene <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>         To: [log in to unmask]
>>         <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>         Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:24 PM
>>         Subject: Carbon Balanced by the World Land Trust. Offset your
>>         carbon dioxide emissions
>>
>>         http://www.carbonbalanced.org/?gclid=CIXq8LHN-5oCFaAA4wodWT6BdQ
>>
>>         What does everyone think of this?
>>
>>         Chris
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         No virus found in this incoming message.
>>         Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>         Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.59/2165 - Release
>>         Date: 06/09/09 05:53:00
>>
>> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to 
>> http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
>
> Tom Barker BSc, PhD
> SWIMMER (Institute for Sustainable Water, Integrated Management, and 
> Ecosystem Research)
> Nicholson Building
> University of Liverpool
> Liverpool
> L69 3GP
>
> 0151 795 4646
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Support Contraction and Convergence - the global response to climate 
> change
> http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
> Download a model for the local response: 
> http://www.chester.gov.uk/pdf/Vision2050.pdf
>