Hi Matt & co

If you were participating in my "enjoy flying
less project" we would be looking at what you
enjoy about Guernsey and Southampton, and any
other destinations you fly to. After you becoming
sure that I accept your autonomy to choose, and
celebrate your choosing in a way that lets you do
the things you care about, we might look at
making a 2-10 year plan that would reduce the
frequency of your need to travel, whether by ship
or by air.

We might also consider whether there is more
unused capacity on the scheduled ships than on
the scheduled planes.

How would any of the group react with this
approach?

Andy Ray Taylor

--- Matt Thornton <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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
> > >
> >
> 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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