Hodgepodge of thoughts on individual choices and air travel

So people get pretty upset, in turns out, when you suggest that to live environmentally might mean fewer air trips to the Bahamas. "What's the point of saving the world if I can't see it?" someone commented yesterday. Oh boy. That roused some other people.

I get both sides of the argument, so it's hard for me to make forever rules for myself about this. It's been put this way: that if any of us expends more carbon than the planet could sustain for everyone, then we are taking more than our fair share. That's a hard one to swallow, since the planet couldn't actually sustain everyone flying more than about once every ten years or so.

But thinking it through, if I'm interested in travel and I want to be enviro, there is this option: fly to Europe and then travel south overland and east and west, too, and basically zig zag around and work my way to China and and India and into the Himalayas and stay away for a couple of years until I'm done. Then fly home. In other words, get my whole life's travel done with only one flight (see No Impact readers Phillipe and Heather's thoughts on this too).

Won't work, you say? Have to get to the office? Right. Me, too. And the reason is that we are all part of larger systems and those larger systems sometimes forces us into the false screw-the-planet-I-want-to-be-abundant versus I-care-so-I'll-deal-with-ascetism dichotomy. In other words, the choices, as defined by the systems, are bogus.

Why does it have to be a choice between the supermarket and local food? Why is it a choice between staying at home like a hermit or driving the car? Where are the damn trains? Why also are we faced with having to work so hard just so that we can buy the same disposable products over and over again?

The systems are poorly designed. Well, not so much designed as hodgepodged together. So what I want to say here is that, as important as my individual choices are, I also need to get active in changing the system. I need to be a big mouth.

I (meaning we, but you know how I hate to preach) need, as Susan Och says, to call for an expanded rail network, for example. I need to call for durable goods. I need, as Shellenberger and Nordhaus say, to campaign for huge federal investment in renewable energy.

As well as our individual choices, we need to fix the systems. All of this takes more than a phone call to our representatives. So the question is, how do we do it?

Comments

[Everyday Yogini]

This is a great, thought-provoking post. And completely correct. I find it so frustrating that we are bleeding money to save our fossil fuel supply lines with the Iraq war instead of investing in restructuring our infrastructure with renewable energy, as you say.

The durable goods one is frustrating too. I can buy durable goods on the internet if I go search for them, but then I'm using long-haul shipping to get them to my house. So, I'm paying more for a product, plus I'm using fossil fuel to get it. It's hard to find good products and sometimes it can be hard to justify spending more on something that is of lasting quality. The lure of cheap goods is strong...

I look forward to reading how others suggest getting the ball rolling. I would very much like to be a part of a solution that is bigger than just my consumer dollars and individual choices.

[Jamie]

I'm starting a low carbon travel company here in the UK, and our philosophy is that travel is crucial for cultural exchange even though carbon has to be the bottom line. So we're looking for the most carbon-efficient ways to travel. Surprisingly that doesn't involve flying in conventional aircraft, but could involve a combination of airships, cargo-ships with kites on, and sailing boats. Not to mention our trusty friend, the train.

Have one journey of a life-time seeing the world in a gap year, and then appreciate the things closer to home (though lots of places are reachable by night train).

Taking one long-haul flight is likely to produce the same amount of carbon as heating your home or driving for a year. It's just not part of the low carbon picture.

[Mike]

Scientific American ran an interesting article in the Jan08 issue about a solar plan that proposes to supply 69% of the U.S.'s electricity and 35% of its total energy by 2050: (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan). Solar power produces no greenhouse gas emissions. It's expensive, but if people got behind the idea it could move us into technology that helps offset high carbon emitting activities such as air travel. I, for one, am willing to spend a lot to achieve a massive technology switch like this.

[gerry rosser]

I haven't flown in years. Somewhere along the line I rid myself of the "resume building" urge (i.e. taking trips I didn't really enjoy or need to take just to say I'd bee there)

[Farmwife]

I haven't flown in years either. In fact, I believe it's been a good 10 years since I've been on a plane. Part of that is having a farm -- it's not something you can take a long weekend from without a lot of planning in advance, and a lot of help.

I would SO love to have a train that ran through here again. This used to be the world's largest sheep shipping depot. The train ran right through here and would stop to load up. Of course, now the train is gone and so are the tracks...ripped up. The train easement has been sold for private property.

We live 85 miles from a city where we can really shop. There are 3-4 of us that carpool together whenever possible. If we only need groceries/small stuff we take a car. If feed is needed, then we take my truck and buy several tons at a time.

Not much we can do about our situation -- it's part of living in the middle of nowhere. I haven't left home in over a week, but that doesn't bother me much :)

[jewishfarmer]

I think we're heading back to the days when the "grand tour" was part of young people's lives. That is, you had one chance to see the world, you did it for a while (often working on the way, and living with the people you were seeing), and then you came home. This is not a great tragedy - in fact, IMHO, living in strange places, and getting a deep knowledge about people and places is far more important than obtaining a superficial knowledge of a range of places.

Sharon

[jewishfarmer]

I just want to add that my life is a lot more like farmwife's than many readers - by choice. I did travel a lot once, working in the third world to subsidize getting to know other places. But when I settled down to live a lower impact life, I didn't notice any real diminuation of new experiences - instead of knowing many places on a fairly superficial level, I came to know one place deeply. Six years after moving to these 27 acres, I'm still finding new things - like a small apple orchard hidden in the woods that I missed until last year.

Seeing the world is important - but we tend to think that seeing it means having a big picture view. That can be valuable, but intensive knowledge has a great deal of value too. My own experience is that I went through the world not "seeing" a lot of things until I had the experience of having to get to know a place in the deepest possible sense. It may be that we lose some things when we don't travel as much, but also that we gain them when we find an increasing intimacy with one locale.

Sharon

[Sarah]

Just wanted to make a couple of comments -

First, I disagree with those who think you can appreciate the world (on a global scale) without seeing it. My time living in Nicaragua changed my attitude, my outlook on life, my career path - everything. Not to say I was a horrible person before, but I feel that people who haven't lived in the developing world either tend to ignore it or patronize it in either a condescending or "noble savage" way (this is, of course, a generalization, but working in policy, this is what I often see). Moreover, no National Geographic article can give you the true experience of sitting in the Djema al Fna in Marrakesh at night, or look into the eyes of a Moroccan soldier as he tells you about the war in the Western Sahara. I completely agree with the post about theme-park tourism, but (selfish and guilt-ridden as it may be), I will continue to travel, because finding those connections with local people from across the globe (most of whom don't travel because they either can't afford it or because they can't get visas, not because they just think it's great hanging out in their own country) is an incomparable experience that I can't get enough of.

My other point is an actual environmental one. For a lot of poor countries, tourism is a huge source of income. If people stop coming to their countries, the local populace would be much worse off. They would then be forced to turn to potentially destructive industries to make a living. If tourists don't go to the Amazon, the locals aren't going to just fish and call it good - it's far more likely that they'll burn down large swaths of the rainforest, areas that are now protected by the government and preserved by the locals because of their economic viability. Yes, live low impact as much as you can. Yes, try to travel for longer periods of time. But consider that there may be external consequences to not traveling as well.

[Kevin Rose]

At around the same time as the oil embargo of the mid-70's created a high demand for high-mileage imports in the U.S., long-distance bicycle touring became popular as well. The trans-America "trail" became the focus of the 1976 Bikecentinnial ride when thousands of riders pedaled their way cross-country. In 1985, it was my turn to ride cross-country. I was living in the west at the time, yet was moving back east to go back to school. I dipped my rear wheel in the ocean at Cape Disappointment at the mouth of the Columbia River. My front wheel touched the ocean on the beaches of southern Maine. After 5260 miles of riding, I was back home in my native Vermont. I cannot think of a more pleasurable, rewarding, low-impact way to see the country.

I enjoyed it so much that I did it again in 1989. I'm planning to ride across again on the 25th anniversary of that last trek. Six years and counting. I can't wait!

[asal]

sarah, i agree with some of the points you've made. i previously posted in response to one of colin's blogs stating my love of travel, and got really closed-minded, hateful responses. my family is from the middle east. i live in and have grown up in toronto. it would be absolutely absurd for me not to go back and see my family's home-country, not to see my history, not to immerse myself in my culture which i love and embrace as much as i can while in toronto. i think people need to realize, it's not that cut and dry. also, this past summer i spent a couple of months traveling around several formerly soviet central european countries, living in shared communist style accomodations (seriously, it was NOT hotel-style to say the least) and it was one of the best experiences of my life. i spent 5-6 hours a day / 3 days a week learning from local professors. and the other 4 days a week i spent traveling around, seeing and immersing myself in all that i had learned in that week's lectures. i took trams, buses and trains everywhere around the various villages, cities and countries i visited. i learned more about the holocaust, soviet communism, the roma population, and more which i can't possibly list here, than i had learned in 18 years of formal education in toronto. and i couldn't have learned any of those things from a text book, a dvd, tv, etc... i made this point before, and i'm going to make it again - some people, including myself, can't see how to appreciate the wonders of the world without trying to at least see it. i want to connect with other people. i want to see the damage done to other countries. i want to be a part of another culture. and as much as toronto can offer, you can't get the full effect here.

and kevin rose - i think that's amazing!! have you heard of rich aucoin? he's a canadian musician who did a national tour by bike (kept all his equipment attached behind him) and he has a blog documenting the trek.

[asal]

to clarify: i mean, i had not learned as much on those particular topics while in toronto, as i had in europe.

[Lab Rat]

I hate to fly, haven't flown since I visited Sin City (Vegas) about 5 years ago.
I'm tired of people telling me what I need to see before I die. If I never see Vegas again it will be too soon.

I'm not a traveler, so I just don't get all this world travel talk.

If you want to experience a different culture, try right here in this country.
Become a big brother or big sister to a gang member of any ethnicity but your own.

Visit dying people who are dying alone in this country. Visit a nursing home.

Quit adopting oversees children and foster
or adopt a different race child.

Before you start beating me with your ugly stick, YES, I have done all of the above.

Get off your high horses, and quit traveling for fun unless you can reach thousands of people with your experience when you return, ie: a professional photographer or diplomat or health care professional.

If I have to endure one more slide show of someones Carnival cruise, I will puke.

[Anne]

In addition to all this info, we do actually have less destructive ways to fly as well. Prop planes fly in a lower level of sky than jets and therefore don't have the direct injection problem.

Another thing to consider is human-powered vacationing. Rather than the senior year grand tour, I did a week-long sea kayaking trip in the San Juans with an environmental actitivist. I got to see the work of the Nature Conservancy, got up close and personal with an Orca, learned about the destruction that cruise boats cause on the ecosystem, and paddled my whole way through it. I'm convinced that one can see the whole world in a grain of sand if one remembers to look with wonder.

[Cristina]

I´m surprised at how entitled to fly most feel in these comments.

Of course, I too have done my share of flying around to "see" the world, and I have a lot of relatives and good friends scattered in three different continents (including my own father), but that doesn´t mean I have a "right" to fly.

Surely traveling by air is more of a luxury than a right? Or even a need? In the larger scheme of things, I mean.

And I don´t really care if I sound preachy, but none of us owns this planet, so why this entitlement to see it all?

[Kevin Rose]

Asal,

No, I haven't heard of rich aucoin. I'll have to see if I can look up his blog.

I was disappointed when mountain bikes became the rage (late 80's) and before long dominated the U.S. bicycle market. It seemed that once we returned to cheap oil the majority of the bicycles I'd see were fully-suspended tricked-out models covering most of their miles on roofracks atop SUV's.

I'm hoping that the pendulum will swing back and we'll see more bikes out on the highway again (not just the lycra-clad riders emblazened with logos that have come into vogue after Lance Armstrong's dominance at the Tour de France, but everyday folks taking time to enjoy the sights along the way).

[gerard l callan II]

So the question is, how do we do it?

great question no impact man. im not sure i saw many, if any, answers to the question in the comments so ill at least try.

i think it all boils down to what your entire project showed ... that the dichotomy between macro and micro type approaches is a key ingredient in changing the world.

assuming the capitalist/consumption based society we are in remains as is in terms of mentality then corporations are not going to provide consumable earth friendly goods until the consumers demand it and that demand actually has an affect on the bottom line. so in that case you will need the micro level support of the consumers to care enough about the products they purchase.

OR

on a macro level we need an industrial powerhouse to willingly change the way they do business and the products they offer without necessarily having the great demand for it from consumers. those in charge will just need to care that much.

the point though i guess is that either way the fate lies on the shoulders of caring individuals. so the question really is ... how do you get people to actually care. most of the time people dont care until a tipping point is reached.

but in this case the 'care' needed or required will mean putting the planet ahead of your own seemingly important needs and the needs of big coprorations and.... well with the god-like manner in which we walk this earth im not sure people are capable of changing when it is so engrained in their soceity and in themselves that they are the most important living thing on earth including the earth itself.

and well, this is where im stuck... sometimes i think people simply dont care.

[emily]

While living in Germany, I went to visit a friend living in France. We sat down and calculated that, if Amtrak could move as fast as an ICE in Germany or the TGV in France, we might be able to take a night train from Chicago to NY. Give discounts to people under 26 (as in parts of Europe) and give Amtrak the right of way, and we might be on to something.

But there are myriad reasons why the U.S., right now, can't support train travel on the scale of Europe. Track mileage aside--have you ever wondered what would happen at NY Penn Station or Chicago Union Station if twice as many trains went through? I bet nobody would be able to move. In this country, they often don't let you walk out to the track (even in my small-town station) before your train is there and stopped. Then there's the time spent waiting for arrivals to get off the platform before anybody who's departing can get on it. The "holding pens" where we all wait for platform access are not quite large enough for the crowds already there. So, give people platform access: widen the stairs and escalators so we don't have to move in single file the whole way. Light the platforms much better, and keep them clean. Widen the platforms. Get trains in and out faster so there are enough platforms for heavy traffic. Give up on the idea of passengers being watched the whole way. Build stations with ventilation, so the diesel fumes of all the trains won't kill us off.... have I missed anything?

Yes, indeed, write to your senator or congressperson!

[Erik Blomqvist]

I heard that Virgin is mixing biofuel into their jetfuel... Sounds like a good thing, even if it's far from a solution. Here in Sweden we get fresh meat (beef) flown in from places like Brazil, this meat is sold cheaper than, and is by professional chefs regarded as far more tender than our domestic meat can ever be. How sustainable is that? A problem of ours is also that flying domestically (and internationally) is subsidized by the government, through zero energy-taxes, while domestic railways, which are state-owned and operated are powered by electricity that is certified to be 100% from renewable sources, and subject to energy taxation. Even Carbon Trading works against trains and in the interests of flying in Europe.

NIMBY
Not In My Back Yard, and certainly not if it affects my lifestyle is a motto that many people live by, but thanks to the people who don't, I've virtually stopped using my car, and am writing this on a computer powered by renewable energy (wind and water).

[emily]

Maybe I should clarify: give Amtrak the right of way over freight trains. On the East and West Coasts that may not be a huge problem, but try the Midwest! I once needed 4.5 hrs to get from downstate IL to Chicago rather than the projected 2.5. That's a good argument against train travel, especially if you're traveling for work.

[Hannah Mae]

Hear hear, Emily. The west coast is a problem too - I took the train from San Francisco to San Luis Obispo a couple weeks ago, and a trip that is four hours in a car, and eight hours on the schedule, turned into twelve hours on Amtrak. Two friends of mine took the train from Seattle to Philadelphia last year and arrived twenty-four hours late. Non-plane travel is always going to take longer, but when it involves so many inexplicable stops and wildly unreliable arrival times, it's never going to be well-used.

And if the typical American got more than ten days of vacation time per year, we might be less averse to the idea of spending a whole day or three getting where we're going. The rise of the micro-vacation has done as much to encourage air travel as the convenience factor has.

[Hannah Mae]

And: can we please separate the worth or non-worth of travel from the environmental impact? Are the only options "travel is useless, I stay home" and "travel is so important that it's worth any emissions cost"? Both are valid viewpoints, but it sets up a false dichotomy that distracts from the search for real sustainable travel methods, more radical and useful and sustainable than biodiesel jets.

[dura mater]

We really do need to do some serious education. Here's one of the little-publicized ways that the federal government has dealt with climate change: having a congressional delegation FLY to Greenland to take a look at the effects of climate change on the ice there. What is wrong with this picture???? Some quite publicly "green" congresspeople, who should have known better, were on that trip. . .But I guess they didn't want to miss the chance to see for themselves the damage, even if that means contributing to it. Also, now they can say to constituents "I have seen for myself. . ." We humans are a mysterious species.

[Goldberry]

I'm in favor of more sustainable travel, too, which would be time and cost-efficient.

So many people sure of what others should be doing! Good grief...

People flew guilt-free before we realized what it could do to the environment. Now why should those who fly feel guilty, instead of those who are not making efforts to lessen the impact? What about the airline execs, etc...?

I think some of the incredible commenters on this blog would go so far as to suggest that nobody move away from their family, so that we wouldn't have to travel to visit family. This goes back to what Colin was saying: these choices are false and artificially limited!! Let's find some more sustainable ways to travel long distances.

And for this summer, when I plan to go to the Middle East to study Arabic, I do not intend to take an ocean liner. Too expensive and time-consuming. Also, if you cannot understand why other people travel to foregin countries to learn about the people, culture and language, then I don't think you're qualified to criticize them.

After all, is the environment the only important thing? What about peace and understanding, and joy in life? We can't go back to the "simpler times" when the world was less "global" and we didn't make as many efforts to understand each other. (An appreciation of others as human and deserving of respect was notably lacking in earlier times.)

Let's find a middle path.

[Goldberry]

P.S. People in many other countries live less impactful lives. Shouldn't we go there to find out how? ;-)

[CB]

I loved train travel in Europe in the 80s, and tried to duplicate it here with Amtrak, but the train from Boston to New York smelled of disinfectant, didn't have any place to purchase food or a drink, and took forever. My previous train experience had been riding the TGV from Marseille to Paris, sipping wine while contemplating the Van Gogh-like countryside.

Going from the S.F. Bay Area to Oregon can take days because freight trains have the right-of-way. Train travel could be delightful if it were subsidized at the level of the airplane industry. As for flying, it has about the same appeal as Greyhound bus travel with the seats ever smaller and the population ever bigger. At least the pretend "food" was discontinued on my return flight (for cost-saving measures). I think that the sheer cost of air travel in the future will make it less popular.