To think flying off on holidays is immoral?

[RedTriangle]

Anyone planning to fly off on holidays?

“Every round-trip ticket on flights from New York to London, keep in mind, costs the Arctic three more square meters of ice”
nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

I live near an airport and there is a steady stream of planes landing and taking off. It feels ominous now in light of the recent WWF report talking about life on earth being wiped out.

There are posts on mumsnet on the section about long haul travel where people are talking about flying off with their families to Thailand or Mexico etc not thinking or not caring about the impact! Future generations won’t be jetting off and living lives like this as we will have destroyed the planet and they will be scrambling to survive.

My parents have booked a weekend in Spain! They regularly do this and they will be long gone while future people pay a terrible price.

YANBU.

Not many people give a tiny shit about the environment, and even those of us who do, don't give enough of a shit to actually do what it would take to have an impact.
People are just too used to their conveniences and easy consumption.

I think homo sapiens is the worst thing to happen to this planet, I think a deadly epidemic wouldn't be a disaster, but I am a massive hypocrite because I have two kids and drive a lot.
Humans are the worst.

Palau became the first country today to ban sunscreen to protect the coral reefs. A great move.

Is questioning the op's mental state really necessary? The environment seems to be in a precarious state and what is really be done about it? I am worried too, and I think that measures being taken are going to be too little and too late. I don't think it's immoral to fly but I think that lots of us fly because we can, because it's something that is affordable and it allows us to go somewhere that we fancy visiting without much regard for any environmental impact.

It's not really the done thing to worry though is it? So let's send the op off to the GP for some sedatives and we can maybe give the matter some thought when our own homes and livelihoods are damaged by flood and storm damage.

YANBU at all. But looking at these responses you can see why it’s so difficult to change human behaviour when it comes to the environment. Look how defensive and nasty people get. Look at the amount of abuse you’ve received. (The passive aggressive ‘get help for your anxiety OP!’ posts are hilarious/depressing.) Look at the pages upon pages of excuses and Whataboutery. You’d have got a more positive reception if you’d written a post about hating animals or children.

I think this is good sign actually. When people are this defensive they usually know they have thought about it, and they know they are are wrong, hence the defensive attitude.

Ignoring the thread completely would be worse.

@Pickupthephone

Just because 90% of the cars at your busyish road only have 1 person in the car doesn't mean this reflects the whole of the UK.

I live next to a busy road and when I walk along it in the morning and evening rush about 70% of the cars have 2 or more people in them. But that doesn't make me think it is like that everywhere so in turn we must not be affecting the environment as badly as people think.

You're also assuming that none of those people have either just dropped someone off or are on their way to pick someone up.

donttalkallatonce

It’s overpopulation AND overconsumption. One without the other might be ok. But both? That’s why it’s so bad.

A woman living in some parts of Africa could have quite a few children before coming close to doing the same level of damage as the average person, (even living alone and childless), in the uk.

I know it would be nice and neat and easy to say “no kids, job done”, but it isn’t as simple as that.

And it comes up on pretty much EVERY thread on climate change btw. Some smarty pants jumps in with “I don’t have kids, so I’m doing better than all of yous”. Memorably, I remember someone saying they felt free to go on as many flights and consume as much meat and dairy as they pleased because they had no children .

Another thought, if we all suddenly stop flying to far-flung places, what happens to the people who work in the tourist industry? How do they feed their families?

If we all catch the bus instead of driving. What happens to the people who work in the car factories? The mechanics, even the little places at the side of the road that clean the cars? How will those workers feed their families?

If we don't buy exotic fruits, what happens to the workers who grow it, tend it and pick it. How do they feed their families?

The only answer would seem to be having less children and in the long run it would probably be the best solution. But whilst it sorts itself out then who looks after the aging population? You only have to look at China to see what problems limiting the population has created. And then human rights come into play, and we know that won't end well!

The list of trade-offs is endless. Sadly, sometimes, solving one problem causes another.

WithAFaeryHandInHand but why can't someone with no children go on as many flights and eat meat as much as the like. Why is it only people with children that get to dictate what is acceptable in terms of environmental costs so that having children is fine but those without should also not have long haul holidays or lots of steak.

I was once berated by a woman on a flight for using a disposable nappy for dd. 😳 she said “do you REALISE what you’re doing to the planet?!”

It’s a conundrum and there is no solution unfortunately. Humanity is hurtling toward its demise unless something radical changes. And by change, I think the highest impact would be cost effective / non polluting fuel and packaging.

Actually, keeping a dog is one of the most damaging things you can do for the environment and having children is very bad news.

Right. So we all stop having children and the planet will be saved but the human rice will die out. Nice one.

^Race!

I have family members who have boycotted Asda & Amazon in the past. The same people who have voted Green and advocate buying local. All good apart from the fact that their boycott lasted a few months and their environmentally friendly stance haven't precluded them from flying multiple times a year on holiday or from shopping online. The holiday point is where people's ecological principles normally fly out the door (literally). There's nothing worse than a virtue signalling hypocrite imo. I'd have more respect if they actually practised what they preach.

I roll my eyes at friends of mine who style themselves as hippie conservationists but in reality they are trustfunders who jet round the world multiple times a year. Yes all of us can afford to do more to help our planet, but it is one of the most galling things to hear people rabbiting on about seeing the beauty of the world while they are destroying it with flying. Equally I always imagine what good they could have done with the price of their first class flights for the poor in the countries they visit, installed a well, paid a teacher for a few months...

When people are this defensive they usually know they have thought about it, and they know they are are wrong, hence the defensive attitude.

I don't think most of it is defensiveness.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy/ shortsightedness of focusing on one issue when there are a range of causes, some of them much more significant than flying, and all in all the problem looks near impossible to fix.

I'm on another thread discussing how I am a HCLF eater, but I've realised that I am very much in the minority and most people seem to LCHF eat these days so that's a lot more meat and dairy.

There's nothing we can do unless we remove personal choice from people. I am not, in fact, HCLF for environmental reasons myself.

The list of trade-offs is endless. Sadly, sometimes, solving one problem causes another.

True. Some problems are bigger than others.

If we don't buy exotic fruits, what happens to the workers who grow it, tend it and pick it. How do they feed their families?

What's going to happen when their counties flood and they can't grow anything because of that? Or when there's a drought and they can't grow anything because of that? How are they going to feed themselves then? How are we going to feed ourselves then?

Car workers need to eat and drink, this year's drought was bad for food production and prices, what will happen if we don't do anything about global warming and it becomes the norm?

Another thought, if we all suddenly stop flying to far-flung places, what happens to the people who work in the tourist industry? How do they feed their families?

You realise most of these places will be underwater?

I did a really thorough carbon footprint questionnaire a couple of years ago. My one short haul flight in the year prior to filling it in was half my total footprint (it also took account of my diet, housing, consumption of other goods etc). I've not flown since. It's hard to not fly, but it was the single biggest thing that I personally could do to help.

Of course industry and governments need to do more, but that's not an excuse for the rest of us to do nothing.

The planet will survive climate change. The human race may well not, or numbers will be very substantially reduced. Sadly its the poorest who are likely to be affected first, at least until large scale climate migration takes hold (as in Central America) at the moment, with the corresponding rise in war.

Why is it only people with children that get to dictate what is acceptable in terms of environmental costs so that having children is fine but those without should also not have long haul holidays or lots of steak.

Eh?

Of course, you’re free to do and eat what you like. And nobody is able to tell you what to do, (you know, other than the police or a judge or whatever), regardless of whether or not they are a parent. I’m amazed you thought that’s what I meant. Because someone’s a parent they have more right than you to dictate what steps people ought to take to prevent some of the effects of climate change? Jesus. What a dreadful thought. Not what I meant AT ALL.

But, in a discussion about the best things to do for our environment, I did find it decidedly shaky for someone to say that a western woman has zero culpability, because she has no children. The exact quote was “I’ll take as many flights and eat as much meat as I like, guilt free ”. Which I found ludicrous, given the state of the world as a result of western overconsumption.

In the West, we’re slowing down re population. We no longer replace the people who die, I believe. The population problem will come from Africa, it’s predicted, but they’re not the ones over-consuming (yet).

It’s great if you genuinely chose to have no children just to spare the environment. What a selfless and amazing thing to do for the planet. Hats off! Genuinely. But to then say, “that’s me off the hook. See ya!” is something I could never do.

We’re going to die out as a species. That’s a definite. But, do people care so little for what we leave behind that they just wash their hands of it after making one, albeit very significant, contribution (choosing to not have children)?

If we all died out tomorrow, we’d leave one hell of a mess.

I’m not saying I’m perfect btw, far, FAR from it! But it’s the attitude; “I’ve done my bit and I’m not doing anything else. I’ll do what I like”. Completely bamboozles me?

The planet is not being destroyed by us.

We may be destroying the environment that is beneficial to ourselves and other animals, but the planet will continue its own life cycle without us. Other species will evolve in the new environment to replace those lost, just as has been happening since life began here.

A successful parasite has a symbiotic relationship with its host. We do not, so we will become extinct but the host will continue very well without us.

Rogue question mark at the end there? I’m Ron burgundy?