to ask if you would really make these journeys without flying for the sake of the environment

[IDSNeighbour]

I'm terrified of flying. I will fly but only if there is absolutely no other feasible way of getting somewhere.

I've just booked my transport for my summer holiday - 36 hours each way on long distance coaches for £230 instead of 2 hours each way on a plane for £160.

A couple of years ago I took 3 trains over about 48 hours to get to Russia for about £300 (I think - can't remember). I think flights took 4 hours though I think they were a similar price that time, not sure.

Other than fear (which isn't that common?), I can't think why anyone would choose a transport method that is both longer AND more expensive, except for environmental reasons. But these buses and trains are pretty popular and book up. I know some will only do one leg but the buses in particular are often straight through and the huge distance tickets are easy to source.

So I'm wondering if anyone would do this purely to lower their carbon footprint? Is it a reasonable expectation on people for the environment?

Not at Charles de Gaulle, miles outside

I travel by train by preference, if the total door to door time isn't wildly different. A one hour flight takes up loads more time than one hour because of getting to the airport 2 hours before, getting to the airport and from the airport to the city centre, plus extra costs such as paying for luggage and seat reservation and airport parking and buying water because you can't take it through security often bump up flight prices in real terms very significantly.

So next week I'm doing a 5 hour train journey while colleagues are taking a one hour flight, but I'll leave home at about the same time and arrive at the hotel slightly earlier... In this case my train ticket, with reserved seat at a table, is also cheaper.

I probably wouldn't travel 24 hours by coach instead of 4 hours by plane though. Coach travel is a last resort! I suppose I'd pick a destination reachable by train. Depends whether you have to go to that destination (is it work, visiting people or just a holiday) and how much time is available.

Overland travel is usually pleasanter and more interesting than flying if you have plenty of time. I do fly when time is tight though. I used to love flying when I was younger, but there are so many reasons not to its not my preference now.

Did you miss the 'return' part?

At the moment I don’t have the time to not fly to a destination. When I’m retired maybe but then won’t have the cash

What about flying for business????

I think they're some of the worst culprits. With technology these days, face to face meetings don't still need to happen. Use skype or video conferencing or webinars. I know some clients want their hands held but they need to be re-educated and stop indulging them.

I genuinely think probably 90% of business travel could and should be avoided. And it certainly shouldn't be encouraged with new runways at LHR and LGW.

@araiwa
Er.... yep! Oops

Someone always brings up bloody China on these environmental threads. China’s CO2 emissions per person is waaaay lower than the UK’s. Around 11 tons vs 4 tons per person per year.

And yes a lot of their emissions are from their factories, where they are manufacturing more stuff for.... well us in the UK, and other places. We can’t keep buying cars and washing machines and all manner of othe things whilst tutting at China’s carbon footprint.

I am also surprised at those who think flying makes little contribution to the climate emergency. The same CO2 emissions are thought to have a much greater effect on atmospheric warming as they are released so high in the atmosphere, along with other substances such as ozone and nitrous oxides. If you are calculating your carbon footprint per flight, some experts reckon you should take the actual CO2 emissions and then multiply this figure 2 or 3 times to reflect the true environmental impact.

I don't fly, or even holiday outside of the UK/Immediate Europe for environmental reasons. I think constant holidaying is selfish, and people who unnecessarily travel for business are even worse.

I'm not bothered about "seeing the world". We have the technology to see the world through the Internet. There are plenty of opportunities in this country to experience authentic world cuisine. I hate the sun/lying on beaches.

There are a couple of things I'd like to experience in real life - Auschwitz, the Northern Lights, Sistene Chapel and Niagara falls, however I'm happy to look at videos/pictures and know I'm not contributing to environmental destruction. My reasons for wanting to see these things are selfish, as are most people's reasons for holidaying. It's that utter sense of entitlement that is more important to many humans than taking a step back and realising our contribution to what we are doing to the planet.

My need for a "break" is not more important than the Earth.

Sorry, pp who brought up China (I’m on my phone so it’s difficult so scroll back) I wholeheartedly agree with your last couple of sentences -

It's relatively simple to avoid taking flights or to buy less plastic. What is harder is actually doing things that will change the minds of big business and governments.

In the words of another MNer on another thread, there’s only 3 things we can do on an individual level that will make any difference - eat less meat and dairy, fly less, and campaign, campaign, campaign.

I don't have DC so I will continue seeing the world. Safe in the knowledge that my carbon footprint is negligible compared to people with DC. By saying we have to ban flying we are ignoring the elephant in the room: overpopulation...

I try to minimise flying, but not obsessively - sometimes it's the only practical/affordable way.

I regularly do South of France to London by train, partly for green reasons, partly because I prefer it. Yes, it's 12 hours by train versus 2 hours by air but:

• I can on get an overnight train 5 mins from my house, wake up in Paris, transfer to Eurostar and be in central London by around 9 am

• The flight is only 2 hours but that doesn't include the time you spend travelling to and from the airport and all the faffing around at the airport (on Eurostar it rarely more than 5-10mins to check in and get through security).

• although it costs more, I save two nights in a hotel so I reckon the overall cost is similar or sometimes even less

Re CO2, below is a table of estimates for a domestic journey (short haul will be similar). CO2 impact of coach travel is about half that of air travel. CO2 from trains depends on whether they are electric or diesel (here in France they are electric and power is mainly from nuclear = very low CO2).

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/GramsCO22_transportmodesUK.pdf

I love the travelling aspect of holidays, so yes I would.

I just looked at the length of train journey needed to visit my family in the UK: 29 hours and 4 train changes. A coach for that distance is absolutely out of the question. Although I use the train here in Europe for work and holiday travel, and it is fairly cheap and efficient.

Definitely I would do it. We haven’t flown in 5 years now for environmental reasons. We still travel, just not as long haul as before.

Definitely not but I suffer from motion sickness so there's no way on earth you'd get me on a coach.

I dont think cars fare well against planes environmentally - i wanted to get across europe once. I was hoping to drive, as i really dislike flying for a couple of reasons and thought i could be virtuous and eco. Nope! Plane wins on carbon footprint hands down. Not sure how public transport compares.

Walking and sailing is obviously the way forward!

I think theres other reasons to go by train or bus though - more interesting? More frequent stops? Slower, scenery, extend the trip/adventure? Soak up culture?

I feckin hate public transport (autistic and find it vvv triggering, full on panic attacks sometimes); it would be a fascinating trauma for me.

I don't have DC so I will continue seeing the world. Safe in the knowledge that my carbon footprint is negligible compared to people with DC. By saying we have to ban flying we are ignoring the elephant in the room: overpopulation...

That's a very simplistic view.
Overpopulation is not driven by western countries.

Children are needed to continue our population (and care for you in your old age too).

Every time we fly I put another bee friendly plant in my garden. Couldn't really afford to see my family with costs of a train😮
And my husband would need at least 4 separate visas to go and visit his by train.

I’m hoping it will become embarrassing to go on far flung holidays - like it is to drink drive or something - the world needs us. Time is running out!

I agree.
One return flight a year, max, for personal enjoyment is my cut off with an equal amount of money given to a reliable world carbon offsetting charity.

I agree the big change will need to come from business and governments but we are pretty shallow if we can't walk the walk ourselves. Yes, I want to see the world too but "I want" is pretty selfish given the situation we're in. Times are changing.

Been on a couple of v long coach journeys. 29 hours in Peru was fabulous. Very modern comfortable long distance coach ....

But give me the train any time, I love love long train journeys. They are so interesting.

Man in seat61 for anyone looking for ideas.

www.seat61.com/India-overland.htm

No

I have a few friends who work in conservation (charities and academia). They fly with work (to visit projects, go to conferences etc) more than anybody else I know. I find it a bit shocking to be honest.

I wouldn't do the coach because I get horrific car sickness on coaches and throwing up for 36 hours straight is not the way I'd like to start and end my holiday!

I would travel by train though - I quite like train journeys and I've done non-stop 8 hour train journeys in Europe which were quite fun before. You can also stop on the way and visit more places than you would if you fly direct.