AIBU to ask how many of you are seriously revising whether (or how often) you fly again?

[Thelowquietsea]

We don't fly often (one flight a year tops, mostly to Europe) but reducing my air travel is one of the few differences I can make towards climate change.

And yet, I'm celebrating a big birthday this year. I had an idea to take myself to a retreat quite far away, and now it's 'booking' time, I can't quite bring myself to do it. Especially in light of Australia's tragedy. I'm really torn.

How many of you are making serious sacrifices in this area?

We are cutting down our flights as a family. We previously flew 2/3 times a year and are now only going to do one overseas holiday. It's interesting since I now silently judge those who fly off at the drop of a hat (my DParents in particular) unless they are carbon offsetting their flights.

Are those who don't intend to change doing other things? The impact of stored emails/junk mail is massive for example and all you need to do is unsubscribe to the rubbish and delete things you don't need. The "cloud" servers use massive amounts of electricity and its one of the least known causes of massive environmental damage through carbon emissions.

"So what's the alternative, exponential growth?"

Stability is a good alternative - it makes life a lot easier. Growth or decline, especially rapid, both have thier own issues.

Don't forget, that the converse of exponential growth with high fertility is exponential decline with low fertility - also problematic. Population dynamics are inherently dependent on the size of the base.

I haven't flown in over 10 years, but I'm not claiming I'll never fly again.

I think if I lived in London or the south of England I could fairly easily access a considerable part of Europe without setting foot on a plane (or using a car). But I live in the far north of N Ireland and there's minimal public transport available, and not very far to travel before you run out of land. It certainly wouldn't be possible for everyone here who needs to attend business meetings in London, for example, to do so by boat and train. What employer would allow someone a day to travel then a few hours at a conference then another day to travel home when they could send them to London at 8am one day and have them home again by dinner time? Not to mention the extortionate cost of travelling by boat.

RE: having children
The vast majority of population growth is proportionally across Africa where the majority of women are still having around four or five kids. Take Africa out of

We need to become more responsible consumers (citizens) and build a world free from poverty. Many countries in Europe and many other developed countries have birth rates around replacement rate (ie 2.1) or in many cases way under. The world birthrate is 2.4. Take Africa out of the equation and the world birthrate would be comfortably below two.
www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103

A girl in Japan (birthrate 1.4) or Portugal (1.2) deciding not to have children when she is older is not the long term solution.

I take UK holidays by public transport but my dc do go on school trips abroad as i want them to have the opportunity

Eg. French exchanges

@Cam77

This is true at the regional level. Nearly all population growth, outside of sub-Saharan Africa, is accounted for by population momentum. In another generation, populations will be stable or declining if trends continue.

But change can happen fast with fertility. Bangladesh, for example, now has about replacement fertility (2.1 children per woman) compared with over 6 in the 1980s. Of course the populaton is still growing because all the girls born in the 1980s and 1990s when fertility was still high will also have children but the population will stabilize in a generation. This gives me hope that change may happen in Africa too (and this is less about climate change and more about the development of those countries - Africa contributes the absolute least to climate change but suffers the consequences nonetheless).

Why do people all of a sudden think that the world is now collapsing because of pollution? Is it just because Greta Tunberg was crying on tv? Loads of (older, uglier) people have been claiming for decades that we should travel less, drive less, have less children, use less plastic. Why are people only starting to listen now?

I studied environmental science at university in the mid-1990s. I remember learning about climate change and what a threat it was. Less was known then than is known now, e.g. how the oceans will respond, feebdack mechanisms.

But very broadly what was being modelled then is playing out now. We knew this was happening in the 1990s and even before.

Why we haven't listened to the messages is probably more about human psychology than anything to do with the science being wrong.

True AnnieT

Re: population, while a PP is right that on an individual level reducing your family size is the best thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint, on a societal level it's more complicated. Developed countries generally have an aging population and a birthrate below 2, so unless we're going to start committing geronticide, we're going to need a certain population level to care for them, or else start increasing immigration.
Most of the population increase is coming from developing countries, but those women need - or feel that they need - large families to offset the high infant mortality/ AIDS death rates and provide income to help support the family. And a Mali family of eight still has a lower carbon footprint than a UK family of four, so who exactly is it who should be reducing their family?
This article is long but well worth reading:
www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question?fbclid=IwAR1M_fBYovPAXA2Ym5XypUsKUy7ECsoMHQ1XQtMTHhixNY1khinaEhpOY9I
His conclusion is that if you want to reduce worldwide population, the best way is to educate girls in developing countries and provide access to free, safe contraception.
And if you want to reduce the individual carbon footprints of those who use the most (the rich) the best way is to tax the rich and work to create a more equal society. It made a lot of sense to me.

China’s historical emissions over the past 150 years are less than half that of the US, despite having a far larger population over the entirety of that period. Also significantly less than the entire historical emissions of the EU27 combined (again, despite a greater population). In 1900 nearly one in four people were Chinese, similar to today (and one in four people were part of the British Empire!).

I've mostly given up flying.

I'd like to visit friends in America and in Africa again someday. But my days of flying just because I'd like to see somewhere, are over. Entirely for environmental reasons.

Of course I’ve stopped flying

Can’t believe how selfish the majority of you are

China’s historical emissions over the past 150 years are less than half that of the US, despite having a far larger population over the entirety of that period

Why does this matter? They were in the grips of incredible poverty until about two decades ago, so this is no surprise.

The point is that they are not green, as one PP asserted and, most importantly, have no serious plans to be.

Why are people only starting to listen now?
Because
A) far more “uglier, older” than those who were concerned were happy to ignore the science and continue putting profit and economic growth above all else. These people are the ones who have also been continuously democratically voted into power by the ugly and old people, continuing to this day - see the Republicans and the Conservatives pitiful environmental policies (the latter was rated 5.5/30 by Friends of the Earth, the worst of those on offer by a country mile)
B) The situation is getting exponentially worse, and the profit and growth mantra is becoming ever more strained, even to those who wish it could be sung forever as coastal cities start sinking into the sea.

China is investing far greater sums into green energy than the US....it seems that you are expecting a country of 1.4 billion people which came late to mass industrialization, to turn green overnight - even as the supposed leader of the free world claims that global warming is a “hoax” and withdraws from international climate agreements. Your position is absurd.

@MangoFeverDream ^

Developed countries generally have an aging population and a birthrate below 2, so unless we're going to start committing geronticide, we're going to need a certain population level to care for them, or else start increasing immigration.

I've always thought this was a somewhat about-face argument.

Having more children to look after an ageing population seems so counter-intuitive. I want to live well, for as long as I can, without intervention. Then I would much prefer the intervention of a dignified death.

That is surely far better achieved by remodelling society so that we're living healthier, more active lives with diets based on fresh local produce, euthanasia is permitted, and there's enough slack in people's lives that they can support family who all happen to live nearby...

Yes, I know VASTLY more easily said than done! But throwing more human beings at the problem won't make it go away.

(To answer OP's actual question - I now carbon offset flights, plan to take more UK based holidays, and am travelling more frequently between countries using public transport to continue travelling in a more sustainable way.)

Whilst parents drive their children to school for no reason i.e anything under a mile, parent wants to shop/ exercise/meet up for coffee i will fly whenever i want

Why are people only starting to listen now?

The ease of communicating on social media. Discussions such as this one.

China is cleaning up. I would also say they they are in a better position because their government can push unpopular measures more easily than our governments, who are worried more about their next elections.

His conclusion is that if you want to reduce worldwide population, the best way is to educate girls in developing countries and provide access to free, safe contraception.

Oh, and I absolutely agree with this.

I will have one or two children only (high rate of twins in the family, so can't guarantee one - will sterilise myself rather than risk three though!).

Save the bees and education for girls are pretty much my main charitable donations now.

I never get the "have kids so there are people to look after you when you're old" statement. My mum needed caring for, yes, otgerwise she would have died earlier (but not much earlier, maybe 2 months). The rest of my family tends to suddenly drop down dead from a heart attack. So now I'm wondering what percentage of people really, really need looking after when they're old?

Absolutely not ! And Im not going vegan or gender neutral either !

Why are people only starting to listen now?
David Attenborough has raised awareness through his programmes