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?

I fly about 20 times a year and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I don't have any DC. I won't be passing on this dying planet to any of my children so I don't feel any guilt.

I wonder how many in Australia think the devastating fires are due to climate change

It's a multi factor thing in my opinion. From lack of back burning, land clearing ability to seasonal and temperature changes changes. They all play a role.
Plus funding for rural fire services is crap, the have to fundraise just for equipment in some parts. We always have fires yet we RENT many of the water bombing planes. Each state should own at least 2 of the biggest ones, if not more. Then there no getting them to the state or country in a few days or whatever, they ready to go
Some parts, people should not have been allowed to build, it's just too hard to get too and defend. I don't blame them for building there, they were allowed and it's stunning country, it's a council, government fault there.

There also a loud staunch one or the other groups.
Some say it's only climate change and some say it's completely the greens fault and they screaming it to the hills
I'm on the outer cos I don't think it's either or, I think it's both at play.

I'm a childfree vegan so I feel I'm doing my part already and will continue to fly. I have to fly for work a few times a year and fly for holidays maybe 3 times a year with one of those being long haul.

It's perfectly valid to link to that report and I've seen it used and referred to plenty of times, as well as referring to it myself. If you were to use any reason to discount it I'd suggest that it's intent to demonstrate the benefits (to millions of people among other things) of keeping to 1.5° rather than going to 2° is now moot as we've fairly well blown any chance of that. Why don't you dip into it anyway, it's quite interesting? I'll see when I have a chance later to dig out info from other good sources, including current projections.

I love how everyone keeps mentioning China - ignoring the fact that the western world’s reliance on Chinese made goods is a significant part of the problem. 🙄

Interesting squeekums yes probably a mix as you say.

One of the worst holidays you can take is a skiing holiday. Sorry people. The skiing industry is a big problem

Agree 100% with this. Unfortunately it has become a status symbol for Brits to go on a ski-ing holiday (except in Scotland, as they can just drive to Aviemore etc) so it will be up there with SUV use when you try to stop people doing it.

It's reading these threads that really brings it home to me that these changes have to be structurally done by governments.

Sadly neither the government nor most people even care.

I am probably typical, I have done about 20 return flights in my life, 3 to the US. So when I hear people not even considering reducing their 3-4 holidays a year I think fuckit, I want to see more of the world as well.

Train travel can be outrageously priced here unless you book in advance and find some good advance deals. Then you can travel 3-4 hours for about £15-£20. Commuting routes are horrendously priced though. Split ticketing helps with long distance travel too.

But going to Europe - if you book 2-3 months ahead, you can find trains that cost £70 each way all the way from London to the south of France.

SoEverybodyDance
Gosh, you do sound silly. You interjected full of ranting protests, you keep describing polite questioning as aggressive but when I've asked you what is aggressive about it you just can't answer, and then you go quiet when I ask you to support your own comments and miraculously appear again when Callme david and NearlyHelloKitty behaved with far more decency than you. They have given me figures which I will look through, and I am grateful for them indoing so.

It's almost as if you are jealous of our conversation. See how other people behave well? Why did you have to be so nasty? Perhaps you have just been shamed and this is you desperately trying to be part of a respectful conversation, given you are incapable of doing so on your own?

Can’t keep the post window open long enough to actually do post

You may be right that ipcc sticks with the easier to assess and less emotive facts. Sometimes you need to dig and tie multiple bits of information together

You will also find it easier to find “numbers at risk” rather than likely dead because much does depend on human responses, charity or war being the two extremes.

Lower limits based on cutting of emissions now

UN estimates 5million climate change deaths between 2030 and 2050. 250,000 per year. This has been criticised in scientific literature as being too conservative, and indeed Scientific America report that climate change already causing 150,000 Deaths per year, rising to 300,000 per year by 2030.no estimate for 2050, you could trend that in different ways ( linear or doubling every 10 years for example) . So lower estimates 5 to 10 million by 2050…my lifetime

.Upper limits are extinction of human life of earth.

@MarshaBradyo there's a massive disinformation campaign going on in Australia at the moment.. if you were cynical you might assume that some people in the government or coal industry want the heat taken off them. after all these kinds of social media campaigns aren't that expensive.

www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-being-spread-through-social-media/11846434
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) researcher Dr Timothy Graham analysed a sample 315 accounts posting #ArsonEmergency and said around a third of them displayed highly automated and inauthentic behaviour. (i.e. bots) -
The ABC found some of the suspicious accounts were amplifying unproven suggestions arson had been the overwhelming cause of Australia's disastrous bushfire season. A number of the tweets took police figures out of context and claimed almost 200 arsonists had been arrested in NSW. The actual number of people charged with deliberately lighting a fire is 24 — even fewer managed to spark large blazes.

An article posted by an American far-right figure went one step further, claiming left-wing ecoterrorists were responsible for lighting the blazes. It has been shared almost 100,000 times across Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and reached a potential 2.8 million accounts — significantly more than general bushfire fact checks.
(so the problem is that once the bots have got these things moving, real people are sharing them...)

@squeekums agree on the lack of funding being a key issue. isn't it also on the hazard reduction fires that it's just not possible in certain areas now because of the drought / temperature rise.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/hazard-reduction-is-not-a-panacea-for-bushfire-risk-rfs-boss-says

Hellokitty ah that is so bad : (

I can’t currently see a way out of this cycle of the right / media / government focusing our path away from what needs to be done. I despair. When I first read this stuff on mn I thought there’d be more concern due to next generations suffering but haven’t really found it. Well lately I have which is good. And more tempered discussions which is also good.

@marshabradyo well I reckon that there is also cause for hope.. from where I sit things are moving far faster than they ever have before (see the new European Green Deal stuff www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-commission-unveils-european-green-deal-the-key-points/ ). And the youth movements are having an impact.

177 companies commit to set 1.5°C-aligned science-based targets across their operations and value chains, as movement doubles in size since September... www.unglobalcompact.org/take-action/events/climate-action-summit-2019/business-ambition

I reckon just keep challenging whenever you see a friend posting on facebook etc... writing to your elected representatives, making changes where you can...

That’s good to hear. Thanks. This thread was feeling stark so I am happy to read that.

I went to the snow fields in Victoria over 15 years ago, they had snow making macines then. They not new

No they aren't new but their use has exploded in the last 15 years. They used to be used to top up natural snow on a couple of slopes that lacked good snow cover. Now they are on just about every single slope in every ski area because the expectations of the skiers have increased and there is less natural snow. They are used to extend the length of the season. They are also used in many resorts because the quality of the artificial snow is better than natural snow.

You've got them on toboggan runs now because money needs to made for as long as possible from sledging. They are on cross-country ski trails because people need top quality snow to ski on that isn't to hard or too soft or too icy.

It's absolutely crazy.

All new builds properties should have solar panels / solar heaters ( I've heard this is currently not done, because of increased cost)

All electronic should be from a green supplier. My electricity is from a green supplier. But could all electric be supplied, I doubt the infrastructure is in place yet

Businesses should be encouraged to be greener too

Sadly neither the government nor most people even care.

People appoint governments which are made up of people. Until there is public demand, the politicians won't.can't do much.

It would be suicidal for a political party to, say, ban internal flights, if the public weren't behind them.

Same happened with smoking in workplaces, drink driving, etc - until you have a majority of public behind you, you can't make such changes.

every time someone makes a change in their life that benefits the climate you reduce the probability that life becomes impossible on this planet. It may be only a tiny reduction but your reduction plus my reduction plus all the other little reductions mount up. They also help create the climate for governments to act.

I've mentioned before helping to fund other countries to change through this website www.carbonfootprint.com/cfpstandard.html

but you can also invest in change here (and possibly get better interest rates on your savings) www.energiseafrica.com/invest/oolu-solar-issue-5-mali-6-bond

and you can plant trees even if you dont have space to do so yourself www.nationalforest.org/get-involved/plant-a-tree
or
www.moortrees.org/

• and encourage your child's school to do so.

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/plant-trees/large-scale-planting/

grow some of your own food - we are going to add pea shoots to our attempts this year - and just cut down on consumption. The idea that you halve everything is a good place to start.

You may be right that ipcc sticks with the easier to assess and less emotive facts. Sometimes you need to dig and tie multiple bits of information together

You mean exaggerate things. The IPCC AR5 is sobering enough without saying millions will die. It’s just not supported by the report. Also Scientific America is not a journal but a popular magazine.

All new builds properties should have solar panels / solar heaters

If there is one thing people should know it’s that solar panels take an immense amount of energy to produce and involve a lot of mining, a fossil fuel intensive activity. They have a 25 year life cycle, so will need to be continuously replaced. They cannot be placed in landfills due to their toxicity. This will be a problem in the future (don’t worry though, I’m sure we can ship them to a third-world country for reprocessing ie dumped).

Solar panels are not a good energy solution and should definitely not be mandated.

Here’s a grim tidbit: China has already seen a backlash. Panel manufacturer Jinko Solar, for example, has faced protests and legal action since one of its plants, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, was accused of dumping toxic waste into a nearby river

www.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking

Of course, I think supporting nuclear is the way to go, plenty of carbon neutral energy without having to lower our living standards. Should be a no-brainer

@MangoFeverDream

i'm happy to now debate HOW we do this. This is where we should be

disagree nuclear is a no-brainer and to discount solar. for example there's been quite a few advances on solar since the 2014 article and ability to recycle. As in - it's a solvable problem and probably also a business opportunity -> www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling

nuclear has other issues (i mean, speaking of toxic waste) ! not to mention is enormously capital expensive. But currently is a key part of carbon neutral electricity.

the truth is we will need all types of technology across all systems..the debate will soon move to things like hydrogen..

nb @alreadytaken all new builds have to be 'passive' as of this year, for example. under EU legislation (so the kind of thing to keep watch on with the new UK govt..)

i'm happy to now debate HOW we do this. This is where we should be

Activists (not scientists) have exaggerated the scale of the problem and are unhelpful imo. See this thread where people think cutting back on flying is going to do anything ....

We have to push back on it. While also finding sensible solutions that don’t compromise our standard of living.

Mango what would your top solutions be?

@MangoFeverDream

I dont' see how you can read the IPCC SR15 and conclude this. the challenge is massive and the implications of going from 1.5 degrees to 2 are enormous (ie it's the difference between having coral reefs and all of them dying, scale of crop failures and flooding, likelihood of carbon feedbacks etc)

all sectors need to move to net zero - in some regions by 2050 and others 10 or so years later.

flying amongst others needs to also be part of this (2% is still a large amount of carbon)

I'm old enough that I didn't grow up flying, couldn't afford it when I was in my 20s, so only had a short part of life when flying regularly was normal. I reduced my flying intentionally about 15 years ago. Don't fly for work (because the events I'd fly to are optional though career-enhancing), rarely do it for holidays. I'm pretty resentful of those richer folk who are jetting round the world every holiday, giving their kids 'experiences' tbh. There's other ways to achieve quality of life.