To be pissed off at people who constantly say we need to fly less?

[lockdowncockdown]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but here goes. Am I being unreasonable to be annoyed by the people who constantly say 'well, we need to fly less anyway'. Well, yes that's ok for you to say at 40/50 years old after you've spent the last 20 years flying all over the world and brandishing yourself as ' well travelled' and cultured. What about those of us in our early twenties like me who has been abroad four times in my whole life, not even to anywhere particularly exciting and I'm just about to finish university and was hoping to finally be able to travel a bit? It's ok to spout nonsense about flying less when you've been lucky and already had your experiences but I find it very hypocritical to want to deny others the same experiences that you were lucky enough to have.

Fly all you want but the tipping point is coming. When the Maldives and Seychelles are under 2ft of water and the ice caps are finished you can regret it all then. Good chance I will be gone but those in their teens/20s now are the ones who have to inherit it all so the less they do now, the easier it may be in 30 yrs

I’m 59 and I’ve never flown. Never been out of the UK.
Why do you think it’s only the over 40’s who think we should fly less?
I know a number of environmentally aware people under 40.
To be honest there’s probably enough resources for my lifetime but big changes need to happen for them to last yours.

As for the effects on other countries livelihoods - you do know what the effects of climate change will be on those countries, right?? Human populations around the world will be decimated if sea levels rise: land areas will be restricted and food production capability will suffer

Climate change is happening no matter what; there’s no way we can change our lifestyles enough to prevent it, as this lockdown reduced carbon emissions by maybe 8%? People are suffering already.

It’s not happening, so best thing we can do is make poorer countries richer by supporting their tourist industry and helping the business community set up factories, etc to grow wealth.

Then they will be able to deal with the effects of climate change as well as any developed country.

Impoverishing them will make it much harder to deal with the effects of climate change.

The pro-flyers keep saying that "the entire aviation industry only accounts for 2-3% of all emissions anyway so stop being kill joys" but I'm just really curious as to where that statistic comes from as it just doesn't stack up. Thousands and thousands of planes all over the world constantly taking off and landing all day, every day and... three per cent? Come on!

When 9/11 happened and flights were drastically reduced for a short period afterwards, scientists noticed a significant drop in carbon emissions almost immediately.

How will they be able to ‘deal with’ climate change by giving them money??

They can’t eat food that can’t be grown because some land is under water and the rest is desert. They can’t magic up land to live on no matter how much money you give them. There is not a magic financial fix to this any more than there is a magic technological fix.

Go and ask the Netherlanders. They will have to move the entire population of their country somewhere if sea levels rise in the metres. Where to? Where will our own coastal town populations move to? Where will our food production move to?

This is not a fight we can afford to give up on. The age of globalism is over. It has to be.

Incidentally the Netherlands is also an agricultural exporter at the moment.

the entire aviation industry, including freight, is only 2-3% total global emissions
So twice the collective emissions of the entire UK. No small figure then.

Thousands and thousands of planes all over the world constantly taking off and landing all day, every day and... three per cent? Come on!

Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong. Look it up, aviation is a drop in the bucket. You get rid of the entire industry and carbon emissions would hardly drop.

You just don’t understand the scale of carbon emissions if you think flights are a problem.

They can’t eat food that can’t be grown because some land is under water and the rest is desert

Desertification isn’t a feature of carbon emissions per say, it’s more a result of poor land use due to bad farming and animal husbandry practices. It stands to reason that the wealthier a society, the more they can mitigate harmful effects.

After all, we still do land reclamation projects in the developed world, no reason why this technology can’t be employed in places like the Maldives. But they need the money and resources to do it, to which they currently have uncertain access.

Personally, I am more in favour of building the wealth and resources to tackle the effects of climate change since there’s no going back. The general misery of the lockdown (and the disappointingly small reduction in emissions despite big sacrifices) has only confirmed this for me.

the entire aviation industry, including freight, is only 2-3% total global emissions

So twice the collective emissions of the entire UK. No small figure then

Actually, it’s tiny. It also shows that the UK could revert to the Stone Age and climate change would still happen. Nothing you do matters.

@MangoFeverDream Compared to some things yes airflights are a drop in the ocean. Thing is it is the easier and less harmful solution compared to saying we are adopting a one child policy and everyone going vegetarian

Compared to some things yes airflights are a drop in the ocean. Thing is it is the easier and less harmful solution compared to saying we are adopting a one child policy and everyone going vegetarian

Pushing governments into turning from coal and such to greener energy would make the difference. And maybe more education about contraception... But the former should be on everyone's agenda

A luxury that can be removed easily, in other words.

Land reclamation? The Dutch are the experts. And their experts are saying that the limit has been reached and they need to talk to Germany about evacuating there. ‘Poor land management practices’? Yes, like allowing the world’s climate patterns to shift. Better start praying to the Atlantic Ocean currents.

My understanding of the Maldives is limited as it is on the other side of the world and I have never been, but what sort of land reclamation were you thinking of if the Dutch are being forced to abandon their polders in the relatively shallow North Sea? How deep is the ocean around? Half of their trouble I believe is that sea water is contaminating their fresh water?

Info on the Dutch issues:
www.vn.nl/rising-sea-levels-netherlands/

www.uu.nl/en/news/the-question-is-not-if-the-netherlands-will-disappear-below-sea-level-but-when

Climate Change is just so nebulous a theory. When people are freezing in Winter and dying of the heat in Summer (now and then), not many can really engage with it. It was ever thus. Some will, but not many.

And therefore many just don't or won't care.

Anyway... hell will freeze over (climate change again lol) before I subject myself to a five hour wait in an airport with a mask, then a test, social distancing in the Q, and squashed on a plane which negates all that.

Then similar on return. That is not taking into account possible quarantine at either end. God...

Sorry but I find OP attitude terrible. There are people who are poor and live in countries where they don’t even have the opportunity to travel 100 miles from their homes in their lifetimes let alone swan around the world junking it up with their CO2

The Netherlands may have exploited most of their options already, but this isn’t the case for the Global South.

After all, the problems in the Netherlands were present before climate change was even a twinkle in the bowels of a steam engine. Weren’t the first dikes built like a 1000 years ago?

I just don’t think any of you are being realistic. Cut flights and emissions won’t go down at all (you still need to ship all that air cargo, which would go to diesel guzzling cargo ships now).

Nothing you do matters.
The world's emissions need to drop by an average of 33%, the UK's bit of that is 50%. Stop excessive flying and you knock a couple of points off. Switch from petrol/diesel cars/buses to bicycles and electric trains/trams and that's some more knocked off the tally. Reduce the electronics you import, that's a bit more. Change your diet and there goes another chunk. Suddenly it's achievable.

Do you have any children? I hope not because it's going to be an awful life for them to live if nothing changes.

I just don’t think any of you are being realistic. Cut flights and emissions won’t go down at all (you still need to ship all that air cargo, which would go to diesel guzzling cargo ships now).
The emissions produced by that container going on a cargo ship are - guess what - 2-3% of the emissions of sending it on an aeroplane. How would you describe that "2-3%" @MangoFeverDream, would you say that it is a "drop in the ocean"?

The world's emissions need to drop by an average of 33%, the UK's bit of that is 50%

The UK’s share of global emissions is just over 1 percent so not sure how that’s possible?

The emissions produced by that container going on a cargo ship are - guess what - 2-3% of the emissions of sending it on an aeroplane. How would you describe that "2-3%" @MangoFeverDream, would you say that it is a "drop in the ocean"?

Yes, but that’s only calculated from port to port? You still need to get it over land, which will almost certainly add to the footprint.

My overall point is that even if you cut air freight, you still need to ship goods somehow.

And if you need to ship those items faster than a cargo ship can manage, might as well add some passengers in for extra money.

Obviously less flying would be good, but there are a lot of sacrifices that many people just aren't willing to make (eating considerably less meat, having smaller families, not having pets cats/dogs).

It's a bit disingenuous to focus criticism on frequent fliers.

I agree OP, while ive never been overseas but its easier to catch a plane round Aus. Cheaper too, probably even still after corona to get people flying again. I do many online surveys and they seem to be suggesting fare discounts to get people back in air.
I dont and wont feel bad about flying. Truth be told we just waiting for borders to open to head to Qld again

Sorry but I find OP attitude terrible. There are people who are poor and live in countries where they don’t even have the opportunity to travel 100 miles from their homes in their lifetimes let alone swan around the world junking it up with their CO2

Dont get this argument
There many in the world who will never eat 3 meals a day. That dont mean we all forgo 3 meals a day.
Some can never access cancer treatment for instance, would you not get treated just cos they cant?
Some will never afford even a local holiday, so would you not have a local holiday in solidarity?

but there are a lot of sacrifices that many people just aren't willing to make (eating considerably less meat, having smaller families, not having pets cats/dogs).
Yep and i dont feel bad, pets help with our mental health.
I have no desire to eat less meat, no matter how much a vego or vegan diet is pushed, it just isnt appealing to me, i eat for taste and enjoyment.
But i only have 1 kid by choice just not for environmental reasons

The UK’s share of global emissions is just over 1 percent so not sure how that’s possible?
The UK needs to cut 50% of its own emissions. Across the globe, on average countries must cut 33%

Yes, but that’s only calculated from port to port? You still need to get it over land, which will almost certainly add to the footprint.
Now you're being really obtuse, air freight is just as likely to need an overland journey at some point you know.

Most container ports have a rail terminal. Name me just one airport in the UK which can forward goods on by rail?

Amazing people are still demonising an industry responsible for just 2-3% of global emissions. It would do hardly anything to reduce emissions, yet people shriek that we have to stop people flying. What am I to think except you are all a bunch of killjoys?

Now you're being really obtuse, air freight is just as likely to need an overland journey at some point you know

You get much closer to the interior with airplanes. Imagine having to get things shipped to China and having to get them from Tianjin to Chongqing by rail instead of direct to Chongqing. Not everywhere is as small and connected as the UK.

The UK needs to cut 50% of its own emissions. Across the globe, on average countries must cut 33%

So you are saying that the UK needs to cut emissions in half? That doesn’t seem realistic to me.

I think the lockdown will show people just how unrealistic it is. Emissions dropped maybe about a third, which is a lot, but that’s with people mandated to stay home and make big sacrifices. Yet, by your calculation, it’s not enough. And I imagine that it would be a lot harder to keep carbon emissions down during the winter months (when infectious disease usually ramps up).

Flying by plane contributes apparently 2.5% of green house gases

However livestock contributes 14%

So if we all went vegan we could continue to travel as we do then we could save the rain forest and reduce green house gases by 11.5%