to suggest that people who moan about flying and its impact on the environment should have their passports stamped?

[twirlymum]

Seriously.
It just winds me up when people whinge about the effect it has on climate change, then go on several holidays/fly on business etc.
If they felt that strongly about it they should stay here, or find another way to travel. They should have their passports stamped so they cannot fly.
The jury is out in this house regarding the whole climate change/natural cycle of the earth heating up & cooling down argument anyway.

[puts flame proof coat on]

People moan about lots of things, doesnt mean that their freedom of speech should have strings attached.

who are these people?

everyone I know who is thoughtful about the effect that air travel has on climate change also chooses not to fly.

but more generally, I think it can be very difficult to live purely according to your values. Holidays by air are obviously dispensable, but (for example) you might well think that food should be eaten close to where it is grown and yet find that you can't afford to do better than Tesco's latest special offer on Australian apples (or whatever).

from the last paragraph and the fact that you call it 'whinging' it seems that you probably don't think that carbon emissions from aircraft are particularly important.

Well, if they are idiots Sienna Miller who FLY around promoting a charity about preventing global warming, then no, YANBU. Definitely not. Same applies to Prince Charles.

Anyway, I have heard from someone who used to work at the UN that we're screwed anyway, all this "switch off you lights and save the planet!" malarky is just PR to make us feel better. I also think it's part of a natural cycle.

I just think it's a bit hypocritical of some people (who I know) to bang on about it, then fly to exotic locations a lot.
I'm just not convinced. There is research that points out that the Earth has been heating up and cooling down for millions of years, and that the human race (a mere blink of an eye in historical terms) are not responsible for all the things we are held accountable for.
Of course we are running out of fossil fuels, and need to change the way we power our way of life, and the amount of waste we produce is truly outrageous, but I think that we are not wholly responsible for global warming.
Aren't we still coming out of the last ice age?

Well, it's bad form to start a thread about another thread but for what it's worth, I'd go further than stamping their passports. I'd actually take their passports away .

Yeah, famished- but with no passports, how will I manage to take the kids overland to Greece next year?

well I think that flying has a huge environmental impact - however I wouldn't stop flying - "other way to travel" to see DH's family would take a long time.

I don't think anyone who has a car for their own personal use has got any business criticising people who fly.

Where's the original thread? It's bad form to start a thread about a thread, and even worse form to not link, so we can form opinions be really nosy

What original thread? I'm talking about people I know in RL? Have I missed something? (again)

'I don't think anyone who has a car for their own personal use has got any business criticising people who fly. '

You'd need a very narrow definition of personal use appertaining only to areas with a sufficiently welldeveloped public transport service- which effectively cuts out the highest mileage car owners IME as they often are rural dwellers. Whilst I accept business use is by people wanting to pay the mortgage, there's a wealth of difference between someone flying to Lanzarote for a fortnight and someone in the Highlands trying to get to a supermarket /place of work / hospital when there is only a weekly bus.

I don't fly, I don't have a passport. I do think people should regard overseas leisure travel as an occasional luxury rather than frequent right, but banning international travel altogether isn'ta relaity- far easier to amrket the moderate than the extreme IMO

just a thought - if you stamped their passports or took them away - how could they use the "other means" of travelling.

You know it's a long way by ship to Australia or Southern Africa or overseas to China

And I guess it depends on how you define occasional luxury. We live in a worldwide society, is someone visiting their family "back home" a luxury and if so - how often can be deemed "necessary"?

I know, I know, it's totally unrealistic, I'm just cheesed off with hypocritical people. (In RL, not here, before I get flamed!)
I'd forgotten about Sienna Miller too!

alwayslooking TBH i dont think visiting family is a luxury- I think that is important. To me an occasional luxury is a trip abroad on a pure hol every five years instead of every six months (amend to suit).

My bloody annoying beloved sister is always on about carbon emisions etc. She was always flying off on exotic hols every easter and summer holidays. Then she came over all green and decided not to fly anymore and take British breaks instead. Two weeks in a damp, leaking, overprived holiday cottage in Wales, stuck inside or at soft play centres as it would not stop raining, with three kids under 6 who would not stop whinging soon put a stop to that though.

Oh, and it's not called global warming anymore, it is called 'climate change' as some scientists have worked out the world is getting colder. Al Gore made it all up to wrangle carbon taxes out of citizens, doncha know. There is big mone to be made for goverments out of climate change hysteria.

twirlymum yes, it was thought that we were still emerging from an ice age, but recently, research as shown that we may infact be going into another ice age. Some glaciers are infact showing signs of advancing (I will have to google if you want to know which, cannot remeber off the top of my head).

Gosh, appaling typing. Must try harder.

I'm really surprised that people think the human role in climate change is still a matter of debate.

I do agree that it is too late to do anything about it though, so what people think about it doesn't really matter anymore I suppose.

I think you are not unreasonable to be irked by blatant double standards and sanctimony.

But MillyR, do you believe it 100%?
Do you not agree that the planet has been cooling down and heating up for millions of years?

I don't believe in it 100% because it is not my area of research. I don't believe 100% in the theory of gravity because it is not my area of research.

But I work in a related area (to climate change) and I wouldn't question something that the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant fields in all the countries in the world claimed they had good evidence for. I can understand why a scientist who worked in the field might have some opposing evidence and disagree, but why the general public would disagree, I don't know. I mean, do non-specialist people sit around and read hundreds of research papers to come to an informed decision? I haven't the time, so I have to take the IPCC's word on trust.

I do find it interesting that people have a desire to see both sides, even when their isn't really two sides, like the 911 conspiracy.

I just have a problem with something that can't really be proved, and that I should believe it 100% because the state tells me so.

Yes, I agree that it is problematic. It applies to many issues; because we live in such a complex society we are having to take on trust huge amounts of judgements about technology, medicine, economic developments etc. I think that is why we should get as many people as possible to have some higher education. We need people to be educated so that they can assess what the state is doing.

Agreed

It's not the state telling you though, twirlymum, it's the world's scientific community.

I would agree though that all this "if we all just rally round and turn our TVs off standby we can save the planet" is an infuriating and futile distraction.

We are but a blink of an eye in the worlds history.