Promoting flying

[MotherOfCatBoy]

I appreciate I’m probably in a minority here, but wanted to speak up anyway.

Im prompted by the TUI thread and lots of TUI ads. I think it’s wrong to continue to promote flying when lots of data indicate the climate crisis is getting rapidly worse: sea temperature anomalies, record breaking temperatures, wildfires and floods in many parts of the world. Scientists agree these extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, exacerbated by greenhouse gases. Air travel is one of the most polluting forms of transport. Given that most of us here have children and would like to live in a stable climate in the future, how can Mumsnet HQ square our common desire for our children to have a good life, and promoting flying?

We have stopped flying. I did fly before in my life so I appreciate I have had the benefit and may come across as hypocritical. However it was the 2019 Australian wildfires that prompted a conversation at home and we decided we wouldn’t fly again - which I think is better than ignoring the problem altogether. We have looked at the data and changed our behaviour.

(Globally it’s the rich who fly - I am totally against private jets, frequent flying is wrong, I think flying for leisure is increasingly problematic and perhaps only flying to see distant family is OK)

Could Mumsnet perhaps promote flight free holiday options instead?

(Prepares to get massively criticised…)

I assume they ‘promote’ whoever pays them too.

Well I assume many MNers do want to fly.

it’s not illegal to fly. It’s not illegal to advertise holidays. So why should MN refuse the revenue from people wanting to advertise to people who may want their product.

The whole point of MN is that it’s a business.

Many people have reduced the number of flights they take. But that doesn’t mean they will never fly again. People can improve what they do without quitting it all together.

Hi OP

Many thanks for sharing your concerns, and for your feedback.
We're always happy to discuss this sort of thing, so we'll do that in the office.

Fair responses and I appreciate that unless or until some kind of public restrictions were imposed (hard to imagine currently) then lots of people will still fly, of course.
I just think it’s moving closer to being unethical: we know it has bad effects but we still do it. Like smoking before it was banned in public places. Maybe not the best analogy, but, something that is to the common detriment, not the common good.
I don’t want to berate anyone in particular because everyone will have their own reasons and circumstances: it was more to say something about actively advertising it. Again, I suppose smoking would be a comparison. It’s not good, so it shouldn’t be promoted.
i know I’m in a minority but I don’t want to be silent minority.

Thanks @LilyMumsnet

Because some of us won’t be giving up flying and it’s us who are being marketed to.
I see lots of ads that aren’t relevant to me and ignore them.

Mother, I agree 100%, and thank you for bringing it up. I'm viewing MN ad-free, so wouldn't have known.

Of course lots of people still "want to" fly. Doesn't make it any less detrimental to the climate. I find it so tiring that you, OP, have had to pre-empt predictable accusations of privilege and hypocrisy in order to make your point, when the point you are making is entirely congruent with current scientific consensus.

Thanks again.

Advertising exists to create a demand that wasn't there before. It attempts to adjust what people see as normal (eg long haul for a family holiday). I love to travel but find the push towards more frequent and more polluting travel (flights and cruises) is insidious.

Most businesses which carry adverts have guidelines on what they will and won't accept, which are partly informed by ethics so it's not a stupid question.

You would have to add cruises to the "no advert" list since they are even more carbon intensive per passenger km than planes.

I would be fully supportive of this but I doubt it will happen. I don't fly for leisure which is a medium sized inconvenience for me.

I do applaud your initiative. However, the people who holiday once a year with Tui, easyJet, Jet2, etc, are a very small part of the problem. The problem lies with frequent fliers such as politicians, footballers, actors, influencers and the likes.

Wasn't it revealed not long ago that one of the Kardashians flew constantly on flights that lasted 10 min long? Emma Thomson was literally asked, "Did you fly here?" during a climate protest and the answer was yes.

I'm safe in the knowledge that my once a year holiday in the sun is a microscopic thing in a vast scenario of ppl behaving abhorrently. 🤷🏻‍♀️

But most things in modern life have an effect on the climate. Cars, new clothes, new kitchens, Temu ads for crap flown across the world to feed our insatiable hunger for more stuff. In fact just about everything we buy that is above subsistence living.

Having children is another

Yes, lots of things have an impact. We could say “What about..:??” all day long.
But ultimately we have to understand that it is possible to measure impact, and some things are worse than others.
I have lots of sympathy for people taking one family holiday a year. Lots of people fly at least twice a year. Certainly the billionaires are worse.
However part of the reason I started the thread was to object to advertising, which increases demand; and to suggest that effort might be out towards flight free advertising instead. Plenty of fantastic family holidays can be had here or abroad by car, coach or train. Even a few fewer flights is better. Reducing is a good thing.

I like holidays and take them as often as possible, we always fly and I'm not even sorry tbh. It's our favourite family time.

I like TUI, they're pretty decent.

Plenty of fantastic family holidays can be had here or abroad by car, coach or train.

We do have some UK holidays, but living in Scotland it takes a painfully long time to go abroad unless you fly.

I'm sounding here as though I'm not concerned about the climate - don't get me wrong, I really am, and I know flying is a contributor. It's just that so many things are contributors and I'm not sure you can really draw a line when it comes to advertising.

Fair enough that must be a challenge @DuesToTheDirt

I’m not here to have a go at individuals.
id rather advocate for systemic and corporate change. Some things have come under advertising bans in the past because society agrees they should not be promoted; that implies we can make a judgement sometimes about commercial products that cause public harm.

There should be more flight free options, more boat and train routes, more subsidies for public transport (like trains in Europe).

For instance, I’d love to go to Majorca by boat. Ferry Portsmouth to Bilbao, drive to Barcelona, ferry to Palma - we haven’t done it but it would be a fun journey. Loads of Europe is accessible like that. We’ve just been conditioned that cheap flights are the standard way.

Yeah, getting a bit off the advertising topic now but I was just looking at a thread on holidays, and someone was quoting over 800 to take a car on a ferry to the continent. It's really not a cheap option. As for trains, certainly in this country, it can be cheaper to drive than to take a train, even for one person. For a whole family the cost difference is ridiculous.

I'd like to see wholesale change coming from the top, in transport and many other areas - relying on individuals to make climate-friendly choices is not enough.

If you have children, you’re a hypocrite.

Travel is good for children and families, as you clearly recognise with your hopes of Majorca by ferry. You’re kidding yourself if you think you’d be doing right by the planet by going by ferry because it’s much worse than flying. More ferry travel is a terrible change to advocate for.

https://travelandclimate.org/train-car-or-plane#:~:text=Unfortunately%2C%20ferries%20generate%20high%20emissions,emissions%20than%20a%20regular%20ferry.

I'm not stopping flying for the sake of your children.

I don't have any children and if you cared about the environment nor would you have had any.

Doesn't matter if they advertise or not if I want to book a holiday I'll book one and no advertisement influences that either way.

Bizarrely I've done that exact journey but went further, onto Ibiza and then across to Menorca.

Never, ever again. It wasn't fun for anyone. The bit between the islands was okay although stunk of fuel but not the rest of the journey. I have no idea if ferries are worse than planes but I wouldn't do it again if someone paid me.

Plenty of fantastic family holidays can be had here or abroad by car, coach or train.

Car travel is far, far worse than plane travel. For one single holiday, sure, it's arguably less environmentally damaging to drive from Edinburgh to the Highlands than to fly from Edinburgh to Malaga. Trouble is, once travel by private car is normalized, people will begin using it for everything - taking the children to school, driving to and from the office, even going to the pub! What's going to happen to the environment then?

https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

In most studies ferries come out lower than planes. I can see it depends on the age, speed and fuel type of ferry, but this report has recently been updated and unless you’re on a fast ferry it will usually be better than flying.

I have one child. That is below replacement rate and below average.

I think asking people to think twice about flying is asking to think twice about something relatively luxurious. I am not asking people to think twice about having any children at all - that is a far bigger sacrifice to make. That does not make me a hypocrite.

This is because they've allocated emissions by monetary value / fare class which is a strange approach IMO. In contrast Our World in Data calculates foot passenger ferry emissions at 19g per passenger km which makes it lower carbon than most other modes except electric train. While I think that 19g seems very low, scheduled ferry services are a social good to the communities they serve, and foot passengers make very little difference to fuel economy of the vessel.