Greta Thunberg

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I know, but how can we do it? That's the issue. If I was only allowed one return flight per year (or max 2000 km round-trip), I'd have to seriously consider ditching seeing family and friends for a flight to Bristol for Glasto... oh the dilemma...?

If you're allowed one flight a year then the whole world is - and that's a massive increase in air travel, the opposite of an improvement to the climate problem.

So really, you already know how you can do it. You just don't want to.

And that's the problem. Not just you of course, everyone. They don't want to give up what they've become used to having.

(I made a choice to not fly over a decade ago so this particular one isn't a biggie for me [until I want to break my ban  ], but I don't doubt I have other ways I impact in a way that you perhaps don't).

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

If you're allowed one flight a year then the whole world is - and that's a massive increase in air travel, the opposite of an improvement to the climate problem.

So really, you already know how you can do it. You just don't want to.

And that's the problem. Not just you of course, everyone. They don't want to give up what they've become used to having.

(I made a choice to not fly over a decade ago so this particular one isn't a biggie for me [until I want to break my ban  ], but I don't doubt I have other ways I impact in a way that you perhaps don't).

But that's half the problem. Why is an artist allowed to fly to the UK to entertain people and then the masses aren't allowed to fly, it's kind of unworkable as a concept, because of the huge unfairness of it all. That's why I try to live as carbon negative lifestyle as possible, and hope that one day soon, we're all going to be flying around in helium balloons that travel faster than light

[maelzoid]

I definitely think technology will play a big role in dealing with the carbon situation, but we also need to change our behavior.

However, I think the pace of technological development could be greatly increased. At the moment it seems that only private ventures and small govt funded initiatives are happening. We need something akin to the Manhattan project - a massive, coordinated, internationally-funded and ultimately public-domain scheme that attacks the problem hard. Fusion energy, and carbon capture seem like obvious targets, but we also need better batteries (electric planes become possible), developing food beyond farming and dealing with water scarcity.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Why is an artist allowed to fly to the UK to entertain people and then the masses aren't allowed to fly, it's kind of unworkable as a concept, because of the huge unfairness of it all.

Get used to "the unfairness of it all". Some people are going to have a more justifiable reason to fly than you or I.

Whether or not bands would be included in that we'll have to see, but I reckon flying for a greater-than-just-me-reason will always trump flying for personal pleasure.

[Avalon_Fields]

Too much is made of the emissions due to air travel, I believe currently 2% of the total (But due to rise further). If everyone stopped flying today it would hardly improve matters to any real extent. Steel making is 7% so we should drastically reduce this (Stop building high rise, ships, etc), domestic heating (Requires huge investment to change millions of homes away from gas), these giant cargo ships and oil tankers are hugely polluting (So stop much world trade, stop importing/exporting foodstuffs around the world), stop driving fossil fuel vehicles (Huge investment required, or we stop having private vehicles in the main). 

All this, and more, may well be the only way. Of course would mean huge job losses worldwide. Tough call for leaders to make. 

Only positive is that it makes whatever outcome Brexit has to be of minuscule importance!! 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Get used to "the unfairness of it all". Some people are going to have a more justifiable reason to fly than you or I.

Whether or not bands would be included in that we'll have to see, but I reckon flying for a greater-than-just-me-reason will always trump flying for personal pleasure.

Personal pleasure for me would include seeing your favourite band live, when you could just sit and listen to them at home. Surely, a person seeing their friends and family would trump somebody seeing the Killers for an hour and a half. The system of allowing an elite class to fly around would cause even more unrest, more inequality and more hierarchies of people.

Heck, if Robbie effing Williams is allowed to fly around the world to his hearts content because some under-sexed midwives want to feel saucy for an evening, then I'm allowed to fly around as much as I want, it's that simple. It's just not a feasible solution, hence why I hope for technology to progress quickly as possible. If they can produce the enzymes to break down plastic at ten times the speed, then hopefully in another twenty years it'll be 100 times the speed and we'll start to see big changes happening for the better

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Surely, a person seeing their friends and family would trump somebody seeing the Killers for an hour and a half.

I can't see how, logically.

You would be one flight seat to see (say) 8 people. The Killers would be 4(?) flight seats to see (say) 80,000 people.

If my maths is right and assuming flying miles are the same, that makes their visit to some people about 20,000 times more efficient than your own.

 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

The system of allowing an elite class to fly around would cause even more unrest, more inequality and more hierarchies of people.

Hopefully us humans will be smart enough to make it not "an elite class" but instead "a beneficial to us" class.

If we approach things in a "they can so I should be allowed to too" way, I reckon we're fucked.  

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

if Robbie effing Williams is allowed to fly around the world to his hearts content because some under-sexed midwives want to feel saucy for an evening, then I'm allowed to fly around as much as I want, it's that simple. It's just not a feasible solution

Robbie Williams flying and not you is things starting to move towards a feasible solution.

If you insist on flying too, there is no feasible solution - because everyone else will also insist on flying and that is very definitely unsustainable.

These are the ideas we need to start getting our head around, rather than doing nothing and hoping technology will save us

Technology might not save us, remember! There is currently no feasible 'sustainable' way of mass long distance travel, and there might not ever be.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Robbie Williams flying and not you is things starting to move towards a feasible solution.

If you insist on flying too, there is no feasible solution - because everyone else will also insist on flying and that is very definitely unsustainable.

These are the ideas we need to start getting our head around, rather than doing nothing and hoping technology will save us

Technology might not save us, remember! There is currently no feasible 'sustainable' way of mass long distance travel, and there might not ever be.

From all the tech progress made in those articles (and there's tonnes more out therre) I'm putting my chips on that saving us, rather than social engineering and the creation of an elite. The latter has never worked well, no matter how good the intention has been. How would artists be chosen for such a scheme? Do they have to have over a million fans on Spotify? Or can any bloke with a guitar get a ticket to wherever he likes on the basis that at least two people at his destination wants him to play there, which would result in the negative emissions. It'd be utter chaos and would raise far too many additional questions, and be abused regularly.

It's tech and the encouragement of people not to be greedy, rather than taking away rights of citizens, that will lead us into a new world. The latter has already begun to happen, more people than ever are going green, eating organic/bio food, going vegetarian. More can be done, I agree with you, but I just don't know if taking rights away from people would do much other than make people revolt. 

Anyway, glad we could bounce ideas off each other

[stuartbert two hats]

2 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I know, but how can we do it? That's the issue. If I was only allowed one return flight per year (or max 2000 km round-trip), I'd have to seriously consider ditching seeing family and friends for a flight to Bristol for Glasto... oh the dilemma...?

You've got me curious now - how often do you fly?  If you think one a year is a stingy limit and you fly "seldom", I'm really curious on how often you think seldom is.  I would have thought "seldom" flights would be fewer than one a year.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

the creation of an elite.

there's already an elite. There will always be an elite. This is merely an instance where you've had some of what the elite were getting before you were, and you dislike it being taken away again.

My bruv works on a superyacht. Should we all be having one of them too?  

10 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

How would artists be chosen for such a scheme?

hey, I didn't say bands would be included in any can-fly list, merely that flying for a more-than-just-me purpose is more justifiable than flying just for me - because that's a true thing.

There's three possibilities going forwards. No one flies, we all fly, or just-some fly. I don't see the first two happening; I reckon the world will end up with the third.

So they'll be some rules of some sort to say who can and can't. And if us Joe Publics don't engage with the idea, guess who's going to set the rules to their own advantage and not to the world's advantage?  

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

taking away rights of citizens

you don't have a right to fly, you merely have the opportunity to fly.

[Smeble]

Presumably it would have to be the weekend, or am I naive in thinking she actually goes to school anymore?

plus surely something with the ecological  impact of Glastonbury won’t interest her?

Edited September 26, 2019 by Smeble

[Pinhead]

22 hours ago, stuie said:

 

 

We’re definitely past that point already. 

And we’re not changing anywhere near fast enough. 

News like this just makes you realise we are fucked: 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/beijing-daxing-international-airport-opens-world-largest-china-a9120306.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569437416

Agreed. Perhaps then its the case that the right sort of people have to be affected. Not those relatively cushioned by wealth and technology.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You've got me curious now - how often do you fly?  If you think one a year is a stingy limit and you fly "seldom", I'm really curious on how often you think seldom is.  I would have thought "seldom" flights would be fewer than one a year.

Prob about once a year, usually Berlin to Stansted.

 

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

you don't have a right to fly, you merely have the opportunity to fly.

But I have the right to take a flight if I want. Nobody can refuse my right to fly currently, but you would take that away... in a perfect world...

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

there's already an elite. There will always be an elite. This is merely an instance where you've had some of what the elite were getting before you were, and you dislike it being taken away again.

My bruv works on a superyacht. Should we all be having one of them too?  

I would love a superyacht, but I can't afford it. Yes, there's already an elite, I agree, some people have a lifestyle that most wouldn't be able to afford, but the gap between me and a billionaire, say, Roman Abramovich who can afford a SY, is monumental, compared to today when almost anyone can fly, apart from the hugely impoverished - but the chance of them working their way up to one day affording a flight is still a fat chance higher than me affording a superyacht in my backgarden. 

Anyway, as I think @Avalon_Fields said, too much is made of the aviation industry. I was surprised to see it here anyway - https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html but at just 2%, you could reverse your decision not to fly and still not really make a difference. As I don't have a car, but flying once a year, my carbon footprint is prob dramatically lower than someone who drives everyday to work.

[Slugworth]

Anyone that can see CO2 in the air has my backing. That's headliner worthy

[Sasperella]

1 hour ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Prob about once a year, usually Berlin to Stansted.

 

 

But I have the right to take a flight if I want. Nobody can refuse my right to fly currently, but you would take that away... in a perfect world...

 

I would love a superyacht, but I can't afford it. Yes, there's already an elite, I agree, some people have a lifestyle that most wouldn't be able to afford, but the gap between me and a billionaire, say, Roman Abramovich who can afford a SY, is monumental, compared to today when almost anyone can fly, apart from the hugely impoverished - but the chance of them working their way up to one day affording a flight is still a fat chance higher than me affording a superyacht in my backgarden. 

Anyway, as I think @Avalon_Fields said, too much is made of the aviation industry. I was surprised to see it here anyway - https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html but at just 2%, you could reverse your decision not to fly and still not really make a difference. As I don't have a car, but flying once a year, my carbon footprint is prob dramatically lower than someone who drives everyday to work.

Sorry to butt in, but.... I see the point that air travel emissions in total don't contribute as much as, say, car travel to overall global emissions, but that's because the overwhelming majority of the world's population never fly anywhere, and there's a whole load more who fly less than once a year and then only on relatively short flights (e.g, UK to Spain). I think it's a bit of a false equivalence, given how many more car journeys are taken globally. However, I have no alternative data to show you, such as how many car journeys equate to one London - Germany flight....but just worry that that 2% claim can be used to mask a lot of issues with the aviation industry

And I can't think why any kind of elite power might want to mask the problems with air travel.....

(A caveat: I've flown a fuck load more than even the average British person as I lived in Asia/Africa/South America for the majority of the last 9 years. I have however never owned a car, but sadly I don't think it balances out. So I'm not trying to be self-righteous in the above! It's more that it's been bothering me a lot recently but I don't find so much comfort in stats which play down the impact of aviation)

[Rumblestripe]

Last year, my son was living in London and stayed with us over Christmas. It was cheaper for him to fly from Newcastle to Malta, Malta to Madrid then Madrid to Heathrow than it was to get the train to Kings Cross. He even had enough to pay for a hotel in Malta and spend three nights there.

Right there is what is wrong with transport in this country/europe. This isn't even unusual I know a few people who fly because it is cheaper than the train within the UK. Yet which is more damaging

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I would love a superyacht, but I can't afford it. Yes, there's already an elite, I agree, some people have a lifestyle that most wouldn't be able to afford, but the gap between me and a billionaire, say, Roman Abramovich who can afford a SY, is monumental, compared to today when almost anyone can fly, apart from the hugely impoverished - but the chance of them working their way up to one day affording a flight is still a fat chance higher than me affording a superyacht in my backgarden. 

you can't afford a superyacht so you don't have one.

The cost of flying can be changed to reflect its true costs. I wonder if your acceptance of "I can't afford it" would hold?

 

11 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

As I don't have a car, but flying once a year, my carbon footprint is prob dramatically lower than someone who drives everyday to work.

yay, I'm better than others so I don't have to do anything more.  

These are the very problems we need to overcome else we're going nowhere.  

[clarkete]

15 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Anyway, as I think @Avalon_Fields said, too much is made of the aviation industry. I was surprised to see it here anyway - https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html but at just 2%, you could reverse your decision not to fly and still not really make a difference. As I don't have a car, but flying once a year, my carbon footprint is prob dramatically lower than someone who drives everyday to work.

The reason so much is made of the airline industry is because of the rate of increase...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/19/airlines-co2-emissions-rising-up-to-70-faster-than-predicted

[Rufus Gwertigan]

22 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If you're allowed one flight a year then the whole world is - and that's a massive increase in air travel, the opposite of an improvement to the climate problem.

So really, you already know how you can do it. You just don't want to.

And that's the problem. Not just you of course, everyone. They don't want to give up what they've become used to having.

(I made a choice to not fly over a decade ago so this particular one isn't a biggie for me [until I want to break my ban  ], but I don't doubt I have other ways I impact in a way that you perhaps don't).

I made a similar choice years back. When travelling the country it was often cheaper to fly but I stuck with train or lift share. 

This is bitting me in the bum though. My brother is in the States and has offered to pay my passage to visit him. I haven't seen him for 25 years so I am tempted. We can get cheap flights with a stop over in Iceland which I really like the idea of but my green credentials say no. The only other viable option is taking a cabin on a freight ship. 100 quid a night for the trip but I am chronically sea sick ? His wife and in laws are Mormons so it's not like I can enjoy a drink after a trip. Oh, first world problems. 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

you can't afford a superyacht so you don't have one.

The cost of flying can be changed to reflect its true costs. I wonder if your acceptance of "I can't afford it" would hold?

 

yay, I'm better than others so I don't have to do anything more.  

These are the very problems we need to overcome else we're going nowhere.  

Haha, you are the one who started with the holier than thou crap, not me. Mine was a simple statement - which you admitted you strawmanned into something I didn't mean - about remaining positive in amongst all the doom-mongering. 

Also, if I did happen to make some money, or won the lottery, I would still have the right to buy a super-yacht. Taking away people's rights to buy a product, while others are allowed to in the law, not just because of economic circumstances is really something out of the Soviet Union, "do as we say, not as we do" mentality.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

19 hours ago, Sasperella said:

Sorry to butt in, but.... I see the point that air travel emissions in total don't contribute as much as, say, car travel to overall global emissions, but that's because the overwhelming majority of the world's population never fly anywhere, and there's a whole load more who fly less than once a year and then only on relatively short flights (e.g, UK to Spain). I think it's a bit of a false equivalence, given how many more car journeys are taken globally. However, I have no alternative data to show you, such as how many car journeys equate to one London - Germany flight....but just worry that that 2% claim can be used to mask a lot of issues with the aviation industry

And I can't think why any kind of elite power might want to mask the problems with air travel.....

(A caveat: I've flown a fuck load more than even the average British person as I lived in Asia/Africa/South America for the majority of the last 9 years. I have however never owned a car, but sadly I don't think it balances out. So I'm not trying to be self-righteous in the above! It's more that it's been bothering me a lot recently but I don't find so much comfort in stats which play down the impact of aviation)

Well, again I'm not so sure, the vast majority of people in the world don't own a car either. Motorbikes are king in large parts of Asia and India/China are relatively untapped, despite the cities being jammed already. Plus much of Africa is carless, as well as large parts of the Middle East and South America. I couldn't imagine a world where flights would ever overtake car use, because of the use of cars daily compared to ppl flying.

 

And I can't think why any kind of elite power might want to mask the problems with cars.....

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Haha, you are the one who started with the holier than thou crap, not me. Mine was a simple statement - which you admitted you strawmanned into something I didn't mean - about remaining positive in amongst all the doom-mongering. 

Like i say, i'm not trying to be personal, i'm trying to highlight why nothing much is happening to address climate change - and you did (basically) say that you wouldn't do more until others were doing as well as you. And i'm not having a pop, i understand why you feel like that.

But it is just another version of the often heard "the UK's emissions are tiny compared to China's/India's, there's no point us doing more until they are". 

Us humans deflect it away, and fuck all happens because of it. We need to try and at least take responsibility for ourselves, and perhaps that idea will spread.
 

14 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

Also, if I did happen to make some money, or won the lottery, I would still have the right to buy a super-yacht. Taking away people's rights to buy a product, while others are allowed to in the law, not just because of economic circumstances is really something out of the Soviet Union, "do as we say, not as we do" mentality.

You do not have a "right" to any product or service. The only things you have as rights are the things which are properly defined as rights.

There's all sorts of things you're already banned from buying because your access to them is deemed detrimental to society - guns, drugs, poisons, etc, etc, etc. And yet some people have the ability to access and purchase those things that you don't.

Why couldn't flying also be added to that list? There would be nothing Soviet Union about it.

But also, as another way, the price could be changed via taxation to beyond your means, just as flying would have (probably) been beyond your means 40-50 years ago. If that happened would you take the same relaxed attitude towards it as you have towards a superyacht? 

Like i say, i'm not trying to claim perfection by any means and I guess what i'm saying makes me a hypocrite ... but I am trying to face up to it, and not find excuses to bat it away.