Forums > Social Discussion > flying and enviro-hippies

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
*blows raspberry*

im in japan! me no get english jokes anymore!

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Posted: 5th Jan 2007

 Written by: FireTom


We need to speed up recycling and alternative means of energy production NOW! We need to come to a sustainable economy - in every respect!

That's 1 way of looking at it, or we could start the powerdown that we will have to start sooner or later and stop buying things the need recycling and using so much energy.

garthy, you're right that biofuel has those problems, but it also:
1) starts the ball rolling on change. If people start to think about 'going green' with cars then with any luck they will apply the same attitude to everything else they consume.

2) It takes the money away from the petro-chemical companies and in to the hands of farmers (in the cases I've seen, it's been the fields around the town that grow for the biofuel consumed in the town. I'm sure this isn't the case everywhere though.).

You're right about the amount of grain, but there are other way: algae has the highest diesel ROI. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Yields_of_common_crops)
I forget who, but someone has worked out that he can grow all the diesel the US needs from the unused land in deserts etc. The land would be perfect for it and it would be sustainable. the only problem is that you need huge lakes of festering liquid to grow it. We can't expect to see these results in the UK because we don't have enough energy from the sun. Wind is about the best option in our case, but there is enough land worldwide to grow enough for export.

If you are going to take grain yields in to the argument then there is a huge problem. In Lester Brown's 'Who Will Feed China?' points out that once oil runs out - or becomes too expensive - crop yields boosted by oil based fertilisers will fall (at the moment it can take up to 5 to 15 times the energy contained in the food we eat to make it). In turn the amount of grain in the world would be much less, and we're already at the limit needed to feed everyone.

I'm tempted to go on a lot more about this, but it's a bit off topic. In short, it's not all bad, but there will have to be a culture change that moves people away from the city and in to the country so they can take on a lot of the work done by oil at the moment. I think that as result of that people will be less able to travel, therefore solving the problem of growing so much biofuel.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 5th Jan 2007

 Written by: Spanner


Before last year I hadn't been out of the country in a decade.

I would guess that world wide the majority of people never leave the country they were born in.

If that isn't true now, then it has been for most of history and the last 50 years or so are the exception.

I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't have done it - that would be silly - my point is that your 'right' to do so is a very new one that you may not be able to keep.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
Maybe right isn't the, erm, right word.

My point was that going on all over the world is a new thing, only enjoyed by a few people when looked at world wide.

You saying 'if I hadn't been able to book a cheap flight due to fuel taxation or otherwise, I most likely wouldn't have been able to take those 2 journeys' implies to me that you think you should have been able to fly and it's good that the cost was low.

I agree with you that 'more affluent people' will be flying, but I think that you are I are them!

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
well, i live on an island and its cheaper to fly to the mainland than catch the ferry, it also takes about 1/8th of the time.

i travel infrequently, mostly its been to sydney because my dad has to have treatment there, and this year at the moment i'll only be making two flights ( to sydney and back for the juggling convention) if i were to take any alternative transport i wouldnt be able to afford to go.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
So why is it " a bit silly to point out hippy hipocracy" when it comes to flying? Seems to me that those who proudly wear the eco-hippy label would appreciate this effort to educate them on the idea that THEY have to make some serious lifestyle changes in order to meet the reality if the ideals they espouse.

Eco-hippies can even draw inspiration from this thread, and Bluecat's decision to NOT fly, because, after all, this is a thread about principals and commitment and the irony of globetrotting hippies isn't lost on the rest of us,,,we joke about it frequently.

Let's face it, jumping on a plane and flying halfway around the world for what really amounts to giggles and grins is in no way, beneficial to the planet. Sure the individual traveller gets some personal benefits, but on the whole, the planet suffers on their behalf.

Interesting that some people have a sense of a self imposed "eco-awareness" that somehow, if they do the things that we all should be doing, they can award themselves the luxury of flying. Likewise with the comparison to other fossil fuel burning activities, this isn't about that. This is about flying for the sheer fun of going somewhere "exotic" for a holiday,,,nothing more.

It's high time that the eco concious started showing us how it's done, rather than simply beaking off about how much society needs to change in order to "save the planet"

It's about choice really, if I'm expected to swallow the reasoning that flying to Asia for a holiday is justifiable, then I'd expect the eco-hippies to respect my choice to drive a Hummer because I "need" it to bring myself closer to nature.

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
aaaargh so much to respond to but am at work and don't have time... later, i promise...

Holistic Spinner (I hope)

Posted: 5th Jan 2007

 Written by: Spanner


we need to find a viable compromise rather than drastically restrict their movements.

When travelling the cost you pay should reflect not only the cost of the trip but also the cost to the planet and society in general of you making that trip. All travel would be much more expensive, indeed limiting travel those with the means to make it or the will power to suffer for it.

This is how it was before the heady and unsustainable oil days. Sailors took 2 months to cross the atlantic in appauling conditions. Thats the sort of sacrifice people made before and now we demand not only an airplane but one at a reasonable price.

If people really want to travel then nobody can or should stop them, but it might be much much harder.

Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
(incidentally, i'm finding the poll results fascinating, and will write about that too)

Holistic Spinner (I hope)

Posted: 5th Jan 2007

 Written by: the boy g


If people really want to travel then nobody can or should stop them, but it might be much much harder.

I've been reading over the last few weeks about Polynesian sailors who would sail 100s of miles in a tiny canoe. Ok, so in some cases they had to, but it's still something that I am amazed by.

Spanner: I understand now! Sorry, I thought you were saying something different. I do think that the (true) cost of travel is very high no matter what.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
I just saw this on the BBC site:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6233019.stm

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
what if we all took cruises instead of flew?

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
I'd like to see the poll results, but even though I've voted I can't, and I don't want to vote again. Does anyone what to do about that?

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
Stout, I certainly did not mean it was silly to educate people on this issue. Sorry if that is how it read!That is why I posted the web page I did,and mentioned the possibility of carbon offsets- education.



What I meant was that the impact of changing the habits of the eco hippies would be way way less than the impact of changing other more significantly polluting sectors/populations in our society.



As individuals,yes, I think it is very important to consider how you live and be example you want to present.



But I find it interesting, Stout, that you often rail against labels I rarely ever see people place on themselves, then accuse people of not living up to their labels... lol



Do you know anyone that actually calls themselves an enviro- hippy? One that does not make some serious efforts to keep their lifestyle in line with that? I mean they may not succeed all the time, but if they call themselves such a thing I am sure they make more effort than the typical citizen. But I don't even know anyone that really uses such terms to describe the efforts they make for the environment.Most people that I know concerned with the environment do recognize and acknowlege their personal foibiles and fallacies, and work with them, improving as best they can.



And yes, I do believe we need to consider all aspects of ones life and how they balance out. No, I don't think being healthy in one area means you have carte blanc to go crazy irresponsible in another. But choosing where and how you put your energy( no pun intended) is necessary. Where will have the most impact? Where will have the most sustainable effect?





I just think it is actually quite easy to feel all proud of oneself for not flying, it is a fairly simple and concrete action with easily definable benefits. That is the appeal of the movement.



Other areas of environmental change and protection are much more nebulous, require more effort, and harder to evaluate and define. The actions needed politically are much more difficult to become involved in, demanding more commitment and engagement -- but would have the potential for far more important long term effects than any individual green actions.





It is a bit like me feeling all green for not driving my car, and having a fuel efficient car to begin with , and car pooling=-- blah blah blah, but being so inactive in my political structure that I allow our government to set up a new open pit coal mine in one of our untouched watersheds. Or if I grow my own food, but dont involve myself in the decision making processes around what pesticides are permitted for use in my country, where... Seeing trees, not forest.



Does that make sense to anyone else? I mean, I think we should do both, work on personal habits close to home, yes, but also work to change the structures that allow the major source of pollution in our world, influence the social and cultural trends that make such damaging things available and acceptable.



So, who runs the airplane industry? How do you change the pricing structure? How do you make them responsible for the environmental damage created by the service they offer? Who is creating alternatives and how do you support them? How to get the government more involved in environmental issues and regulations?How do we get the power and influence to make the big changes we need to see?



If you do decide to skip a flight, I ask you to write an article about exactly why, how that choice was made, what impact you intend from your action, and post it in your local paper. So it is not just an individual boycott- so it changes the community consciousness too, even a little. Buy some carbon offsets for your car use-- or for your neighbors. Then write to your local political representative, and ask for a discussion regarding their stand on environmental issues and what steps they are taking to support renewable non polluting renewable energy development. Show up at the next rally to stop the open pit mine, and if you are investing, make sure your money goes into a fund that supports your vision...





Whew , all of a sudden, you may just need a holiday somewhere sunny!;)



But I do appreciate Rob, and others, raising the issue in public forums. maybe it will get people involved and active in all sorts of different ways!

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
Ok, maybe I was a little hasty in referring to eco-hippy as a label. I know it's meant more as a stereotype and only part of the mindset of trying to be a good person.

It's really a question of balance. A vote for the environment equals a vote against human needs in both the personal and political sense.

To grossly oversimplify the political. Suppose the government were to allow the opening of the open coal pit mine, and with the proceeds, planned to build a homeless shelter. Now, to me it seems that we have conflict of interests here. Human need vs. the natural world. Which do you choose.? Black or white ? Light grey or dark ? Want or need ?

With the political, an individual acting on their ideology is basically making a choice as to how they want to see the world, and how they want to see society shift toward their views of how things should be, without actually taking what the negative consequences might really be. On a political level, basically you're trying to make decisions that affect other people.

With this thread, though, it's strictly personal. And as somebody who just might be affected by the wants of environmentalists, I really have to question the "You should stop doing what you're doing because it's bad for the planet, while I go out and do what I want to do, even though it's bad for the planet"...attitude.

I'm not saying I'm better than anybody else here because I'm not going anywhere this year,or even trying to imply that I'm not flying for "moral" reasons. Truth is, if I didn't have other commitments, I'd be landing in The Galapagos right about now.

Just doing my part to raise awareness too..

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
Stout, I don't understand the point you're making.

BansheeCat, The airplane industry, like any other, has the laws of supply and demand applied to it. However, I don't think that letting the markets decide what is best is the answer here. The powerdown will require all of our life's to get a bit harder, and for growth to stop. The economy that the businesses are run on requires growth and cannot live without it, so we have to look somewhere other than the markets.

Campaigning governments will do some good, but at the end of the day they will only do what the majority want, so I think that educating people to the problem is the best idea. I have been researching good ways of doing this for he last 6 months, but it is a very hard job.

Sorry if that sounded a bit simple, I've read a LOT on the issue (I think I've read 3 books in the last year and a half that are not to do with it, and I'm reading all the time)...

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
my first swarayyy into social hopping!

carbon tax is on its way.
to me, offsetting carbon is a bit 'not in my backyard' i.e. plant a few trees in india - fly wherever you like - like orlando bloom buying oodles of rainforest to offset his carbon use - we should look at prevention, not cure.
my lecturers at college (eden pj and rosewarne) are saying its looking good for econess by the end of this decade, with a HUGE movement to local production, biofeuls, bioplastics, massive carbon taxes, and big business is picking up the organic banner, partly due to fashion and middle class pressures but mainly to do with what makes the world go round (not the sun) money, its so much cheaper. you guys probably know all this anyway. thought i'd give you my 2p anyways.
i plan to leave these shores for the first time this year, but ethically? could i handle a boat trip to S America???
boats are good by the way, but we can't pollute our oceans, thats where we get our oxygen from!!! (not the rainforest, thats a lie, it uses everything it produces, and quickly))

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
yep! i saw that on tv this morning as well! only it was in japanese so i didnt really have a clue what was going on!

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
Sym, I find I agree with most of your viewpoints, and for some reason, that reassures me!

I think, in Canada at least, the majority of the population has been much more concerned about the environment than the government has reflected.

The government seems to represent big business far more than the majority public interest, at this point. There are some signs that this is shifting again as the current government has met with a lot of vocal public disapproval for backing out of the Kyoto accord without offering a better plan.

The cabinet was just shuffled around to bring in a new environment minister, who will hopefully do better. The leader of the opposition is a good guy to bring these issues to the headlines, and educate the public, since it was his portfolio for years and he is very informed and progressive on the subject. I am optimistic there...

I am all for a multi-pronged aproach to environmental issues including all of the things suggested. You make a good point about market supply and demand. I also dont believe it is wise to rely on so called market supply and demand as the key regulating force-- look where that has brought us, as you say. A boycott, or trying to influence through purchase power is useful as a tool sometimes, but many companies don't feel , or respond unless there is major unified force behind it- including education, awareness, publicity, significant vocal numbers involved,realistic alternative options presented ...


Sadly, the Canadian major economic forces and players do not represent the majority at all. And they are having a huge influence on the current government.It is all about business. And the governmental political structures are skewed, so even when functioning as designed , really dont represent the people all that well either.

So , I think we also need to find ways for the public to reclaim their power, in both government and economy --before environmental education can have all the impact we would like to see.

Would love to know what books you recommend?Any suggestions?

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Posted: 5th Jan 2007
a) You will never restrain business and luxury flights - no matter what (the former is tax-deductible)

b) The fleet of diesel-powered ships is increasing and as you read this, cargo ships are one of THE most troubling pollutants on the planet (not only in air, but water pollution)

c) The problem with air travel is mainly, that the gases are put straight up in an elevation, where all other gases have to still raise (in a period of xx years)

d) Face the inconvenient truth:

- the kerosene YOU are burning
- the tobacco YOU are smoking
- the fuel YOU use for domestic transport
- the oil leakage on YOUR car
- YOUR COMPUTER, CELLPHONE, STEREO, ELECTRONIC APPLIANCE
- YOUR cotton fabric garment
- YOUR shoes
- the exotic fruit YOU are eating
- YOUR wooden furniture

etc..

ALL THIS dooms the planet just AS much!

You may say: *changes to Chongs voice* "Hey brother, as long as I am not travelling on an airplane, I'm basically safe... hell upon those who fly, you know... peace hey"
IMO this is so much cows crap and you're lying to yourself while poking others - just in order not to face the mirror and the truth.

- Market supply and demand? Cows crap! We're facing surging Asean markets and a skyrocketing middleclass in China, India and elsewhere. There is a new generation of tourists coming up, who - by any means - demand the same habits like the western ones (just on a different scale). This is very much like Neo facing Agent Smith, my friends.

Carbon dioxide/ aviation tax? Another eye washing cows poo, like the Kyoto protocol and security tax: When will you start to understand and acknowledge that these measures are nothing - NOTHING but meant to fool your consciousness and putting you back to sleep, while getting the extra dollar out of YOUR pocket!

Like: *changes to sissy voice* "Yeah, well you know our government and especially the west is doing SOOOO much in order to restrain the industry from pollution..."

Bullscrap! At the same time they are setting up power plants in China, India and Kazachstan. Do you really believe they let some sissies in the west stop them from making billions of dollars a year? Because YOU sign an online-petition for .... (*fill in appropriate term*)?

Continyour hippie wishing well pipe dream, or start letting this plant grow for industrial use, instead of burning it (contributing to global warming and political sissyness) [/ ]

Hey Tom - all cool

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Er, Tom, do you have any productive suggestions, ? lol



That was a ridiculous rant my friend.



You are way wrong to think people are naive in believing that they can create posative change. They can, they are, they have, and they will... Through many different means.

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Tom, I'm not sure what you're smoking,or what planet you're on, but it's having some effect, that's for sure

You're right about China though, but I don't think they can be blamed as such. The only way China can feed everyone is by importing grain and paying for those imports with exports. We all know that they are doing that by making use of the huge workforce they have. On top of that, the west (some countries are worst than others) has been on a campaign lasting over 100 years trying to get an economic and political empire that works with us. This is partly done by imposing our power hungry culture on other people. In other words, China et al are only doing what we are doing. They tent to look to the west as people to aspire to the west's culture - maybe not on an individual bases. We have no right to tell them that they can't play with the toys we have been enjoying for the last 50 years. It reminds by of the birth of a younger sibling, and the west is getting upset. We want the young people in China etc to see the West for the bad unsustainable culture it is, and then start making a culture based on awareness of the implications of the actions they make rather than it being an after thought like it is here (money being the main reason).

[/rant]

BansheeCat: You should read and watch anything by Robert Newman, Richard Heinberg and Jared Diamond. There are more that are good, but 'The party's over' by Heinberg was about the best book I've ever read. I'm just starting 'Powerdown' by him. (The first lays out the case, including a great chapter that goes though every energy source or carrier we know about, and the pros and cons. and the second gives some ideas for action).

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Sym. Maybe it would help to clarify my point if I mentioned that I was talking about a resource extraction based economy. Around here, we 1. grow weed 2. cut down trees 3. dig stuff out of the ground. Now the first one comes with a set of problems all it's own, but the other two are the mainstay of our provincial economy.

So if we stop cutting and digging, we stop making money and therefore stop providing social services. This should force a choice between the two, but most people who consider themselves environmentally active, conveniently fail to see the relationship between the two.

One day the hippies may be protesting against logging, the next day the same hippies maybe demanding more services. It's this lack of connection between making money and providing services that leads me to speculate that environtmentalism is more of a spiritual issue rather than a practical one. Somehow, the protesting hippies lump all the money issues into the "corporate agenda" and completely ignore all the tax revenue generated as well as the direct economic benefits ( ie employment ) to resource extraction.

Curiously enough, when I did the same thing with An Inconvenient Truth on a local eco-hippy website, they seemed ok with their hypocrisy of reaping the benefits of modern society, while railing against it's very fabric. They basically stated that we're ALL hypocrites. Is that spiritual or what ?

Anyways,,flying for fun is a very tough issue to justify for the environmentally aware, were I to take up the eco-banner and demand change for the sake of the planet, I doubt whether I'd be able to pull off justifying my globetrotting habits. It would be like trying to justify smoking cigarettes, I'd probably have to admit that yes, it's stupid, but I like it,,I need it, it gives me comfort.

As a last resort, I'd try the "there are other things that other people do that are way worse for the planet" tactic. It's true, but this thread isn't about that. It's about reconciling one's environmental commitment with the desire to jet off to tropical destinations and just how much environmental destruction is "acceptable" in the pursuit of quality of life. To some a Hummer is unacceptable , to others international flights are unacceptable, but in the end , be it plane or SUV, the planet the net result is exactly the same.

It's a supply and demand thing really, if we keep creating the demand for things like SUVs and international flights, we're not really going to slow the destruction of the ecosystem now are we ?

FireTom, you raise some interesting points in your post above, the one about Kyoto being bullshit for one. Sure it sounds warm and fuzzy, but in the long run it's going to do very little to stop global warming when faced with developing nations development plans, but at least it's an attempt to raise awareness that some of the things we've done in the past ( and do today ) and taken for granted, might not have been good ideas after all.

A boycott of the airline industry? Do you think it would fly ? Or is it too radical ?

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Stout, I see you're point.

Thinking in that way is clearly silly, and (I hope) I am not so hypocritical. To explain my point of view more I'll take you're logging example:

In the short term the options may be either log (or mine) resulting in lots of jobs and a good economy or not log resulting in a better environment but a poor economy. If that were the end of it then the choice would almost be forced in to logging.

However, the long term environmental damage caused by logging might result in so much damage to the land and the environment that logging is unfeasible, or the living conditions are too poor (because of contaminated water, erosion and all the other problems that occur with logging).

Then the result is not only a damaged economy and unemployment but also a wreaked environment.

Do you agree that in that situation, it would be better to act now whilst the environment is in reasonable shape and the economy is strong than wait for both to collapse?

The same is true of many other areas, including the aeronautical industry. Is it better to shrink in a controlled way now, or be forced in to it when oil becomes too expensive? (oil running out isn't the problem, it's when it takes more energy to extract than you get out that is the cut off point).

In short: jobs are going to be lost no matter what.

I hope this doesn't seem too black and white - I know that the situation is far more complex, but I think that the core argument for sustainable living is based on something like mine.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Trains all the way for me.

I've been putting off learning to drive for a year now, but got money for christmas to start learning from my parents.

Reading this thread just makes me want to put it off even longer!
Feels like I'm being pressured into it - 'get it done while you're young', but I don't really need a car! The trains get me everywhere I need to be, and with young persons works out cheaper than having a car anyway.

I went to Germany just before christmas with my dad, and had such a argument with him as he chose to fly us there...
It was an hour and a half on the plane. Just didn't seem worth it.

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Stout, I laughed at your description of our economy... Its true, except you forgot to list tourism, all the people that fly here to enjoy the nature!! lol

Will check out those books Sym, thanks.

And Stout, you made me realize that I do have a tendency to take threads off on a tangent( that I feel is strongly related, but that may be only in my mind! (0)) . If this is only about flying as a destructive behaviour, then it is a very short thread.

Yes, flying is bad for the environment. Yes, we chose to do it sometimes anyways...

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Posted: 6th Jan 2007

 Written by: bansheecat

I would really like to see our government stepping in with some sound environmental laws, to change the behaviour of these major polluters, provide better options and change the big picture; rather than have someone else simply take my seat on the plane. Being active and involved in movements that create that sort of long term profound change seems to me even more important. Of course, I can do both.

I totally agree. Even if I managed to stop one MILLION people from flying by telling them how damaging it was, the seats vacated would be instantly filled.

It seems that the flying trade is shooting itself in the foot though - with such unpredictable weather (that's just going to get worse) how many airlines will be able to sustain the massive losses that they are starting to incur?

x

Geologists do it in the dirt................

Posted: 6th Jan 2007
Aimee - I don't have a drivers license and I'm 29. I ride my bike or trains everywhere. Sure I take rides from friends every now and then but I rather walk short distances than ask for a ride. Atleast in Finland it has been very easy for me to live without a car or drivers license. Going to gigs carrying stinky staves in trains is terrible though.

I have a plan of going to China in march for studies, come back in may for 2 weeks for possible shows and family and girlfriend and then go to Singapore for 2 months for work. Inspired by this thread I checked the distance I was doing and it was like 2 x 7700 km and 2 x 9000 km !! This got me thinking to take the Trans-Siperia train from Moscow to Beijing. It is possible.. takes a lot of time though.. And since everything needs to happen right away and easy these days I think I don't have the time. And I can't get sleep on trains. I know I should atlest skip the 2 weeks in Finland in between. But 1-way tickets are mostly more expensive and I got some other good excuses also.

Point your toes.

Posted: 7th Jan 2007
How, exactly, do you figure having big government step in and impose regulations would help alleviate "the problem" ? Would they demand better fuel efficiency from planes ? would we all have an allotment of miles we;re allowed to fly every year ? would they impose an environmental tax ( not a fuel surcharge ) based on the distance travelled, or the number of takeoffs and landings that a person makes in their journey? Force airlines to run on biofuels ?

Since we appear to be failing miserably at self regulating, maybe demanding our governments to tell us what to do is the answer.

Posted: 7th Jan 2007
yep, the basic steps you list are possibilities...

One thing they could do would be to demand that airplane manufacturers spend a certain amount of time/ money resources towards the development of more sustainable fuels, fuel efficiency, etc etc. They could have a ten or twenty year plan to reduce emissions, make it law, and require the companies to adapt and develop in more sustainable ways. They could make the companies do their own carbon emission offsetting. They could put regulations in place ensuring that the cost of a flight is reflective of its actual costs, including environmental. The could develop alternative systems of transportation within the country, so that people have realistic options available if they chose not to fly but need to go a long distance...

I think both, individual decisions, governmental decisions,and market pressures... We should go at it from all sides! Which reminds me of a favorite quotation:

"Soldier to captain( panicking) : " Sir! We are surrounded!"
Captain to soldier ( smiling) : " Excellent. That means we can attack from any and all directions! " "

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."