| Sick in the head on 08:49 - Apr 9 with 2339 views | RobTheMonk |
Lol, I was expecting much worse to be honest. |  | |  |
| Sick in the head on 09:05 - Apr 9 with 2260 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sick in the head on 08:49 - Apr 9 by RobTheMonk |
Lol, I was expecting much worse to be honest. |
It's so easy to 'forget' or give up on the inexorable creep of existential threats to everything when we've got things like fascist 'allies' bombing the fk out of civilians, but issues like not destroying the world for your children is a personal responsibility we can all take.
'Rhona acknowledges the environmental impact of the trend, but says she takes steps like eating a pescetarian diet and using a green energy tariff to offset the impact' - stupid, disingenuous *****. |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:08 - Apr 9 with 2236 views | baxterbasics |
Really?
Good for them. |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:19 - Apr 9 with 2206 views | Swansea_Blue |
"You feel like you've had a holiday, packed lots in - without the price tag." Oh there’s a cost alright, just not one that she’ll have to pay.
On the one hand, this is probably a valuable thing to do bringing up a kid. They should grow up with a broader outlook on life and about different places and people. Obviously there are major issues with everyone having this sort of mindset. Most just choose to ignore the impact, don’t believe they are part of the problem and/or think offsetting tokenism is all they have to do. It’s the same people flying for work every day.
I’d hold the deniers and pro-fossil fuel lobbyists in much, MUCH, higher contempt though. The real damage is being done by them imo. |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:21 - Apr 9 with 2177 views | Benters |
Good luck to them. |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:29 - Apr 9 with 2121 views | giant_stow |
Maybe the real culprit is an economy where flights are cheap enough to do this? Or maybe flight should be rationed somehow? No idea... |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:33 - Apr 9 with 2103 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
So around 6 flights per year, I would say I’m not alone on here averaging more than that with business and holidays.
Not great but ‘sick’ seems a little strong. I thought it was going to be something about Israel bombing Lebanon which would be more befitting that title! |  | | |
| Sick in the head on 09:40 - Apr 9 with 2051 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Sick in the head on 09:29 - Apr 9 by giant_stow |
Maybe the real culprit is an economy where flights are cheap enough to do this? Or maybe flight should be rationed somehow? No idea... |
I remember the days of really cheap flights. In 2000 I commuted to England from Scotland. I would fly down on a Monday morning and fly home early Friday evening.
Flights would vary between 50p to £5 each way. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sick in the head on 09:40 - Apr 9 with 2049 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Sick in the head on 09:33 - Apr 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
So around 6 flights per year, I would say I’m not alone on here averaging more than that with business and holidays.
Not great but ‘sick’ seems a little strong. I thought it was going to be something about Israel bombing Lebanon which would be more befitting that title! |
It’s a bit of a guesstimate, but deaths linked to climate change are orders of magnitude higher than those from Israel’s bombing of Lebanon. About 2.5 million per year compared to low thousands. Although, it’s a bit harsh to blame them all on this lady and her kid lol.
I’ve taken one flight in the last 8 years (and that was enforced when the trains through the channel tunnel were cancelled). I do wonder why I bother to make an effort when I read stories like the one in the OP. | |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:42 - Apr 9 with 2030 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Sick in the head on 09:29 - Apr 9 by giant_stow |
Maybe the real culprit is an economy where flights are cheap enough to do this? Or maybe flight should be rationed somehow? No idea... |
It’s a difficult one isn’t it. If you tax it heavily then it just becomes like the Communist days of travel only for a privileged elite. Carbon credits feels fairer, but the government having power over the movement of its citizens is also a dangerous road to go down.
To be honest I don’t know what the answer is. | | | |
| Sick in the head on 09:46 - Apr 9 with 2003 views | positivity |
| Sick in the head on 09:42 - Apr 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s a difficult one isn’t it. If you tax it heavily then it just becomes like the Communist days of travel only for a privileged elite. Carbon credits feels fairer, but the government having power over the movement of its citizens is also a dangerous road to go down.
To be honest I don’t know what the answer is. |
a start would be to equalise the duty paid on aviation fuel to that paid by the motorist, effectively air travel is heavily subsidised.
would also raise a vast amount of money | |
| |
| Sick in the head on 09:53 - Apr 9 with 1964 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Sick in the head on 09:42 - Apr 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s a difficult one isn’t it. If you tax it heavily then it just becomes like the Communist days of travel only for a privileged elite. Carbon credits feels fairer, but the government having power over the movement of its citizens is also a dangerous road to go down.
To be honest I don’t know what the answer is. |
I think it’s too big and too abstract a problem for most people to get their heads around. People have got jobs to do, school runs to fit in, place to be, things to worry about, etc. Something not in your face like this gets pushed to the bottom of the list. All perfectly understandable.
That’s why we need governments to go full steam ahead with decarbonising as much as we can. They’re letting us down imo. Even climate friendly governments don’t move quickly enough and now we have these right wing populists who are pushing fossil fuels. Madness. [Post edited 9 Apr 9:56]
| |
| |
| Sick in the head on 10:00 - Apr 9 with 1883 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Sick in the head on 09:40 - Apr 9 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s a bit of a guesstimate, but deaths linked to climate change are orders of magnitude higher than those from Israel’s bombing of Lebanon. About 2.5 million per year compared to low thousands. Although, it’s a bit harsh to blame them all on this lady and her kid lol.
I’ve taken one flight in the last 8 years (and that was enforced when the trains through the channel tunnel were cancelled). I do wonder why I bother to make an effort when I read stories like the one in the OP. |
The internet is estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than the aviation industry. The internet and digital technology are estimated to be responsible for 2.5% to 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions whilst the airline industry (commercial flights) is generally responsible for around 2% to 2.5% of global emissions.So perhaps we should all log of TWTD and go on holiday instead. | |
| |
| Sick in the head on 10:07 - Apr 9 with 1821 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sick in the head on 09:53 - Apr 9 by Swansea_Blue |
I think it’s too big and too abstract a problem for most people to get their heads around. People have got jobs to do, school runs to fit in, place to be, things to worry about, etc. Something not in your face like this gets pushed to the bottom of the list. All perfectly understandable.
That’s why we need governments to go full steam ahead with decarbonising as much as we can. They’re letting us down imo. Even climate friendly governments don’t move quickly enough and now we have these right wing populists who are pushing fossil fuels. Madness. [Post edited 9 Apr 9:56]
|
I'm conflicted on this. I agree with everything you say there, but I still have this fundamental set of beliefs:
1. We have all heard about the science behind Climate Change
2. It doesn't require much of a brain to understand the basics
3. Most of us aren't making any effort to change our ways
4. The threat is genuinely existential to society and possibly imminently so
The buck is passed to 'governments', but by and large governments respond to voter pressure.
You and I, we, us - we're not doing enough - we're passing the buck.
We have personal responsibility and the disingenuous nature of comments like those of the woman in the article (and apologists for business as usual from posters here) - I don't assume any of them are too stupid to understand the basics - these comments enable governments to ignore or kick the can down the very short road.
Meanwhile stored energy builds up in the oceans and it will inevitably fk us at some point unless we stand on the brakes.
Them's the laws of physics, not some pissy political argument or trivial consumer rights issue. | |
| |
| Sick in the head on 10:11 - Apr 9 with 1780 views | Gogs |
| Sick in the head on 09:42 - Apr 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s a difficult one isn’t it. If you tax it heavily then it just becomes like the Communist days of travel only for a privileged elite. Carbon credits feels fairer, but the government having power over the movement of its citizens is also a dangerous road to go down.
To be honest I don’t know what the answer is. |
I think along similar lines to this. I get that a large proportion of the global population can't afford to fly anywhere and they're the likeliest to be hit by negative consequences of climate change. But solely looking at this country for instance, a lot of people live a pretty miserable existence here, and it'd be a whole lot worse for them if they didn't jet off on a cheap flight for a 2 week holiday in the sun somewhere. Cutting that little luxury from those people isn't going to be popular at all and i'm not sure it'd do much good anyway. Does anyone think the privileged elite are going to stop flying? Of course they're not. The genie is out of the bottle I'm afraid. I make probably 2 or 3 return flights a year on average, mainly to European destinations, but I have been further afield, and i'm unlikely to change that anytime soon as i don't view it as excessive. I have an older brother, who divides his time between Ipswich, his house in Ireland and travelling all over Europe and the world, taking dozens of flights a year and he's not going to change either.
I don't know what the answer is either, unless someone comes up with a cheap clean jet fuel. I'm glad I'm neither a climate scientist nor a politician. |  | | |
| Sick in the head on 10:22 - Apr 9 with 1694 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Lol, "Take steps to offset the carbon footprint"
We planted an apple tree. |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 10:45 - Apr 9 with 1617 views | Ryorry |
| Sick in the head on 10:07 - Apr 9 by NthQldITFC |
I'm conflicted on this. I agree with everything you say there, but I still have this fundamental set of beliefs:
1. We have all heard about the science behind Climate Change
2. It doesn't require much of a brain to understand the basics
3. Most of us aren't making any effort to change our ways
4. The threat is genuinely existential to society and possibly imminently so
The buck is passed to 'governments', but by and large governments respond to voter pressure.
You and I, we, us - we're not doing enough - we're passing the buck.
We have personal responsibility and the disingenuous nature of comments like those of the woman in the article (and apologists for business as usual from posters here) - I don't assume any of them are too stupid to understand the basics - these comments enable governments to ignore or kick the can down the very short road.
Meanwhile stored energy builds up in the oceans and it will inevitably fk us at some point unless we stand on the brakes.
Them's the laws of physics, not some pissy political argument or trivial consumer rights issue. |
I don’t have kids and haven’t been in a plane since 1994 (Orkney to Leeds, change at Glasgow).
Isn’t human reproducion beyond the point of replacing the population of a few years ago, a factor? |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 10:47 - Apr 9 with 1609 views | keighleyblue |
| Sick in the head on 10:11 - Apr 9 by Gogs |
I think along similar lines to this. I get that a large proportion of the global population can't afford to fly anywhere and they're the likeliest to be hit by negative consequences of climate change. But solely looking at this country for instance, a lot of people live a pretty miserable existence here, and it'd be a whole lot worse for them if they didn't jet off on a cheap flight for a 2 week holiday in the sun somewhere. Cutting that little luxury from those people isn't going to be popular at all and i'm not sure it'd do much good anyway. Does anyone think the privileged elite are going to stop flying? Of course they're not. The genie is out of the bottle I'm afraid. I make probably 2 or 3 return flights a year on average, mainly to European destinations, but I have been further afield, and i'm unlikely to change that anytime soon as i don't view it as excessive. I have an older brother, who divides his time between Ipswich, his house in Ireland and travelling all over Europe and the world, taking dozens of flights a year and he's not going to change either.
I don't know what the answer is either, unless someone comes up with a cheap clean jet fuel. I'm glad I'm neither a climate scientist nor a politician. |
"a lot of people live a pretty miserable existence here, and it'd be a whole lot worse for them if they didn't jet off on a cheap flight for a 2 week holiday in the sun somewhere."
hot take |  | | |
| Sick in the head on 10:57 - Apr 9 with 1583 views | Bluesky |
nice to be able to afford it. |  | | |
| Sick in the head on 11:02 - Apr 9 with 1570 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sick in the head on 10:45 - Apr 9 by Ryorry |
I don’t have kids and haven’t been in a plane since 1994 (Orkney to Leeds, change at Glasgow).
Isn’t human reproducion beyond the point of replacing the population of a few years ago, a factor? |
Definitely.
I suppose I tend to get triggered a bit too much by irresponsible and excessive flying, but it's a very significant factor, and it's so representative of the selfish, flabby, destructive consumer-knows-best attitude that seems to pervade the human psyche.
I have a deep, visceral loathing of people who say things like "oh, it's OK because I do quite a lot of recycling and only fly six times a year" - it's like having a traitor in the tribe, or a cancer in the body - selfish and irresponsible in a very consequential way for all of us and for the future of our children. | |
| |
| Sick in the head on 11:02 - Apr 9 with 1565 views | Mark |
| Sick in the head on 09:29 - Apr 9 by giant_stow |
Maybe the real culprit is an economy where flights are cheap enough to do this? Or maybe flight should be rationed somehow? No idea... |
I agree. Surely it should be possible to tax flights properly, perhaps through fuel, and then use that money to reduce the cost of rail, coach and bus fares (particularly for electric vehicles). |  | | |
| Sick in the head on 11:06 - Apr 9 with 1551 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sick in the head on 10:00 - Apr 9 by GlasgowBlue |
The internet is estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than the aviation industry. The internet and digital technology are estimated to be responsible for 2.5% to 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions whilst the airline industry (commercial flights) is generally responsible for around 2% to 2.5% of global emissions.So perhaps we should all log of TWTD and go on holiday instead. |
A reasonable addendum. Add in the growth of AI usage; good, bad or trivial - and the behemoth resource guzzling 'data centres' and it's a veritable shtshow.
I think TWTD qualifies as a vital resource though, he said, hypocritically. | |
| |
| Sick in the head on 11:12 - Apr 9 with 1524 views | MattinLondon |
I hear a lot about people offsetting their carbon footprint and so I have a couple of questions.
1. Using a football analogy, in order for carbon offsetting to be a ‘score-draw’ how many trees actually need to be planted?
2. Does being a vegan or pescetarian really offset the amount of carbon she’ll use flying per year? |  | | |
| Sick in the head on 11:15 - Apr 9 with 1510 views | hoppy |
| Sick in the head on 10:00 - Apr 9 by GlasgowBlue |
The internet is estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than the aviation industry. The internet and digital technology are estimated to be responsible for 2.5% to 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions whilst the airline industry (commercial flights) is generally responsible for around 2% to 2.5% of global emissions.So perhaps we should all log of TWTD and go on holiday instead. |
If we're all going on holiday, maybe we could have a group login to TWTD so it's reducing the amount of people accessing it and we all take turns to read the bits of interest? Where are we all off to then? |  |
| |
| Sick in the head on 11:15 - Apr 9 with 1509 views | GavTWTD |
| Sick in the head on 10:11 - Apr 9 by Gogs |
I think along similar lines to this. I get that a large proportion of the global population can't afford to fly anywhere and they're the likeliest to be hit by negative consequences of climate change. But solely looking at this country for instance, a lot of people live a pretty miserable existence here, and it'd be a whole lot worse for them if they didn't jet off on a cheap flight for a 2 week holiday in the sun somewhere. Cutting that little luxury from those people isn't going to be popular at all and i'm not sure it'd do much good anyway. Does anyone think the privileged elite are going to stop flying? Of course they're not. The genie is out of the bottle I'm afraid. I make probably 2 or 3 return flights a year on average, mainly to European destinations, but I have been further afield, and i'm unlikely to change that anytime soon as i don't view it as excessive. I have an older brother, who divides his time between Ipswich, his house in Ireland and travelling all over Europe and the world, taking dozens of flights a year and he's not going to change either.
I don't know what the answer is either, unless someone comes up with a cheap clean jet fuel. I'm glad I'm neither a climate scientist nor a politician. |
I think having a holiday abroad is something we all have a right to. It does make you more grounded and less isolated. There are loads of advantages. However having that many flights (the OP) sounds like hell to me. How many hours at airports? I think a possible answer is that there could be an additional tax to pay on flights, but not on the first 2 or 4. Or maybe a rising tariff based on how many flights you've had that year. That way people wouldn't be penalised for having one (or two) holidays a year. Money goes towards maintaining the rail network or greener policies. I've not had a holiday since before covid but might get some sun this summer. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
