The first argument: if we value human life and believe all life is equal, as well as believe we are each equal holders of the atmosphere and earth’s climate, then there is not enough room for an ethical distribution of the remaining “carbon allowance” for anyone to use fossil fuel driven flight. In my mind this is a very sound argument of ethics, stating that those of us that emit more than 1-2 tons/year are essentially removing other peoples right to emit carbon – we are furthering their (and our) destruction by the hands of climate change. With this argument, flight becomes an ethically black area that should be avoided entirely.

The second argument: emissions from flight are bad, but only amount to a small portion of our overall emissions (something like 5%). Therefore, we should take advantage of the flight as we can, use it sparingly and for good purpose until we can no longer afford to do so.

Personally, I find the second argument to be weaker and could go into that at length, but that is beside the point. I do see the reasoning behind it, whether it is partly rationalization or not. I have flown this year, so I can’t pretend to be the poster boy for the first line of thought, either. However, I am trying to make a more deliberate lifestyle according to these values, so flight is off the table for my future. Needless to say, Sharon, it sounds like you trip was well worth it. And in light of all the issues around air travel, I believe taking a much longer trip (it was over a month, correct?) is a good way to use your air travel well – as opposed to traveling for a week and doing it again later for a short time.

I think after the shift, we will be working less, having more free time, and enjoying our local vacation spots more regularly – as well as the occasional long-haul train/boat trip for a month or two. Plus, with the way climate is changing, Australia might be a lot less desert and a lot more green, right?

Cheers,
Joshua

I am just back from a long-awaited trip to Italy to see that amazing country, visit the village my grandfather was born in, and attend a conference where – as per usual – much of the useful interaction occurred in the networking opportunities around the scheduled sessions. I don’t care what anyone says, teleconferencing is no substitute – but I also am committed to ensuring that any decision I make to fly anywhere is a well-considered one in terms of the reasons, the need and the likely benefits of the travel.

As a steady-stater/postgrowther, you find yourself explaining and making excuses for long haul air travel: ‘yes I’m flying halfway around the world, BUT its my first overseas holiday EVER, and my first overseas trip since 2001…’ in a vain attempt to allay climate guilt! And yet the planet does not care. It’s all extra C02, whatever the reason, and however virtuous one has been as an infrequent flyer.

[Joshua] ‘I think we need to reconsider the acceptable speed and time it takes to travel…Maybe we can get back to human-scaled travel speeds like sea travel and train travel…No more jet fuel, no more air travel. This is happening now. Take a stand for the rest of the world that would be devastated by your flight, by not flying.’

Firstly – I support what Joshua is saying. We can’t get away from the fact that air travel is a huge contributor to climate change, and that if we are serious about tackling climate change we need to limit air travel, and find non fossil fuel alternatives for flight ASAP.

Having said that, I must offer a perspective from us folks in the Antipodes, who are, as someone once colourfully put it, located at ‘the arse end of the world’…

In days gone by, travel for business or pleasure was restricted to the very wealthy who could take weeks or months away from whatever they were doing in order to travel. If we make air travel unaffordable where viable options do not exist in terms of time trade offs, then we will again restrict travel to those who are already probably the major contributors – those who can and do fly often.

I live in Australia, which means if I can’t fly, I can’t visit another country. I have four weeks’ holiday a year. If I travel any way other than flying, I will spend all my accumulated leave just getting to (let alone from) a place. Unlike Europeans, I don’t have the option of land based options such as high speed rail (which I think is preferable to flying) to visit places like Europe.

I don’t agree with a society that sets itself up so that frequent flying is the norm, I think we should be much more mindful about it and treat it like a rare commodity. At the same time, a world without the pleasure, discovery, interaction and social connections that travel brings would be a sad one. I’d rather we pursue energy efficiency, kill boomerang trade and food waste first.

How do we resolve this?

Technically – I hope we find non fossil fuel/hyper low impact means of flying sometime soon.

In the meantime, how do we divvy up a flying allowance? Give everyone equal carbon flying credits and allow them to be traded?

In the same way that some people must expend more energy to stay warm or cool by virtue of their geography, how do we make things equitable for people who live in remote locations, either with a country or from other parts of the world?

Vexed questions! It hurts my head.

However, the proposed California HSR is designed to have an average speed of 168 mph. If you take the same Amtrak route cross country at those speeds you would cut a 63 hour trip down to 19 hours. Of course, the industry proposed USHSR plan takes a different route that I would venture is a little quicker.

Really, I think going 3000 plus miles in 19 hours is pretty damn good. Gives you time to adjust, instead of a 5 hour flight. Besides, most of us don’t make those types of trips very often so it wouldn’t be hard to plan for that travel time. A trip from Seattle to Portland would only be a little over an hour, instead of 4 hours. That’s worth it right there for me!

Cheers,
Joshua

I think you’re right. At least for the bulk of the next century, and as we transition into a post-growth society in the next 20 (30?) years, we will still have flight – just on a much more limited basis. It’s only going to get more expensive and restrictive (besides, security is a pain in the arse, I can do without flight just to avoid that hassle).

I would venture that the interest in flight will drive technological advances to make it more sustainable. However, there’s nothing even remotely viable on board in the next 30 years to make jet travel zero-carbon, so we should get used to less of it.

And a slower pace of travel will be beneficial to our well-being (the journey is just as important as the destination, right?). Besides, we’ll have more free time to devote to the longer travel times in a post growth society because we’ll all be working less!

Cheers,
Joshua

That video is incredible. Love the way visuals can take abstract data — flight patterns, say — and bring it to life. From that perspective, human activity (and economic growth) looks like a frenzied ant colony going nuts all over the globe. Really interesting — and gives a great sense of scale.

Re: flying — I think part of living within ecological limits means understanding that scarcity is a part of life — and that means that some things are just worth more, and should be done/used more sparingly because they’re scarce. Flying seems like one of these things: It’s an *expensive* activity, and the price of a ticket should reflect that.

In that context, maybe flight should be thought of a bit like global trade in a post growth world: In small doses, and only when needed. The internet (a hugely important tool for getting to a post growth world, I think) could allow people to experience and communicate with the places they’d normally fly to. Webinars, which seem to be growing in popularity, could take the place of international business meetings…but maybe the technology’s not quite there yet. Don’t know.

That said, the silver lining to a less airborne society means there’s a chance we’ll start to fall in love with the places we actually are. Will all-inclusive resorts in Tahiti look a little less desirable if we actually enjoy our neighborhoods, our bioregions, our towns and cities? A bit pollyanna-ish, I suppose — but a world where “staycations” are the norm might hold some hidden joys.

Scott