What if we just stop traveling by air?

[DotAndBuzz]

This post inspired me to look at rail options for an upcoming trip to St. Louis. I drove it last year, and the drive SUCKED. 8 hours (with stops), vs 13 hours by train, which includes a 3 hour station switch (so even if first train is running late/gets delayed, plenty of wiggle room).

It's a longer travel day, but so much easier because I would just have to sit there, instead of drive through the never-ending cornfields of the midwest, and deal with city traffic. May just do that!

[Gato]

@@@@@@

I enjoyed taking the train as a single person but it is not affordable for my middle-class family of four. We definitely would visit family even if we had to drive—we drove from Chicago to Texas twice and Chicago to Maine with a baby—but that would be a nightmare drive with two big kids. Traveling three days each way by bus or train wouldn’t leave much time for actually seeing family. I certainly would love government to build a network of light rail but if Joe Biden isn’t reelected we have much bigger issues to worry about. I think the U.S. suffers from having too much distance, too much expectation of job mobility, and a higher standard of living for travel. I don’t see giving up plane travel as a realistic solution.

And I’m not sure how we’d get to places like Paris or Japan or New Zealand. I’m not giving up foreign travel for anything—you’ll have to pry my passport out of my cold, dead hands. My family makes up for it by traveling as a group of four, living in a small house, not consuming much, and using post-consumer biofuel to power my car and heat our home.

[pixy0stix]

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

[wanderingback]

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

Yeah most people are about instant gratification and convenience so not surprising when it comes to anything really. But it would be nice if the government made it easy to have better options for inter country long distance and local travel. Also, companies who didn’t require travel as well.

[msmerymac]

I have to go to Florida in July (I KNOW) and I think we’ll take the auto train. The rest of my family is driving.

[Gato]

I guess what I’m saying, though, is how can we not travel by plane?

I did one of those online carbon footprint quizzes a while ago, and my carbon footprint was 5.1 tons of CO2 a year, which isn’t bad, but it would be great without the 3.6 tons I use on average to travel. So the seemingly obvious solution is “don’t travel.” But this year, we traveled to see my H’s dying dad. Next year, we’ll go to his funeral. It’s not feasible to travel from Maine to Texas by train, bus, or car. We’re going to see our Texan family every other year for Thanksgiving. There is no other option than flying.

Similarly, my best friends live in Ohio, Hawaii, Illinois, and California. One is getting married next year—no way I’d miss that. The other comes to the mainland once every ten years. No way I’m not flying to see her, either, like I did last year. I did at least take the bus to New York. But the people I love are spread all across the continent. It’s just inhuman not to travel to them when I can, and I think for our society, building a less-consumptive system is more realistic than asking people to make that choice.

[sent]

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

All of the doomsday discussions seem to have a common theme. Raise the price of unnecessary things and consumption will decrease. Cashmere sweaters, meat, air travel, Amazon's instant delivery, cruising, hot Cheetos, and so on. Relying on Americans to make individual choices one person at a time will have a miniscule impact. We could legislate things, but trust in the government has been a hot mess since COVID. 

Some of this would require a complete overhaul of American culture. Like the meat part. The cashmere and air travel might not be as difficult to implement. We'd have to go back to saving up to fly and buy cashmere. Savings, another concept that seems to have been lost over time as we've been taught to consume for the last 20+ years. 

This means corporations have to stand up and influence the change. I can only hope this could happen in my lifetime. 

[wise_rita]

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

Then this is where I get flamed to high hell for admitting that I think 2.5% of total emissions is surprisingly small.

I didn't read the article, but does it mention where the other 97.5% comes from?

[scm1011]

Jan 1, 2024 19:26:50 GMT -5 Gato said:

I guess what I’m saying, though, is how can we not travel by plane?

I did one of those online carbon footprint quizzes a while ago, and my carbon footprint was 5.1 tons of CO2 a year, which isn’t bad, but it would be great without the 3.6 tons I use on average to travel. So the seemingly obvious solution is “don’t travel.” But this year, we traveled to see my H’s dying dad. Next year, we’ll go to his funeral. It’s not feasible to travel from Maine to Texas by train, bus, or car. We’re going to see our Texan family every other year for Thanksgiving. There is no other option than flying.

Similarly, my best friends live in Ohio, Hawaii, Illinois, and California. One is getting married next year—no way I’d miss that. The other comes to the mainland once every ten years. No way I’m not flying to see her, either, like I did last year. I did at least take the bus to New York. But the people I love are spread all across the continent. It’s just inhuman not to travel to them when I can, and I think for our society, building a less-consumptive system is more realistic than asking people to make that choice.

I think Pixy's point is that you just can't prioritize a close friends wedding over over your life / the state of the planet. That you have to choose to miss these events and zoom far away relatives instead. 

[pixy0stix]

Jan 2, 2024 12:25:02 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

Then this is where I get flamed to high hell for admitting that I think 2.5% of total emissions is surprisingly small.

I didn't read the article, but does it mention where the other 97.5% comes from?

Most of it is coal, oil, and gas broken up into different sectors.

[pixy0stix]

Jan 2, 2024 13:32:02 GMT -5 scm1011 said:

Jan 1, 2024 19:26:50 GMT -5 Gato said:

I guess what I’m saying, though, is how can we not travel by plane?

I did one of those online carbon footprint quizzes a while ago, and my carbon footprint was 5.1 tons of CO2 a year, which isn’t bad, but it would be great without the 3.6 tons I use on average to travel. So the seemingly obvious solution is “don’t travel.” But this year, we traveled to see my H’s dying dad. Next year, we’ll go to his funeral. It’s not feasible to travel from Maine to Texas by train, bus, or car. We’re going to see our Texan family every other year for Thanksgiving. There is no other option than flying.

Similarly, my best friends live in Ohio, Hawaii, Illinois, and California. One is getting married next year—no way I’d miss that. The other comes to the mainland once every ten years. No way I’m not flying to see her, either, like I did last year. I did at least take the bus to New York. But the people I love are spread all across the continent. It’s just inhuman not to travel to them when I can, and I think for our society, building a less-consumptive system is more realistic than asking people to make that choice.

I think Pixy's point is that you just can't prioritize a close friends wedding over over your life / the state of the planet. That you have to choose to miss these events and zoom far away relatives instead. 

Kind of - but take a look at ML right now. There are threads for people taking vacations just to get away. That's the travel that needs curbed. Or traveling to see relatives that you don't like just because you "should" but don't really want to.

And really, if we go the "industries need to be held responsible" route then traveling is going to be cut back anyway as resources become more scarce and costly.

[pixy0stix]

Jan 1, 2024 20:28:19 GMT -5 sent said:

Jan 1, 2024 15:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Your travel may well come at the expense of your life.

It's really hard to have these discussions when people can't grasp the sheer ramifications of their actions.

All of the doomsday discussions seem to have a common theme. Raise the price of unnecessary things and consumption will decrease. Cashmere sweaters, meat, air travel, Amazon's instant delivery, cruising, hot Cheetos, and so on. Relying on Americans to make individual choices one person at a time will have a miniscule impact. We could legislate things, but trust in the government has been a hot mess since COVID. 

Some of this would require a complete overhaul of American culture. Like the meat part. The cashmere and air travel might not be as difficult to implement. We'd have to go back to saving up to fly and buy cashmere. Savings, another concept that seems to have been lost over time as we've been taught to consume for the last 20+ years. 

This means corporations have to stand up and influence the change. I can only hope this could happen in my lifetime. 

Except that there's a solid example in the diet thread that Americans have changed their diet pretty dramatically in the last couple of years as red meat consumption has gone down. We can do it, we just don't want to.

[jamaicam]

I also think (and this may be hard for people to hear), that people who live in some countries 'need' to travel more than others. I spent time in Montserrat, a country of 5,000 people earlier this year. The only way in and out is by a 7 seater plane. There are no scheduled ferries. People there HAVE to fly for most medical care or for any education above 16 years old and other reasons. This is not the same as flying for your friend's wedding. Yes, there should be a ferry service, but it would require investment etc that they don;t have.

On a personal level, I have been thinking about this a lot. My parents now fly once a year to the UK - it is hard for them not to as they have me on one side of the Atlantic and my brother on the other. But then they dont fly other than that - so they do European trips via boats/trains when they are there. I went on a girls' trip last year whcih was great but I am thinking a lot about whether I want to do thsoe again if they entail flying.

I wish that inter-island ferries were more of a thing!

And I do love trains

[noodleoo]

Jan 2, 2024 14:31:07 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jan 2, 2024 13:32:02 GMT -5 scm1011 said:

I think Pixy's point is that you just can't prioritize a close friends wedding over over your life / the state of the planet. That you have to choose to miss these events and zoom far away relatives instead. 

Kind of - but take a look at ML right now. There are threads for people taking vacations just to get away. That's the travel that needs curbed. Or traveling to see relatives that you don't like just because you "should" but don't really want to.

And really, if we go the "industries need to be held responsible" route then traveling is going to be cut back anyway as resources become more scarce and costly.

I can't figure out whether this post question is rhetorical or not.  Because the reality is, very few people are thinking about the future the way you are.  You answered your own question:  if you look at threads on other boards, very few people care about the effect of their personal air travel.  There are so many threads about where are you going for spring break, what are your travel plans for next year, etc. and none of them care about the fact that their individual air travel is part of the climate change problem.  I don't know anyone in real life who actually thinks about those things.  

So you can preach to the choir in here that care a little, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to everyone else.  The general population will not change their behavior until there is a reason for them to do it, either the costs make it unaffordable or there is an educational campaign to change behavior.  Like your example about red meat: people have changed behavior because of public health initiative and education about the negative health benefits.  What is the equivalent for the health of our planet?  Scientists have been ringing the bell for years, but few people care enough to act on it, especially if it requires them to give up something they want.  I know so many people who say travel is the most important thing in their lives (both on GBCN and IRL), they aren't going to give it up voluntarily.

ETA:  I will say that the past few years are the first time I feel like people are really talking about climate change.  The weather reporter was showing that the last 5 winters have been the warmest on record since they started keeping track and he actually said it is due to climate change.  Between the wildfire smoke and weird weather extremes, there is more conversation about it then I remember 5-10 years ago.  So maybe we are getting to a tipping point, but it feels a little too late.  And I still don't see people talking about changing individual behavior, yet anyway.

[pixy0stix]

Mostly for discussion. I know people don't care. Hell, in the food post there was someone who swanned in talking that it was up to the industries, when if they read the actual article what was happening was in direct relation to individual choices.

I dunno. I'm tired and mad because shit is hitting the fan right now and no one is doing shit all. We're all waiting for someone else to force us to stop killing ourselves.

I read an article the other day saying that scientists are starting to see that we hit the tipping point where the earth is going to start warming two times faster than it already is.

[docholly]

It is very difficult to get people, particularly Americans, to think outside of their own individual experience. And our whole society is set up to get us feeling that “yolo” pull. We are born and bred to be consumers.

For the people that can afford travel, their view is that they could be dead anyway next year or next decade so they want to seize the day so speak.

On the other end, we have a large portion of the population that doesn’t travel by air at all (including me) because it is too costly. But, they are more likely to be dealing with day to day stressors and aren’t future focused either… they are thinking about how to afford groceries for the month.

Honestly, to change individual behavior we have to think of it as a marketing campaign. You have to shift the popular mindset and manipulate people better into understanding how these changes help them… today. We have to make taking care of the Earth the new Stanley cup.

Along the same lines:

www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-22/climate-change-concern-marketing

[wawa]

Jan 2, 2024 14:59:32 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Mostly for discussion. I know people don't care. Hell, in the food post there was someone who swanned in talking that it was up to the industries, when if they read the actual article what was happening was in direct relation to individual choices.

I dunno. I'm tired and mad because shit is hitting the fan right now and no one is doing shit all. We're all waiting for someone else to force us to stop killing ourselves.

I read an article the other day saying that scientists are starting to see that we hit the tipping point where the earth is going to start warming two times faster than it already is.

everytime I read a science fiction book about the "far future" where we poison our planet irreparably it bums me the fuck out because most of the time sci fi authors picture it happenign after we have like...moon colonies and the ability to synthisize random foods from fungus or something.

Just finished Children of Time (2015) and prior to that had picked up The Margarets (2007). 

I just double checked and Parable of the Sower (1993) apparently starts in 2024.  I should re-read, but I'm not sure I can take it (forecasts climate change AND trump.  it's really good though) 

[jamaicam]

Jan 2, 2024 15:49:25 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jan 2, 2024 14:59:32 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Mostly for discussion. I know people don't care. Hell, in the food post there was someone who swanned in talking that it was up to the industries, when if they read the actual article what was happening was in direct relation to individual choices.

I dunno. I'm tired and mad because shit is hitting the fan right now and no one is doing shit all. We're all waiting for someone else to force us to stop killing ourselves.

I read an article the other day saying that scientists are starting to see that we hit the tipping point where the earth is going to start warming two times faster than it already is.

everytime I read a science fiction book about the "far future" where we poison our planet irreparably it bums me the fuck out because most of the time sci fi authors picture it happenign after we have like...moon colonies and the ability to synthisize random foods from fungus or something.

Just finished Children of Time (2015) and prior to that had picked up The Margarets (2007). 

I just double checked and Parable of the Sower (1993) apparently starts in 2024.  I should re-read, but I'm not sure I can take it (forecasts climate change AND trump.  it's really good though) 

I recommend reading The Wall by John Lancaster. It is set in the near future and is very good but terrifying. 

[beetea]

Dec 29, 2023 17:02:46 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Here's the million dollar question to the board - if you couldn't fly, would you put in effort to see the family you're visiting? If no, then why are you killing the earth to visit them?

The amount of bitching I saw this year about people not wanting to travel to see their family but doing it anyway was amazing. There's a real cost to traveling that isn't about the money spent.

It would take nearly 48 hours each way to visit my immediate family and 36 hours each way to visit my inlaws. Unfortunately, I don't get that much PTO, which is a totally different problem and discussion.

[tacokick]

Jan 2, 2024 20:14:24 GMT -5 beetea said:

Dec 29, 2023 17:02:46 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Here's the million dollar question to the board - if you couldn't fly, would you put in effort to see the family you're visiting? If no, then why are you killing the earth to visit them?

The amount of bitching I saw this year about people not wanting to travel to see their family but doing it anyway was amazing. There's a real cost to traveling that isn't about the money spent.

It would take nearly 48 hours each way to visit my immediate family and 36 hours each way to visit my inlaws.

Which is unfortunate but prior to cheap and easy air travel people had to accept that if they moved far away from family then they weren’t going to see family often if at all or would choose to live on a railroad line or within reasonable driving distance.

There are people who truly don’t have a choice as to where they live but tons of people do and make that choice knowing seeing family is reliant on plane travel.

On a personal note, a major reason we live where we do is that we can get to my ILs in 3 hrs by car, bus or train. We didn’t want to live near them but we also didn’t want to live anywhere where we would have to fly to see them. We even chose our neighborhood because it is minutes from the train and three interstate bus pick up locations.

I know a good number of people who stopped or greatly reduced plane travel, don’t have cars, changed jobs, moved family closer or moved closer to family and made other big choices/changes based on the environmental impact but I think I move in very different circles than a lot of people on here. Unsurprisingly there is a lot of crossover there with the community health minded and mutual aid community. But people can and do make these choices! It’s easier to keep in touch now with advances in tech than ever before.

[sillygoosegirl]

Jan 2, 2024 22:48:13 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Jan 2, 2024 20:14:24 GMT -5 beetea said:

It would take nearly 48 hours each way to visit my immediate family and 36 hours each way to visit my inlaws.

Which is unfortunate but prior to cheap and easy air travel people had to accept that if they moved far away from family then they weren’t going to see family often if at all or would choose to live on a railroad line or within reasonable driving distance.

There are people who truly don’t have a choice as to where they live but tons of people do and make that choice knowing seeing family is reliant on plane travel.

On a personal note, a major reason we live where we do is that we can get to my ILs in 3 hrs by car, bus or train. We didn’t want to live near them but we also didn’t want to live anywhere where we would have to fly to see them. We even chose our neighborhood because it is minutes from the train and three interstate bus pick up locations.

I know a good number of people who stopped or greatly reduced plane travel, don’t have cars, changed jobs, moved family closer or moved closer to family and made other big choices/changes based on the environmental impact but I think I move in very different circles than a lot of people on here. Unsurprisingly there is a lot of crossover there with the community health minded and mutual aid community. But people can and do make these choices! It’s easier to keep in touch now with advances in tech than ever before.

I do mostly agree with you, but I think a lot of us made these decisions a long time ago when we were unaware of the environmental cost of the travel. I know I did. Definitely shouldn't have met and fallen in love with a man from so far from home. Cannot realistically move either family. They'd rather just not see us anymore than move (too many of them, too deep of roots, too many other responsibilities). We did choose to move to be near one family, but moving to be near both would have pretty much required the foresight to get married to different people. Ultimately this dilemma goes back to decisions we made when we weren't even adults yet, and nobody was talking about the environmental impact of air travel. (The people I knew back then were talking about climate change lots and lots, vary serious about limiting personal emitions, active in the community about getting the word out and fighting for changes, but were blissfully unaware of just how impactful flying was.)

It's way harder to unravel than simply moving near the bus line or train station or work or the city.

@@@
I will definitely encourage different decisions in this regard for the next generation than my parents did for me. Sure, it sounds romantic to move far away for college, but there are great colleges all over the place. And if you go to school locally, you are more likely to be able to get a job locally. You are in turn more likely to meet and marry someone from the same geographic region, etc. And not create this situation.

[tacokick]

Jan 3, 2024 2:16:30 GMT -5 sillygoosegirl said:

Jan 2, 2024 22:48:13 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Which is unfortunate but prior to cheap and easy air travel people had to accept that if they moved far away from family then they weren’t going to see family often if at all or would choose to live on a railroad line or within reasonable driving distance.

There are people who truly don’t have a choice as to where they live but tons of people do and make that choice knowing seeing family is reliant on plane travel.

On a personal note, a major reason we live where we do is that we can get to my ILs in 3 hrs by car, bus or train. We didn’t want to live near them but we also didn’t want to live anywhere where we would have to fly to see them. We even chose our neighborhood because it is minutes from the train and three interstate bus pick up locations.

I know a good number of people who stopped or greatly reduced plane travel, don’t have cars, changed jobs, moved family closer or moved closer to family and made other big choices/changes based on the environmental impact but I think I move in very different circles than a lot of people on here. Unsurprisingly there is a lot of crossover there with the community health minded and mutual aid community. But people can and do make these choices! It’s easier to keep in touch now with advances in tech than ever before.

I do mostly agree with you, but I think a lot of us made these decisions a long time ago when we were unaware of the environmental cost of the travel. I know I did. Definitely shouldn't have met and fallen in love with a man from so far from home. Cannot realistically move either family. They'd rather just not see us anymore than move (too many of them, too deep of roots, too many other responsibilities). We did choose to move to be near one family, but moving to be near both would have pretty much required the foresight to get married to different people. Ultimately this dilemma goes back to decisions we made when we weren't even adults yet, and nobody was talking about the environmental impact of air travel. (The people I knew back then were talking about climate change lots and lots, vary serious about limiting personal emitions, active in the community about getting the word out and fighting for changes, but were blissfully unaware of just how impactful flying was.)

It's way harder to unravel than simply moving near the bus line or train station or work or the city.

@@@
I will definitely encourage different decisions in this regard for the next generation than my parents did for me. Sure, it sounds romantic to move far away for college, but there are great colleges all over the place. And if you go to school locally, you are more likely to be able to get a job locally. You are in turn more likely to meet and marry someone from the same geographic region, etc. And not create this situation.

We’ve known about the impact of air travel for a long time. I’m sure a lot of people were unaware and still are but we talked about greenhouse gas and how airplanes contributed to global warming when I was in middle school in the early 1990s.It was on the news a lot then and not politicized the way it is now. Even in elementary school not a week went by without an environmental story in the Weekly Reader. I can still picture all those ozone layer diagrams.

We made the decision to live where we wouldn’t have to fly to see family 19 years ago.

I’m honestly not sure how someone who was concerned about the environment and global warming could be blissfully unaware of the impact of airplanes. Just on the level of thinking for a second about the massive amount of fuel planes use and how much time is spent in the air just circling airports waiting to land should register that it’s not great. Someone with concerns about personal emissions wouldn’t be gassing up and idling their car for hours—why would planes be different?

We are at the point where people need to decide to move closer to people they want to see or accept not seeing them as often. If family would rather not see me than move and I don’t want to move to them, I wouldn’t prioritize air travel to see them either. My ILs talked about moving out west off and on for years and we were very upfront that we would not see them with any frequency at all if the only option was plane travel. They accepted that and ultimately decided to stay where they were.

I do think the impact of the shift from the 1970s on to pushing going to college period and to
going away to college in general culture isn’t talked about enough. The student loan crisis and like you said, people living far from where they grew up and meeting people who are also far from “home” now seem to travel so much which adds to global warming. Lots of ripples there.

College enrollment has been dropping since about 2010 and I was interested to see if there was also a drop in people moving so far from home but I couldn’t pull up anything.

And of course, a lot of plane travel is just recreational. I didn’t know anyone who flew anywhere growing up with any regularity (or at all, really) and it still surprises me how often people fly for a weekend getaway. I can’t say I’ve never flown but we’ve always done it rarely and waited until we could maximize our time at the location. We chose to live in an area with a lot to do with easy access to other areas with even more to do.

[beetea]

Jan 3, 2024 6:30:56 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Jan 3, 2024 2:16:30 GMT -5 sillygoosegirl said:

I do mostly agree with you, but I think a lot of us made these decisions a long time ago when we were unaware of the environmental cost of the travel. I know I did. Definitely shouldn't have met and fallen in love with a man from so far from home. Cannot realistically move either family. They'd rather just not see us anymore than move (too many of them, too deep of roots, too many other responsibilities). We did choose to move to be near one family, but moving to be near both would have pretty much required the foresight to get married to different people. Ultimately this dilemma goes back to decisions we made when we weren't even adults yet, and nobody was talking about the environmental impact of air travel. (The people I knew back then were talking about climate change lots and lots, vary serious about limiting personal emitions, active in the community about getting the word out and fighting for changes, but were blissfully unaware of just how impactful flying was.)

It's way harder to unravel than simply moving near the bus line or train station or work or the city.

@@@
I will definitely encourage different decisions in this regard for the next generation than my parents did for me. Sure, it sounds romantic to move far away for college, but there are great colleges all over the place. And if you go to school locally, you are more likely to be able to get a job locally. You are in turn more likely to meet and marry someone from the same geographic region, etc. And not create this situation.

We’ve known about the impact of air travel for a long time. I’m sure a lot of people were unaware and still are but we talked about greenhouse gas and how airplanes contributed to global warming when I was in middle school in the early 1990s.It was on the news a lot then and not politicized the way it is now. Even in elementary school not a week went by without an environmental story in the Weekly Reader. I can still picture all those ozone layer diagrams.

LOL. I was in college in the mid-90s. We knew to ditch the Aquanet because that was destroying the ozone layer and recycle newspapers, but air travel was still desirable and "fancy." My husband and I met and married an 8 hour drive from my family and a 24 hour drive from his. Totally doable when we were young, didn't have a mortgage or anything rooting us to where we lived. Through a series of work related relocations, we are where we are for at least 4 more years. I don't know what will happen after that, but as it stands, we visit each set of parents once a year. Depending on work circumstances, we sometimes take a long trip where we fly to one set of parents and drive to the other (only 10 hours apart), but it's rare to be able to take off two weeks all at once. Again, if corporate America had a more family focused outlook, we'd all have plenty of time off to visit with friends and loved ones.

FWIW, we have three drivers in my family and only have one vehicle. While we don't have a great public transportation system (#texas), we deliberately live in a neighborhood that is walkable to grocery stores, library, restaurants, etc. We live small in a 1300 sq/ft hourse, garden, only eat meat 2-3 weeks (or not at all for 2/4 of us), and avoid single use plastic. ******My kids walk or bike to school, friends houses, a gross fast food place, and coffee shop. We are thoughtful about our purchases and where we spend our money in our community. While I don't love our 20 hours of air travel a year, I view it as a necessity and hope the other things we do and choices we make help to offset that.

[pixy0stix]

You can't offset damage. Either you do it or you don't.

You wouldn't say, "Oh, I'm going to give this person a piece of candy after I punch them in the eye. Everything will work out."

[sent]

Jan 2, 2024 14:33:45 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jan 1, 2024 20:28:19 GMT -5 sent said:

All of the doomsday discussions seem to have a common theme. Raise the price of unnecessary things and consumption will decrease. Cashmere sweaters, meat, air travel, Amazon's instant delivery, cruising, hot Cheetos, and so on. Relying on Americans to make individual choices one person at a time will have a miniscule impact. We could legislate things, but trust in the government has been a hot mess since COVID. 

Some of this would require a complete overhaul of American culture. Like the meat part. The cashmere and air travel might not be as difficult to implement. We'd have to go back to saving up to fly and buy cashmere. Savings, another concept that seems to have been lost over time as we've been taught to consume for the last 20+ years. 

This means corporations have to stand up and influence the change. I can only hope this could happen in my lifetime. 

Except that there's a solid example in the diet thread that Americans have changed their diet pretty dramatically in the last couple of years as red meat consumption has gone down. We can do it, we just don't want to.

I don't eat red meat so I don't always follow discussions on it and may have missed this one. Is it the thread about the groundwater + diet? I didn't read that article yet. 

[pixy0stix]

Jan 3, 2024 10:45:28 GMT -5 sent said:

Jan 2, 2024 14:33:45 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Except that there's a solid example in the diet thread that Americans have changed their diet pretty dramatically in the last couple of years as red meat consumption has gone down. We can do it, we just don't want to.

I don't eat red meat so I don't always follow discussions on it and may have missed this one. Is it the thread about the groundwater + diet? I didn't read that article yet. 

Yes.

[noodleoo]

Jan 3, 2024 6:30:56 GMT -5 tacokick said:

And of course, a lot of plane travel is just recreational. I didn’t know anyone who flew anywhere growing up with any regularity (or at all, really) and it still surprises me how often people fly for a weekend getaway. I can’t say I’ve never flown but we’ve always done it rarely and waited until we could maximize our time at the location. We chose to live in an area with a lot to do with easy access to other areas with even more to do.

I'd be interested in what the breakdown of reasons for flying are, and especially by distance. People seem to focusing on flying to visit family, but I think business travel is probably a much larger percentage of air traffic than that. And I agree that most people I know who fly are doing it for pleasure vacations, not family. Those trips tend to be to further destinations too: Hawaii, Europe, Carribean, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

[pixy0stix]

Jan 3, 2024 10:48:07 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

Jan 3, 2024 6:30:56 GMT -5 tacokick said:

And of course, a lot of plane travel is just recreational. I didn’t know anyone who flew anywhere growing up with any regularity (or at all, really) and it still surprises me how often people fly for a weekend getaway. I can’t say I’ve never flown but we’ve always done it rarely and waited until we could maximize our time at the location. We chose to live in an area with a lot to do with easy access to other areas with even more to do.

I'd be interested in what the breakdown of reasons for flying are, and especially by distance. People seem to focusing on flying to visit family, but I think business travel is probably a much larger percentage of air traffic than that. And I agree that most people I know who fly are doing it for pleasure vacations, not family. Those trips tend to be to further destinations too: Hawaii, Europe, Carribean, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

Both Times and Forbes used this source to state that business travel accounts for 12% of flights - www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/consumer-markets/library/corporate-travel-collaboration-essential-for-covid-19-recovery.html

ETA: I'm including the Times article from 2021 because travel rebounded MUCH more than what they were talking about in the article - time.com/6108331/business-travel-decline-covid-19/

[breezy8407]

Jan 3, 2024 10:48:07 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

Jan 3, 2024 6:30:56 GMT -5 tacokick said:

And of course, a lot of plane travel is just recreational. I didn’t know anyone who flew anywhere growing up with any regularity (or at all, really) and it still surprises me how often people fly for a weekend getaway. I can’t say I’ve never flown but we’ve always done it rarely and waited until we could maximize our time at the location. We chose to live in an area with a lot to do with easy access to other areas with even more to do.

I'd be interested in what the breakdown of reasons for flying are, and especially by distance. People seem to focusing on flying to visit family, but I think business travel is probably a much larger percentage of air traffic than that. And I agree that most people I know who fly are doing it for pleasure vacations, not family. Those trips tend to be to further destinations too: Hawaii, Europe, +
Carribean, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

I would think so too. I travel for work on average once a month. Our family has been on about one plane trip vacation a year minus 2020-2021. Most of my work peers are doing the same as me, and my bosses are going places almost every week. The way my company is set up nationally, the work I am doing can't be done remotely (construction), but there are absolutely trips by execs that I would consider unnecessary. 

ETA: I see that is not the case! Interesting its only 12%,

[mccallister84]

Jan 3, 2024 11:24:31 GMT -5 breezy8407 said:

Jan 3, 2024 10:48:07 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

I'd be interested in what the breakdown of reasons for flying are, and especially by distance. People seem to focusing on flying to visit family, but I think business travel is probably a much larger percentage of air traffic than that. And I agree that most people I know who fly are doing it for pleasure vacations, not family. Those trips tend to be to further destinations too: Hawaii, Europe, +
Carribean, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

I would think so too. I travel for work on average once a month. Our family has been on about one plane trip vacation a year minus 2020-2021. Most of my work peers are doing the same as me, and my bosses are going places almost every week. The way my company is set up nationally, the work I am doing can't be done remotely (construction), but there are absolutely trips by execs that I would consider unnecessary. 

ETA: I see that is not the case! Interesting its only 12%,

The articles touch on this too, but how much does that 12% fuel other travel? My dad never traveled for work much before 2015 but now that he does my parents go on way more trips by air since he has miles and hotel points.