Ethics of air travel, carbon offsets

Rick's Climate Commitment is already spelled out elsewhere on this website. Here's a link if you missed it - https://www.ricksteves.com/about-us/climate-smart

Um , Rick does promote taking the trains , have you read any of his guide books ?

I am not conflicted by flying to Europe , I only get to go once a year or sometimes only once every two years - as opposed to business travellers who are flying up to 100 days a year .
So yeah , not going to let that guilt me out

Rick Steves community is generally ahead in terms of ecological
awareness

My very honest view: NO.

If you take environment only half-seriously (based on COP21) - then intercontinental travelling without sailboats or green-energy powered trains are over. Nothing against traveling but we must be so clear to say: We steal it from future generations.

The 1 million USD of Rick Steves is a nice idea. Unfortunately the story ends with mentioning the sum.

Let's calculate on it: Even if we reduce planting a tree for 1 USD per tree this makes 1 million trees (per year). A full-grown tree binds appr. 10 kg per year (in young years much less). So: 10 mn kg CO2 binding = 10.000 tons CO2. Only the flight USA to Europe (ORD - FRA eco both ways) creates 4 tons per passenger. So 1 mn USD equals the flights of 2,500 people traveling USA - Europe (when trees are grown). These are 10 flights with 250 passengers. Every day there are over 500 flight connections between USA & Canada to Europe.

Do not get me wrong: Better than nothing but far away from compensating the damage (only CO2 wise). Even with cumulating effect year on year. Also: compensating is a sad plan B to avoiding.

In my opinion we are extremely far away from an honest climate and environment discussion here.

Will you ever see Svalbard before human-made climate change impact? Clear no and you will be shocked looking at comparing photos. See this impressive photo series on 100 years apart - the reality of climate change.

Maybe this is the reason why Norway companies start thinking of who is the best tourist CO2 wise.

I apologize if someone feels offended in which way ever - but this is the status we have actuallly:
We see (since 70 years),
we know (since 40 years),
we ignore (most of it until today).

I'm not conflicted about the next trip to Europe either as we haven't been able to go that often, and there is no other way to get there from North America that doesn't involve planes and/or a pretty big ship. Once there, with the exception of a German friend driving us about for a day once, ALL of our getting-about has been on foot or via public transit. I see a LOT of other posters on the forum who either have or plan to do the same.

...as opposed to business travellers who are flying up to 100 days a
year .

Good point, Pat. I'm all in favor of telecommuting and telemeetings whenever possible. I also wish that public transit was more prevalent in the U.S. Not much on this site but on others, helping foreigners/citizens who can't or don't wish to drive try to get from some point A's to B's is a real headache. Sometimes it's virtually impossible. Shoot, seems like you can get Amazon deliveries (which we almost never order from versus support local businesses) easier than get to/around some of our National Parks without an escorted bus tour, a car or a bike, if one is fit enough for some long, strenuous riding, and not that some of our parks need any more bodies wearing them out.

MarkK, I see on your profile that you "toured the world for business"? I would assume that meant a fair amount of air travel?

In an attempt to buy off my conscience, I'm signed up for monthly donations to this program:

https://sustainabletravel.org/our-work/carbon-offsets/

This is far from a best personal travel policy environmentally, but also (I hope) a lot better than doing nothing. Like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, I have a whole lot of back payments to make up. Yet, as one of the super-privileged who can travel wherever, I love it too much to give it up just now.

One thing I hope to see is an increase in cross-Atlantic tourist ships. Of course many people could not budget the extra time, but this could be a good option for retired persons and others (like academics) with generous vacations.

I also think of retiring in Europe, within which it would be possible to travel without a massive carbon footprint.

Interestingly (or not?), Britain's Green Party has just published its manifesto for the forthcoming UK general election. It proposes:

• "Ban advertising for flights, and introduce a Frequent Flyer Levy to reduce the impact of the 15% of people who take 70% of flights. This Frequent Flyer Tax Levy will only apply to people who take more than one (return) flight a year, discouraging excessive flying."

Now the Greens only had one seat in the last parliament and are unlikely to do much better in the next one. So this won't be happening anytime soon. Nevertheless, it's perhaps indicative of the "direction of travel" of British & European environmentalists (Verdes, a Spanish green party, has a similar policy). Although a good idea in principle, there seem to be many practical & fairness issues with the policy (and it doesn't translate easily to vast countries like Canada where domestic air travel makes more sense), but I wouldn't be surprised if over the coming decades a version of it becomes mainstream thinking in Europe/British Isles. And that, I think, is a good thing. People (including me), do fly too often when better alternatives are available.

if over the coming decades

Problem is, if we don't do a lot and very soon, and not just token gestures or sticking fingers in ears like some leaders, there won't be coming decades.

Guilt doesn't enter into it - staying alive for us and our kids does

@ Kathy. your assumption is correct. I also air traveled a lot but reduced that to nearly zero since 5 years. Also changed other parts of my life including job.

Or we could all quit eating beef and cheese and eliminate a major source of greenhouse gas.

I’m aware of the issue and try to mitigate it as much as I can. For me that means buying carbon offsets and living reasonably green in my day to day life. For example, I don’t eat beef due to environmental concerns, I live in a smaller home in a walkable neighborhood (less electric and water usage, less driving), am mindful of consumption of products, and so forth. I also take trains once in my destination whenever possible. It’s not a great answer, but it’s the best I’ve got.

A chunk of the answer lies in what corporations and governments do - a small change when done by a person (like using better or fewer products, taking one flight instead of two, using green electricity) is enormous when done by an entity with thousands of employees, hundreds of huge buildings, and factories/shipping. So voting (with literal votes, and contacting representatives etc, for government, and with dollars for companies/products) is another thing I try to do.

Again, not a great answer, I know.

Well said Emma, totally agree. The idea of holiday cloths is bizarre to me. Also if they are crease resistant which means they are man made fibers, those are all 100% plastic. The scary reality is every time you wash an acrylic top it sheds 70,000 micro fibers of plastic into the water supply. Not good.

If people really cared about the environment, they would stop having children. Those who are reproducing (especially couples who have multiple children) are on mighty thin ice when pointing fingers at others about their purported impact on the environment.

Seriously, the carbon footprint (and other downstream damage to the environment) of having a child -- which also includes the carbon footprints and negative ecological impacts of all their descendants -- is infinite. Literally, infinite.

That impact dwarfs every other detail that people argue over. But discussion of such things is taboo, so turn the lights down low baby, put on some Al Green, and bring on the self-righteous shaming.

When the current US administration refuses to even acknowledge that climate change exists, it seems kind of silly to scold American tourists for buying clothes, using air conditioning, and asking for ice cubes.

We Americans need to vote for people who, among other things, are willing to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

How old are you? make a copy of your post and look at it in 30 years and see if your worries were justified

Its just common sense that we should all be doing what we can now, you just need to watch the rise of weather disasters in the news to see that.

I agree, Emma, with all that you have said, and with Rebecca's concerns. These are my concerns as well...yet I am sometimes stronger with them than others.

Also, I'll reiterate the huge problem the textile industry has towards global warming, yet, people still have to have more and cheap. (My closet is small, as plant based as possible, and well used. LOL. I'm mostly vegetarian, 2 days a week vegan at least. I live in a small house. I have many trees on a city lot. We have one car with little mileage. Etc, Etc. And there is so much more I need to do and am working on it.) We all have to change our ways, in many ways. It's difficult when one global warming issue is taken out of context with the rest, because some can avoid one while being horrendous or selfish on another. I was blown away a few months ago when I was recommending public transportation/trains over short European flights on one post on this forum. That being said I am flying to Europe next year. This does bother me, and yet I'm still going. I have reduced my flights, and I've been paying for counter measures for my flights for almost 2 decades amidst all the other things I've done thru the years. I've incorporated many other tactics into my life for the last 30 years. I do feel guilty about flying to Europe, but ships are a worse answer. I could stay home, and ultimately will, but, wow, what a problem that would be for Europe, if all tourists in the world who have to fly to Europe stayed home. I am not an economic expert, but seems that's a huge loss of income for many countries. Perhaps all those cheap inter Europe flights need to be reduced or stopped to encourage public transportation/trains. Perhaps people who travel should stay in one place. I don't know the answer, but ultimately I think the individual will be the decider as too many corporations and governments are not interested in changing their ways. The point of my all over the place comments here is that we all have to work on every aspect of our lives. We have to make difficult decisions and easy decisions in every day life to somehow change our ways to have an affect in 10 years. We don't know what each individual has done in other aspects of their lives to justify that RT to where ever, so it's hard to judge.

Sorry, in advance for my snakiness, but I do find certain European individuals who are holier than thou about not flying to Italy or wherever, when they don't have to fly to get there, and are on a travel forum where most people originate from the USA and Canada, who have to fly to Europe if they go, to be a bit annoying.

Emma, haha. Typo. I think I'll leave it. ...I guess it comes from watching the Republicans in the impeachment hearings as I wrote that... Oh, maybe I'm not supposed to say that on here...we'll see.

If people really cared about the environment, they would stop having
children

At least the DH and I have THAT going for us. I forgot about the procreation thing until I was, oh, 50 or so, and was over any maternal tick-tock by that point. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy most little people, though.

Planet-saving progress has been slower than many of us would like but gosh, does anyone remember burning the trash in a backyard barrel and the autumn leaves in the street? That was standard practice when I was a kid. There were also a lot more cans and bottles in the ditches until the 5-cent returnable fees went into effect. Small steps, maybe, but steps in the right direction (so says our recycle bin and hybrid vehicle). I'm also wearing my traveling wardrobe as I'm writing this; a comfortably broken-in pair of denims. :O)

At least the DH and I have THAT going for us.

In that case, Kathy, you get a free pass, since what you have done (or rather, not done) has had an infinitely greater positive impact on the environment than a bazillion dollars worth of "carbon-offsets" or skipping meat, flights or wearing polyester. So you go right ahead and fly to Europe as often as you want to -- you've already done more to preserve the environment than almost everyone.

If everybody was required to buy $100,000 worth of carbon offsets every time they had unprotected sex, the planet would be in much better shape, and that line to get in to see the Mona Lisa would be blissfully short.

This Frequent Flyer Tax Levy will only apply to people who take more than one (return) flight a year, discouraging excessive flying.

So The Green Party think anything more than one flight a year makes someone a frequent flyer! There are many reasons that The Green Party are never going to make any headway, that viewpoint is just one of them.

My wife flies within Europe at least once a week for business, that is my definition of a frequent flyer.

I had a big birthday this year (70) and I feel I am at the Carpe Diem part of my travel life. I need to go while I still can. Vegan going on 8 years, no kids, plenty of trees in the yard but I've no idea if that really offsets anything.

I'll fly to Europe as often as I can afford to which, fingers crossed, is at least once a year (but have been able to go twice this year).

I am enjoying reading through this discussion. I don't have much new to add, other than to say since I'm lucky to have a teacher's schedule, I try to make sure I spend as long as possible where I'm going if I must fly. No kids so far; definitely on the fence about them though I love my nieces and nephews.

But, I happened across this opinion piece in the New York Times (possibly behind a paywall; sorry!) that might be of interest and presented a thought I hadn't considered. It makes an intriguing counterargument - that tourism is in some cases an important piece in encouraging conservation of sites that might otherwise be turned into less eco-friendly projects.

"that tourism is in some cases an important piece in encouraging conservation of sites that might otherwise be turned into less eco-friendly projects."

I did not read the article but yes, I agree with this. I see this as an important key for saving the US National Parks. I'm a Yellowstone fan and feel the more people that go and fall in love with it the better it will be protected from encroachment of various industrial interests.

My husband is one of those business travelers, usually to scientific meetings. Nothing I can do about that. He does do a lot of Skype calls. I am not conflicted about the 3 trips I took to Europe this year-I drive a Prius and keep my thermostat on 78(or higher) in the summer. Emma, you would not have wanted to be here with no AC the first week of Oct when it was still 100 degrees. Since air pollution such as ozone continues to be a problem in some parts of the US, I would like to see more effort made to decrease gas-guzzling cars and use solar energy in places like the SE US and California where the sun shines constantly in the summer. And of course reduce deforestation and plant more forests.

cala, you will be pleased to learn that California is the first state in the country to require solar power in newly built homes, takes effect in 2020. As well, with better panel efficiency and other improvements, it is not only those in the Southwest who can benefit from solar power.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/674075032/california-gives-final-ok-to-requiring-solar-panels-on-new-houses

Additionally, I believe this is the latest solar farm around here, with 9 million panels producing 550 megawatts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm

Incidentally, the Carrizo Plain, where this farm is located, is quite a sight on it's own-if you like wildflowers, you should go to the Carrizo Plain National Monument someday, preferably in Spring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrizo_Plain

haha David - I was going to post yesterday morning about the 'having one less child is the best thing you can do for the environment' and say since my hubs and I had no children, I'm not going to feel bad about flying to Europe once a year and eating steaks. I thought some people might take it the wrong way so decided not to.

But anyways, my husband and I didn't have kids so I'm not going to feel bad about flying to Europe once a year and eating steaks.

;)

Climate change is real, but I’m not going to cancel an annual European trip. There’s so many ways to combat it but we also have to deal with the world we live in. No one is going to finance a yacht for me to cross the Atlantic in.

Rather than guilting the infrequent foreign leisure traveller, the time and energy could better be spent to encourage companies to reduce their business travel. Sure there’s some things that must be done in person. Sales roles, especially high dollar, have always involved a lot of the personal touch and the buyer often expects the wining, dining, and a round of golf.

But there’s so much useless business travel. We had a woman at my last job who flew to all our offices to work with the low level phone reps. She racked up so many miles and hotel points, she literally had no idea how to spend them all. And, it was work that could easily be done via video conferencing. She was also the type to use all the daily expense account money for a dinner splurge. Which is fine, but that definitely makes you stick out a bit and you don’t want the person sticking out when the inevitable cost cutting comes around.

I took Amtrak from Chicago to D.C. and I’m afraid I’ll never do that again. I love the idea of train travel but that was 3/4 of a day and an overnight trip. I felt jet lagged by the time I got to D.C. after being unable to sleep much.

I traveled a lot during the hiatus so my theory is the more I travel, the better it is for the environment.

I'm not picking on the US but it is the only place where I have
travelled where you always need a cardigan when you enter a shop or
restaurant.

Arg, I know what you mean, Emma. It seems silly to have to shop or go to dinner or coffee wearing a sweatshirt in July 'cause the A.C. is set on "polar". On the other hand, the absence of screens in parts of Europe can make sleeping darned uncomfortable if the mozzies are so bad that you can't keep the window open for cooling. I was positively eaten alive one night in Florence, and had a pretty nasty reaction to those bites.

Just for the record, I'm certainly not feeling superior about my childless impact on the environment. Anyone who sincerely desires to be a parent should have that opportunity, in one way or another. A world without littles would be a sad place; we've been lucky to have been able to borrow a few now and again!

I'm not picking on the US

Having only been overtaken by China in 2006 as the worlds biggest CO2 polluter the US does deserve some picking on.

Cutting back on a flight to Europe once a year is pointless, that flight is going to fly irrespective. What is required is action on a governmental level.

Unless it's a pressing situation, I do not take flights within Europe. RS view on trains has nothing to do with it. I take trains, always did, day or night.

How many of you have given up your car or cars (gas guzzling, not electric) in order to demonstrate that you actually are living day by day NOT polluting the earth with gasoline from any vehicle because you no longer drive one or take a bus that is powered by gasoline?

Those of you who worry or feel conflicted about the "ethics" of flying but still drive cars (non-electric) need to look at your current daily carbon footprint when you drive your cars to/from work, school, grocery shopping, errands, to the gas station, etc as well as your spouse, children or anyone else close to you who does the same in his/her own gas guzzling car.

We have no car. We travel daily by foot and subway . We have no children. If anyone is really that conflicted about traveling by plane, start at home. You and your family should sell or donate your car(s) and live without them. No excuses about why you cannot if the future of the planet makes you so worried.

"No excuses about why you cannot if the future of the planet makes you so worried." - Yes there are, and plenty. Motor vehicles will always be required. I'm self employed and require a van to earn a living. It will not run on a battery and I can't carry my equipment in a backpack.

"If people really cared about the environment, they would stop having children." - What a strange concept. Anyway, certain societies already have much lower birth rates than a few decades earlier. And where are all the future forum members going to come from?

Continental, with almost no public transportation and no sidewalks in my neighborhood, I have no choice but to drive. I love subways and trains, but the subway in NY City is just too dirty. One of these days I hope to learn the bus system there. I don't understand why you think we can control our spouse's and adult children's car choices, but mine are not driving pickup trucks or large SUV's.

Emma, I totally agree about the freezing AC (and roasting heat in winter). I hate being cold! I will be politically incorrect and say that my experience has been that the other gender are usually the ones who insist on the freezing AC(and I'm old enough that I should be the one that's too hot!) When you're sitting up high in the choir loft, wearing a robe and you're still shivering, there's something wrong!

We could do a lot if we would limit who can travel.

The Chinese have developed an interesting system of social scoring for their citizens. Those that do not score appropriately have their rights and privileges curtailed. We might want to try that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

Short term, taxing flights might do the trick. Raise the $125 Southwest airline ticket to $350 and a lot fewer people will be flying. Sure, a lot of airline personnel and travel related workers will loose their jobs but there will be plenty of jobs planting all the trees that the taxes pay for..

If given a choice to pay extra for AC in a hotel (that was in Paris) or do without it in the summer trip, I do without it...a very easy choice. The first time I was confronted with paying extra for AC at that hotel, same as paying extra for the breakfast, I said no to the AC option. They gave me a room on the top floor.

A couple random thoughts

Once everyone is taking only one air trip per year what are all the folks in the tourism industry ( hotels, restaurants, museums, etc plus all those in the transportation industry) going to do for work? ( how many tree planters are needed?)

Is warming happening? Yes
Is it having harmful affects? Yes
Is mankind the sole cause? Hmm

Who was flying the airplanes, running A/C systems and driving gas guzzling SUVs to create the global warming that lead to the end of the Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered much of North America until 20,000 yrs ago?

joe32F what horrible things to say!

But I have already started buying up future farm land in Greenland. I figure in 12 years the climate will be perfect for wheat.

Oh, and future beach fronts are also a good investment.

I was putting this thread into two machines capturing status of the web because I think that it is necessary to keep this picture of "don't-careness" of average travelers for the next generations.

Eating less beef comparing with only 1 flight US - Europe is somewhere between shocking about unknowedge and a bad Saturday night joke on TV.

I honestly recommend everybody to spend 1 hour on open-minded and serious research about real numbers of climate change and on the footprint the own country and yourself is producing.

So much to "that the Rick Steves community is generally ahead in terms of ecological awareness and desire to better the world" from OP. Unbelievable.

I wonder how much St. Greta charges for a trans-atlantic ride on her boat? Sign me up for first class. Maybe I can use my miles.

Howling, snorting, eyes streaming... 🤣
Touché, Carlos!!!!

Howling, snorting, eyes streaming... 🤣
Touché, Carlos!!!!

???

Howling, snorting, eyes streaming... 🤣
Touché, Carlos!!!!

???

Sorry for the confusion lol! I self-censored my comment that Kathy refers to, I felt my wry millennial humor might not be viewed as productive to the conversation 😉

OK but THIS Boomer appreciated your millennial humor, Carlos!
That was a great lighten-up belly laugh.
(I have, BTW, hidden the text of Carlos' original comment in this post)

Thanks Kathy, glad you appreciate my humor 😁, I was afraid that some may take my comment the wrong way. I think my fears were overblown though lol

Just saw this item of possible interest to people on this thread:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50503721

This Washington Post article features actual young folks taking trains to make an actual difference, and yes-there's a Swedish Facebook group dedicated to the practice, too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europes-flight-shame-movement-has-travelers-taking-trains-to-save-the-planet/2019/08/02/1bd38486-ac96-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html

I'm sorry, but taking a train to an unnecessary destination is in what way better than not going?

Also adding an article.

DW: Flight shame: Climate-conscious migrants face environmental dilemma

https://www.dw.com/en/flight-shame-climate-conscious-migrants-face-environmental-dilemma/a-50721253

If we would adopt the Chinese Social Credit System, then flight shaming wouldn't be necessary. But until then, maybe so. What is unfortunate about things like flight shaming is that the worthy are affected too.

There are sites where you can calculate the carbon contribution of a flight and purchase offsets. I don't know how accurate it is, but here is one: https://www.terrapass.com/

It says a round trip from San Francisco to Ljubjiana is 7800 lbs. of CO2 and the offset is $39 and change. (A trip I am considering). Of course, the question is that what the real impact is or is that what they think people might be wiling to pay. Reading this organization's web site it looks legitimate to me. I would consider sending them a check.

I think the NYT article referenced above mentioned that 2.5% of greenhouse gas emissions are from global aviation. Deforestation and all transportation are 20% each.

The adverse environmental impact of cruise ships is frequently pointed out on this board. They burn heavy fuel oil which is very dirty. So do the freigthers that bring goods from overseas, incuding food. Nearly everything we own and consume has a carbon footprint. It's not just travel it's stuff. And people. The point that reproducing is a carbon gift to posterity is a good point, though it's uncomfortable to think of it that way.

We do need to work toward a world economy that is not built upon the supposition of ever-increasing population growth. The fact that family sizes are shrinking in much of the developed world is seen as a drag on the potential for economic growth. We don't have a model for propsperity that is not based upon a growing population, but growing poulation becomes more and more of a strain on the earth.

What I haven't seen here is any mention of any kind of life cycle analysis of any transportation options.

I drive a 15-year old small Toyota Highlander with about 205,000 miles on it. We live about 30 miles from town on a dirt road, often rutted and marginally passable during monsoon season. We batch our trips to town, usually doing our errands when we have medical appointments. Think Little House on the Prairie.

I have never lived anywhere that I didn't need a car to get around. Even in Nuremberg I worked in 3 different locations and had meetings in a 4th. Public transportation was not adequate to get to any of them.

At 73 I've purchased a total of 5 cars. I've bought new or nearly new cars and driven them till they dropped. That's usually around 175,000 to 200,000 miles.

A few years back I was considering getting a hybrid car. Then I read an article similar to what I'm posting below. The basic premise is that just because something, in this case a car, is touted as environmentally friendly, it doesn't mean that its cradle to grave environmental costs aren't significant.

Lots of assumptions are made, but without a thorough comparative analysis it's impossible to know what kind transportation or any other product is the better choice for the environment.

Beyond that, as of today, I see no point in guilting myself or anyone else for flying or driving or taking a train or a bus or a subway or a cruise on a big ship. Or for doing anything else that may be the only way we can do some things, even if that way doesn't appear to be the perfect one for the environment.

Now, here's the article: Should You Keep Your Used Car or Buy a Brand New Hybrid Car? It's pretty long, so I hope you can make it to the end.

If you do get to the end you will see how many factors go into a life cycle assessment. These and other factors go into determining the life cycle impacts of any kind of vehicle or mode of transportation.

What I haven't seen here is any mention of any kind of life cycle analysis <<

I agree with those points. Here is an example that is not about transportation, but the moral of the story is the same.

I have a washer and dryer in my house that originally belonged to my mother. They were manufactured in 1960-something. Both still work fine. My husband has repaired them a few times, which wasn't hard because they are completely mechanical, with no digital anything. We were even able to buy spare parts once from Whirlpool.

Now our utility gave us a $400 credit to buy an energy efficient new washing machine. I went and looked at those that were available for the credit. They all cost more than $800 and had way more bells and whistles than we would ever need or use. The simplest washing machines that were not labeled as energy efficient all cost less than $400 and were more suitable for our needs but were not eligible for the credit. So we decided there was no reason to buy anything new and no reason to send machines that are still working, even though primitive, to the landfill.

The moral of the story: What is pedaled as the virtuous choice is not always the best choice. It's far better for me and for the environment to keep using my old machines than to buy energy efficient new ones.

To see how this might apply to transportation, see the NY Times article last week that argued that traveling less can lead to undesirable environmental consequences.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opinion/climate-change-travel.html

The Chinese have developed an interesting system of social scoring for their citizens. Those that do not score appropriately have their rights and privileges curtailed. We might want to try that. <<

I don't believe this would fly in Western countries. Getting docked every time you criticize the government or overdraw your bank account? Getting docked for perfectly legal choices you make about how to spend your hard-earned money? That is how it works in China.

marcia, we need to rededicate the masses. What is best often must be imposed upon the people. Otherwise in 12 years it's all over.

It's far better for me and for the environment to keep using my old machines than to buy energy efficient new ones.

Is it though? The rough action of those old (top loading I presume) washing machines release far more microfibres from clothing than more gentle modern machines. In the case of man made fibres in particular, when these eventually make their way into the marine environment they cause many problems for the aquatic life there.

The PRC's Social Scoring program is an terrible authoritarian infringement of freedom. Individuals that don't meeting the standard are punished because they don't conform to the government's beliefs. It is big brother and I can't believe someone would advocate such a system.
I believe that individuals should do their part to protect the environment, but that solution is extreme.

geovagriffith: but individuals won't. Look at the people here. Taking senseless feel-good trips with out regard to the damage it causes. There is no other solution. With a strong central government just think of the good we could do. The average european family of 4 lives in less then 700 sf, the American equivalent is 2000 st. It means we are terrible stewards of land and resources. With state ownership we could place 3 families in every US house and save immeasurable energy and natural resources.

"[China's social scoring programme] It is big brother and I can't believe someone would advocate such a system."

Geovagriffith, I don't think anyone has really suggested that. It was just one poster's rather heavy handed attempt at irony.

What I really notice on this forum is a great deal of finger pointing. As Emma noted, the common belief is it is always someone else causing the problem.....

Where we live and how we live impacts carbon emissions and what actions we can reasonably take. This is not the same for everyone. It is foolish to make suggestions such as , “get rid of the car and take public transport like I do” to people who live in rural areas where there is no public transport.

Our European friends often have no realistic idea of what life is like for the average American. They visit only the big cities when they come to America or tourist locations. ( Much the same as we do when we visit Europe.) They live and work in relatively small geographical areas well served by public transport.
The idea that one might have to drive 70 miles to the closest grocery store, Dr, or even bus stop, is outside their experience.

I think the bottom line in this issue is for each person to look at his/her current situation and lifestyle and ask, “ Are there some changes I could make to reduce my impact on the environment?” That should be the starting point. I’ll leave the finger pointing, guilting, and one size fits all suggestions to others.

Our European friends often have no realistic idea of what life is like for the average American. They visit only the big cities when they come to America or tourist locations.

Not this European! I visit mainly to see the national parks, the big cities are no draw to me. I've been to NYC, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami, Dallas and so on and I have no desire to return to any of them but give me the national parks any day.

To suggest that most Europeans have no realistic idea of what life is like for the average American is rather patronising. In fact we do as we've experienced it from travelling to the US as well as consuming so much American TV, film etc. I think you'll find the suggestion to ditch the car and travel by public transport came from a fellow American.

We won't stop climate change until our efforts become centralized and mandatory. Public transportation isn't going to work in the US until we nationalize housing and increase population densities by subdividing existing housing and through mandatory relocation. And vacations to Europe? At what expense to the world? Maybe, organized educational experiences equally available to everyone. Opportunities to explore and share new organic and low impact farming techniques, but just to get your selfie at the Mona Lisa, that must stop.

I'm assuming that some (maybe a lot) of the comments in this thread are made in jest. Including those suggestions that most Americans would regard as a totalitarian nightmare. At least I think those are made in jest...

At times like this, this forum would be better if there were some kind of sarcasm emoticons... [eyeroll]

JC, I wasn’t trying to patronize you. I was only thinking through my personal experiences over the years where the majority of Europeans tell me, “ Oh, I ‘ve been to the US, I went to Vegas.” other two most popular responses, “ I’ve been to Orlando, I’ve been to New York City.”

I must say that I don’t think American TV accurately reflects most of American culture, but that again is just an opinion.

The only American television that depicts the America I know is The Beverly Hillbillies.

As for the seriousness of my comments. I've been buying trees to offset for a decade. I happen to like trees too. But there is no social justice in that solution.

James, so glad that you're posting . . .saves me from doing the same. Maybe I shouldn't have posted this, considering how much energy it used up on my phone"s battery . . . here's hoping they'll come up with a hand-crank model soon.

..and I'm so worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.

Tim, you can purchase one, but making your own from recycled materials is so much more sustainable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFvjqZTCqP4

James, looks like there's another reason to eat Popsicles! Thanks!

Absolutely!!

When I was in grad school in the early 80's I came to the conclusion that adding too many humans to the world was going to kill it ..... I chose not to have children. I send a letter to my elected officials annually around tax time outlining why the tax code is an incentive to have more kids and build more houses and why those two things directly impact our environment and sustainability of our planet. I live in Mormon country and it's very scary to see how many kids they can carry in their HUGE SUV's.

I fly once a year to Europe and I don't feel one bit bad about it. We can't do it all but we can do somethings.

Of course no one had figured out an economic model that worked in stagnant population growth. In other words if were to flat line on growth today, I suspect that within the next 30 years there would be substantial decline in the quality of life. Not that I wouldn't like to see someone solve that problem. Again, this is where centralized strategic planning would pay off. We could manipulate things like population growth and life expectations to match the needs of the whole and maybe shape the quality of humanity by influencing who has children and who doesn't.

I feel that the Rick Steves community is generally ahead in terms of
ecological awareness and desire to better the world.

I have to agree with MarkK. If this forum in general and this thread in particular is in any way representative of the Rick Steves community, the community is way behind on terms of ecological awareness.

Another potentially useful article:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/green-travel-tips/index.html

There are a lot of people on this forum who are acutely aware of the situation and what must be done .... but they are exempt from having to participate in the sacrifice.

Interesting that one Alabama redneck with a Ford F150 as a daily driver creates only a slightly larger carbon footprint in a year as a San Francisco socialite who drives a hybrid Volvo XC90 and takes one trip to Rome each year. The solution is obvious. The government buys us all XC90 hybrids and we stay home.

Lots of judgement here. It is always dangerous to put yourself as "better" than someone else.

Each of us needs to honestly look at our own consumption and make decisions that we think will impact the world in a positive way. That is the only way real change is made. Certainly not by name calling or shaming others.

@ James....the government can have those hybrids, and I will still go to Europe taking solely the train, the bus, and the ferry plus the super occasional taxi once there. That means the rental car is not an option.

So many good points.

I enjoyed the 'aeon' article (the paintings in the article are way up my street). A Bubonic Plague/Black Death type scenario is a good short term solution, especially if restricted to those taking selfies in front of the Eiffel Tower, Colosseum etc. We can call it The Hedonic Plague.

"The only American television that depicts the America I know is The Beverly Hillbillies." - So true. That's the impression I always leave with and I'm never disappointed. That, and Family Feud.

Now, without any sense of guilt, I can tell the cousin in Wales I can't stand that I'm unable to attend his daughter's wedding next year because I'm trying to save the planet.

It would also help if our climate change leaders attending talks in Davos do not arrive in private jets. And what about you know who, the bloated prophet, always driving around in a gas powered SUV.

Fred, you are still taking the train to Europe? https://mprince93.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hyper_31.jpg

@ James....I had better proof read to mean "in Europe" ...an inexcusable error.

Fred, I was thinking, maybe to reduce my carbon footprint I should have my Volvo flown over, then drive it while there.

We tend to make two overseas trips per year. We are retired and once lived in Europe, where we did a lot of low cost travel using car and rail.

We plan to visit countries that are geographically close to avoid excessive travel. This makes sense for anyone, but especially for over 70 people like us. Any kind of travel can be a pain.

Instead of flying from Georgia to N. Virginia for Thanksgiving, we drove. South Carolina only has two lanes on I-95 and we spent over 14 hours on a trip that should have taken 10. We spent six hours driving through (or stalled in) South Carolina's 195 miles. I don't think we saved the planet much by sitting on I-95 all that time.

I think foreign travel helps people to understand other countries and cultures. While we seek to save our dollars in travel that also helps to reduce air pollution.

When I read many of the posts here, I am amazed that someone would not have children because of population growth or fly to visit Europe because of the pollution. I have been to the Peoples Republic of China and the pollution there is incredible. In every major city we visited for three weeks you could not see much of the city's skyscrapers due to the smog. Why does China get a pass and we are expected to stay home and not take advantage of seeing the World?