Flight shame is now a thing

The is just first world now we are sorry for being evil but now we realize heaven is not on earth.

I take the trains, day trains, night trains, because for one reason I don't want to be bothered with flying within Europe unless there is a compelling reason. What constitutes "compelling," I define at the moment. If that is a byproduct of helping save the planet, then all the better.

I have no shame in flying. If I were to drive to my closest train station, take the diesel train to London Waterloo then the Tube to St. Pancras, Eurostar to France then the train all the way to Malaga I'm sure the amount of fuel (including that required to produce electricity for the trains) shared between all the passengers on a flight from London to Malaga would be comparable, if not more than that of the flight.

What virtue signaling. Tough to take a train from New York to London.

or to Hawaii or even to California with Amtrak's current inadequacies. Ask my daughter about her trip from Birmingham to New Orleans-I think it took 5 hours longer than it was supposed to because of trains blocking the tracks. And Birmingham to New Orleans is not a long distance.

At least most of us on this forum aren't taking private planes to our destination-looking at you, Hollywood stars and members of Congress and attendees at the Google conference.

I fully disagree on that article of WP - very bad research. Flight-shame does not play a role in Europe.

• Summer flights reached highest numbers in Europe this year.
• Swedish numbers the first half of this year declined because a Scandinavian low-cost carrier was going bankrupt. In the last years the Swedish numbers of total flights increased.
• Studies from Deutsche Bahn (link), Europe's by far largest rail provider also operating outside Germany with subsidiary Arriva, showed that comfort, time, price and the possibility to work play a big role in decision train versus place and car.
• A shift from plane to train can be explained by cancellation of flight offerings, e.g. Berlin - Nuremberg.
• Shame is not a principle that works in whole Europe combined with travel (example).

Believe it or not: In Germany we see UK residents flying in to Germany on Saturday to visit a first or second league soccer game for much lower prices than at home and flying back in the evening. In total they say it is still cheaper than a home stadium ticket.

I think any article that makes us think of our energy consumption and choices damaging to the environment is good. Vacations can be planned to be more energy efficient, just like lifestyle can be more environmentally friendly. Many people won't do anything that will interfere with their lifestyle or their desires, but even a little change is something...even if likely too late.

Instead of flying somewhere just because one is in Europe and the flight from Paris to Dubrovnik is cheap, etc, does not make it necessary. I'm sure there are plenty of locations near Paris (or where ever) that makes the train more appealing to people. The next trip can be similar but around dubrovnik or where ever. Instead of more flights back and forth on each trip.

Personally, I love taking trains, but I'm able to relax and enjoy the process. It is not all about getting there. And the trains from Boston to California are a great way to travel. The California Zephyr is suppose to travel on one of the most beautiful routes in the world. As I haven't seen all the routes in the world I can't comment on that...yet.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
and send my credentials to the House of Detention
(We'll always have Paris)

It's not widespread, but it's becoming a thing in some circles! My company has a renewable energy-related business, and my young colleagues in that division really actively try to keep flying to a minimum, even for business trips. They, for instance, took the train from Paris to Munich and back for a trade fair instead of flying, which meant they had to spend the night there too. And myself, I just took the train from Paris to Lisbon, and one of the motivations was to avoid taking a flight. I am flying back, however, as 18-hour journeys are tiring and do eat into scarce vacation time (well, not that scarce in France, but still).

I didn't read the referenced article by OP.
I think for Shaming to be effective - it must be done "Game of Thrones" style. That is, walking naked down a crowded Main Street with a person following you with incense repeating the word Shame...Shame...Shame. (especially for those of us who do not have stellar bodies.)

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
and send my credentials to the House of Detention <<

Indeed.

Weird scenes inside the gold min.

In choosing the train, I am one of the shameless having given my conscious a holiday. If trans-Atlantic flights were cheaper, I would be going over more frequently. Once over, it's the train.

The Chinese would be the last to care. Certainly they aren't going to saddled with moral compunctions as they aren't into the American guilt complex.

"The Chinese would be the last to care. Certainly they aren't going to saddled with moral compunctions as they aren't into the American guilt complex."

The Chinese might reasonably point out that since the West has spent many, many decades emitting CO2 without concern, its a bit bloody rich to now blame them when they're catching up. They might also point out that per capita they are much less polluting than the USA, so why use them as the excuse not to act?

I think it makes perfect sense to be more conscious of the amount of flying we do. It can be easy for us travel fans to frame international travel as virtuous because we are learning about other cultures. It's also easy to justify our own personal habits, claiming that others are traveling in the "wrong" ways. However, is the tradeoff between our positive personal growth and our negative environmental impact worth it, particularly if our actions have an outsized impact on people living in places where they may not have the financial resources or access to tourist visas to partake in international travel? Hard questions I've been asking myself lately.

This is an area I am looking to work on in my own travel habits. I want to focus on saving for less frequent, longer trips to destinations that are high on my personal "bucket list." I have an advantage as a teacher because I have built-in longer stretches when I can do so. Is it enough? Hard to say.

Believe it or not: In Germany we see UK residents flying in to Germany on Saturday to visit a first or second league soccer game for much lower prices than at home and flying back in the evening. In total they say it is still cheaper than a home stadium ticket.

True for the Rugby Six Nations. I could have paid £360 to go and watch England play Italy at Twickenham but instead I paid less to fly to Milan (Rome was overpriced), take the high speed train to Rome and buy the ticket for the match. Also BA cancelled the return flight so we had an extra two days in Rome, all meals (including wine), hotel and train to the airport (rearranged a flight from Rome) covered by the airline and the EU imposed compensation meant that our entire trip cost us each around £30.

I MUCH prefer taking the train when at all possible, esp. in Europe - but good luck with that here in the American South!

As an American Southerner, what is public transportation? But I can virtue signal-at least I drive a Prius! I don't take the trains for long distances in Europe because my time there is so limited and when planes leave and arrive on time, they are much faster. Yes, I know that's a big "when".

If you aren't sitting at home having a virtual vacation on you laptop, you don't have a lot of room to judge.

If I were to drive to my closest train station, take the diesel train
to London Waterloo then the Tube to St. Pancras, Eurostar to France
then the train all the way to Malaga I'm sure the amount of fuel
(including that required to produce electricity for the trains) shared
between all the passengers on a flight from London to Malaga would be
comparable, if not more than that of the flight.

Actually you're wrong. Even a diesel trains uses less fuel per passengerkilometre than flying. Portsmouth is not in the Ecopassenger database, but a flight from London to Malaga results in 222 kg of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, compared to 57 kg if you had taken the train.

By the way, aren't most trains from Portsmouth to London electric?

Chinese: It's hard to point the finger at the Chinese. Much of their manufacturing is directly related to American corporations moving industry to China to skirt labor costs, regulations, and pollution standards in the USA. Then, stuff gets shipped back to USA.

We could do as some celebrities do, if we are so inclined. We can donate to The Nature Conservancy to protect nature as we burn through it. (I think the practice is about negating "carbon footprint.")
Human Overpopulation is a huge problem - but, this is not the correct forum for that.
Emma - for my "walk of shame," I need several large sling bags rather than a money belt.

Inconvenience yourself by taking a 12 hour train ride rather than a 2 hour flight. Save a few pounds of CO2. While you are doing that, China has opened another coal fired power plant

If you aren't sitting at home having a virtual vacation on you laptop, you don't have a lot of room to judge.

I would agree that the "shame" and "judging" aspects are less likely to be convincing to others. I think it's human nature to push back when it feels like someone is judging your choices and habits. That being said, it's frustrating for the pushback to be "all or nothing," as in "if you ever travel by plane you can't agree with any of this" and I don't think that's what the idea is here.

The reality is, most of us will probably still keep traveling by plane. However, we can lessen the impact by taking fewer trips, choosing destinations requiring shorter flights, choosing non-flight transportation, or by focusing our time into a smaller area geographically.

A similar example: most of us will still eat meat fairly regularly in our diets, myself included. If you'll tell everyone they absolutely must become vegans or they can't say anything about making better environmental choices, you'll get a lot of angry people who refuse to do anything differently (or may even want to eat a big ole steak just to tell you about it!). But I think many people could be swayed by eating less meat, especially given the current cultural popularity of things like "meatless Mondays."

Small changes do matter, but we can be paralyzed to act and even wanting to push back if we make it so extreme.

"Surely not completely naked? A moneybelt must be worn at all times!"

That's hilarious!!

By the way, aren't most trains from Portsmouth to London electric?

Probably. It's not something that I've paid much attention to however the amount of CO2 expelled by Southern Railway's passengers huffing and puffing through frustrated exasperation could probably compare with the emissions of 6 months of Heathrow flights.

The trains in Canada are even worse...in our part of the country. They now only come thru 3 days a week so heaven forbid you want to go on a Tuesday. And it takes an overnight to get from Halifax to Montreal...or I can fly it in less than 2 hrs. And don’t even get me started on trains being late...the one time we took the train up to Ottawa and back, we got delayed 2 hrs out of Montreal. In that time I could have flown home.

I wish we really had better, faster and more frequent options, but there it is.

I've read about this before, but I think a lot of the 'flight shaming' is now being done by people who wish to mock environmentally conscious travelers.

Yes, I fly to certain destinations. That is my only option with time/money constraints. I have read that flying with others on a plane (something like taking a train/bus) is the best environmental option for someone in my price range who can't afford to take weeks to travel via other means of transportation.

Does that mean I mock those who can do better? Of course not. I wish them and their efforts well.

Does that mean I want to do better? Absolutely. I try to do the best I can for the environment, both at home and when I travel.

There is no shame in wanting to make our world a better place.

I will take that 12 train ride over the 2 hr flight. If that 12 hr train ride can be done by a direct night train, say Kiel to Vienna, even better. CO2 has nothing to do with my decision.

If you really care, then you would take a train from where every you live to JFK and fly from there to Europe.

balso, JC: I dont see how you folks can ride in a train powered by nuclear reactors?!!

We know we cant make eveyone do the right thing, so it is incumbent upon us to compensate. All those who understand this will stay home this year to offset those that will doom us.

Don't see the point in flight shaming. Nobody's going to change their habits because of that. Those who prefer trains will keep on training, those who prefer flights will keep on flying. The only thing that will change that is a reduction in flights and/or a rise in flight costs.

balso, JC: I dont see how you folks can ride in a train powered by nuclear reactors?!!

Why does it matter if the electricty used comes from nuclear powers stations? It's cleaner energy isn't it?

Why does it matter if the electricty used comes from nuclear powers stations? It's cleaner energy isn't it?

The problem with nuclear is that there's often controversy over how to store waste materials long term, even if the plant is otherwise well and safely operated. The new Berlin Bradenberg airport will be fully operational before the USA can come up with good and workable solution for this.

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

Then there is the whole Radiation/Godzilla thing to worry about.

@ James...Good movie reference from the mid-1960s. I won't change my habit...immaterial.

Fred, Im thinking the 2014 version where the Bay Area gets hammered..... you might want to be careful....

however the amount of CO2 expelled by Southern Railway's passengers
huffing and puffing through frustrated exasperation could probably
compare with the emissions of 6 months of Heathrow flights.

Unless those passengers had oil and coal for breakfast, the CO2 in their breath is not of fossil origin. Unlike the fuel used to power the Heathrow flights.