Transition Culture

I do admire your stance on this Rob and the debate is an important one; if you were not actually taking this stance it would be much harder for people to take it seriously.
I have partly followed this myself, and have only flown a few times in my life, and not at all for several years- but I happened to book a Ryanair flight just last night to see my aging parents! You don’t address the “Love miles” issue in your comments above, but it seems this is where it will fall down for most people- the growth of the last 50years has resulted in many grandparents living continents away from their grandchildren.
For this reason alone it is hard to see how it could become a “rule” which I would instinctively resist, I dont think people would buy it.
Also, while travel to conferences could probably be limited, it is not enviros who are causing the problem but endless business trips and package holidays. These at least could be cut out easily; love miles and conferences not so much. Remember James Hanson who thinks the air travel thing is a complete red herring, and that the climate change battles are all about coal.
The wider issue is, why pick on air travel? will you next be calling for a moratorium on how many children we have? car ownership? drinking coffee? eating meat?
I admire your choice as a personal thing, but would partly agree with Naresh that maybe you would do more good sometimes if you did fly; but I dont think issues like this can be imposed in any way.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GreenFeed, Rob Hopkins. Rob Hopkins said: Should Transition Network have a complete no-fly policy or would that be naive and foolish? Join the debate… http://tinyurl.com/yk9eldk [...]

Sitting next to a really hot fire can become unbearable; and so we move further away to a comfortable zone… but if we throw keep throwing sticks at the fire the building catches on fire… FIRE!…FIRE!!… We call a fire engine to put out the flames and learn not to throw too many sticks at the fire again.

My question:
1. How many sticks have already been thrown at the fire, and can we afford to add any more?

Feelings:
1. Transition Network is not a leader, it is an encourager
2. Encourage by example

edit comment : but if we throw* keep throwing sticks at the fire the building catches on fire… FIRE!…FIRE!!…

throw*

(delete)

I am often frustrated by paper coffee cups, and especially by how people sit inside the restaurant, drinking form paper coffee cups. I once owned a cafe, and now I wish I had treated coffee cups like this: Build a small shelf in a very visible area and give it good lighting. Put maybe a dozen paper cups on the shelf, and put up a sign that says, “This year’s paper cups”. Now when someone asks for a paper cup, point to the shelf and explain that is all the cups you have for the whole year, and ask them if they really need to have on of those precious cups.

So, for air travel, I would suggest you give yourself a diminishing quota–like 10000 miles this year and 9000 next year et c. You are Transition, after all. Maybe the miles could be saved for a year or two. And of course, you should have to make a really good argument for using one of those precious flights.

Some very interesting thoughts. As I read them the thought came to me that it is really just a question of preparing for an inevitable future: in the future air travel will be so rare and expensive that most people simply will not fly.

By starting that preparation now, do we enable a more gentle transition to a no-fly future? For example we have moved back from Australia so that we can be within train-reach of parents and grandparents again. That is easier to do now than it will be in a more energy-constrained future.

So maybe not a full ban . . but maybe develop a set of clear, well publicised guidelines. To show others when Transition Network staff will fly, and to highlight areas we will need to change before flying becomes out of reach.

Actually I like Ruben’s idea – a diminishing ‘Ration’ of miles. That would give everyone something to work within.

Graham. Thanks for the comment. Just to clarify, what is under discussion here is not personal flights, just those taken or not as part of peoples’ paid time working for Transition Network. In that context, the ‘Love Miles’ discussion, essential to any talk of personal flying, doesn’t really impinge on work-related decisions. What is being discussed here is not some kind of ‘rule’ that applies to everyone doing Transition anywhere, rather only to those actually working for the organisation.

In relation to why pick on air travel, it is, for me anyway, because it is an area where we can make an impact. In our daily lives, we can have some impact through choices we make, by not flying, by altering our shopping patterns, but in relation to coal, other than signing up with Good Energy or another green energy provider, or engaging in direct action against coal, we can have less influence. Also, I think the carbon arising from one flight would far outweigh those arising from our choices of coffee, even if we drank it non-stop every day!

When we first realised that global warming could be a real threat (about 13 years ago), we started logging our car mileage, trying to reduce it by 10% a year.

Ten years ago, we sold our car. Only used public transport after that.

Five years ago, we gave up flying for any reason. We returned to the UK, in part to be near my partner’s aging parents.

Three years ago, I gave up my job, due to ill health. Cut our public transport use roughly in half. I now grow veg in my front garden as a demonstration of what’s possible, and am involved in increasing the number of allotments available locally. It’s very slow work, but hopefully also very inclusive.

I recognise that most people are still in denial about global warming, peak oil, and food security issues. When they are ready, they will act in a different way. Unfortunately, our society is addicted to heavy consumption. Like an alcoholic, society may have to crash before these things become obvious, and the way out also becomes obvious. Look for the work of Charles Eisenstein for more on our society as an addict.

We assume my partner will lose his job eventually, since employment will probably continue to fall for another 5-10 years. Fewer people will be flying (or driving) fairly soon, probably including Transition Network folks, so your agonising now may quickly become irrelevant.

I’m glad that you personally choose to act the way you do.

I’m not flying – anymore. Billions of people don’t fly, never have, never will.
You’re not alone, in fact: we non-flyers are the majority, Rob

Saints or sinners ? Any of us can be criticised for our hypocracy, but let’s recognise that we each make choices around each issue as best we can. Decisions as to how to live now (in this imperfect relationship between man and the planet) that might seem simple and easy to one person in their circumstances, can seem immensely difficult for another person in the particular situation in which they find themselves.

The pace of transition will vary from person to person and place to place, time to time and circumstance to circumstance. The spirit of the movement is one of encouragement and support on a journey in a particular and essential direction, not of “holier than thou” finger pointing at a particular position at a particular time.

St Augustine of Hippo who is reported to have said “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet”, probably pretty much sums up the situation for most of us weaning our way off the convenient easy sins of the cheap oil economy.

As in so many things, Rob, you set a great and inspiring example and raise debates that push us that bit further than we think we’re ready to go – even though we know that, ultimately, we have go there too.

This is a no-brainer.

The argument favouring people flying on Transition Network business can be summed up by the phrase, The end justifies the means. At the risk of over-dramatising the issue I could draw a comparison with the millions of people who died in the gulags and the Soviet famine of the 1930’s in the pursuit of the socialist paradise. Hell no, I’m not over-dramatising. If we fail on global warming we’re talking about billions of deaths, not millions.

The argument for giving up flying can also be summed up in one sentence: Be the change you want to see. The idea of an international organisation which works without flying could be one of the biggest publicity coups Transition has ever had. It’s not guaranteed but with good publicity work it could be really effective. It would be totally radical and way out ahead of people who just talk about it.

But really it’s deeper than that. It’s a matter of fundamental ethics. To me, doing what I believe is right – or at least trying to – is more important than any tactical advantage. It’s the way I want to live my life.

Pardoxically, from that deeper space a tactical advantage flows. Who would most inspire you to action, someone who says ‘Don’t do what I do, do what I say,’ or one who simply says ‘Follow me!’

People sometimes tell me they feel I’m a bit hard on flying. I reply that it’s the most global-warming-intensive thing any of us can do, and completely unnecessary when compared to things like eating and shelter. But somehow it seems to be the last thing which the average middle-class European/North American can contemplate changing. Seize the Day’s song, Flying, says it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNO7F5m-7pQ

But we’re well past the point where we can pick and choose what we’re going to do about global warming. If we’re going to have any chance whatever we have to do everything we possibly can to get our emissions down to nil. And then a bit more to claw back to 350ppm. The idea that we can even contemplate flying is not living in the real world.

Rob. I don’t agree that the question of air travel is only for those at the root of the Transition tree. But i do agree that a “no flying” ban is not about reducing your carbon footprint, although it does that too.
“Leave oil, before it leaves you” is what i hear when ever i watch or read anything about peak oil.
Every time any of us fly we use oil. Oil is finite. So for me it is simple, if you are preparing for the end of oil, why would you shorten the amount of time you have by using it up in the quickest way possible.
Maybe the argument should be :-
“Should the rest of give up flying for fun to allow those involved in inspiring and training to do this important work?”

2 years ago I had plans to do my last flight to the US as we were moving there from the UK. Then my wife got a job in Bermuda, we flew there. Came back to the UK or the summer, when I did the Transition training, and flew back in the fall. While there I got Transition Bermuda started, built a passive solar water heater from recycled materials (which won an award and has jumpstarted a number of others to do the same), got several veggie gardens started, ate lots of local organic food and lived completely car and air conditioner free for 6 months. Now that we are heading to the US in the spring we are about to book a cruise ship for the journey. I say all this not to toot my own horn but to emphasize that had we not flown to Bermuda much would have been left undone. I would have also been living a higher impact lifestyle here in the UK.

So I say, we do what we can while striving to do more. I still fly but have committed to having no children, eating very little meat, and generally otherwise living a low impact lifestyle. Rob, the example you set is platinum and I envy you the flexibility to make that commitment. Requiring those in the Network to make the same commitment is another matter.

Will you continue to send trainers around the world? Does the valuable work they do justify it? I think so. Should they try to go by ship, yes, but it may not be possible and we should accept that. We are all in Transition to a new world, one that will hopefully enable us to travel in a more ethical manner. At the moment it is not so easy and there is much work to be done.

Graham says that business trips are the problem, not activists going to conferences.

Personally I can’t see any difference between the two. If we’re asking businesses to stop flying, why should we expect them to listen when they see environmental activists still doing it?!

I’m with Patrick’s “be the change you want to see” – someone’s got to go first and start the ball rolling.

If I worked for an organisation that required lots of travel I’d be delighted if they would pay for time and expenses to go by rail and sea instead of flying, though of course there are usually family and other considerations.

The sights, sounds and smells you get from arriving in a new place by ferry or train is far more exhilarating than arriving by plane (though I’m open to the possibility that parachuting in from 20,000ft might have some exceptional value).

Rules do seem to be almost always problematic, but it would seem appropriate to make it a general rule not to fly on Transition business. As with all rules there would need to be exceptions, and a means of evaluating the particular situation. Therein lies the tricky bit.

Also, where does it end? I believe for example, that a diet based on high amounts of animal protein is possibly just as ecologically damaging as flying. There’s no end really to the rule making process once you start. Unfortunately leaving it to individual conscious choice doesn’t seem to fit very easily into organisational structures.

Good luck!

Rob,

I think your choice of not to fly has a big impact on whoever hears about it, exactly because it is your own decision and not some ruling imposed from above. Each time you have to explain your reasons for that choice, you make others stop and consider: “Could I do that?” You have a way about you, that probably one would call charismatic. It means that when you speak, people want to hear what you have to say. So the more often that you have to explain your reasons, the better. If it was a ruling that was imposed upon all of us working for the Network, you could get away with simply saying that you don’t fly because the organisation that you work in , doesn’t allow you to; short, easy, uninspiring.
I don’t believe in imposing rulings upon anybody, for me, that’s not what transition is about, on the contrary. What attracted me to transition is precisely the fact that there is far less judgement, no hard and fast rules, the letting go where it wants to go. The transition ethos, for me, is about empowering people, about giving them the invitation and encouragement to be brave, to make the difficult choices and to be compassionate, not judgemental, when those changes don’t come overnight. It’s about keeping on helping people find their own reasons for change and then enabling and supporting them in a multitude of ways to make that change and maintain it. It is complex, yet subtle and powerful beyond any other strategy I know of. It works by allowing people to self-motivate, not through guildtripping or enforcement, but by invitation. How many parties have you gone to because you were told you had to? And if you did, did you go happily? The day that the Transition Network starts telling us what we can or cannot do, as in: “Tho shall not fly!”, is the day that I book myself and my family on the first flight to Canaries for a holiday, just to be rebellious.
As for the debate: why does it need to come to a conclusion, an end, a decision? Maybe what’s needed is to have the debate ongoing, in a non judgemental fashion, to stimulate thought about it, so people can examine their reasons and see if things change with time.
As for whether it’s right or wrong for you to fly, well…only you can decide this. Hearing you speak at the Big Green Gathering in a very small, drafty and ropy marquee, a few years back, changed my life. I became a transition trainer and member of an initiating group, have since trained hundreds of people in several countries, raised awareness of the issues to hundreds more, took on a quarter acre of land with two polytunnels to grow veg for the village (eventually) and have become a real bore at parties:). Would your ideas have had that effect on me, had I not met you in person? I don’t know, but it gave me the opportunity to decide for myself that:”Hey, this dude’s for real!” and seek out more info and get myself involved. So me actually meeting you has, indirectly, spread the idea of transition to hundreds of people. So would a Rob Hopkin’s World Tour be worth it? I think that question needs to remain open. I agree that we should keep trying to find new and creative ways to spread the ideas, who knows what we’ll come up with?
For myself, I have decided not to fly, for now, because the means did not justify the ends, but I prefer to keep the debate alive, for myself, and my nearest and dearest at least.

Anyway, thank you both, Rob, Naresh, for having this debate and have a read of this when you have time:http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419, especially the bit about transcending paradigms.
All the best,
Ann

I think that setting an example as an organisation (rather than just as individuals) trumps all other arguments here. I swore off flying in 2002, and know that it has affected a lot of other people’s thinking (including a couple of friends so addicted to love miles they called themselves ‘jetrosexuals’!). Organisations need to see that this applies at their scale too.

As to the opt-repeated argument that environmentalists do more good by travelling than the harm they cause – doesn’t everyone think that about their own personal cause or reason for travelling? If even those arguing against flying fly to attend the debate, I think we’ve lost our planet.

Someone I know runs a green energy advice service and uses the fact that he is responsible for the saving of large amounts of energy in the community to justify his weekend hobbies – his gas-guzzling 4×4 and powerboat! Does not compute.

I am inspired by all of you who have taken the initiative to speak up here and now – to add your energy to this powerful question posed by Rob. There are a diverse mix of thoughts and feelings, all of which I find interesting. Having said that, I have strong feelings about integrity (walking the talk) and believe that if the Transition Organization were to adopt the standard (for it does not need to be seen as some negative rule that people would want to rebel against, Ms. Ann Lamot) but rather a standard of quality and integrity that the organization upholds with pride and joy because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to….this would carve a working model that We (as a Global Community) are in desperate need of.
It is understandable that fears arise when we consider big changes, especially upon things that are a comfort to us (like the ease and speed of flying to see loved ones or some exotic relaxing beach) but as we all know, change in inevitable and we are in a more powerful place when we choose things consciously rather than having them thrust upon us. This speaks, of course, to ‘rules’ (as they are being tossed about here) as well as natural-forces out of our control.
The truth is that we do not know what can be created if Transition’s leaders choose not to fly because it hasn’t been tried. We can not see clearly to a place that lies in front of us from where we stand. We must move forward. Every choice we make in life has, as a result, things that were sacrificed and things that were gained. That is what choice IS. Our present day and age is hugely concerned with the individual (what do I need, what do I want?) and I am of the opinion that it is time we transition to considering the WHOLE, the tribe, the communal….as this is where our power exists in a post-oil world.
My vote would be Yes, cease flying for Transitions related affairs. I trust something, many things, will blossom as a result. I trust that what can be born from this choice is far more powerful and sustainable (for the future I think we all want) than the alternative.

Hey, “the building is on fire”…
Hey YOU, at THE BACK “THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE!!”

How do people behave in a fire? Read here:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep04/fighting.html

…and try replacing the word ‘fire’ with ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Peak Oil’.

Hello all,
what about having a trial period of 3 or 6 months of no flying to experiment with what sort of effect this has and base further debate on the experience?

Best wishes

Have to say I was a little surprised to read all the above. I’d have just taken it as read that anyone working for the Transition Network wouldn’t be flying. Pretty sure a lot of people in our local transition initiatives would be equally taken aback.

I’m not suggesting any current flights made by folks working for the Transition Network have been booked lightly.

Some good posts above, including some I disagree with, but I think a few posters have got caught up in feeling they currently are, or worrying they might be judged. I think that whilst that’s natural to most of us, it’s a distraction.

Equally one post refers to `agonising’ about the decision to fly or not. I didn’t get from the original articles that anyone was agonising over anything.

My view is make the technology we’ve got work. If you’re a transition trainer, recognise the discomfort you’re going to feel using video links etc and keep doing it till you and the people you need to communicate with get better at it.

Every time the extra work is done to set up a video conference, there are another bunch of people more likely to use this option in the future, not just the trainer.

Agree completely with Patrick Whitefiled’s post above.

Do what you will in your own time people but from the bottom of my heart I would ask you please, please don’t fly on a transition ticket.

All the best,

Anna

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I’m a Peak Oiler. That’s why I joined transition. Its why I think Transition is great as it unites both sides. Peak Oil and Climate Change.

Dont get me wrong, I care about the environment, but I worry more about having enough energy and food in the future. That my OWN personal view of Transition, and I respect those who are in Transition based on Climate Change (which is just as much a real problem).

As a professional its impossible for me to stop all long distance travel, so I take a pragmatic approach. I avoid all travel where possible, and evangelise the use of tele-conferences, webex etc at work rather than travelling 1000km for a 1 hr meeting. But sometimes that is not possible.

So do I have to leave Transition?

As part of this discussion it would be nice to have some hard facts about the CO2 per km for differing types of travel so we can make informed choices.

I recently had a contract working in the Netherlands. I had a choice of flying 500km, or taking the train / car and travelling 1000km. Which method produced less CO2? Flying.

Air travel is becoming “greener”, so you can now buy carbon offsets when you buy a ticket, and carriers are moving to use biofuel (still in R&D). My point is technology changes, and CO2 produced changes.

What about any local counsellors, MP’s etc that join transition? That is a big win for transition and they can effect a lot of transition changes, but flying comes as part of the job. What if Brown/Cameron suddenly endorsed Transition? Would then Transition say, “sorry you cant join us as you use a plane?!”

Transition, is all about, well erm transition. Some of us, still have a foot in both worlds, while we transition to something better.

Ann thank you, I can avoid al lot of English writing, I fully agree with your comment.

Flying or not flying is a no brainer for me. The biggest impression you make on people is by your example.
If you claim to be a movement advocating living locally, but then get on a airplane to fly to some distant location to promote “living locally” comes across to me as hyprocrisy. Don’t do this. Set the example by your behavior.
For example, I’ve already gone pure local. I don’t fly, I don’t use a car except in emergencies for out of town appointments. I sold my car and travel by bicycle. I plant gardens and do my own canning/food preservation. This is my way of dealing with the reality of peak oil. Do it now; live now like the oil is gone as much as possible for you at the moment. But, at the same time, I’m getting invitations to Transition Town meetings that are at distant locations that require travel by air. I look at that invitation and just laugh!
Are yo kidding me? I’m already living locally and I’m not going to get on a plane and fly to some distant location to hear you and see you in person when the information–from my perspective–needs to be delivered to me in my location.
I have a computer which would be much more efficient in using oil resources to deliver the info to me than moving my body from point A to point B by an fuel-guzzling transportation method. Or, write it up and deliver it to me by mail. That’s a method that uses fuel efficiently for the common good of disseminating information. I can read. I don’t need a face-to-face meeting. Just get the info to me. I’ll take it from there.
The face-to-face meeting model is way overrated. You can accomplish the same yap-yap by using the Cisco network and never leaving your office/home wherever you function from.

So, I’m really tempted to just go my own way because the example you’re setting is not one I want to follow.

Thank you Rob, Patrick and Ann. I agree with you. Although I live 9,000 miles from my birthplace, oldest friends and my birth family, I pledged 3 years ago to stop flying. Of course it’s going to hurt–but think of all the people who are currently dying because their shelter and their food is destroyed already by climate change, and our northern ‘hurt’ comes into perspective. Deal with it, guys. We have to learn to live the way we’re going to have to live.
My business functions without a car, too. I tell all my clients ‘I’ve got rid of my car to reduce my carbon footprint, and I’m including public transport in my fees’. We’re growing food in barrels on our driveway, and the neighbours, and especially the neighbours’ kids, are getting involved. They’re free to pick what they want, when they want because I feel so strongly that they’ll need to know how to grow food and forage if they’re going to survive.
No, we can’t dictate to Transitioners, and to make rules will only turn people off. But I totally agree with Patrick: this is a no brainer!

I agree with Rob here – the example you give to others is important and the support you give to others who are facing criticism too. At a recent club meeting we discussed going to the states next year for a competition…I was chuffed when the next guy in line said… ‘I won’t be going for the same reason as Dave’.

This and Rob’s stance strengthens my resolve at rejecting my girlfriend’s entreaties to go away’somewhere warm’ by plane on holiday with her.

If it is really vital to travel across the world…do it by boat or train. Does the biosphere really need you that much for you to fly?

Dave

Rob and Patrick Whitefield make some extraordinarily good points here and are setting the example that everyone should follow. I do fly, because I live on the Isles of Scilly and need to get to the mainland occasionally -and there’s no boat in the winter! So a total of about 150 air miles per year emitting around 200kg CO2. I don’t fly anywhere else.

And here’s the crux, it comes down to personal responsibility and personal carbon quotas. If every individual is to get from around 11 tonnes (now)to 2 tonnes of CO2 per year (projected fair personal allowance worldwide), we are all going to have to do some serious cutting back. My footprint is around 5 tonnes per year, so I’ve still got a way to go yet – but I’m certain I can get down to 2 fairly painlessly.

As Rob and Patrick so rightly point out, long haul flights blow everything else out of the water. All those carbon gains from energy saving, renewable energy tariffs, local food, cycling, train travel and then bang, there’s your carbon quota gone through the roof with one flight.

There is, of course, a differentiation between business and personal carbon footprints which goes back to the policy position of Transition Network. In my mind there is absolutely no doubt that TN need to set the example and insist that no TN business travel is by flying.

Flying around the world, I think, should become socially unacceptable. Yet there are currently no big organisations promoting this stance effectively.

Lastly, as a little idea, I would like to see TN carbon foot print its activities on an annual basis. In carbon footprinting all businesses should pass their emissions on to their customers, because carbon quotas are on a personal level.

So all of us Transition initiatives should be given a carbon bill every year by TN, which we then pass on to our local members. That, with the message of no flying, could be very powerful.

About the “love miles” …

Last summer I gave a talk and shared how I personally had given up flying. An audience member came up to me and said with tears in her eyes “my family is in Turkey, my children on the East Coast [U.S.] and I’m here in California.” I thought about this for quite some time.

When my grandmother came to the U.S. from Czechoslovakia in 1914, she said goodbye to her parents and friends. When she stepped onto the ship that crossed the Atlantic, she did not expect to see her family ever again.

The core of the “love miles” issue is the expectations. In this brief peak-consumption era, people have moved apart with the presumption that frequent long-distance travel is “normal.”

In the pre-petroleum era, people did not hold such expectations. They did travel, and they did move apart, sometimes even far away. But they did so with the consideration that goodbye was long-term and it very well might mean “forever.” They knew it was a *tough choice* when they made it.

A great tragedy of our time is that people (my parents included) made these long-distance moving decisions without acknowledging that they were *tough choices*. Families separated during this peak consumption time and they put down roots in these far-flung places. The tragedy is, as energy descent takes hold, these families will have to say the goodbye that my grandmother did.

Two summers ago, my family took the train from Southern California to Northern Oregon to visit friends. One of the things I came away with was that 1,200 miles is a LONG WAY. I came to realize how very great long-distances really are.

Airplanes, internet, telephones all help us be in denial; the actual distance disappears from our perception. But physically traveling on the surface of the planet brings back reality: 1,200 miles is a serious distance. Moving 1,200 miles away from loved ones means you’ve chosen to move FAR AWAY. It’s time to accept this reality.

As we experience the end of the petroleum age, our expectations will be forced to return to a more appropriate sense of what is normal, and how far a person might reasonably expect to travel. We will, again and again, be offered situations to tell even those “love miles” folks, “sorry, we live too far apart to expect to see each other.”

We will return to a more realistic sense of distances, of travel time, and we’ll face the pain of what it means to live out our lives far away from loved ones.

About the Transition Network policy, I think Ruben’s diminishing quota is brilliant. It doesn’t impose a draconian removal of free choice, it still makes it possible to do things like stopping the stream of people coming to the UK for a training, it creates learning experiences within the organizations we deal with, and it sends a message that we are all able to wear with pride.

I support Rob’s argument fully. It is a good stand to take. But it will inevitably trigger guilt and defensiveness in some people. I recently declined an invitation to fly to San Francisco to launch my latest ‘green’ book and one of the organizers told me, disapprovingly, that it was a foolish decision and I would sell far more books if I were there in person. Later, after we talked and I pointed out the hypocrisy of flying from here to California to preach green, she saw my point of view. And finally confessed that she felt guilty about her own flying. And I could certainly relate to that
Without flying, my personal eco-footprint would be 1.8 gh – just below the sustainable world average. With the one flight per year I allow myself (to see my children and grandchildren in the USA) it soars to 4.3. Which is still below the UK average and less than half the US average, but still far too high. Yet if my partner and I moved to the USA we couldn’t live the hypersimple, green life we have been able to create here in Devon. We agonise about this dilemma every day. Sometimes I find myself getting utterly furious with people who jet off for holidays and with businesses who fly their people everywhere. Sometimes I cry with the pain and frustration of it all.
I don’t know the answers. I only know that if I could never see those people I love so much, I would be so bitter and twisted and angry with the thoughtless flyers that I would be no use to anybody. I can forego the cheap flights, fork out the much more expensive train/bus/ferry fares to get to sunshine and find creative alternatives for book promotion. Those things I can do. And I do them. And I feel good about them. But I still cry. Because the other thing (saving up my pension and taking a ship to America only once in five years) I just cannot do.

In an effort not to repeat what I have read here, I’ll make it clear that I agree with Patrick, Simon, Shawn and David. I have been agonising over this issue. However, I am retired and so my issue is about my personal trips. I had to ask myself, “What is the planet worth to me?” I wanted to visit Sicily. The cost of bus, train and ferry was 8 times the cost of flying. My best effort in finding carbon emission comparisons resulted in figures revealing that airplane emissions were at least 6 times more damaging as greenhouse gasses than a train. Ferry emissions are down near bicycles. The decision is made; I will go to Spain (4 times more expensive than air) by bus, rail and ferry.

However, as Rob has pointed out in his comment to Graham above, as I understand it, the discussion concerns paid employees or what sounds to me like employee policy, not personal policy. The word leader, to me, means the one out front. Leaders are out front for all to see and be inspired by. When you feel the leader’s bright resolve, hear the inspiring words of encouragement and watch the steady movement forward, you follow.
When you think that your personal worth and good you do is more important than being the change you want to see, then who are you really fooling? Of course you will have followers, those perhaps that see you doing it and think, well if that bright spark can do it then I’ll just smile sweetly and do it myself. Then what we have is a mutual admiration society of sorts. What real value does a club of wise folk flying around preaching love for Gaia have?

Travelling to Austria and back by train IS the message.

Flying is much more ‘giveupable’ than you might think. I havent flown for 21 years having made the conscious decision that my reasons for doing so weren’t more important than vulnerable people’s reasons for me not flying. I lead a perfectly happy life, I lead an entirely busy and interesting one, and all I have to give up is the occasional option for a distant trip. I have survived very well within those limitations.

My inclination is that everyone should decide for themselves, but while i agree with that in everyday life, I feel that the Transition movement has to make a stand. Everything that a few people do in contrast with the majority seems odd for a while, until slowly it becomes acceptable, then the norm. Look at the change in smkoing – when I was in my teens you were odd if you didn’t now you’re the unusual one if you do.

It feels a little ridiculous to be as carbon aware as possible in every day small decisionmaking then blow it to bits by doing something so very much of a different order. It would be greater contribution for most people to give up flying and carry on with their other patterns of carbon consumption than it would to cut back in small ways and carry on flying.

So, I guess (a little reluctantly) Im in favour of making a stand for the bigger message, give people something to join in with, to be a part of…there is a bit of a hurry after all.

This is a great debate, so thank you all.
As a native of 27 degrees N latitude, now living at 54.4 degrees N latitude, I crave the sun too. This past summer we had the holiday of our lives cycling to the Mediterranean. We had fabulous experiences and learned so much about living lightly. I recommend it to everyone. Giving up flying can give the impetus to having more fun, living so much more vividly and connecting with nature.

If the Transition Trainers and Consultants can’t push the boundaries on this issue and set an example how can we expect anyone else to.

I think it’s an important distinction that this is related to members of the TN when they’re deliver Transition “services”. Our personal lives and choices are indeed personal.

I’d be interested to see a list of the flights used to date for Transition related work. Not as a name and shame exercise but to see an example of the situations we’re talking about. This would help me understand what other options. I’m sure with creative thought we can always come up with a no-fly solution. In fact we might even break new ground.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that in carbon terms this is a question of distance traveled not a competition between flying or taking the train.

I like Rob’s decision not to fly, and agree it sets a powerful example, and helps tell the story. The organization could set that policy; but it would be like telling people what’s not cool, even beyond the org, pardon the pun. I dislike the in-crowd, conventional, judgmental aspect of the Green Meme. Better if it’s left up to the individual heart and soul, I think.
The logical extrapolation of the point would be to live like the Amish, who choose not to use cars never mind airplanes. However, they don’t proselytize and they are isolated.
I wonder if a post-peak-oil world could manage to keep the internet up. Maybe it’s a matter of priorities rather than absolutes about how we use resources. The internet, as far as we know inseparable from its industrial base, is a huge evolutionary leap which has enabled Transition to spread virally. It has made the world a global village, just when we most need to be such in order to collaborate globally on fixing the damage done to our planet.
I’ve recently discovered that people are working on ways (which the internet has made possible) to radically decentralize very sophisticated industry in ways that are carbon-negative, using only sunlight and locally available materials (including scrap metal). I found much food for thought at http://www.openfarmtech.org and http://www.openmanufacturing.net.
This “open source” manufacturing capability is based on the very same ethics as permaculture and Transition –earth care, people care and fair share. (!) It’s emerging just in time because not only do we need to stop using energy and industry in the way it’s organized now, as Rob points out, but we also need to proactively pursue a massive, global rearrangement of how we do energy and industry. I’m excited by this emerging “unleashed-to-oil” style of industry because it can provide the tools needed to make possible, for example, changing the vast checkerboard of agriculture one sees below when flying over monocropped land into complex fractal patterns following land forms made up of forests, silvaculture-interspersed rangelands and mixed-use settlements –vast areas of lands reclaimed and fertilized with agrichar and human attention sprouting trees like grass after a rain.
To do this we need not an us-versus-them politics but rather a massive labor of love, people building cool things, in cool ways, for cool purposes.
After that who knows? Flying might be just fine.

Personally I prefer to lead by example rather than trying to implement rules, mostly because I hate being told what to do by others! People seem to respond better when there’s no explicit suggestion of them being in the wrong for their actions.
The powers-that-be could help promote overland travel by ensuring realistic pricing for air vs rail/boat and by encouraging co-ordinated timetabling for trains, ferries and buses. These are the only reasons I had to take the (very few) flights that I have in the last 3 years. Most people are not yet prepared to go to the lengths I do to find routes and connections, even with the help of The Man in Seat 61. It needs to be EASY…
Obviously, I’m not quite as far down the no-fly road (or train line) as Rob, but everyone needs someone to look up to….
So my vote would be for strong guidelines rather than rules, but I can see the PR advantages of being the first official organisation without wings!

Great debate! I too stopped flying 3 years ago and have been inspired by Rob’s stance. One suggestion for the Network would be to encourage one-year pledges. A pledge feels more like an exciting challenge and a training than a harsh restriction, and a finite duration makes it more workable. Hopefully, the pledge gets renewed until the addiction is gone.
I long for a similar debate on dairy (and meat) consumption, since I often read that emissions caused directly or indirectly by livestock are the largest (not to mention the ethical dimension, etc.).

Ahh at last the debate I thought was missing since I got involved in the Trainers Pool. Personally, I quit flying some five or six years ago and I’m still happy about it. Indeed, Rob, the water’s lovely. Especially when I look back at the multitude of conversations I had since, about making this choice of seemingly making things difficult for myself in a world plenty of airtravel comforts.
In October, I went to Sweden to deliver a training, and the price of a train ticket appeared to be tenfold (!) that of an air ticket. The journey took 26 hours (from my home in Deventer in the eastern part of the Netherlands), whereas my English co-trainer arrived in Stockholm airport within the time frame of reading a newspaper and having a nap.
Provided one communicates about it, not flying is all about making a statement that makes people stop and wonder, and in the wake of that maybe they make changes in their own lives as well. Isn’t that what Transition’s first phase is all about?
It would be a great attribution to Transition Network’s image if a no-flying policy (in case of representing Transition abroad) would be adopted and advertised. Walk your talk, and let it go where it wants to from there on.

What is bothering me about this debate is that so few of you have picked up on the issue behind the issue, as it were.
All of you agreeing to the idea that from now on THE NETWORK should be making the decision on the moral issue of whether to fly or not for the people who work within, is in essence agreeing that this organisation can now take the first step towards becoming a controlling, top down institution.
I have no problem with the flying issue, as I don’t (fly).
Last time I looked, we were a grassroots organisation, we aimed at changing the current paradigm of power-over, by trusting that once people were given the best, most accurate information possible, they would come to the decisions that were right for them, their communities and their unique situation.
And you know what? That is actually one of the most powerful tools the transition movement has! People are really moved by being given that vote of confidence and end up pushing further out of their comfortzones because of it. It gives people the chance to self-motivate, which ends up achieving choices that are a lot more enduring and brave than any that were made under suffrance. Are we really going to start eroding that for the sake of some shortlived green PR?
The notion that THE NETWORK should be given that sort of power is sadly showing a lack of belief and trust in the transition modus operandi and an even sadder lack of faith in us, the people who work within the Transition Network. If any of us should think it was cool to fly willy nilly, they should have their heads checked.
By their world tour, Sophy and Naresh avoided many more flights being taken in the long run and although it might not have been the perfect solution, it was the best that could have been made at that time. If they would have waited until more creative, carbon free ways of delivering the training across an ocean had been developed, by then hundreds of people would have taken that flight to Britain to take part in the course.
This reminds me of the argument used to build new coalburning powerstations; where they’ll build them now and promise to start using the Carbon capture technology when it becomes available, but in the mean time are still pushing out tons of co2.
Rob, Shaun, Patrick, your thoughts on this please!

This is a great discussion, thank you!

Kicking the travel drug certainly is a challenge for many. Living across the globe at the time I became interested in Transition and peak oil, I’ve personally faced some tough choices when it comes to love miles but have set a cut-off point in the future (when I’m back to my homeland!) and am ready to accept it since I have been lucky enough to see, and learn from, many parts of the world.

Speaking of learning… I too admire Rob’s commitment and think he’s done a fabulous job in spotlighting new ways of communicating. Telepresence technology gets the conference job done, and businesses and orgs all over the world should be adopting it post haste!

When it comes to trainers and sharing knowledge, there is another interesting question to consider: do we not stand to learn more locally than from those places far-off, no matter the commonality? This thought-provoking essay by someone who has “embraced the tyranny of place” as it were, rang quite true to me and I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts.

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/kicking-the-travel-drug/

Thanks.

This is a dilemma for everyone who is Peak Oil and Climate Change aware and actively wants to be part of the solution rather than the problem. I applaud Rob’s personal committment to not flying but I can also see Naresh’s point that limited air travel by specialist trainers may catalyse much more lasting and worthwhile change.

I think that each of us either as individuals or organisations need to consider much more carefully about the choices we make and satisfy ourselves that the “spending” of fossil energy is a worthwhile investment. The return on that investment needs to be fully understood in order to justify it. If it stacks up as an ethical thing to do then I would say that flying for TN staff is justified.

You also need to consider that the aeroplane is going to fly there anyway, whether you are on it or not. Flying a 747 to Australia with two empty seats becasue TN decided not to fly makes such an infitesimal difference to the total emissions for that particular day, that the agonising over it is pointless.

Flying for pleasure and leisure however is a different matter but we need to develop new ways of having a great holiday locally. Even if you just swap houses with some friends for a few days will give you a change of scenery and give you that “been away, but nice to come home” feeling.

It is an interesting debate and we could easily apply it to cars, food, manufacturing and just about everything else. Even the internet is oil dependent and won’t survive forever but should we give it up just yet? I’m not sure.

I particularly liked Joanne’s post, 8 above this one, exploring the presumptions that have evolved as part of the Age of Oil. This really gets down to the roots of the issue.

Trying to recall the last time I flew – 1980 I think it was. When I moved to Mid-Wales a year or two later, I set out on a journey of exploration and discovery that still goes on today – I am curious by nature and in a place the size of Wales there is enough to last several lifetimes. I was often amazed by people who flew off travelling the world but who had lived in the area for years and did not know the names of any local hills, which to me had become as old friends. I suppose localisation has always been my preferred way of things! But maybe the fact I live in a mainly rural district makes that more appealing!

Cheers – John

Very interesting discussion, I think the idea of leadership is an interesting one – why have Transition employees not felt sufficiently inspired by Rob’s leadership to stop flying already? In that answer is something we may find useful in the wider debate.

Don’t forget though, that we may very soon be facing a future where flying is not a financially viable option. So now is the time to make sure that the Network can survive and flourish WITHOUT air travel. Otherwise, at the very point where it becomes most necessary, the Network may find itself unable to operate.

I think Ann’s fear that we give up the grassroots principles of Transition by adopting a no-flying policy, is unnessesary.
There are more ‘top down’ policies in place within the Network for a long time. For example, take the whole process of granting ‘officialdom’ to local Transition initiatives. It would be in line with Ann’s reasoning, that we should drop that policy as well and just blindly accept any local initiative saying they are ready and adhering the movement’s basic principles. Is the appliance of the criteria for officialdom also denying our trust to all people of good will?
Reasons behind keeping in place these criteria are well known, documented and widly accepted within the Network. Amongst other, it’s got to do with care for the quality of our collective work not only regarding the form, content and impact locally, but it’s also got to do with the image we’d like to uphold, with how we as a whole are being seen by the ‘outside world’ (yes, PR if you like to call it that).
Adopting a no-flying policy has little to do with not trusting individual representatives of the Network. All the more it would be about walking our talk als a whole. And I can tell (and so can you no doubt) that’s tremendously empowering.

Very much agree with many of the points here. I have not flown for many years. And I am one of those sustainability advisers Rob mentions. I turn down all work and speaking invitations which involve flying and indeed many long distance rail ones. My brother (who does not fly for the same reasons) lives in Australia. I would love to visit him.

I have many ‘green’ friends who fly off to windsurf which I find crazy. Many others fly to climate meetings all over the world.

I am baffled as to why people think they are so valuable they need to be flown all over the world. Why do we assume to know so much more than someone in Africa or China?

I don’t shove it down people’s throats if they are not working in sustainability. But I do make sure everyone knows I don’t fly. I know quite a few non-green friends who have stopped or greatly reduced flying due to my leadership on this issue. We all need to work hard to show its possible to have a great life after flying.

I do bang on about why we should not fly to people who should know better (people who think of themselves as ‘green’). When i am asked why I don’t fly i say that for me, knowing what i do, it would be criminal to fly unnecessarily and I have not found a good enough reason to for may years.

Paul,

about the criteria; they are guidelines, to help initiating groups decide for themselves whether they’ve got enough necessary elements in place to be viable. You can lie and tick all the boxes on the form (Ben’s gonna love me for this!), saying yeah, your group’s got what it takes and you’ll get to “officialdom status”, nobody’s gonna check up on you. In the end, it is still the actual initiative that decides whether or not they are ready, NOT THE NETWORK!!! There is still that element of trust, that people engaging with transition are responsable and intelligent enough to see that this is just an exercise to their benefit, to ensure they have the necessary ingredients within their setup to be viable. IT IS NOT THE NETWORK DECIDING ON THEIR MORALS FOR THEM!!! You are comparing apples with pears.

If we allow The Network to decide what our personal moral stance “should” be regarding flying, where is it gonna stop? Because today taking that particular view is THE “no brainer”, tomorrow it’s somewhat else. You could easily argue then, that all people working for THE NETWORK “should” be vegan, get their electricity from Green Clean, have no more than one child per adult (at least during office hours), or no, much better, let’s bring back self-flagellation, twice daily , whilst praying to the god of Green Corporate Image. We won’t need to explain the reasoning behind our personal decisions and actions to anybody anymore, we’ll just bash ‘em around the head with our Big Book of Green Living Rules.
And another thing: I’d like for somebody who has the scientific know-how to work out exactly the the carbon output of your overland and sea journey to Sweden versus the output of the short flight that Naresh took. In order to do that, we’d need to know, though, whether both plane, boat and train were full, or whether they were moving a lot of empty seats, whether the plane was moving through the higher, more susceptible layers of the atmosphere or not, etc, etc. Was it worth it? Did you leave Sweden knowing that because of your travelling there, the Swedes can now take care of their own training needs?
It is all not as simple as you think!I prefer to have the ongoing intelligent agonising over issues like this, then to settle for moronic, simplistic, dogmatic “no brainers” like this bit of greenwash. In the end, all that will be required to work for THE NETWORK, is that you have no brain at all!
Well, that’s it for me, I’m gonna non dig my garden now, as you might have noticed, Rob’s also moved on…and doesn’t seem to give a toss about this whole “discussion” anymore…

What we do is much louder than what we say!

In my view there shouldn’t need to be rules because it shouldn’t occur to anyone employed by Transition Network that flying is an appropriate or justifiable action. But as this clearly isn’t the case TN needs a policy.

Ann, I think you’re being a little disingenuous. We’re talking about a decision or policy that effects employees of the network not the network itself (though it would send out a very strong message). Any responsible organisation has a raft of policies which protect and codify its purpose, its reputation and its staff. All that is being said here is should this include TN transport arrangements. I’ve worked for a number of organisations which have had environmental and social purposes; all have had strict environmental policies which committed staff to doing things like recycling/composting, switching off monitors and lights, justifying all car journeys etc. etc. whilst on work time. For good or ill, lots of employment contracts also have clasues about not doing reputational damage to the employer outside of work time too.

I was surprised and a little disappointed to learn that the trainers had flown round the world – like Shane I’d be interested to know how many miles and the rationale for this – but it looks pretty bad. Surely there are fantastic and inspiring teachers all round the world: is the training so complex that it can’t be taught to a whole raft of new trainers remotely (and much more cost-effectively) rather than setting of on a global tour?

In addition, though it is true that the network bases the granting of officialness on trust, it doesn’t change the fact that the network makes that decision. In my own initiative Ben asked us, ever-so-nicely, to go away and think about the structure of the core group then re-apply for official status – which we did (and he was right). And the network defends its brand very carefully http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/Branding.

Ann

I don’t know anything about the internal orgaisation of the Transition Network but the fact that people are talking about ‘employees’ indicates that there is already a top-down structure. You don’t have empolyees in a co-operative.

Nevertheless, I would envisage a decision to stop flying coming as a colective decision by all the people who work in TN, not as one made by a few and imposed on the rest.

Hi Ann and all,
A final word from my side as well. Of course you are absolutely correct that the criteria are principally meant as guidelines. And maybe that’s where the criteria-apple and the no-flying-pear actually do come together. In stead of a ‘no-brainer’ a no-flying policy should be an incentive to concious thoughts and deeds. As a matter of fact, by ‘hindering’ ourselves by not flying, we are constantly challenged to come up with creative alternatives. No brain-deadiness there as far as I can tell.

Anyway, enjoy your gardening!

Rob, you’re right not to fly. The Transition idea is simple enough to be presented in a book or on a website. Nobody NEEDS to fly anywhere in the name of the Transition Movement. But also, they shouldn’t really NEED to be told that, so don’t ban it as that takes away personal responsibility.

Arrggh, can’t help myself, this is just too important.

JTM,

As a result of working with Transition, I have changed my life dramatically. I don’t fly, not for work or love. This is because the transition ethos has had that effect on me, by allowing me to come to my own decision. Being the stroppy cow I am, if I would have been guild tripped or forced into this decision, I would not now be working my socks off to bring this transition forward. And there are many more stroppy people out there like me, who bristle at being told what to do. For them and everybody else, transition needs to retain it’s unique edge of empowerment,trust , compassion, gratitude, inclusion.
Transition is different from most other environmental movements that have gone before, because it works on a different level; it uses ways that have not been tried before on this scale, and shows that it works!
We are trying to change the current paradigm here, we cannot now stoop to use methods from the old one, just because others do so: I quote your bit:
“Any responsible organisation has a raft of policies which protect and codify its purpose, its reputation and its staff.”
The day the Network decides we need this is the day transition as we know it dies and something amorphous, mutated and slimy takes its place.

You call me disingenuous? Would you please let me in on what my secret motives may be? Radical, yes, insincere, never! I can so hear a middleaged belligerent male here : “Come, come, you silly woman, don’t you know how the world works? Tsk, tsk!”

As for delivering the training via video conferencing methods or whatever, I’m so up for that! It’s knackering work and having to travel all over the shop makes it a lot worse. The best training I ever facillitated was right here, in Wales, and I could tuck the kids in and sleep in my own bed at night. Wonderful!

Patrick,

As a trainer, I work for the Network, but I would not call myself an employee. I feel I have a lot more freedom than that term implies. And yes, wouldn’t it be wonderful if the network was set up as a co-operative, something to aspire too?

And I thought about that collective decision making thing too, but then for it to be truly collective and democratic, we’d have to go through the whole process each time someone new joined the pool, so that their opinions would also get equal value. We have to think about those who come after, how would we do this?
Better to make the ethos strong and attractive, so no flying would be the decision people naturally came to and so I agree with Paul as well.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Ann:

Disingenuous because you know full well that the Transition Network ltd is not the same as the transition network or movement and it is TNltd (A charity with an self selected board of trustees I think) that employs staff and secures funding for particular projects that support the network. To conflate the two is confusing and misleading. I, for example, feel part of the transition network, but I’ve got no particular relationship with TNltd (though I’m very glad of the work it does).

I don’t know how the work of the training pool is organised but I’m guessing that you are either contracted to TNltd in some way or are perhaps part of an autonomous trainers co-op which is in itself contracted to TN… I just don’t know (is it possible to find out?). But to try to suggest that TNltd isn’t bound by the same employment laws, have the same responsibilities to staff, or the same concerns about its identity and reputation as any other organisation is utter rubbish and as Patrick point out, because it isn’t a co-op, it is already and necessarily top down (even if it would rather not be).

Personally I think TNltd should be a co-op, but it isn’t up to me, it’s up to the Trustees. I’ve only briefly worked outside the co-operative movement and, like you, I felt very unhappy about being told what to do and having no influence over decisions that effected me.

Hi Everyone,
Thought I’d add in my piece as an employeee of TN ltd – I gave up flying last year – (which means I leave behind my house and the people & the life I had in Brazil where I lived for 15 years,I cried when I arrived there on my last trip, and I cried when I left 3 weeks later, & only knew later that it was because I wasn’t going to go there anymore) and not because anyone told me to – but because when I had understood fully what the transition movement was about there was only one thing that felt right to do and that was to walk my talk. And it feels great – in fact now – much as though I have always loved train travel (for that little piece of me time between business) I realise that something much more precious happens when you take the time it really takes to arrive somewhere.
I reccommend slow travel to everyone and will be off walking around England to try it out next year for 6 months to co-create & collect Transition Tales – anyone up for joining in – and/or starting a similar walk around Scotland, and Wales do get in touch. Personally I think it is often by seeing how much fun others are having doing it another way that people are inspired to do things differently – so the more of us who talk about the fact that we don’t fly – and love it – and share what we do instead, the more will want to join in.
On love miles I do think that each of us needs time to find the answers to that difficult decision within ourselves and will do our letting go & grieving in the time it takes and that there will be a time of transition that will vary in length for each one of us.
I always feel very good when I tell people that don’t know about transition that Rob doesn’t fly – I’d love to be able to quote others too – so thanks to those who have said they don’t!

I work for Transition Network (Ltd) 2 days a week. What Transition Network is and what it does is set out in “WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO” http://transitionculture.org/2009/02/05/transition-networks-who-we-are-and-what-we-do-document-available/.

I personally DONT and WONT fly. I don’t need to be told to do this. I DONT FLY because I CHOOSE not to. Strictly speaking I suspect it would be illegal if the Transition Network were to ‘ban’ its employees or contracted staff from flying – but I think its good that we’re encouraged to question and make decisions for ourselves. Although the Transition Network employs me, it doesn’t own me, treat me like a robot or like a child.

There is also not an obvious hierarchical management structure – more of a self-organising symbiotic one where the Trustees and staff all seem to recognise that different roles are vital. I personally feel that those involved in TN either in voluntary or paid roles are fairly reflective of the wider Movement. I was part of a Transition Town first and responded to an advert for my post on Rob’s Blog.

I think Transition Network (Ltd) works a bit like a balloon seller… quite good at holding the strings and gathering balloons (not so good at noticing when some of the balloons get a bit tangled)

When you’re given a balloon, no-one asks for the string, but it is kinda helpful….

Thanks Linda,

Your perspective is helpful. The link too, though it only really describes the function and purpose of TNLtd not the legal or organisational structure – I’m guessing legally a limited company with charitable status, organisationally it seems a bit hazy (as does the formal relationship with the movement). I’m sure that day to day everything is very much non-hierarchical and that everyone knows their role, is respected and considered. But ultimately the trustees have responsibilities and legal obligations and so need to be comfortable with everything that is happening in TNltd (and ultimately have a veto on any proposed staff actions or policies), in this sense the organisation is top-down

But this is way off the point of the thread!!

I think TNltd would be well within its legal rights to say that, on TNltd time, staff and contractors shouldn’t fly. But, as I’ve said earlier and you’ve reiterated, it just shouldn’t be necessary to have this rule because no-one should want to fly…

Which brings us back to the training tour – what was the rationale? Were other methods of dissemination explored?

hmmm… I’m sitting here now thinking about travel by sea as compared with travel by air. What is the carbon footprint comparision? (I don’t know.) Of course, it depends on many variables, not least being whether the sea-going vessel is a sailboat…. Anyone here know the facts? … And just how long does it take to, say, sail (& cruise ship) from the the UK to the US?

Yes, but…

I used up more than my quota as a young globetrotter. Once I realized the issue I stopped flying; it’s been 9 years, which frequently means 2×24 hour bus/train journeys to come up for 45 minutes of exam in Northern Denmark: Not fun!

I’ve accepted that as part of my membership of Engineers and Builders without Borders, I’d fly if it could help in emergency relief work; that my accumulated knowledge and skills can outweigh the environmental burden… However, 2 months ago I broke my promise…
Waking up to the realization of ‘burn-out’, stress and nervous breakdown, I chose to airlift myself away from the front line of fighting the backwards administrators and local governments etc here in Czech Republic. Unfortunately this has been too large a part of the effect of implementing L.A.21, permaculture farming, natural building and other alternative cutting edge elements to a far from receptive region.
Rather than 3 months at an expensive spa facility, I took 1,5 month among some of the most wonderful supportive friends and colleagues in Oregon and California; learned loads, networked even more, reconnected and rejuvenated. It also contributed loads to my board work in the Natural Building Network. http://www.nbnetwork.org.
I’m now back, plenty inspired to continue my life as idealist, as well as starting more sustainable eco-business ventures.

Yes, according to Rob’s figures above I used “enough for 3 people living within their carbon allowance for a year” +some.

I still believe it was well worth it, and that the past 9 years effect of my lifestyle as example for many makes up for this ’sin’…
In other words; can’t be 100% fanatic about it…

Cheers,
Max

Dear Friends & Colleagues in the Marvelous Work of Transition,

I am so grateful for this conversation. Flying is such an excellent example of the challenges we face in choosing creative descent. I gave up flying–except for a handful of obligatory job and family trips–in 1996. But then I flew twice in the last year–to be trained as a Transition Trainer! Ha.

Rob, your modeling of not flying has encouraged (i.e., increased my courage) to return to my commitment to give up flying. I haven’t decided what I’ll do if my father in Arizona needs me again as he did when he had a five by-pass surgery. But, I’ve done my best to get both parents to move closer to my sisters and I, and gradually they’re coming to understand. Unfortunately, my choice not to fly has brought my primary relationship to the brink (because he chooses to fly between Alaska, Massachusetts and Florida for work and play while I do not want to fly nor to live alone). It is also earning me resentment and criticism from some family members (when I gave up an all-expense-paid trip to Peru because it required flying, and because I proposed that we celebrate the lives of my parents in some other way than flying to Mexico).

Living in a country (the U.S.) with a notoriously inadequate rail system, my pledge not to fly has me spending 30 hours on a train this holiday to go to my family gathering in Minnesota. It is costing me 2.5 times more to take the train, and 3 times the number of hours.

So, I can empathize with Ann’s frustration with the suggestion that those of us teaching Transition take a voluntary pledge to forgo flying. With children, plane travel becomes almost unavoidable if family visits, school schedules and other priorities are at odds with the time it takes for overland travel. In the U.S., driving can sometimes require as much oil as flying — so the question can easily become one of whether ANY long-distance, oil-based travel by plane or vehicle is “the caring thing to do”. Giving up long-distance travel by means of private car or plane is a question that would make nearly all Americans wince.

I don’t see that encouraging Transition trainers and staff to give up flying is forcing morality on us. We are a movement of people who are courageous in asking the tough questions of ourselves. We are each choosing to affiliate with this movement, and in this choosing we are expressing both our INTENTION to do our best to reduce our polluting energy use and we are INVITING OTHERS to review our success in achieving our intentions. No one is imposing, authoritarian style, on us. We have chosen a difficult path. And we are being encouraged and invited to consider what message our actions communicate. And to consider making a pledge to demonstrate our understanding of the responsible, publicly visible role we have chosen.

Perhaps the real question underlying all of this emerged in the comments above: what if we who are teaching Transition were to give our own carbon accounting? And, as we share our stories of personal transition, what if we were to be a community of forgiveness for each other?

I am sad when I think about all the decisions I’ve made that can and do hasten the harm to others and the earth. Perhaps the invitation of Transition is to welcome and support each of us on our path. We are committed to face — to not reject or deny — the parts of the truth that we don’t want to hear (i.e., flying is particularly horrific for our beloved earth and the future of our children). Yet we can, in true Transition style, as Rob and Naresh model, invite the conversation and invite the self-examination.

Perhaps each of us as trainers could voluntarily share our carbon-reduction journey. Perhaps it is these stories — and the strength of our determination to live in new ways — that bring us together.

In this way, each of us has stories and obstacles, and each of us is in a different place. OUR INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF TRANSITION ARE THE BLESSINGS OF BEING IN A DIVERSE MOVEMENT. The key is that all of us who are in positions of responsibility, publicly visible or not, paid or unpaid, consultant or staff, are deeply challenging ourselves and openly sharing our stories of our efforts.

Hopefully with humor, and compassion, for ourselves and others.

Let us celebrate all that we each have achieved in carbon reduction and independence from fossil fuels and dirty energy. Let us empathize with the challenges we each face. And let us also nudge each other to be even more courageous!

* * *

After I got over my resistance to traveling 2100 kilometers in an open-seating train car, I realized that the trip was an opportunity to support TRansition! I could offer Transition Training by Train! I have now scheduled stops along the way to offer TT workshops.

I’m now thinking I should do all my Transition Training by bus, rail and other public transit, scheduling trips weeks in advance to make the most out of every mile. Hmm… Thank you, Transition Movement, for helping me dream bigger, compassionately, and with a sense of mischievous fun.

Tina Clarke,
Massachusetts, USA

I have always admired your commitment, Rob, as the lead of this movement to be “living Transition, having to face making the sorts of (often) least bad choices in living everyday life.” In that spirit our local Transition Initiative has a Make a Committment program where we all decide what commitments we want to make to sustainability and localization. Last January one aspect of my personal commitment was not to travel anywhere I could not get to by car with less than a day (there really aren’t any trains around where I live)I feel pleased to have kept that commitment and will continue it into the next year.
Your point about choice is a very good one. We find that having people choose the commitments they are willing to make without judgement from others as to what is the “best” commitment is producing a positive response. That is, as you say, a luxury we in my own community and we in our wider Transition Community still have.

According to a Tibetan saying, we need to “make haste slowly”. In other words, slow down as fast as we can!

Firstly I would like to say that personally I hate flying and love trains. If I never got on a plane again it would be too soon. I confess to taking 2 shorthaul flights in the last 7 years (not in the service of the Transition Network though).

However I understand Naresh’s point of view as I remember many of the early trainings where several people would have flown in on long haul flights just to do the training. It was a pragmatic decision to go out and train people around the globe so that there would be local trainers available instead.

Ann and I had a long, very enjoyable, eventful but ultimately expensive (for the hosts) car / boat/ train / taxi journey to Ireland last summer because we were absolutely determined not to fly there. It was the last time that trainers will go from the UK as the Irish Transition Network now have their own trainers. Job done.

Things have moved on and I agree that perhaps we need to look again at what is really necessary and useful.

Perhaps we could devise a method of paying travel expenses that would reflect the true costs of different types of travel and embody our values.

For example, if we didn’t pay travel expenses for flying, trainers could decide that a particular trip was so important that they would be prepared to pay for the ticket themselves. They could alternatively take the train and have their expenses fully covered, or they could decide to let another trainer do that training.

People could be paid a minimal amount for car travel say 10p a mile – enough to cover fuel for a reasonably efficient car but not much more.

Perhaps bike travel could be re-inbursed at a similar level to pay for bike upkeep and extra organic food for the cyclist……

Hello from Houston TX. How about this message:

“The founder of Transition Network has made the decision to no longer fly as part of his commitment to addressing Peak Oil and Global Warming. Other Transition trainers have also made this commitment.

The decision to give up flying may prove difficult to some people in the transition movement. The Transition Network encourages all participants to use their own judgement, with the knowledge and encouragement at hand, in making their transitioning choices.”

It’s really the people outside of Transitioning that will get the most from that kind of message.

They might deny Peak Oil or Global Warming, but they would be hard pressed to deny your commitment.

Al Gore caught a lot of (deserved) flack for not having a “Green”house when he could afford to do so. On the other hand, Bush and Cheney are totally off the grid and never mentioned it…

Hi Rob, contributors,

Sorry I didn’t have time to read all the comments above so apologies if I’m repeating anything.
First, full disclosure, I haven’t flown for 3 years and 6 months. I live in Japan and came here on trains and a boat. My parents visited me once, they came and went on trains and boats, no friends or family have flown to see me in the 2 + years I have been here.

Basically, my view boils down to: policies you set for employees should reflect political policies you would like to see enacted. Meaning, if you think that all governments should be striving for a complete and total ban on aviation (at whatever point in the near future) then perhaps this is a good policy to adopt.

Suggestions for policies I would more likely support for transition / potentially scalable to the whole world.

- Each employee takes a public pledge to keep their personal emissions to a minimum, and insists upon low carbon alternatives in every available opportunity. This means taking a firm position with overseas conferences and other activities, educating such people, being proactive about suggesting alternatives, and preparing yourselves with technology that can bridge the gap. You could even ask employees to take an audit of their current emissions, then ask them to pledge to reduce those emissions year on year. How they do it, however is up to them.
- Using carrots: some companies now give extra holiday time to employees who use sustainable transport to reach their destination, the government has a free bicycle for commuters scheme. Support such carrot based approaches to changing transport behaviour in your community.
- Lobby governments to improve international rail links (and hope governments will lobby those countries where massive improvements could be made, in the same way that governments lobby for trade agreements or shipping lanes that will be useful internationally). Just think how many more people could choose rail for a number of destinations if the rail links on the sections of track from Poland to Beijing, where there are old diesel chuggers, to western European style trains. That would reduce the rail journey from 6-8 days to 3-4?? Wishful thinking maybe but much more worthy than the 3rd runway.

I like the above commentator’s “The Transition Network encourages all participants to use their own judgement, with the knowledge and encouragement at hand, in making their transitioning choices.”

I don’t underestimate the damaging effect of high carbon lifestyles, and flying is a big part of that which is why I’ve made this commitment even though not seeing my sister for 3 years has been very difficult for me. However, I wouldn’t want to be living under a government that banned me from flying to see her, or my parents if they were likely to die sooner than the 11 days it would take me to get back home on a train. I feel that whatever I don’t want to see in government, I’m sure I don’t want to see in other organisations promoting change for the future. Likewise, for example, if you were summoned to see the Saudi government (who are denying climate science at Copenhagen as I type), Rob, I think it would be crazy to stick to a dogmatic idea instead of doing something that effects change with an enormous impact level. I think if you enforce rigid bylaws on your members you are playing into the hands of your opponents, while gaining only minor applause from those within the movement.

The problem with our current lifestyle is so much more systemic and hidden than the headline grabbing aviation issue, but you need to come at this with compassion and without dogma, allow as much freedom as possible within the limits you see as fit for purpose.

Here are some comparisons of energy use, in kWh/100passenger-km, from: David MacKay (2009) Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, UIT Cambridge. (incidentally, a brilliant book, available free on line at http://www.withouthotair.com)
My figures may differ from his by a unit or so as I copied them from a graph.

Electric train, full – 2
Electric high-speed train, full – 4
Coach, full – 6
Diesel high-speed train, full – 9
Car, full – 19
Sea bus, average loading – 22
Catamaran, average loading – 36
Boeing 747, full – 42
Boeing 747, average – 51
Car, 1 person – 81
Ocean liner, full – 103
Ocean liner, average – 122

The global warming potential of the energy used will depend to some extent on the energy source used.

The figures for air travel need to be multiplied by a factor of somewhere between 2 & 3 to account for greenhouse gases other than CO2 which are more potent because they’re released at high altitude. MacKay uses a factor of 2, Kevin Anderson of the Hadley Centre uses 2.7. This would put the figures for the Boeing up to 113 & 138 – ie causing 12 times as much global warming per 100p-km as the least efficient train.

Long-distance sea travel comes off badly because each passenger occupies much more space than the single seat of a plane or train – cabin + a share of all the public rooms – and all of this is made of heavy steel. But it’s still better than flying.

On a different note, some contributors to this thread seem to assume that anyone involved in Transition will automatically not be a flyer. I would have thought so too. But last summer I went to a workshop led by Starhawk for Transition activits. These were all people who’d taken time out of their lives and spent money to be there and some had travelled far. One exercise we did was to form a circle and anyone who felt moved to do so could go into the centre and make a personal statement. People who felt that statement applied to them could move into the centre and join them. I went into the centre and said ‘I don’t fly.’ How many do you think joined me out of the 40 Transition activists in that circle? One.

Hi Patrick

Thanks for the transport energy stats. Do the figures include the embodied energy as well?

Reading the result of your question to the Starhawk group made my heart sink.

Best wishes
Steve

Dear All,

We just had a Transition Circle based on Transport (circles are personal carbon reduction groups in Transition Norwich, aiming at a 50% cut of the national average). We were all roughly on a par with our carbon footprint as far as car/train/bus travel went. But then two of the group were flying to San Francisco next year. Suddenly there was an awkward discrepancy between us – 1 ton leapt to 10.

Flying makes all the difference.

At The Wave Climate Emergency rally on Saturday the group Seize the Day sang a song called Flying. If you haven’t heard it check it out. In spite of the rally’s fine rhetoric and the presence of 50,000 blue-painted people walking through the capital it was this song that moved me. Because it was based on the very real sacrifice made not to fly by the singer herself and then given in the form of a song to the people. She has a grandmother in America and a sister in Australia.

Don’t take my freedom. Don’t take my wings away.

For Transition to speak directly to the hearts of people where these kinds of decisions are made we need to be seen walking (literally)our talk.

Best wishes,

Charlotte

I think there should be a policy that whilst being paid to do work for Transition Network Ltd people should not fly.

What they do in their own time they, of course, do on their own terms.

Aside from the fact that travelling by land/ sea is normally MUCH more expensive, for the many people who only get a ludicrous amount of holiday each year time is a real and often deciding issue.

So, together with the no-fly policy I’d strongly encourage TN Ltd to give employees much more holiday that is required by law.

As for the wider debate, its worth remembering that the vast majority of humanity has never flown and never will and so can not “give up” flying.

I commend people taking a pledge to not fly again, but most of them have already flown all over the world – if this is you please think twice before being judgemental about poor families taking a rare package holiday.

I find it odd that Rob says “In relation to why pick on air travel, it is, for me anyway, because it is an area where we can make an impact. In our daily lives, we can have some impact through choices we make, by not flying, by altering our shopping patterns, but in relation to coal, other than signing up with Good Energy or another green energy provider, or engaging in direct action against coal, we can have less influence.”

Sounds to me like switching to a green supplier (I’d recommend Ecotricity over Good Energy myself because they invest more in new green energy than all thet other companies put together) and engaging in direct action against coal would likely have more influence than not flying.

My final point is that we desperately need to create a whole new economic system, starting with a new banking system. i.e. no amount of not-doing stuff will ever get us to where we need to be.

To be the change we want to see we need to CREATE the change we want to see. i.e. design new SYSTEMS (e.g. land ownership/ stewardship/ management systems, money/ banking/ exchange systems, media systems) that make the existing systems obsolete.

It’s not so much a question of not flying as a question of not travelling long-distance.

When you look at the fuel consumption for a full A380, it amounts to 3 litres per 100 km per passenger. This is comparable to a recent medium car with two people. The trick is : you don’t drive 20,000 km to attend a conference.

After food-miles, we have to think in terms of meeting-miles. And when people say that meetings are more productive when we can attend in person, just imagine how much you could achieve during a teleconference that lasted not just the duration of the meeting it replaces, but also the duration of the trip it made unnecessary.

Just an example : instead of Rob flying to Kentucky and talking 2 hours then socializing a couple more hours, you could have Rob on-demand via videoconference for three straight days! (because that’s how much time it would cost Rob to fly there and back for just a few hours of ‘in person’ presence).

I’m inclined to agree with Stefan. For many of us flying is indeed the most energy intensive activity, and perhaps one of the easiest way to cut substantially per capita emissions, but it doesnt work that way across the board for everyone. We all have different circumstances. I dont see why “not flying” is any more a “no brainer” than giving up the car or, especially, limiting the number of children we have.
Several commentators have said sthg along the lines of “how could a transitioner even think of flying”- surely we could just as easily say “how could a transitioner even think of having more than one child” ?!
If I gave up the van but replaced it with one or two flights to the UK a year I would still have reduced my carbon by more than 50%.
Stefan’s point that many of us have already had the privilege of flying round the world is well made- giving up something you have already done is very different from being denied it in the first place.

Aye, Graham!

When do we include ‘Children re-location’ (a.k.a. adoption, foster care etc.) in the transition work?
I’m saddened every time friends have their own child no. 2, in order to fill the satisfaction of the ideal family. Why not obtain this by relieving the local/global injustice at same time, and stopping this insane yeast-cell like growth on the planet? …Is it every week or day we become one million more people?
Sorry, but the issue of flying simply doesn’t compare…

Max:
I propose a policy that TTN employees do not have any more children….while on Transition business.(What they do in their own time is up to them):)

Excellent quality of debate with good points made on all sides, but all highlighting how difficult many of the choices are that we transitioners choose to make while there is still (relatively cheap)oil around.

Those who have always been “green” and who can reduce their carbon footprint to very low levels get our respect. For many of us, however, transition isn’t easy. It can be a huge psychological and emotional struggle as some of these posts testify. For at alest some of us, few decisions as we move out of the hydrocarbon comfort zone are “no brainers”, especially when it comes to “love miles” or when you are the only member of your (much loved) family who really “gets transition”.

For the smoothest possible transition we need people who don’t currently think about these issues AT ALL to be engaged. Lots of personal stories, lots of examples of doing the right thing (like Rob’s jourrney to Austria), perhaps statements like the one suggested by Theresa above, will help to achieve that.

Lots of encouragement and persuasion to do the right thing, but not please a blanket Transition network “policy” of no fly, any more than a blanket policy of “no children” (if you haven’t already had some, presumably). And let’s, above all, not judge each others’ often painful carbon reduction choices too harshly…

I haven’t flown since 2003. I’m 51. I have flown to Paris once, Israel once, Skegness (from Swanton Morley in a 4 seat Cessna in 1974!) and Australia once. I gave up after Oz. My best friend lives in Chicago now. Another childhood friend who lives in Bangkok, but visits his parents in the UK every Xmas recently suggested I visit him. My half brother lives in Australia.

I’m not a well travelled person and I’d love to go to these places. I’d love to see the Great Wall, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef but I won’t fly. I can’t afford a cruise ship. I know from seeat61.com that I could cross to USA on a merchant ship for an affordable amount and I may consider that. I can’t afford a Rolls-Royce either. Or a 20 bedroom house. These days a lot of people expect what once would have been the privilege of the extremely weathy as a right: a winter break in Bermuda, a weekend trip to Rome, a two week holiday in the Maldives? Why not, as Seize the Day point out in their superb song mentioned above, “… when it’s cheaper to fly than to park at the airport, what would you do?”. Tha’s not to say either that the wealthy are any more entitled to these than the rest of us.

We have created the story of today’s world where air travel is just part of the backdrop, as normal as shopping at the supermarket or buying a 40″ plasma TV. As Joanne pointed out, once, when people moved to another country they were essentially “gone forever”. Now, it’s a minor inconvenience and no more. Once, the idea of being told that part of your work required you to be in Berlin for 9am to deliver a training program ending at 5pm and be back in the UK office at 9pm for the departmental board meeting would actually have been physically impossible and thus not even considered. Now it may be seen as essential. We have built many parts of our food systems, our relationships, our leisure time and many other things around the availability of accessible, quick, affordable travel to anywhere in the world. It’s like the oil woven into our lives and it’s no wonder so many people don’t want to let go.

My Mum, who is 82, has spent a single day in Boulogne in 1964. The rest of her life has been lived in the UK. She does not feel cheated.

In my view, in another 20 years at most, for the vast majority of the world’s population there will be no more flying (as it is for most of them already and has been all their lives) unless it’s by airship which I believe is the only viable model for future air travel. It’s only us rich people that fret over these choices – such are the stresses of our wealth.

At Green Architecture day here in Brighton a few years ago, a guy talked about rammed earth buildings and said that CO2 emissions from concrete manufacture at roughly double that of aviation. But aviation is the fastest growing source and there is at least something we can do about it. It’s much harder for us to do something about concrete’s CO2 emissions.

Ian said “You also need to consider that the aeroplane is going to fly there anyway, whether you are on it or not. Flying a 747 to Australia with two empty seats becasue TN decided not to fly makes such an infitesimal difference to the total emissions for that particular day, that the agonising over it is pointless.” Well, in that case there’s little point in changing any of our behaviour patterns if X is going to continue anyway because that’s what most people will continue doing. Not a very inspiring way of approaching the redirection of our futures.

I think that the Network should do ground breaking research in finding a superb way of videoconferencing to deliver top notch training and surely with all the electronic wizardry available today it can’t be that hard. High definition, document transfer, interactivity, surely only the physical presence is missing and for all that carbon on the table, it’s surely worth going for.

I don’t fly now, haven’t flown since 2004, I used to fly alot for work, and left the job partly for flying reasons. I didn’t think I could stand up and do talks/articles on peak oil and be taken seriously if I still flew regularly. Credibility is everything.

I travel by train a fair bit but have some doubts over its efficiency.

I am not sure train travel over continental distances is lower energy than flying. Railways require a great deal of maintenance, they use land and TGV type trains use alot more energy than slow trains.

If airlines can make money flying people for much less money than rail I see a signal that air travel uses less resources than rail travel. I have yet to see a good study that considers all the energy costs of a 1000km journey by rail vs air. Planes don’t need a permanent way. For me low impact means less travel by whatever means.

Max

You assume that there’s a direct relationship between money cost and the amount of resources used. If only there was! The reason why air travel is much cheaper than rail is that a larger proportion of the cost of air travel is in fuel and less in employing people. It’s the very low price we pay for energy that makes air cheap in money terms.

Your point about embodied energy is a good one, but after considering airports, access roads car parks etc don’t assume air comes out far ahead. A railway track is a very economical structure in terms of number of people transported per metre width per hour.

If rail does have a greater embodied energy it pales into insignificance beside the twelve-fold difference between the global warming effect per passenger km of high-speed rail and air. (See my post of 9th Dec.)

Hello,
Travelling has been an invalid experience for my personal journey to understanding and appreciating the planet. If there had been an affordable non-flying option I could take that was safe for a lone female, I would have jumped at it. As it happened I flew around the world! To limit my carbon footprint I chose to travel across lands by public transport, only flying over seas.
The point here being; to me, transition is not about telling people what they should or shouldn’t be doing (every action having a reaction…not always the desired one!), but maybe it can help people make the best decisions to suit them.

Hi everybody

Just checked out how much it would cost to teach the “Training for Transition” course via video conferencing technology: £47/hour for the use of the equipment, with additional telephone/broadband line costs ( still awaiting quote), so at 15 hours, that’s £705, then double that, ’cause you need these facilities on both ends, that’s £1410, plus venue hire £200-£500, again times two, that’s £1810-£2410, then trainer’s fees £1000, Network fee(based on 24 participants)£240, miscellaneous expenses £100, so that comes to £3150-£3750. For a group of 24 participants, that brings the cost of Training for Transition to £131 – £156 per person minimum.
Any takers?

Hi Patrick – and others
It would be useful to know how full a train is on average – in the UK for a start – to compare a train journey with a journey in a full car…

As part of my Human Ecology studies we once found that it was better for the environment to car pool with 3 people than to take the train in DK to work 45 min. away… granted lots of parameters was absent and we were newbies in LCA, it still made me severely doubt various myths along with the science behind ‘Life Cycle Analysis’.
Even though, then I’d love to see the environmental data on Sir Branson’s ‘fly to space for fun’ (flights for the social ignorati), and as well suggest that we may broaden this discussion to driving of cars, as it seems it’s about to become interwoven:

I just came across a site with the catch title; “It’s time to make the Transition” , advocating a street legal airplane: http://www.terrafugia.com ” a vehicle that uses super-unleaded automobile gas, and that will get about 27.5 miles per gallon flying at 115 miles per hour, which is better mileage than most cars get on the highway right now, and at nearly twice the speed. So from a fuel-economy perspective, it’s actually one of the greenest planes out there. And the Transition is such a light vehicle that the mileage should be quite good on the road. We are expecting between 30 and 40 miles per gallon.”

Hmm….Personally I think I stick to a pony (and an air-powered car, http://mdi.lu/english/cityflowair.php ..charged by solar-voltaics?)

Cheers,
The Perma-Max (Not same as Max with the 14/12 comment)

@Ann They were charging more than that at training sessions here in Tokyo recently. Why hire the equipment? Why not buy it and rent it out to other people in your local area as a hub facility that both earns money for your group and is free or minimum cost to members…

@Annie A full car is not so terribly bad accross relatively short distances… not sure its got much scope on a journey to Russia, say. A train journey depends on many things, not just occupancy – is it electric / diesel? How fast does it go? If electric, is the electricity in the country its running in 3 quarters nuclear – like France – or 3 quarters coal – like China.

Thanks so much for this debate. Rob you are inspiring and so happy with it! Have just started a group on our ning site above for such a discussion. There is also one on http://www.intersect.ning.com/flightlessbirds. One person can do so much. My husband has 43 grandchildren and 28 great grandchildren and I have 13 grandchildren so our family itself would respond in a number of ways. Then there is the transition group I belong to in Otaki and all those I know round New Zealand. My bridge club, my ukulele group, the folk music friends it goes on. I now dream of a New Zealand conference, (some by skype and other means) of all those who want to discuss this issue. The airline industry is in massive change and the power of consumers is totally underestimated. This group reach tipping point in a couple of years not too soon for me as the nor westerly winds Wellington and regions are experiencing recently are just horrible. Otaki didn’t used to have any significant wind in summer but it is relentless now. Climate change is happening so fast it scares me and as a grandmother I just must do something.

It seems to me that there is an important point that I don’t think has been raised here regarding the argument of comparative costs of air travel and other forms of communication/travel.

The cost of air travel is in fact kept artificially low by means of an effective subsidy (to the tune of £300 PA per person in the UK in 2006 according to this FOtE article http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/uk_taxpayers_subsidise_air_10032006.html ).

The low cost of travel by air does not reflect lower use of energy. Aviation fuel does not get VAT or duty paid on it unlike all other forms of fuel, and air-travel is also subsidised because local authorities around the world pay airlines to fly to their cities to increase tourism.

This produces an un-level playing field for transport methods – the artificially low cost of air travel in turn makes alternative forms of travel less attractive, diminishing passenger numbers, which in turn forces fares up (just like supermarkets artificially low prices on basic commodities force up or out of business local corner shops).

The sooner this inequality is addressed, and transport costs reflect real costs, the better for the planet. Why should we be subsidising this extremely damaging transportation method (as an earlier poster pointed out, every tonne of carbon emitted high up in the atmosphere does 2 to 3 times as much damage as 1 delivered at ground level).

I, as a non-flier resent subsidising air travellers who are damaging the environment and using up precious oil and believe we should be imposing punitive taxes on air travel, not subsidising it!

Andy – I am right behind you on this…. just thinking…could we be doing a class action on this…a letter writing campaign…wear a badge? I have been involved in various actions against air travel in the past..but nothing specifically on air travel subsidy…is there a specific campaign about it?

Dave

I don’t know of any campaign specifically around the issue of fair taxation on aviation fuel – If there isn’t then I think we should definitely start one!

Anyone else know of anything?

PS this article http://www.thebadgeronline.co.uk/guest-blogs/the-national-campaign-against-airport-expansion/ states £9 billion is lost to the exchequer each year because of loss of revenue from tax on aviation fuel.