How do you justify your desire for travel & leisure with going green?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t give a Skip to My Lou about faddish, en vogue theatre about the environment. So when I hoist my hefty frame onto a First Class flight to the Islands to eat steak and lobster on the beach, taking Chevy Suburbans for every road interval, I feel not the slightest pang of guilt or hypocrisy.

We all need a code. I live by mine.

This comment made me feel a bit sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m interested in this topic, and I was so pleased to see the thread title.

Although I’m disappointed by OP’s snarky tone, I think this is something worth thinking about.

I agree with others who speak about balancing other areas of consumption with the desire to buy plane tickets. That’s how my family justifies it, too.

It would be interesting if we all had some kind of environmental credit system, so everything we did either cost or earned credits that had to be balanced at the end of the year: How many miles did you drive/how much meat did you eat/how many clothes did you buy—or discard—and how many times did you wear them/etc.

I read somewhere that “fast fashion” was the worst consumer-driven environmental offender, much worse than travel.

PS I’m not sure cruise ships are so great for the environment.

Balanced against what? Carbon emissions are bad. Climate change is allegedly an existential crisis. This is not something you can simply "balance." How many allotments for killing people do you think you're entitled to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m interested in this topic, and I was so pleased to see the thread title.

Although I’m disappointed by OP’s snarky tone, I think this is something worth thinking about.

I agree with others who speak about balancing other areas of consumption with the desire to buy plane tickets. That’s how my family justifies it, too.

It would be interesting if we all had some kind of environmental credit system, so everything we did either cost or earned credits that had to be balanced at the end of the year: How many miles did you drive/how much meat did you eat/how many clothes did you buy—or discard—and how many times did you wear them/etc.

I read somewhere that “fast fashion” was the worst consumer-driven environmental offender, much worse than travel.

PS I’m not sure cruise ships are so great for the environment.

This is ultimately the end goal. Control and telling people how to live their life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t give a Skip to My Lou about faddish, en vogue theatre about the environment. So when I hoist my hefty frame onto a First Class flight to the Islands to eat steak and lobster on the beach, taking Chevy Suburbans for every road interval, I feel not the slightest pang of guilt or hypocrisy.

We all need a code. I live by mine.

This comment made me feel a bit sick to my stomach.

Well in a way, this is a big fad. Caring about the environment and whatever minimal steps you take don’t mean anything if you’re flying on a jet. It’s all a front.

[Anonymous]

This is a great topic. I think air and ocean travel should be heavily taxed. UMC and rich people travel entirely too much. You don't need multiple vacations a year away from home. It is gross consumerism.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I feel like I see this in my circle. The amount of travel is actually a little gross.

Of course, they would say my eating meat and buying excess clothing is gross.

But I do think they are worse.

(but also, what do I know?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t give a Skip to My Lou about faddish, en vogue theatre about the environment. So when I hoist my hefty frame onto a First Class flight to the Islands to eat steak and lobster on the beach, taking Chevy Suburbans for every road interval, I feel not the slightest pang of guilt or hypocrisy.

We all need a code. I live by mine.

This comment made me feel a bit sick to my stomach.

It's clearly satire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a great topic. I think air and ocean travel should be heavily taxed. UMC and rich people travel entirely too much. You don't need multiple vacations a year away from home. It is gross consumerism.

Yes, I do. I live in a one bedroom apartment and don't have children or a car. I get to travel guilt-free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a great topic. I think air and ocean travel should be heavily taxed. UMC and rich people travel entirely too much. You don't need multiple vacations a year away from home. It is gross consumerism.

Carbon taxing it makes sense, as long as the funds are used directly for ‘green’ objectives, which probably won’t happen. A leisure tax for those
contributing to global warming.

I could try to justify my air travel by saying that I don’t drive much, have 1 kid & a small house, etc., but truly I know it’s awful. I predict that it will be limited one day so might as well have fun before I die.

Social Qs had a recent hypocrite ask about trying to guilt a young person out of air travel:

I am a 45-year-old who has done his fair share of air travel. Having witnessed undeniable climate change (due, in part, to airplanes), I have sworn them off and encourage others to do the same. My dear cousin plans to send her young son to Paris by plane to participate in a summer camp. May I encourage her not to?

NICK

I agree that we face a climate crisis, but focusing only on commercial air travel — without considering any other element of our carbon footprints — seems blinkered. The response must be deeper and better coordinated than simply canceling a kid’s summer plans. I would keep quiet about camp but try to engage your cousin in the larger climate project, instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because my overall footprint is still less than most. I drive an economical vehicle, and not even that much. Heat is set to 64 in winter, 77 in summer (little cooler at night). Small home, not a lot of land, do not have a consumerist mentality and don't buy junk stuff that isn't needed. Will keep the same phone for 5+ years.

Who constitutes “most”? Certainly it the worldwide most. Probably not the American most.

OP, here’s what I would basically say. We have a net worth of $4M in our early 40s. Most people of our means, in our area, live in 8k sf houses, but we squeeze into 4K sf. We only own two cars, neither is a Suburban, and one is a hybrid. Most of our vacations are driving destinations, and many of them are cruises, which we’re sharing with thousands of other passengers.

All of this is true. I, of course, would never bother to say any of it, because it’s a futile justification. You can not burn fossil fuels and explain it away by saying that someone else burns more. So I just shrug. If we need to decarbonize, we’ll do it with nuclear when people are ready for for that. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

I’ll say it again for those who refuse to listen: not until we solve the waste can we move to nuclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great topic. I think air and ocean travel should be heavily taxed. UMC and rich people travel entirely too much. You don't need multiple vacations a year away from home. It is gross consumerism.

Yes, I do. I live in a one bedroom apartment and don't have children or a car. I get to travel guilt-free.

Guilt, or the lack of it, is a choice all of us get to make, regardless of how we live, vacation, or reproduce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because my overall footprint is still less than most. I drive an economical vehicle, and not even that much. Heat is set to 64 in winter, 77 in summer (little cooler at night). Small home, not a lot of land, do not have a consumerist mentality and don't buy junk stuff that isn't needed. Will keep the same phone for 5+ years.

Who constitutes “most”? Certainly it the worldwide most. Probably not the American most.

OP, here’s what I would basically say. We have a net worth of $4M in our early 40s. Most people of our means, in our area, live in 8k sf houses, but we squeeze into 4K sf. We only own two cars, neither is a Suburban, and one is a hybrid. Most of our vacations are driving destinations, and many of them are cruises, which we’re sharing with thousands of other passengers.

All of this is true. I, of course, would never bother to say any of it, because it’s a futile justification. You can not burn fossil fuels and explain it away by saying that someone else burns more. So I just shrug. If we need to decarbonize, we’ll do it with nuclear when people are ready for for that. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

I’ll say it again for those who refuse to listen: not until we solve the waste can we move to nuclear.

The waste situation was solved decades ago. They just have to go forward with Yucca Mountain. Or don't do it and keep storing it at the facilities. Either way, it's not a significant concern compared to climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because my overall footprint is still less than most. I drive an economical vehicle, and not even that much. Heat is set to 64 in winter, 77 in summer (little cooler at night). Small home, not a lot of land, do not have a consumerist mentality and don't buy junk stuff that isn't needed. Will keep the same phone for 5+ years.

Who constitutes “most”? Certainly it the worldwide most. Probably not the American most.

OP, here’s what I would basically say. We have a net worth of $4M in our early 40s. Most people of our means, in our area, live in 8k sf houses, but we squeeze into 4K sf. We only own two cars, neither is a Suburban, and one is a hybrid. Most of our vacations are driving destinations, and many of them are cruises, which we’re sharing with thousands of other passengers.

All of this is true. I, of course, would never bother to say any of it, because it’s a futile justification. You can not burn fossil fuels and explain it away by saying that someone else burns more. So I just shrug. If we need to decarbonize, we’ll do it with nuclear when people are ready for for that. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Wow. You are not a model for low consumption. You "squeeze in" to 4K square feet? I guarantee you use more fossil fuels than almost anyone in the DC area. We squeeze in to 1500 square feet for a family of four and don't ask for kudos about it.

We very occasionally travel by airplane. We travel by car a lot.

Mind your beeswax, son. Stop lecturing to other people and try to create some appropriate policies so the US can finally adequately address international climate change. Stop looking for the sawdust in others' eyes when you've got a plank in your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because my overall footprint is still less than most. I drive an economical vehicle, and not even that much. Heat is set to 64 in winter, 77 in summer (little cooler at night). Small home, not a lot of land, do not have a consumerist mentality and don't buy junk stuff that isn't needed. Will keep the same phone for 5+ years.

So, you are same as poor people and most middle class people. Ok. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t give a Skip to My Lou about faddish, en vogue theatre about the environment. So when I hoist my hefty frame onto a First Class flight to the Islands to eat steak and lobster on the beach, taking Chevy Suburbans for every road interval, I feel not the slightest pang of guilt or hypocrisy.

We all need a code. I live by mine.

This comment made me feel a bit sick to my stomach.

Well in a way, this is a big fad. Caring about the environment and whatever minimal steps you take don’t mean anything if you’re flying on a jet. It’s all a front.

True! 100%

Most people who say they care don't. Trust me, I know because of my involvement and leadership in local environmental matters. You'd be surprised how virtue signalers scatter like ants when it's time for the rubber to meet the road and do something to save even their *OWN* local environment. No, they'd rather go hide and post cool climate memes on FB.