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

[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. We’ll always travel to see family, but people can easily vacation closer to home. Virginia has lots of great spots.

[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.

Agree.

Once heavily taxed, travel will be freed of the little people (middle and lower class people, who really need to just stay home). Only the rich should be allowed to travel.

[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.

We need to reduce our consumption across the board. Travel is one type of consumption.

[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.

Agree.

Once heavily taxed, travel will be freed of the little people (middle and lower class people, who really need to just stay home). Only the rich should be allowed to travel.

Truly rich people don't "travel". Yes, they do travel some, but they are more likely to head back to the same family summer/ski house every year. The whole concept of "traveling" is gauche imo.

[Anonymous]

We have significantly reduced our overall consumption in general, and that includes cutting back a lot on travel and finding new interests closer to home (or at home). I don't miss anything.

[Anonymous]

I feel guilty about it. I don't really think there is a way to justify travel (esp air travel). I feel the worst when I am going someone I really want to see now because I worry it is being destroyed by global warming (like Glacier NP or Alaska).

[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.

Launch it into space!

[Anonymous]

wow this is like the book of 1001 excuses.

Everybody uses a little less gas/heat/AC and recycles so it's okay to add other pollution. Not convincing.

[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, if you have to “squeeze” into a 4K sqft house you’re doing something wrong.

We have higher net worth and don’t have to squeeze into our 2500 sqft house even with 6ft+ teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree.

Once heavily taxed, travel will be freed of the little people (middle and lower class people, who really need to just stay home). Only the rich should be allowed to travel.

Truly rich people don't "travel". Yes, they do travel some, but they are more likely to head back to the same family summer/ski house every year. The whole concept of "traveling" is gauche imo.

LOL, late entry for dumbest post of the year.

[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.

Wow, if you have to “squeeze” into a 4K sqft house you’re doing something wrong.

We have higher net worth and don’t have to squeeze into our 2500 sqft house even with 6ft+ teens.

Well our net worth is not only higher but TEN TIMES higher. And my teens are not tall, but they do weigh 300 to 400 lbs apiece. And we live in a GD 8’ x 10’ cardboard box on the overpass across from the Kennedy Center. No electricity at all. So maybe *you’re* doing something wrong you smug SOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, if you have to “squeeze” into a 4K sqft house you’re doing something wrong.

We have higher net worth and don’t have to squeeze into our 2500 sqft house even with 6ft+ teens.

Well our net worth is not only higher but TEN TIMES higher. And my teens are not tall, but they do weigh 300 to 400 lbs apiece. And we live in a GD 8’ x 10’ cardboard box on the overpass across from the Kennedy Center. No electricity at all. So maybe *you’re* doing something wrong you smug SOB.

A touchy one…

[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.

It’s literally not less than most if you’re engaging in regular international travel stop lying to yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow this is like the book of 1001 excuses.

Everybody uses a little less gas/heat/AC and recycles so it's okay to add other pollution. Not convincing.

+1 the truth is they feel morally superior for international travel and they won’t be convinced to drop it under any circumstance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, if you have to “squeeze” into a 4K sqft house you’re doing something wrong.

We have higher net worth and don’t have to squeeze into our 2500 sqft house even with 6ft+ teens.

Well our net worth is not only higher but TEN TIMES higher. And my teens are not tall, but they do weigh 300 to 400 lbs apiece. And we live in a GD 8’ x 10’ cardboard box on the overpass across from the Kennedy Center. No electricity at all. So maybe *you’re* doing something wrong you smug SOB.

A touchy one…

Eh. Not really. Your comment was just a chef’s kiss combination of smug and dumb.

Enjoy your shack.