simpleflyer

The title is 'how to be a carbon conscious traveler.' However, although this is not the OMNI forum, this is an OMNI style thread, because it posits climate change as a moral question.

People like moral questions because such questions don't require a knowledge of chemistry to solve. To be conscious of carbon could include being conscious that we have carbon in our very DNA (the D is for deoxyribose, the carbon containing sugar.) We eat plants that would otherwise sequester carbon, and this includes when we eat meat, since the animals in question ate plants. 'Green' energy consisting of hydroelectric power, involves flooding untold numbers of square kilometers of land, land that formerly supported carbon-sequestering trees.

You cannot blame people for being suspicious of 'raising consciousness' because there are too many examples where what this really meant was, " let me tell you how to live your life - here, follow my example, although I'll try to affect modesty about my setting myself up as an example." People took unhealthy pleasure in sneering at 'soccer moms.' Some go further and suggest even motherhood itself, the conception, delivery, and raising of children - is evil.

Guilt isn't the cause of climate change. We built the world we have - yes, really - because we were trying to meet the needs of people. So we must begin from that difficult truth: bad things can happen when we try to do good things.

bitterproffit

It wasn't sarcasm. It was mocking. This isn't PR/OMNI.

It's not a moral question, its a suggestion forum. Go back up and read the first thread. Suggestions on how to be carbon conscious. If you don't want to be carbon conscious, then why mock those who do?

Its a forum for suggestions. If you're 'suspicious of raising consciousness', then don't visit the suggestion board, its that easy.

cmcc

Or, you may choose to simply ignore ideas that trouble you. You may even want to understand points of view other than your own.

zoned_post_meridiem

I agree, and I don't understand the direction this is taking. "How to be a carbon conscious traveler" is a question of pragmatics, not morality. It's tips & tricks. It's not a debate space about the efficacy of these tips (there's literally a thread on that just below, where such things can be debated), or about the downsides of green energy infrastructure, or about the D in DNA (seriously?). It's definitely not about raising consciousness, or some other moral exhortation, and we're all aware of that "difficult truth" (not actually difficult at all; pretty obvious, in fact) that carbon-producing things aren't inherently bad.

It's not about any of these things because the title very clearly says what it's about, and OP very clearly outlined what s/he thought the thread was to be about. To read anything more into it is either dishonest or ignorant.

bitterproffit

so, if this forum was about budget conscious travel, it would be legit to make posts mocking budget conscious travel? When anyone complains that this is a forum for budget conscious travel, tell them they should just open their minds and claim that discussing tips to save money is simply being sanctimonious and ‘virtue signaling’?

who knew you’d be such a triggered snowflake over a forum that simply shares tips?

bitterproffit

Back to carbon conscious travel tips (and subsequent sanctimonious virtue signaling it entails), Netherlands trains are now zero carbon. 100% powered by wind energy.

so, taking train transit in Netherlands is a good way to travel carbon conscious. Skip the cab, take the train!

firstlight

It's not possible to say that completely. If there is no wind then Netherlands trains (and anything else for that matter) are powered by whatever is generating the electricity at that time whether that be coal or gas or nuclear. On average, it's true to say the energy produced by windfarms exceeds the electricity consumed by trains. However there is also there is significant legacy CO2 production from the production of steel and aluminium used in the trains, the rails, concrete used for bridges etc.

So you should only travel on Netherlands trains when it's windy...

bitterproffit

Take it up with NS. You know its possible to store electricity right? But while we are picking fly poop out of pepper, the article DID say that NS corrected themselves and said 100% of ELECTRIC trains in Netherlands are 100% wind powered (and no, not only on windy days...).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ind-powered-ns

5khours

Unless....

1. You radically reduce your overall consumption of everything,

and/or

2. You support rapid conversion to nuclear power,

You have not taken the time to understand the science, or you don't really care about climate change.

If you care about insignificant, virtue signalling, symbolic gestures, then by all means leave your toilet kit behind. Taking it RT on a long haul trip generates about 20 pounds of CO2.

zoned_post_meridiem

Why are large-scale policy solutions and micro-level behavioral adjustments mutually exclusive? Carbon conscious behavior/thought isn't a zero-sum game.

5khours

1. Because despite all the talk, very few people are willing to make even insignificant changes in their lifestyle to say nothing of major changes.

2. Even if the vocal portion of the affluent world made changes, the remaining 90% of the population is not going to give up economic growth and the chance to obtain some level of comfort in their lives in order to reduce carbon emissions.

3. Micro is just that... micro. Micro changes will not have a significant impact on the problem.

4. And most important of all.... the micro stuff is a huge distraction that (while it may make do-gooders feel good) actually prevents us from understanding and implementing the solutions needed to solve the problem.

5. Finally, I would say what we need is not large-scale policy solutions, but rather the dismantling of bad policies which prevent us from solving the problem.

Plumber

I drive a fully electric car. Does this offset the 300,000 bis miles I have flown this year?

cmcc

Sadly, no. Contrary to popular belief, electricity does not come out of the sky for free, but is made mostly by burning coal and gas:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php

zoned_post_meridiem

I'm not sure this is the forum to get deep into social psychology or theories of democracy. But: you're certainly right that the micro stuff CAN be a distraction, and give people the false impressions that it's all that needs to be done. But it can also cut the other way: policy decisions don't happen in a vacuum, and a lot of micro-level effort at curbing climate change can catalyze political will for larger-scale decisions (be it new ones or dismantling old ones).

canopus27

Those are US statistics. Other countries vary. For example, here in Canada the sources for electricity generation in 2016 were hydro (62.4%), nuclear (15.5%), coal (9.5%), natural gas (6.8%), and other renewables (5.0%) (ref).