Plane versus Train
Lizzie and I have been wrestling with a little moral dilemma and thought we'd run it by you good people. Seeing as it's your money we're spending.
Should we be trying to cut our costs as much as possible, so that we can make the money go as far as possible and make the best possible film which will convince the most number of people to cut their carbon emissions?
Or should we cut our carbon emissions?
For example, Lizzie is going to the Alps next week, to set up our year-long timelapse shot at the ski resort. The train costs 349 and Easyjet costs 90. With our wee budget, it only takes a few trips like this to make a huge difference to the coffers. But then with the amount of travelling we're doing, the carbon is going to really add up too.
Any thoughts?
The film has a financial budget - that is limited to the amount of money you have raised to make it. Why not also set yourselves a carbon budget? Then within the total carbon emissions that you have decided are a reasonable investment for the film, you can then weigh up your options e.g. One flight to India versus three or four to the alps. Then perhaps how about aiming through the message of the film to save twice as much carbon as you emit? Could be done through a website where people who have watched the film pledge to make carbon-cutting changes maybe... I suspect that some may suggest offsetting your flights - we had a big internal debate about whether CAT should offset the 3 or 4 flights a year that staff make for work purposes. In the end we decided NO because we felt that it was giving a public message that it was OK to fly so long as you paid to offset it, when we'd rather be saying that unless our personal carbon emissions are 2.4 tonnes a year or lower, we are contributing to climate change. And that total could include a one-ton flight to Spain if your other lifestyle choices meant your total emissions less than 2.4
Amanda R
I don't have a strong feeling either way - just as long as you don't go to Future Forests et al!
There's no right way or wrong way after all, and I trust your judgement!
A small price to pay or hypocrisy? Tough one. I guess for my part, I'd favour walking the talk. But that might entail offsetting your emissions for flying by planting a tree or two... doesn't cost much. But then Lizzie would miss out on all that downtime on the train!
Anyway, it's good to keep talking as I feel that I really am in the early stages of consciousness on how to tackle climate change.
Hardcore climate changers might not agree with this and I admire their radicality. Contradictions, or shall i say, complexities, on this subject abound, as we are all up in our eyeballs in this system, and I was struck by this one this week. At Aldermaston women's peace camp, there is a weekend camp each month for direct action, training, discussion, fraternization etc. The women specifically encourage people to come by public transport rather than by private car and then at another point inthe (excellent) leaflet, they mention that if you do come by car, take the opportunity to bring firewood. The benefits of the car are woven in by a principle of permaculture, that one action can have various functions (ie transport of people and bringing of firewood) and this is an ecological act in itself.
thanks for the updates - re: the dilemma - it's great that you're asking these questions. And I think each situation can be taken on a case by case basis, rather than forging a principle by which you feel you must stick by, and that if you don't you'll feel hypocritical. Even if one of these trips you mention is done by train rather than by plane, that makes a difference somewhere, even if its in your conscience and resolve to change your own behaviour. If everyone everywhere was weighing up the effects of their means of travel, then we'd have tangible change i think.
There's nothing like setting a good example. Go by train and ask all subscribers like me, who would like you to cut your carbon emissions, to put their money where their mouth is and contribute to your travel costs.
Prince Charles was scorned for talking about climate change when he has such a luxurious life-style (though I believe he is trying to make his household carbon neutral.) If you travel by train you can include that info somewhere in the film. If you fly you are saying "Do what I say, not what I do."
This is a common dilemma - roll on carbon pricing. I always take the train where it's an option, not least because the extra work you can do more than makes up for the extra travel costs. And it's far more pleasant!
It looks like Blair now prefers a leap of faith in technical fixes rather than meaningful action to cap emissions....economic growth cannot be sacrificed to save the planet is the irrational mantra being pedalled. So we need your film more than ever to sway public opinion and so enable the politicians to act.
You are welcome to spend my investment on the train rather than the plane, on short-haul trips - assuming carbon v. cash is the only consideration. But if, for example, you start to run out of money, then of course I will understand if you switch back to planes. I will leave it to your good sense, of which you and lizzie both have tons (or is it tonnes?).
Or if you really must go by plane, at least pay the carbon offsets, e.g. at www.co2.org
Air travel is about the most polluting thing anyone can do. Do the right thing and go by train. I'll pay the difference if necessary.
I think that wherever possible you have to keep carbon emissions as low as possible/ practical. There would be nothing worse than to have some success with the film and then be branded as a bunch of hypocrites flying everywhere. If the research was in India or somewhere much further then it would not be practical to take a boat or go overland but in this instance... My vote is for the train. Have you also added in costs from airport/ train station to filming location.
My vote is definitely with taking the train - and to-put-my money-where-my-mouth-is -always a good test of conviction -if most people end up supporting that choice and that's what you decide to do, I'll send Crude/Spanner a cheque for 349-90 ie £259, to cover the cost of this trip. Fenella R
Seems to me the best thing to do is to set an example by taking the train! As you know, air travel has terrific hidden costs. If that means ultimately asking more people to lend money and/or cutting costs elsewhere, then so be it. You can get cheaper deals with Eurostar by booking well in advance.
This is at the core of all decisions people are likely to make. Recently BA announced that they are offering to accept additional payments from passengers which will go to some forestry/carbon offset thing. Guess what, the take up is minimal... see link:
I see 2 options: Possibly take a coach? (not too sure of its eco credentials though, and its slooooow) OR... you cound go to this site: emissions. And offset your emissions yourself!!!
Well Franny it's a bit of a moral dilemma but I reckon that you should save the money and not worry about the carbon emissions cos as you point out, you are making a film that will persuade people to save their carbon emissions. Also the plane is going to fly any way,and you not using it is not going to make any difference to that fact at this point, but your film could persuade the population to pressure the government to tax air fuel and then that will make a difference. This may not be such a good argument but the costs will mount up if you don't take the cheapest option. It is true that the planes will only stop flying if people stop using them, but that won't happen without people like you raising awareness, and to do that effectively you must spend your cash wisely.
I know the idea is "think global, act local". But to get people to think global in the first place you need to inform them. To quote the advert. Knowledge is power and information is the way to acquire it. The key thing is thus the movie and the message to give them the information. QED you have to act globally to help others think locally. Also, I think you can make the point in the movie that it is cheaper to fly than get a train.Tim B
No. 1 GET OFFF that sofa - what do you think you are doing????
No. 2 If you don't use Easy jet then someone else will so just right now I think saving your money is most important.Gillian H
My money would be on the cheapest route. Tokenism is nice but buys very little. I can see nothing wrong with taking cheap flights while campaigning for them not to exist, as each individual flight does minimal harm. The world will not be changed voluntarily - at least not in this case. You can buy carbon offsets though!
I sympathise with the dilemma and the intention. I think its important to try to make a film that "works" otherwise all the money, carbon and effort will have been wasted. George marshall (of COIN) had a nice idea for when you have to fly: Each low energy lightbulb thats used and replaces a normal one (thats using normal non-green-tarrif electricity) saves 0.5 Tonnes of carbon over its lifetime. There are several good carbon calculators around so that you can calculate your emmissions for the flights. The bulbs only cost £2 each, so you might feel that this was inadequately cheap way of offsetting the damage caused by the flight. To top it up, you could also use your email network to encourage people to sign up to the petition and pledge on www.stopclimatechaos.org, and to join the SCC mailing list so that they can help with future actions (we have some fun ones in the pipeline).You might for example, decide that each Tonne of carbon emitted by the project, you would buy and give away 2 low energy lightbulbs to people who promised to use them to replace ordinary ones, + encourage 10 new people to sign up with www.stopclimatechaos.org Do that, (take the train where practical) and make a good film, and I think your conscience is clear!Anne M
Go by the cheapest way possible - as the money you are saving will be used more effectively to fight climate change than any carbon offset fund.
I am glad you asked. Make the film. Take the plane and let the dilemma be the intro to the story.
Go by plane. Very justified.
I would go for the cheap option and then offset the emissions at the Climate Care website. This gives you the best of both worlds. And make the greatest film.
Take the plane, give some of the saving to FOE. We all have to make priorities, yours is to make the film the best you can
PS No wonder Eurostar are in the shit, if they charge prices like that!
If you believe in your film then make the best film you can for the money as this will have more impact on carbon emissions than your travel plans. Easyjet and the train will both happen independently of whether Lizzie is on them or not so your example has a practical flaw as well.
For want of a nail.................................
I would say make the best damn film you can, so that gross worldwide carbon emissions will be dramatically reduced and your five (or whatever) flights will soon be compensated by other people making sound travel choices having seen your film.
So there.
Charlotte R
Morning
Ah-hem.
It gives me great pleasure to announce the winners in this, the first bi-annual Crude readers survey.
We have had a fantastic turnout, with almost 20% of the electorate braving the inclement weather to make their vote count.
So without further ado, it gives me great pleasure to announce that in third place we have the undecided/not sure/it depends/don't cares, with FOUR votes.
And in second place is the expensive eco-option of taking the train with SEVEN votes.
But the clear winner, polling more than 50%, yes THIRTEEN (unlucky for some) votes, is the plane.
Please, give a big hand for the plane.
{pause for applause}
Having fully considered all your opinions, we are happy to inform you that Lizzie will be taking the TRAIN to the Alps next week, but that it will not cost the Crude budget any more than the plane as FENELLA (where are you? please stand up) has very kindly volunteered to pay the difference.
What a happy outcome to a most enlightening process.
All your answers are below if you're interested.
Greetings from the sofa,
Franny
PS. We hre keeping a track of every journey made for the film and will list them all in some way in the credits - along with a total carbon budget, including electricity etc. It will no doubt be a terrifying figure.
PLANE - 13
TRAIN - 7
DEPENDS - 4
Post new comment