are aussies traveling too much??
21/08/2008
some people are sanctimonious prats, desperate for column inches … an article by adele horin (which somehow got published by the sydney morning herald) suggests that aussies travel too much and that our carbon footprint is too big. she says that aussies are hypocrits because we claim to be environmentally concerned yet spend lots of time flying (which produces enormous co2 emissions). her diatribe was the result of some kind of ‘awakening’ after she listened to richard begbie on abc radio, denouncing air travel as the last environmental taboo.
wired magazine posted something of a rebuttal to her statements here.
my opinion on this is that it’s easy to denounce plane travel, especially after you’ve been doing it for a while and suddenly decide that it’s wrong. very convenient when you’re no longer a regular traveler. my other problem with her rant is that it’s also easy to be critical without being constructive.
as discussed, australia is an isolated country. so there are numerous arguments in support of our need for plane travel. the simple practicalities are that we have no other feasible way of getting places away from our big, far flung continent. it’s a different case for america, england and europe. most people in the northern hemisphere can travel by land or sea … or short plane trips, such as from new york to london. so i completely agree that plane travel is not a necessary form of transportation when other alternatives do exist.
the second problem is that australia has a very small population. 19 million ockers pales in comparison to america’s 300 million, the uk’s 70 million and a few hundred million spread across europe. such large populations makes it easier for mass transport to be profitable. travel anywhere within australia is expensive, because of the massive distances and lack of infrastructure to support it. i remember flying from london to amsterdam for 50 quid. that would never be possible in australia. it cost me nearly as much to catch a train from rockhamption to the gold coast.
that leads to my point, that air travel (despite its huge co2 emissions) isn’t the big problem. two hundred million cars driving around the world on a daily basis is one of the biggest co2 problems we have. the daily waste of oil and the daily pollution of the atmosphere is a more serious issue. currently, america is reluctant to increase emission standards and other companies are increasing standards only in the face of growing criticism. where air travel is necessary for australians, cars are not necessary for 50% of drivers around the world who live in cities with very good public transport systems; seoul, tokyo, new york and paris are good examples.
developing countries are also bigger problems. china is outpacing america and will continue to grow … further, as many chinese become richer, the lure of foreign travel is going to result in more planes in the sky. put 2% of china’s population in the air and that represents 25 million air travelers … more than my country’s population. africa and india are developing too, which adds another 2 billion to the number of people who are increasing their co2 usage … so while rich countries are decreasing their usage, 4 times more people are increasing their usage.
the polution that is created on a daily basis (vehicles, factories, etc) is a far more immediate problem. air travel too, while being a problem, is one that cannot be overcome so easily. all experts agree that there are no readily available alternatives … especially for countries like australia and new zealand which are so remote. air travel can definitely be reduced. people can travel by land and sea where possible. video lectures and conferencing is also a reasonable alternative for people who travel on business.
another alternative is for the australian government to support australians who want to travel, by helping aussies get abroad without using planes. it may sound ridiculous, but traveling to darwin by train, then a boat to singapore would put aussies in the heart of asia. from there it’s a train ride to bangkok or a flight to europe. the travel time would be over a week, but the emissions would be cut dramatically. for travelers and retirees, the extra travel time is not a problem. the costs are higher, sure, but the government can offset such costs by providing tax exemptions to companies who offer cross-continental travel options.
bali is also close to australia, and is one of our favourite travel destinations. i don’t see any reasons why it cannot be reached by train (to north queensland or darwin) and ship.
i never said that these solutions were practical … i said they were alternatives.
aussies do have a traveling spirit, so i don’t see why we should be punished when the rest of the world decides that air travel is wrong. sure, it is wrong for most, but for a few it’s very necessary. nobody needs to fly from london to paris, or from new york to miami. but to escape the great southern land, there aren’t many choices … short of spending a month on a boat.
next year i start my world travels and i plan on taking as few planes as possible … my estimate is 3 or 4 plane trips in 18 months and 50 countries … it can be done.
where there’s a will, there’s a way … so stop picking on a few fair dinkum travelers, when the other problems are far far greater.
