https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-sports/64839265
An interesting read about how climate change is affecting winter sports ...
Being part of a system doesn't mean you can't recognise the problems it is creating
> Flies all over the world.
> Complains about climate change.
> 🤔
I was thinking this as I read the thread about jet lag this morning. Generally the UKC population appear to be quite climate aware but the number of people on here that seem to fly long haul on a regular basis never ceases to amaze me.
How long will it be be before long haul travel becomes as socially unacceptable as drink driving?
I can only assume you didn't read the article as he addresses this at the bottom, after the pictures.
Just because someone's a hypocrite doesn't make them wrong
Reminds me of a recent thread re alternatives to European alps in summer. Suggestions included Alaska and Kyrgyzstan. As climbers we all have a degree of tunnel vision but there is a certain irony here…
> How long will it be be before long haul travel becomes as socially unacceptable as drink driving?
Or the multiple short haul flights a lot of climbers take.
I suspect never, but I may be wrong.
Until they relocate a glacial/alpine range to UK (may I suggest somewhere Suffolk or Norfolk?) there is always going to be a conflict here
> I can only assume you didn't read the article as he addresses this at the bottom, after the pictures.
Except he doesn't really does he? He was on tour at the time! "Using his platform" to tell other ice-tourists to stop is the weakest of self-deluding justifications.
You never know, the Alpine orogeny might kick up a few surprises yet!
> Being part of a system doesn't mean you can't recognise the problems it is creating
There's a big difference between being part of the system and being one of the worst end members of the system.
> Until they relocate a glacial/alpine range to UK (may I suggest somewhere Suffolk or Norfolk?) there is always going to be a conflict here
Got a better idea for you: leave the UK, with the added bonus that you get to not live in a shit tip
I take it you have no kids, live in tiny eco house, are vegetarian and grow all your own food that you can, and cycled to all your climbs and to work? Otherwise it's like the old prostitute joke: you would sleep with someone for a million and we are now just haggling over cost.
We all have an impact but attacking each other is unhelpful and can even be counterproductive. The key factor for citizens is to pressure politicians on climate, ecology and energy conservation.... and where we are due some guilty pleasure in a climbing trip, to try and do it as responsibly as we can afford : lots of modern carbon offsetting is fabulous: including the BMC climate project, with Moors For The Future, which replants high moorland to stop hugely climate negative peat degradation and to lock new carbon into peat. Other charities do similar for salt marsh work and there are many great forestry projects amongst the tree planting offset con artists.
>being one of the worst end members of the system.
Seriously? If he was helicoptering to climbs most days and saying "stuff climate change" you might have a point. However he was a 2018 UN climate hero and climbed in glaciers for a film highlighting climate change that generates the exactly understandable message that increases the political pressure that's most vital. Sponsored climbers often go on a few longer trips and although that's more than average, it's nothing on the carbon budgets of some of the super rich or regular business travellers.
> Sponsored climbers often go on a few longer trips and although that's more than average, it's nothing on the carbon budgets of some of the super rich or regular business travellers.
And if you are going to fly, you might as well make it a long trip if you can. Certainly better than two or more shorter trips.
Yes, what's keeping me here is school aged family and other commitments. Certainly not a desire to be anywhere in SE England that's for sure!
I don't agree. Lame excuses to carry on in a highly harmful way. If people who fly only took one per year, 80% of air traffic would disappear.
Folk need to make it socially unacceptable.
> Flies all over the world.
> Complains about climate change.>
that's the thing - even in the Arctic the mossies are getting pretty bad
No-one is making excuses if they campaign, cut back and offset properly.
Since you are so keen to call out individual climbers, how about being clear why you're not another hypocrite whom we should just ignore?
> we are due some guilty pleasure in a climbing trip
We aren't 'due' international air travel for leisure during a climate crisis
We'll, I don't fly, or at least haven't for almost a decade now.
I'm largely vegetarian with some exceptions if I'm a guest elsewhere.
We're a one car family.
But, to be honest the behaviour of making a career of flying around the world to climb is so egregious that it beggars belief when the person then goes on to wring hands about glaciers shrinking. My modest imperfections are simply whataboutery from you.
We climbers - and perhaps everyone - are astonishing in our ability to try to excuse the inexcusable . I simply can't imagine why you're trying to justify it.
> No-one is making excuses if they campaign, cut back and offset properly.
> Since you are so keen to call out individual climbers, how about being clear why you're not another hypocrite whom we should just ignore?
If you are a “UN Environment Mountain Hero” being paid for a fun trip to Greenland to raise “awareness of disappearing glaciers” (Doesn’t everyone know about disappearing glaciers?!), possibly your carbon credentials should be better than most climbers?
I see from his website that he is hoping to get his air miles to under 50k/yr (equivalent to a UK/Alps return flight every weekend?), and now drives his car more than his pick-up truck. I wonder how he will get on with his goal of being “carbon neutral” by 2025.
> he was a 2018 UN climate hero and climbed in glaciers for a film highlighting climate change that generates the exactly understandable message that increases the political pressure that's most vital.
To be honest I’m a bit bored of climbers making films about the climbing crisis in places that just happen to have great climbing nearby. Maybe if he makes a film focusing on Bangladeshis losing their homes rather than ski bums having fewer powder days I’d be a bit less cynical.
I understand that we are all hypocrites and that directing/pressurising govt policy is probably more important than individual change but I’m not sure he should be lauded. He’s had a good life travelling more than most, he lives near world class climbing and he probably has more time than most to travel to other parts of America without flying so stopping flying to competitions he’s no longer invited to doesn’t much of a sacrifice for a climate hero and discredits the movement.
> We aren't 'due' international air travel for leisure during a climate crisis
Thank goodness someone else gets it. I thought I was going mad.
Thanks at least for your more balenced tone.
Pointing out Will isn't one of the "worst end users" of the system isn't lauding someone for their obvious failings, my 'defence' of him was trying to point out wider politics that alongside his 'job' (and his faults) that his campaigns will likely make way more positive change than those who are ordinary campaigning climate saints (let alone the sad spectacle of lesser hypocrites attacking bigger hypocritical strangers on climate, on UKC... even Greta warned about that as a campaigning trap on a recent documentary I saw...the barstewards running and supporting big oil want progressives scrapping).
Our world needs to change fast amidst war and recession and that has to be driven by governments and massive institutions. We should do what we can to help individually but campaigning together and voting is by far the most important part. We live in a country that elected Boris (and his fall out) as PM with a huge majority, despite a progressive majority of votes: he epitomises the global bankruptcy that led us here and yet somehow progressives gifted him his power. How much damage was done to climate progress (and otherwise) due to the mythical dangers attached to "but Corbyn " or "only Corbyn"?
Go ask a few ordinary people Jim. I know the scientific implications of glacial melts, especially in the polar regions, are very poorly understood by the majority of the public in the UK (let alone in the poorer countries of the world), even though most know climate protesters say it's bad and those who care a bit more have a rough sense of why. Having people there, on those glaciers, explaining things on TV shows with a big audience is important.
If you are rich and sctually care, buying genuine carbon neutrality is easy....in particular here in the UK support Moors For The Future, or salt marsh improvements.
> I don't agree. Lame excuses to carry on in a highly harmful way. If people who fly only took one per year, 80% of air traffic would disappear.
> Folk need to make it socially unacceptable.
I'm curious as to why flying gets singled out as being so bad. A quick internet search finds multiple sources saying flying contributes 2.5% CO2 emissions but 3.5% overall effect. So presumably if we all stopped flying we'd still be looking at 96.5% of greeenhouse effect still remaining which doesn't fell as if it would make much difference but with a huge impact on (some) peoples lives (i.e those with family/friends spread out around the world.
But as to making it socially unacceptable? Well I also read 20% of air travel is business and my guess if this is quite pared down from a few years ago due to ecomnomic pressures. So assuming this continues we are up to 97.2% GE remaining. But if people are not flying they may still travel. Looking at comparitors for driving with a full car/train/coach these GE emissions are 10-20% of flying so with a bit of fudging for overall reduced travel we are up to 97.5% of GE emissions remaining. 2.5% reduction in GE doesn't seem a particularly big amount.
I fly a lot and 75% is unavoidable work (teaching/operating). In dropping leisure travel my life would be considerably poorer not visiting family and friends in Europe and Australia. I suspect my application to my job would be poorer without the prospect of a 'complete change of scene' for a few weeks a year. Self-serving? From the figures I have it doesn't feel like it.
Can someone explain what I'm missing?
I think flying for leisure is an easy target because it is only available to the affluent, it isn't necessary for anyone (by definition) and it costs nothing to stop (in fact it saves money); for people who take a couple of flights per year it is by far the easiest way to reduce their carbon footprint (it only accounts for a small percentage of total emissions because most people can't afford to fly at all).
> Can someone explain what I'm missing?
Nothing. Screeching at people for taking flights is not the answer, it is doing the work of the fossil fuel industry, trying to deflect blame onto individuals when what is needed is wholesale institutional change.
Individuals taking any steps to reduce their emissions and doing work to increase pressure on governments are to be praised.
> We aren't 'due' international air travel for leisure during a climate crisis
No-one is 'due' anything. But people might choose to do certain things because they enjoy them.
> >being one of the worst end members of the system.
> Seriously? If he was helicoptering to climbs most days and saying "stuff climate change" you might have a point. However he was a 2018 UN climate hero and climbed in glaciers for a film highlighting climate change that generates the exactly understandable message that increases the political pressure that's most vital. Sponsored climbers often go on a few longer trips and although that's more than average, it's nothing on the carbon budgets of some of the super rich or regular business travellers.
He takes multiple long haul flights each year just to go climbing. As I climate scientist, I struggle to justify medium haul flights to do my actual science (which is more relevant to CC mitigation is an exercise I will leave up to you), and in no way could justify such trips for what is essentially leisure purposes.
I think we can all agree that the super rich/business travellers/private jet owners are horrendous, that's not up for debate. However, most of them DGAF and just lean in to being absolute coats (that ones a sweaty acronym FYI). Maybe it's me, but it feels a little hypocritical to be coming in the media saying "climate change is bad" whilst doing possibly the worst thing you can do to contribute to it. At least for me that's how it feels.
> Nothing. Screeching at people for taking flights is not the answer, it is doing the work of the fossil fuel industry, trying to deflect blame onto individuals when what is needed is wholesale institutional change.
> Individuals taking any steps to reduce their emissions and doing work to increase pressure on governments are to be praised.
Both are possible. Part of wholesale institutional change includes the idea that hopping on a plane to travel 10,000km a few times a year is not a normal thing to do.
As has been pointed out, air travel is a tiny % of emissions. Singling out an activity which is a very occasional bit of joy in most people's lives with this hair-shirt attitude doesn't help.
Pointing fingers and telling people off for enjoying their life will only breed resentment and apathy.
I think Will Gadd making a film about ice vanishing (or any climber doing something similar) is arguably more effective than Will Gadd talking about Bangladesh. Ice is what he's known for, it's what his audience can relate to and ultimately the end effect of any reduction is the same. (And a world-class ice climber talking about Bangladesh would be unlikely to feature in a BBC story.)
I also don't particularly like the idea of dismissing an argument because of person making it. Yes, Will Gadd has flown a lot. It doesn't make what he's saying wrong. It also doesn't necessarily make him a hypocrite - people should be allowed to change their minds over time. It's also the case that he (and other similar figures) wouldn't be in a position to try to influence/educate others on climate change if he hadn't taken those flights in the past - they've put him in the position where he can have influence.
Attack the argument, not the person, etc.
I understand your anger but exaggeration just doesn’t help: Will is nothing like "one of the worst end users" on just how much he flies, let alone once you take into account his campaigning.
As I've said I'm not defending him flying but it's not really leisure, it's mostly his job as a sponsored climber. All athletes involved in international sport travel by plane.
It is possible to lobby for and achieve improvements in work process in many organisations, especially now video conferencing and electronic document sharing has improved so much. I know as I helped reduced flying for roles like mine in overseas academic validation and quality by over a half. Sport is a much tougher area to significantly reduce travel.
On your subject of climate scientists flying for work I certainly want the most influential academic communicators to travel where they will make the most difference. Wearing hair shirts for such work in a climate emergency is incredibly dangerous foot shooting. I'm less convinced about the number of lower level conferences we need just for academics....
Cheap short haul flights have long been affordable for many ordinary people. If we taxed aviation fuel and included compulsory assessed and approved offsetting costs to all flights it would make a huge difference, except for business and the rich. To deal with them there needs to be an increasing financial cost for every additional flight.
> Cheap short haul flights have long been affordable for many ordinary people.
Yes, in the rich west. But I was thinking globally; only a very small proportion of people in the developing world can afford to fly. If it became affordable for them, the proportion of CO2 emissions from flying would increase dramatically.
I travelled around Malaysia a lot for work around 2000...prices were affordable for most ordinary Malaysians even then (although not quite as much so as the UK). A bigger problem I saw in Malaysia then was fuel subsidy as an oil producing nation, leading to horrendous congestion on the roads. Worst still for climate change was forest burning for clearance for oil palm in next door Indonesia (Malaysia had cleared much of their accessible forest already).
This is such a depressing false argument to read. If we're to have any hope at all of averting the worst impact then everyone will have to change significantly - in the developed world "change" means "reduce".
Saying each slice is "only" a few percent impedes making any change at all.
Flying is a relatively easy thing to stop doing. Yes, there are consequences - but if we're not prepared to do the easy stuff, we'll be hopeless at the hard.
And people saying it's all down to governments? The demand for energy, travel, goods comes from individuals. Sure we need policy too - but do you really need a government to tell you that you should insulate your house or that flying is bad?
> On your subject of climate scientists flying for work I certainly want the most influential academic communicators to travel where they will make the most difference. Wearing hair shirts for such work in a climate emergency is incredibly dangerous foot shooting.
Actually, people are much more likely to support decarbonisation policies if those who advocate for those policies themselves have a low carbon footprint, or have reduced their carbon footprint.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02463-0
You keep on about offsetting. Avoid, reduce, reuse, offset in that order. Offsetting is a last resort and there's very big questions about whether it's real. Yes we need to restore marshes, but we need to do that *as well* not instead of.
But he's *still* flying a lot - and was making his pitch to ice-tourists also flown in.
> I travelled around Malaysia a lot for work around 2000...prices were affordable for most ordinary Malaysians even then (although not quite as much so as the UK).
Yes, some countries are becoming more affluent and more will be able to afford to fly. But what proportion of people in populous countries like India or Nigeria can afford to fly?
> Saying each slice is "only" a few percent impedes making any change at all.
Yes. Everyone can claim membership of an emissions category for which the global contribution to emissions is small.
"What's the point in us Brits reducing our emissions - we only contribute X%"
"What's the point in me reducing my [insert electricity, heating, transport, food] emissions - the combined total of all other types of emissions is much larger"
Etc
With respect the only thing that will stop major disaster is collective actions of governments based on clear evidence of their own financial self interest. As such individual change although ethical, is simply inconsequential in solving the major problem. The individal actions with most consequence are voting, campaigning, protesting and sharing persuasive educational information, like Will's film.
> With respect the only thing that will stop major disaster is collective actions of governments based on clear evidence of their own financial self interest. As such individual change although ethical, is simply inconsequential in solving the major problem. The individal actions with most consequence are voting, campaigning, protesting and sharing persuasive educational information, like Will's film.
If there is a big gulf between what is considered acceptable to do individually and what governments should legislate for, then the collective government action you hope for will never have public support.
> Both are possible. Part of wholesale institutional change includes the idea that hopping on a plane to travel 10,000km a few times a year is not a normal thing to do.
In your field has international travel to academic conferences basically stopped?
When I look back 15 years or so, it was still totally the norm to get on a plane to go and present a paper at whatever the big conference in your field was that year. Much of my non leisure/family travel was going to conferences and meetings with other academics and policy analysts.
> Yes, some countries are becoming more affluent and more will be able to afford to fly. But what proportion of people in populous countries like India or Nigeria can afford to fly?
Oddly, a question in the quiz we do with our forms at school today was which airline has just made the biggest order of new planes in history? I didn't know the answer and had missed the news, but the answer was Air India.
> Flying is a relatively easy thing to stop doing. Yes, there are consequences - but if we're not prepared to do the easy stuff, we'll be hopeless at the hard.
It's very easy to give up flying if you're at or approaching retirement and have already enjoyed a lifetime of travel and seeing the world.
The way forward is not to go backwards and pull up the ladder behind you. There are many, many things that can be done to help deal with the crisis that will enrich and enhance people's lives.
> It's very easy to give up flying if you're at or approaching retirement and have already enjoyed a lifetime of travel and seeing the world.
Which quite by convenient coincidence applies to Will Gadd...
>If there is a big gulf between what is considered acceptable to do individually and what governments should legislate for, then the collective government action you hope for will never have public support.
I agree. It still doesn't mean it's helpful to apply hair shirted attack arguments to individuals, which can even end up reducing public support. The best way is to educate and encourage change, alongside supportive economic incentives and taxation.
I'd add that there is a lot more to resolve in climate and ecological terms beyond the climate crisis and individual action is much more important in many of those areas.
All of this usually needs a supportive government but despite the 2019 vote majority of progressives, we sadly let in Boris and his clowns with a massive parliamentary majority.
> Which quite by convenient coincidence applies to Will Gadd...
He's not telling people to give up flying.
Offsetting on stabilisation of peat moorland and salt marshes is real and makes a massive difference to carbon budgets, and for many forestry projects it is also real. The problem is poor business practice with dishonest claims. Deal with the dishonesty (including 'tarring all projects with the same brush')
What has already been done on Kinder and Bleaklow could, with significant improved income and volunteering, make massive differences elsewhere in a decade. Peat eroded into rivers releases carbon and devegetated peat is a waste of a highly efficient carbon capture ecology.
https://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/our-purpose/tackling-climate-change
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/natural-solutions-climate-change/saltmarshes
> In your field has international travel to academic conferences basically stopped?
In my field as a whole, no. It's a huge elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. For me personally, I'll only attend a conference in-person if I can go by train - which being based in Europe, rules me out of arguably the biggest conference in my field (AGU, for those interested). Moreover, I try to focus on conferences which actually add value to my science through fostering collaborations, rather than going to conferences for holiday purposes. However my work takes place in Greenland/Svalbard - both places I unfortunately have to fly to to get the field data I require - and flights for this I find a bit more justifiable on a personal level. My ultimate aim is to try and feed a lot of this process-based work into numerical models/remote sensing approaches (for ongoing monitoring) to reduce my impact via flying even more.
> When I look back 15 years or so, it was still totally the norm to get on a plane to go and present a paper at whatever the big conference in your field was that year. Much of my non leisure/family travel was going to conferences and meetings with other academics and policy analysts.
It still is, even in climate science and geoscience in general. I also work with a lot of microbiologists who don't give a second thought to flying all over the place for incredibly short conferences (e.g. Copenhagen to Berlin for a couple of days? No problem in their minds).
>"No problem in their minds"
More dangerous exaggeration. Some might think that, most probably do care but could do more, but others (certainly from a small but significant minority of those I knew) were responsibly offsetting or volunteering for decades at their own expense and campaigning vigorously.
> I understand your anger but exaggeration just doesn’t help: Will is nothing like "one of the worst end users" on just how much he flies, let alone once you take into account his campaigning.
It's the internet in 2023, every single sentence is a wild exaggeration I just find it incredibly hypocritical for someone to complain that climate change is a problem whilst taking long-haul flights for fun (see below). I appreciate there are large societal issues, but on an individual level (which like it or not, is part of CC mitigation) it is incredibly easy to reduce or even stop flying. If you want to take a load of flights, IMO it undermines your position to campaign about climate change. If it turned out someone trying to reduce the number of people smoking was a smoker themselves, how would that feel? For me it's the same with CC and flying.
> As I've said I'm not defending him flying but it's not really leisure, it's mostly his job as a sponsored climber. All athletes involved in international sport travel by plane.
It's only is job because he is lucky and good enough to be paid. At it's heart climbing is for fun, not for some form of greater societal purpose or function (which might sound grandiose, but a much more garden variety job, such as lets say plumbing, contributes more to society than professional climbing).
> It is possible to lobby for and achieve improvements in work process in many organisations, especially now video conferencing and electronic document sharing has improved so much. I know as I helped reduced flying for roles like mine in overseas academic validation and quality by over a half. Sport is a much tougher area to significantly reduce travel.
It is for sure, but part of the CC issue is that we have created a system which is not sustainable. To make it so, we need to change that system - and until we can come up with a better mode of transport for long distance travel, we should be looking to reduce the requirements of using flights - if this means less international sport, so be it.
> On your subject of climate scientists flying for work I certainly want the most influential academic communicators to travel where they will make the most difference. Wearing hair shirts for such work in a climate emergency is incredibly dangerous foot shooting. I'm less convinced about the number of lower level conferences we need just for academics....
I agree completely regarding lower-level conferences (see my other post). Personally I'm not at the level of influential academic communicator, moreso a piece of the big puzzle - which is perhaps why I feel more conflicted.
> It still is, even in climate science and geoscience in general. I also work with a lot of microbiologists who don't give a second thought to flying all over the place for incredibly short conferences (e.g. Copenhagen to Berlin for a couple of days? No problem in their minds).
Funnily enough it was an old mate and climbing partner who is now a prof. of plant science who has talked about this quite a lot his dept. and group seems to have taken minimising travel very seriously, although when we are next out climbing I'll have to ask him if it is a trend that has continued, or whether as covid has receded somewhat that travelling for conferences has gone back up again.
> "No problem in their minds" more dangerous exaggeration. Some might think that, most probably do care, but others (certainly from a small but significant minority of those I knew) were responsibly offsetting or volunteering for decades at their own expense.
I am using specific people I know (and obviously am not naming) as an example, and I can assure you the climate impacts of such flights are not things they are thinking about.
> >being one of the worst end members of the system.
> Seriously? If he was helicoptering to climbs most days and saying "stuff climate change" you might have a point. However he was a 2018 UN climate hero and climbed in glaciers for a film highlighting climate change...
He also takes sponsorship money from one of the world's worst environmental polluters. He's a hypocrite.
> He also takes sponsorship money from one of the world's worst environmental polluters.
Do you mean Red Bull? There are many reason I hold that company in very low esteem, but is it really "one of the world's worse environmental polluters"? Or is Gadd also sponsored by Exxon or similar?
>It's the internet in 2023, every single sentence is a wild exaggeration.
Forgive me for expecting better from a climate scientist.
>I just find it incredibly hypocritical for someone to complain that climate change is a problem whilst taking long-haul flights for fun (see below). I appreciate there are large societal issues, but on an individual level (which like it or not, is part of CC mitigation) it is incredibly easy to reduce or even stop flying. If you want to take a load of flights, IMO it undermines your position to campaign about climate change. If it turned out someone trying to reduce the number of people smoking was a smoker themselves, how would that feel? For me it's the same with CC and flying.
People do bad shit and it's annoying and sometimes it's very bad shit... the trick is to work out how best to implement change in that. Smoking is a physical as well as a psychological addiction....as much as I'm 'addicted' to climbing I know it's easier for us to change if it's just leisure.
>It's only is job because he is lucky and good enough to be paid. At it's heart climbing is for fun, not for some form of greater societal purpose or function (which might sound grandiose, but a much more garden variety job, such as lets say plumbing, contributes more to society than professional climbing).
It's still a job and the same applies to all international sport.
> part of the CC issue is that we have created a system which is not sustainable. To make it so, we need to change that system - and until we can come up with a better mode of transport for long distance travel, we should be looking to reduce the requirements of using flights
Agree totally, which needs us to convince people to elect governments to do that and stop worrying about "but Corbyn", or Liberals (or Starmer) not being 'Spatan' enough on leftist issues.
>Personally I'm not at the level of influential academic communicator, moreso a piece of the big puzzle - which is perhaps why I feel more conflicted.
Don't sell yourself short. Just be brave and put the passion to something that will help cause more change.
>I am using specific people I know (and obviously am not naming) as an example, and I can assure you the climate impacts of such flights are not things they are thinking about.
I've known those too, but have also known similar numbers who campaign vigorously and often offset and/or volunteer at their own expense. The vast majority of academics I knew sat somewhere between and a big majority cared about the climate crisis.
> Or the multiple short haul flights a lot of climbers take.
It's complicated doing a like for like comparison, but from most sources I've seen - if you drive with only one person in your vehicle then in terms of CO2 per mile then you may as well have flown. Only going by train or bus is significantly more environmentally friendly (or an EV with electricity from renewable sources - but that also seems like a complicated calculation).
> Do you mean Red Bull? There are many reason I hold that company in very low esteem, but is it really "one of the world's worse environmental polluters"? Or is Gadd also sponsored by Exxon or similar?
https://recyclingnetwerk.org/en/2020/10/21/3-european-environmental-ngos-jo...
Not defending Red Bull in the slightest but they are fairly minor in the big negative environmental impact stakes. One thing about them that is relevant here is they are more vulnerable to campaigning from adventure sport participants.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-worst-companies-for-the-environment-...
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/most-polluting-companies
https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackc...
> >If there is a big gulf between what is considered acceptable to do individually and what governments should legislate for, then the collective government action you hope for will never have public support.
> I agree. It still doesn't mean it's helpful to apply hair shirted attack arguments to individuals, which can even end up reducing public support. The best way is to educate and encourage change, alongside supportive economic incentives and taxation.
I disagree. We should be allowed to criticise individuals that selfishly choose to pollute excessively. If this sort of activity is considered acceptable then government policy to reduce emissions will always be voted against and viewed with suspicion.
I'm not sure why you use the term 'hair-shirted'. This implies that there is an unnecessary nature to this. But little could be more necessary, in 2023, than reducing our C02 emissions.
I don't think Moacs was saying that restoration of peatlands and woodlands is ineffective in reducing net carbon emissions. I think the point is that we must do that in addition to reducing other sources of emissions (e.g. transport), rather than to compensate for not bothering to reduce other sources of emissions.
I've not objected to criticism of Will or anyone like him for flying a lot, but I prefer advising against such actions as it better encourages change. I did object to specific unfair criticism of Will. I also pointed out political change is more important and very urgent, yet progressives let Boris in, with a massive seat majority. As such, aggression towards individuals with inept collective action on way more important and urgent climate matters does look very hair shirted to me (like some extreme religious views).
Sorry about the final (longer list of companies that damage the environment) link being broken... not sure what happened.
This Winter Conditions page gives a summary of what is being climbed at the moment, what is 'in' nick and what the prospects are...
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...