[Scpg] food for thought...

[LBUZZELL at aol.com]

This was passed along to us by George Vye.  A tough  topic! We fly only for 
good reasons (family, conferences, teaching,  learning) as well as not so 
good.  But the hard fact is that every  flight, no matter how well 
intentioned, damages the planet.  I confess  to still flying occasionally (albeit 
hopefully for good reasons) and I have no  good answers, only questions...
 
Linda 
Flying Is One of the Worst Things You Can Do  for the Environment -- So Why 
Do So Many Well-Intentioned Folks Do It?
By Joseph Nevins, AlterNet
Posted on  November 1, 2010
_http://www.alternet.org/story/148675/_ 
(http://www.alternet.org/story/148675/) 
You’re in a hurry, and for good reason. You -- or people you identify with 
--  have to catch a flight to somewhere like Cochabamba, Detroit, London, 
Montreal,  or Washington, D.C. You’re off to participate in a mass 
mobilization, a social  forum or a meeting, to protest, to exchange ideas, to 
investigate, to bear  witness or demonstrate your solidarity. These gatherings are a 
manifestation of,  and contributor to, exciting and important efforts of 
social and environmental  justice activists, advocates, analysts and organizers 
struggling to build a  better world. 
Given the political and intellectual energy these get-togethers embody and  
help to spur on, the allure to participate by flying “there” is 
undeniable. They  provide valuable opportunities for networking, debate, discussion, 
protest, and  organization- or movement-building. They also speak powerfully 
to the  willingness and ability of many to expend significant resources to 
advance  weighty causes. 
Such long-distance engagement also illustrates the scale of the challenges  
humanity faces. Indeed, the institutions and individuals who give rise to 
our  most pressing problems typically exercise great mobility and exert their 
power  in a manner that shows little regard for territorial limits. 
Accordingly, those  of us who want to contest what they do often must labor across 
long distances to  enable and strengthen relationships with others. And a 
common way we from the  relatively wealthy parts and sectors of the planet do 
so is by flying. 
The trouble with this is that flying is the single most ecologically costly 
 act of individual consumption, one that requires the exploitation of large 
 amounts of environmental and human resources. In a world of deep 
inequality, it  thus also speaks to privilege -- most notably what we might call 
ecological  privilege -- and its ugly flipside, disadvantage. 
The exercise of this privilege flows from highly differentiated access to 
the  world’s resource base and helps to intensify the planet’s degradation,  
contributing in the process to all sorts of unevenly distributed social 
ills. As  numerous studies demonstrate, for example, climate change -- to which 
flying  contributes significantly -- disproportionately harms people of 
color and  low-income populations. Air travel is therefore inextricably part of 
the making  of global inequities along axes such as those of race and 
empire. 
That our decisions to fly have profound implications for the welfare of  
people and places across the globe illustrates how the movements of people 
are,  among other things, “products and producers of power” -- as geographer 
Tim  Cresswell asserts. Those with more power consequently have greater 
mobility than  those with less, while their mobility, in and of itself, helps to 
enhance their  advantage over the less fortunate. 
For those of us from the planet’s more privileged portions, acknowledgment 
of  these ties should give serious pause before embracing the air travel 
that has  become standard operating procedure among all too many. It should 
also compel us  to engage political work in a manner commensurate with the 
ever-more-evident  reality of a fragile and threatened biosphere. This requires 
a radical reduction  in activism-related flying. 
Do You Really Need to Go to That Meeting? 
Because flying allows relatively quick travel over great distance, it  
facilitates far more resource consumption than other transport modes.  
Undoubtedly, many airborne voyagers would forgo trips is they had to use slower,  
more time-intensive, surface-level travel. 
Moreover, the climate-destabilizing effects of air travel -- per passenger  
mile -- dwarfs that of other modes because of the enhanced climatic “forcing
” it  brings about: due to the height at which planes fly combined with the 
mixture of  gases and particles they emit, conventional air travel 
detrimentally impacts  global climate approximately 2.7 times more than that of its 
carbon emissions  alone, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. 
Yet it is striking how little one hears about this from those involved in  
environmental and social justice work. To many, the link between the 
problems  they decry and try to remedy and their own consumption is seemingly 
invisible.  Take, for instance, a Jan. 7, 2010 _article_ 
(http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/07/opinion/la-oe-schell7-2010jan07)  by  Orville Schell of the 
Asia Institute, where he works on, among other matters,  climate change. 
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Schell laments  the Himalaya’s melting 
glaciers. They are, he writes, “wasting away on an  overheated planet, and no one 
knows what to do about it.” Meanwhile, he mentions  that he has “roamed 
the world from San Francisco to Copenhagen to Beijing to  Dubai” over “the 
past few months” -- presumably by airplane. 
Such a disconnect is hardly exceptional: a few years ago, a friend who 
works  on climate issues for a progressive international NGO informed me that he 
and  his colleagues had never discussed the ecological costs of flying in 
relation to  their participation in meetings in distant locales. 
Critical scrutiny of these costs did emerge somewhat in the context of the  
Dec. 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. The gathering reportedly generated 
46,200  metric tons of carbon dioxide (an estimated 2,000-plus tons of which 
was due to  President Barack Obama’s two Air Force One jets alone), the vast 
majority of  which came from the flights of the delegates, officials, 
journalists, activists,  and observers in attendance. (This is roughly equal to the 
annual emissions  output of 660,000 Ethiopians or, given the profoundly 
different levels of  consumption across the planet, 2,300 Americans -- 
according to U.S. government  data.) 
But the voicing of concerns about such matters was isolated and, in places  
like the United States, almost non-existent -- at least as indicated by 
media  coverage. 
Ironically, an organization critical of efforts to regulate carbon 
emissions,  “Americans for Prosperity,” raised the issue. Trying to discredit U.S. 
student  activists who had disrupted one of the Tea Party-allied group’s  
climate-change-skeptic sessions in Copenhagen, it posted a video on YouTube  
titled “Eco Hypocrites Fly in Jets Across Atlantic to Attack AFP.”

Given  Americans for Prosperity’s climate-change-denial politics and the 
fact that its  representatives had also flown to Denmark, it is difficult to 
take seriously its  accusation of hypocrisy. That said, it forces the 
question of how one justifies  an oversized ecological footprint -- as Grist, the 
online environmental magazine  put it in relation to flying to Copenhagen -- “
to help save the planet.” 
What is striking about the _Grist  piece_ 
(http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-15-tips-for-flying-to-copenhagen/)  (May 17, 2009) is that it merely 
mentions ships as a low-impact  alternative to flights, but only after saying 
that flying “is pretty much the  only option” for non-European attendees. 
More importantly, it didn’t even raise  the option of not going to Copenhagen 
-- and pursuing other courses of action to  advance a climate justice 
agenda in relation to the conference. To give one  example, how about organizing 
in one’s hometown during the gathering and  pressuring elected officials 
from the area to actively support a strong  international agreement? 
This is not to say that no one should have gone to Copenhagen -- or to call 
 for the end of all gatherings that involve long-distance travel. Nor is to 
say  that no one should ever fly. For some, attending meetings in far-flung 
locales  is absolutely necessary. But for many their attendance is not 
vital to the  cause’s advancement. Moreover, some who would normally fly can get 
there by  other means. And, of course, perhaps the in-person gathering need 
not take  place, and would-be participants can figure out other ways to com
municate and  collaborate, and to further their political agenda. 
In other words, there are alternatives to what has become the default 
option.  But for great numbers of us, consideration of such alternatives doesn’t 
happen  -- in large part because flying is so easy and inexpensive, at least 
in the  financial sense. 
When Green Living Is Not So Green 
Not having to seriously consider alternatives to the dominant ways of doing 
 things is one of the beauties of privilege -- for those who have it at any 
rate.  According to a 2008 _study_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/ethicalliving.recycling)  by  researchers at Britain’s Exeter 
University, supporters of “green living” --  those who try to live lightly by, 
for example, rejecting bottled war, biking or  walking whenever possible, 
recycling and composting -- are the most likely to  engage in long-distance 
flying. These relatively wealthy folks are also as  resistant to changing 
their high-flying practices as those skeptical of climate  change science. 
This demonstrates how privilege is structured into the social order in such 
a  way that it is invisible to many, or comes to be seen (at least by its  
defenders) as the natural or acceptable order of things. There are important 
 questions that privileged people simply don’t ask or don’t have to 
answer.  Here’s one: how do you justify the appropriation of an unsustainable and  
socially unjust share of the biosphere’s resources in a manner that 
concentrates  benefits among a minority, and detriments in those associated with a  
disadvantaged majority? 
In posing such a question, I am mindful of Derrick Jensen’s _warning_ 
(http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/)  (Orion,  
July/August 2009) against thinking that taking shorter showers will change the  
world. Those working for ecological sustainability and justice, Jensen argues,  
must not retreat into a comfortable focus on individual consumption and 
avoid  the very necessary and hard struggle against powerful structures and  
institutions that drive much of the destruction of the biosphere. 
At the same time, we should also avoid the trap of making a simple  
distinction between the individual and the collective, agency and structure. The  
work-related flights of social and environmental justice advocates add up in  
significant ways. A roundtrip flight between New York City and Los Angeles 
on a  typical commercial jet yields an estimated 715 kilos of CO2 per 
economy class  passenger, according to the International Civil Aviation 
Organization. This  results in what is effectively, in terms of climatic forcing, 
1,917 kilos, or  almost two tons, of emissions. 
Opinion varies as to what is a sustainable level of carbon emissions per  
capita were the “right to pollute” allocated equitably among the world’s 
human  inhabitants. What they all suggest is that flying and a sustainable 
lifestyle  are at fundamental odds. 
The London-based International Institute for Environment and Development  
(IIED) posits two metric tons per person at present as the cut-off. But if we 
 project into the future and assume a need to cut global emissions by a 
whopping  90 percent vis-à-vis 1990 levels in the next few decades to keep 
within a safe  upper limit of atmospheric carbon, the IIED asserts we must 
achieve 0.45 tons  per capita. Either way, that New York-L.A. flight at best 
effectively equals the  allowable annual emissions of an average resident of the 
planet or exceeds it  manifold. 
Such numbers have led analyst and activist _George Monbiot _ 
(http://monbiot.com/) to conclude in his  book, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, 
that “most of the  aeroplanes flying today be grounded.” In addition to 
meaning the end of distant  holiday travel “unless you are prepared to take a 
long time getting there” (e.g.  by bus, train or ship), it also means “most 
painfully,” he says in reference to  himself, the end of airborne travel to 
“political meetings in Porto Alegre.” 
Air Travel’s Ecological Footprint 
Part of the problem associated with challenging ecological privilege is 
that,  like all systems of structural violence, the myriad costs and injuries  
associated with it are rarely visible to the beneficiaries in any sort of  
immediate, tangible, easily accessed way. Of course, there are rare occasions 
 when the costs of the typically out-of-view extraction and production of 
the  carbon-based fuels that drive modern transportation become horrifically 
visible:  when we see, for instance, images of oil-soaked pelicans in the 
Gulf of Mexico,  or view and listen to video of inhabitants of the Niger Delta’
s ravaged villages  who have the misfortune of sitting atop lucrative oil 
deposits. 
But in terms of the consumption of petroleum, the resulting harm is  
cumulative over time and space, its effects socialized and delayed, while the  
benefits (getting from point A to B quickly) are individual and immediate. So  
phenomena such as increased desertification, biodiversity loss, drought, or  
rising sea levels -- and the attendant human and non-human dislocating and  
destructive consequences -- seem distant, and unrelated to “us.” They 
become  what anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes calls “the violence of everyday 
life,”  or what writer Rob Nixon characterizes as “slow violence.” 
Raising the issue of air travel’s ecological footprint, and the 
environmental  and social hazards associated with flying, does not make for comfortable 
 discussion. My experience is that some respond defensively, many engage in 
 verbal acrobatics or make jokes as a way of deflecting the conversation, 
or some  simply ignore the matter and change the subject. At the same time, a 
small but  not insignificant number acknowledge the need to greatly reduce 
that footprint.  Yet few actually follow through in terms of the ethical and 
ecological  implications of that acknowledgment. 
It seems that too many environmental and social justice advocates think 
they  should be exempt from reducing their aviation-related footprint because 
their  work is important. The continue their airborne ways because they don’t 
see  “realistic” alternatives, and, perhaps, more importantly, because 
they can. 
It is not that the exercise of privilege can’t be put to good use, but such 
 action always and inherently also brings about injury. So the question we 
have  to grapple with individually and collectively is, does the resulting 
good  compensate (at the very least) for the harm, while laying the 
groundwork for  eliminating the system of privilege and disadvantage -- what 
ultimately, from a  social and environmental justice perspective, has to be the goal 
of  progressively minded folks? 
We Can Do Better 
As someone who has engaged in more than my share of activist-related flying 
 over the years -- to go to protests and conferences, to participate in 
national  and international meetings of organizations I have been involved in, 
to lobby  government officials, or to give lectures -- I appreciate the many 
positives  associated with long-distance travel in furthering a 
transformative politics. It  has allowed me to connect and collaborate with old friends 
and colleagues on  important matters and make new ones, and to learn a 
great deal -- in addition to  having a good time and visiting interesting 
places. 
Yet, in looking back, I have to admit that most of it was unnecessary. 
Given  the heavy socio-ecological costs involved, I could and should have 
pursued far  more environmentally sustainable alternatives that would have 
involved my  staying put physically, while still being in position to connect with 
people  afar and advance the struggle. (As _Bill McKibben_ 
(http://billmckibben.com/)  argues in his  book Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough Planet, 
Internet-related  communication can and must serve as the substitute “trip” for 
the jet travel  that climate change and falling oil supplies no longer 
permit.) And if it was so  important that I go “there” in person, I should have, 
and could have in most  instances, taken the time to travel slowly and on 
the Earth’s surface. 
Obviously, social and environmental justice advocates are hardly among the  
principle forces bringing about the planet’s degradation. But what we do 
matters  -- for better and for worse. As Monbiot points out, “well-meaning 
people are as  capable of destroying the biosphere as the executives of Exxon.” 
So, if for no  other reasons than the necessity of “walking the walk” and 
the demands of a  biosphere under siege, we need to hold ourselves to a much 
higher standard in  terms of how we conduct ourselves. 
By challenging our own ecological privilege and working to find less  
environmentally destructive methods of connecting with others, we lessen our  
complicity in racism, imperialism, and other malignant “isms” that  
disproportionately harm peoples and places on the national and global margins.  We 
also show others -- activists, friends, and family members who fly  
unhesitatingly -- that not only is another world possible, but also some of what  needs 
to be done to bring about that world. 


Joseph Nevins is an associate professor of geography at Vassar College.  
Among his books are Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age of  
Global Apartheid, and Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond: The War on 'Illegals' 
and  the Remaking of the U.S. Mexico Boundary. 
 
 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.permaculture-guilds.org/pipermail/southern-california-permaculture/attachments/20101103/fee0b54d/attachment.html>