Hi Everyone, Something I haven't noticed (and sorry if it's escaped my attention) in the discussion on the don't fly for art pledge is that there should be a recognition that we shouldn't go by ship or have anything shipped for art either. Possibly given that shipping produces twice the emissions of flying it should be this rather than flying ?
See http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/03/ships-planes-and-carbon-emissions.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk As Helen an Pall have mentioned it has be a little relative to your location...whereas for the many people in the UK who cross the channel by ship each year, they may actually produce less carbon by flying and even less by going by train. As most art trips are subsidised the more expensive options are possible but for the many who are less financially solvent crossing the channel by boat is still the cheapest way of getting to the continent. Of course as Marc says it's a matter of balance rather than absolutes and I would add proportion to this too. My hats off for all who are taking the pledge and armed with the knowledge of other even higher emission options to avoid we can all cut out unnecessary carbon footprints. I'll have bacon with mine ! Roger _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
