Hi Roger, Great to hear from you, Furthernoiser...
>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 ? Rather than planes and ships with long journeys in the sea, I generally prefer the idea of incorporating airships as a future replacement to these forms of travel. I have dreamed of this way of getting around for years - perhaps its even worth considering it as a collaborative project with others in the future ;-) George Monbiot discussed this in one of articles in 2008 "Though the designs have changed, their disadvantages have not disappeared. While a large commercial airliner cruises at about 900 kilometres per hour, the maximum speed of an airship is roughly 150kph. At an average speed of 130kph, the journey from London to New York would take 43 hours. Airships are more sensitive to wind than aeroplanes, which means that flights are more likely to be delayed. But they have one major advantage: the environmental cost could be reduced almost to zero." http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/06/travelling-light/ Getting back to plane travel, the UK government has decided to back Heathrow in building a third runway, despite so many groups and individuals challenging its legitimacy "Thirteen organisations, including the RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Greenpeace and the M group of west London councils, argue that the decision to build a third runway and sixth terminal would break regulations on noise, air quality and carbon emissions, while the economic case for expansion was never proven. They also argue that the Government never properly consulted on its compromise to run the third runway at half capacity." http://tinyurl.com/cb8fye >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. By sharing the urgent problems about climate change amongst our own art networks, there may be an atmosphere for considering alternatives in art culture generally, possibilities to influence and change the behaviour of the various institutions connected to them. It will hurt I know, but it would be easier for all concerned if we knew that those in power were more seriously engaged in getting their act together. >Of course as Marc says it's a matter of balance rather than absolutes >and I would add proportion to this too. Yes, I think it is. Although, I would not wish this to mean 'not doing anything about it', for this would just be another form of absolute, a straight forward act of denial. One of the annoying things in respect of when people express political views or introduce a controversy highlighting issues that they care about is that, they are automatically presumed troublemakers. An abundance of us are taught through a process of hegemony and default to be instantly sceptical towards protesters and alternative thinkers, but not necessarily critical about the contexts of the issues declared. Luckily, with the rise of the Internet we have Guerilla Media and alternative forms of journalism and contemporary networks of (hopefully) enlightened media art related groups and individuals, who are keen in tapping into what happens beneath the surface of commercially accepted interfaces such as TV.media which many are more accustomed to, in a general sense. Taking all this into account, along with studies on climate change - I am imagining that we are all in some form, discovering ways in rethinking and relearning how not to rely on traditional media outlet-news alone. Thus, we are already empowered to some extent, in using facilities to inform us practical processes, how we can proceed in changing things beyond already accepted protocols. For these skills are part of re-evaluating on our terms what we have been taught, re-accessing where we stand as human beings in a world dominated by infrastructures which do not necessarily represent ourselves. We are connected through technology, such as on communities like this list to make a difference if we wish to and that is just a start. >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. At present, the pledge shows 13 users who have signed up. We new that only a few would join because of how systemic the problem is in all our cultures and how reliant we all are on plane travel, in furthering our individual and institutional progressions. It is not there to make people feel inadequate, but there to create debate, as well as us learning how we ourselves can somehow incorporate ways in sharing potential solutions. People need to ask themselves, is it negative to bring up such problems? marc 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 _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
