Oxfam - Campaigns - Climate change - Rally against hot air!

On a crisp November afternoon – not too hot for polar bears, but still sunny enough for little green men – an estimated 25,000 people (not all of them in costume!) gathered in Trafalgar Square, London, to pledge their support for the Stop Climate Chaos coalition’s ‘I Count’ campaign.

Oxfam campaigners joined activists from environmental groups, trade unions, faith groups and humanitarian organisations. With such a wide diversity of interests united by one goal, this mass demonstration of concern about climate change was the first of its kind.

On the stage, public figures including Miranda Richardson, the Bishop of Liverpool, and Stop Climate Chaos director Ashok Sinha, called on politicians to take action. KT Tunstall, and Razorlight headlined the entertainment, buoying up the already carnival atmosphere.

So what has climate change got to do with Oxfam? Well, we believe like many people that climate change threatens us all. We also know that people living in poverty are already bearing the brunt of climate change, and this is only set to get worse unless concrete action is taken to tackle soaring carbon emissions.

The ‘I Count’ campaign is asking Tony Blair’s government to lead by example on the global stage, starting with the UN Climate Change Conference in Nairobi (6 – 17 November) and implementing laws to achieve reductions in carbon emissions as part of the promised Climate Change Bill, set to be unveiled in the Queen’s speech on 15 November.

The rally ended with 25,000 voices raised in union, sending out a shout of ‘I Count’ loud enough to echo all the way down Whitehall to Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament. Let’s hope all politicians sit up and listen!

Comments

No, I try to use carbon offsetting every-time I fly but climate change will never effect the way I travel as I think it is part of my personal identity and I will never change that.

Tom Sweeney | May 25, 2007 11:03 PM

"Thou shalt not fly".

This form of commandment and campaign is misleading and undesirable. your policy review gets it right but buries the correct message which can be concluded from that review.

The correct message is that each individual should limit their TOTAL carbon footprint to their share of the carbon emissions that the atmosphere can process.

Whether that person wishes to use a higher proportion for flying, driving a car, production of consumer goods, transport of foodstuffs from afar or air-conditioning is an individual choice and not something that should be dictated either by Oxfam or the government.

Of course there is an argument that none of these things are possible (within acceptable carbon outputs) without carbon-free energy production. However in that case, why not campaign against all of them not one specific behaviour.

David | May 22, 2007 4:15 AM

Our family does not take many holidays abroad, and when we do in future it will be via a combination of Train and Car. You can put your car on the MotoRail right across Europe.

The problem that I encounter is a annual business trip to the States, I have travelled twice in the last 2 years and have off-set the emissions myself (employer will not pay, despite all requests). However I try very hard to reduce my foot print at home (renewable electricity, train to work, economical car, etc...) I have set a target of 4.5 tonnes of personal Co2 for this year. Consequently I feel defeated when I make this massively polluting flight for work...the only option in future is refuse to attend this conference. In fact just how many so called 'business' trips are actually essential?

You can now get to almost any part of Europe / Asia on the train, see the web site :
http://www.seat61.com/index.html
It's the most Green way to travel, with out restriction.

Richard Phelan | May 17, 2007 12:46 PM

Years ago, if you had family abroad it was hard, but you accepted that you would probably not see them again, and you kept up the letter writing. Now we do have an alternative to visiting them because modern technology allows us to exchange on-line videos, e-mails etc, and we are not so cut off.
OK I know that you cannot have a physical hug on-line, but visits can be kept to a minimum using on-line facilities to keep in touch.

Veronica-Mae Soar | April 3, 2007 12:33 PM

To find the real impact of your flights, go to a calcuator on www.carbonneutral.com.au. It is really over three times the 2% often quoted because:
Nitrous oxides and contrails at high altitude cause 3 times the global warming of global warming as CO2 alone.
International flights are not accounted for in national emissions inventories - apparently nobody wants to own them!

Flying accounts for about about 15 % of the 14 tonnes of emissions that the average Australian emits

BEN ROSE | February 24, 2007 12:15 PM

Yes - we already have taken a decision to use the train for holidays in Europe.

Tony Hutchinson | February 23, 2007 7:50 PM

I do not NEED to fly, so I chose not to. My country is a beautiful place with alot of culture if you're willing, and creative enough, to look. It HAS broadened my mind travelling around the UK for holidays etc and, not only do I have a wonderful time doing so, I feel happier that I'm not adding to air pollution by taking a plane.

caryn squires | February 23, 2007 12:14 PM

yes, flying less is just a small step. Using the car less,walk and bike more, be more efficient with energy in general. If we all try to live carbon neutral and by that I do not mean offset your CO2 emmissions, we can make an impact.

Nicole Braun | February 1, 2007 2:29 PM

Mark Lovelace wrote: "How does flying flood Bangladesh?! Also doesn't this suggestion just mean its ok to fly if you're rich? Bad Government policy was a more significant factor for famine in Ethiopia than environmental conditions. Sweeping & vague statements don't help the cause." Flying does cause flooding in Bangladesh it is one of the fastest growing producers of greenhouse gases we've just seen a 7% rise in emmisions in the last year alone. The biggest problem is actually not so much the economy flights - rather ironically they tend to fly full and don't do stop offs if they can help it - landing and taking off causing the greater amounts of emmisions. It's the multiple holidays that the moderately well off take - instead of taking advantage of their own countries and only travelling abroad once a year. There needs to be a curb on airport expansion - the government cannot with one hand say that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity and then say that we must allow people to fly places cheaply when there are far less damaging alternatives. They could put money back into the train systems (and this is really for the UK because travelling by train in Europe is a pleasure and reasonably priced) and not invest in weapons of mass destruction and pointless wars.

Lyndsey Maiden | February 1, 2007 1:33 PM

My husband and I have stopped flying, the only reason we would do would be for an emergency where there just was no alternative. We travel to Europe by train, and the Interail website is going to extend their service in April to allow people to travel through them to Russia and North Africa. It has been one of the most rewarding ways to travel that I have ever experienced, it's less stressful than the plane and yes it takes longer but that is a bonus - it's a part of the holiday. My friend Craig has just come back from the work he was doing in Indonesia on the tsunami crisis and part of his journey was on the trans Siberian express - and he had the most amazing of adventures. Flying is one of the most selfish acts we can do - we choose to do it and people around the world will suffer. Of course there are other really positive changes we can make to our lives which will benefit the global population, such as turning down the thermostat, taking the TV off standby, insulating our houses and buying green energy.

Lyndsey Maiden | February 1, 2007 1:20 PM

I'm not 100% on this therery either. But, have you ever thought that maybe it's not us coursing the climate change.
Maybe it's just another 'stage' that our planet goes through.
We just don't have the last one on record.
Hmm..Maybe.

But, if it is us coursing it.
Then yes, I would definatly cut back on flying. And do my bit to help.
We've only got one planet, We shouldn't ruin it like we do.

xo.

Hannah Harkin | January 17, 2007 7:54 PM

I'm building a website to explain people why we really need to stop flying and to allow them to commit themselves to stopping flying
But i need help for that, since i don't have all the computing skills, so if someone can help me...

website: www.stop-flying.com

email: contact@stop-flying.com

Jean | January 15, 2007 9:08 AM

My new year's resolution is to only fly once a year from now on. I'm lucky that all my friends and family live in the UK, but I will now be extremely limited to the holidays I can take and how frequently I can take them. However, I feel it's the responsible decision. If everyone made the same commitment this new year, we would already be a HUGE step closer to cutting the UK's CO2 emissions. I am also only going to use my car for essential journeys to college, work...etc... from now on, and take public transport as often as possible, even if it means my journey is more difficult and takes longer. Again, it is a sacrifice I am willing to make for our planet, for the world's poorest people, and for our future generations.

Brigitte McCafferty | January 11, 2007 5:49 PM

I"ve just returned from a two week holiday in Amsterdam, Munich, Zurich and Strasbourg. I used coaches, trains and boats to travel and it was great as I got to see the different countries as I travelled through them. Travelling should cost money and even though flying is cheaper, quicker etc. the experience of travelling by land is far more interesting and allows you to be more spontaneous and flexible.
I don't believe offsetting is a sustainable solution to the damage that flying causes and I aim to never set foot in an airport again, except in protest.

Venetia Lamb | December 24, 2006 3:22 PM

In response to Kate (Nov 2nd). I have just been to France and back on the train. If you book early enough in advance you can get some cheap deals with Eurostar - I got from my door (in Leeds) to a friends door (in Burgandy) for less that £100. I don't know how much it costs to fly but I guess when you take into accout getting to the airport, airport tax etc you don't save that much. The key is to plan in advance whenever possible. Same goes for the ferry - I recently travelled to Holland and back by ferry for £55 including trains at both ends!

Ben Margolis | December 18, 2006 5:00 PM

The implication (of which I'm sure you are aware) is "flying causes global warming causes rising oceans causes flooding in Bangladesh". Raising taxes on carbon causes the rich to cut back just as much as the poor on carbon use (and yes, they can still use more carbon than the poor do, but being rich always gives one more options). However, since a carbon tax is regressive, I recommend compensating for it with an equal per capita refund from the government: http://ecotruth.blogspot.com

William Fraser | December 11, 2006 6:55 PM

Flying ,for all, is only a very recent luxuary. 20 years ago, it was not 'the norm'.
It must be rationed, cheap flights banned, and there must be a tax on aviation fuel. It has to come from the top. Individuals either have no desire to change, or find it too hard to compromise; especially when 'Love Miles' are involved. We live in a "ME ME NOW NOW" culture; and are certainly living on borrowed time and in a convenient bubble, unless things change drastically. P.S. I have not flown for 8 years, but would love one last flight in my life. However, holidays and travelling, still go on.

Janet Plater | December 7, 2006 9:38 AM

I don't fly but always try to travel by the most ecologically friendly method that I can. I gave up driving a car as soon as I thought it no longer a necessity. I concentrate on walking or cycling unless it is too far when it will be public transport.

Janet Szymczak | November 24, 2006 4:11 PM

Stopping flying altogether will not impact climate change significantly as according to Stern it is only 2% of the worlds CO2 production whereas Power Gereration is 38% and road vehicles 25%. This is where the real focus of the debate should be. Lets adopt Renewable and Nuclear Power now to slow down global warming. The only real solution to poverty in Africa is economic development, free and fair trade plus the necessary means to transport goods and services economically i.e. flying and shipping is absolutly necessary.

Mick | November 23, 2006 5:57 PM

I will certainly be flying less to try to make a tiny difference. All the flights I take are for pleasure so we will look into holidaying by train or in this country.

Caroline Rash | November 23, 2006 11:04 AM

Everyone involved in the Trafalgar Square Rally knows what they can do personally to reduce their carbon footprint. We're not stupid. But if Tony Blair is as anxious as he claims to be about what history will think of him, he should put an immediate stop on Centrica's insane project to build a coal-fired power station, and force them to build instead a rubbish-burning power station like the one that has been operating successfully near New Cross Gate for at least 15 years. He should do everything he can with the time that remains to him, to instigate the building of a country-wide network of them. No more landfill sites. No more recycling problems. It's so obvious it screeches.

Gillian de Veras | November 10, 2006 10:42 AM

Climate change is so serious now that everyone has to see that smoething has to be done about it. However, it would be very hard for me to limit flying, as I am young and want to see the world-who doesn't? To compensate for this though, I wouldn't mind paying higher tax and cutting down on other sources of carbon emissions. Flying is not going away, so we need to think of other alternatives to reduce carbon emissions.

Emma Hargrave | November 2, 2006 2:00 PM

hi everyone, this discussion really is very interesting. i am currently studying abroad in France (in am english) therfore i have been flying there and back. i would be interested to know what other options are availabke to me that would be less harmful to the environment because although i always make a conscious effort to hele the environment i understand the comments of some of you who think that i am automatically undoing this work by flying. what would you suggest? i would be very grateful of any suggestions! thanks kate x

kate | November 2, 2006 11:16 AM

Flying is a major part of my family life and most probably of many others. Until now I had not realised the potential consequences of our actions and the damage it is beginning to cause to our environment. This is not to mention the risks we are taking that influence the lives of those in less developed countries. Something that can make our lives so pleasant can make others unbearably. Increasing the cost of flights abroad would by no means prevent this problem but it would definately help and should be seriously considered.

Hannah Manchester | November 1, 2006 6:24 PM

RAF planes have been flying over my house to land at RAF Wittering. I could see the black smoke trail which left a layer of black dirt over my washing, windows and ledges. I will now look for rail/cycle holidays.

Maggie Bentley | October 30, 2006 1:46 PM

I love going to foreign places and flying seems the fastest and most comfortable way of getting there, I fly twice a year, I don't think it's too much. I would like to travel by train but it seems expensive and unreliable. I think governments and the travel industry need to take action to invest in a greener source of energy and also provide cheaper and reliable trains.

Angela Thomson | October 24, 2006 3:55 PM

i would definately stop flying to cut down global warming, although i love flying, our world is more imporatnt. soon there will be no point in flying to see other countries beauty anyway beacuse of all the pollution, i would even get rid of cars and go back to horse and carriages! but im a romantic. i think more people should sacrifice holidays for making our planet better

eleanor scarfe | October 24, 2006 2:32 PM

I have not flown for over 15 years, sometimes because of lack of funds, but principally because of concerns about climate change, and not because of any fear of flying. I have found that rail travel to holiday destinations in Europe, even if it is more expensive than air travel, has allowed me to enjoy the journey as well as my stay abroad. I want to see much stronger and more rapid action to deal with the problem of climate change, including reducing and eventually virtually eliminating the emission of greenhouse gases from aircraft. I cannot understand how the speed of holiday and business travel can have a higher priority than the prevention of floods, droughts, heat waves, and humanitarian crises on an unprecendeted scale.

Mark Lovelace | October 23, 2006 6:07 PM

"Flying undermines all our other efforts to make poverty history. Our weekend jolly to Prague helps flood Bangladesh and bring famine to Ethiopia, and it's time we faced up to that. The price of flying should reflect the environmental cost."

How does flying flood Bangladesh?! Also doesn't this suggestion just mean its ok to fly if you're rich? Bad Government policy was a more significant factor for famine in Ethiopia than environmental conditions. Sweeping & vague statements don't help the cause.

Mike Simpson | October 17, 2006 10:18 PM

I'm living in New Zealand at the moment, which is a great place to visit. But coming from Europe what are your travel options? Even from Australia only expensive cruises allow crossings by boat (unless you're prepared to hitch a lift on a cargo ship). To reinstate commercially viable sea crossings now would involve a change in our attitudes to travel - away from speedy arrival and back to the joy of the journey itself. Perhaps Richard Branson should develop a fleet of ships to reduce the speed of travel here, rather than increasing speeds and CO2 emissions by putting tourists into space! That would be a real investment for the future.

Alison Poole | October 9, 2006 9:52 PM

Well I would if there was a feasible alternative... but train travel into Eurpoe seems very hard to organise. Just getting to London takes six hours and over £60, twice as much of both time and money as getting to the nearest airport, and then how do you find out about connections from the Eurostar into Italy, say, or Germany? I love trains and would use them for my annual foreign trip if I could easily organise and afford it.

Linda Camidge | October 7, 2006 5:24 PM

I think people could fly less, but even if one doesn't fly less, plant a tree every time you fly, or sponsor organisations that build trees to counter global warming. Also, tell governments to invest more in renewable energy, to reduce emissions further.

Sebastian Mylchreest | September 27, 2006 6:58 PM

We are making a conscious effort not to fly but love travelling. We have just returned from the Canary Islands having gone by train and ferry. It was a great trip and the travelling was as much fun as the week in Tenerife with so much time to read and relax and lots of interesting people to meet along the way. We've also done Iceland and Tunisia by rail and sea. Yes, it is more expensive than flying and takes longer but it's a great deal more fun and relieves you of some of your bad conscience (the best for the environment would, of course, be to not travel at all). However, I also recognise that the right sort of tourism can bring much needed funding to developing countries. It's all a matter of balance and thinking through what you are doing. It horrifies me though that the government still appears to intend to expand airports. We should at the least try to keep the amount of flying at its present level.

Rowena Quantrill | September 27, 2006 3:49 PM

As a family we have not flown for over ten years because of concerns about climate change.

It angers me that there is so much encouragement for flying and the government refuses to do anything to curb it.
i am gllad that at last the issue is beginning to be debated.
What's wrong with a holiday in the UK?

Ian Selby | September 27, 2006 3:44 PM

Yes! The fact is, you can be as eco-friendly as you like, but if you fly, you cancel out every effort you've made.

Anonymous | September 27, 2006 2:43 PM

In the current situation, to fly frequently is verging on immoral. We have to stop thinking that the starting point is whatever we want our lifestyles to be - the starting point is what we have to do to sustain the natural infrastructure we all depend on. We shouldn't kid ourselves that only the developing world will be affected by climate change!

Patrick Hanley | September 23, 2006 1:02 PM

Too right, I'll think very carefully before flying and I will ONLY do so if it is ABSOLUTELY the only way of getting there, like to visit my brother in Canada. I will definitely OFFSET THE CARBON.

I've cut down car mileage from 12 to 4K per annum, pedal to work on my bike and feel much better for it, go by bus and/or train and have fun talking with other people. It's GREAT!

Julian Burn | September 21, 2006 7:02 PM

I have stopped flying and started going on holidays abroad by train. I found www.seat61.com helped plan my routes. Travel compaines like Exodus allow you to book the holiday with or without flights - we now choose the 'without flights' option and make our own way there.

I made the change after assessing my carbon emissions using the carbon gym. I was shocked to discover that with flying I was an higher than average producer of carbon dioxide. Without flying I was a lower than average producer.

Helen | September 21, 2006 5:58 PM

I would consider flying less to Europe, but we do enjoy our long-haul trips and find them very beneficial to us. However, we always do carbon offsetting, and are now investigating eco tourism, so we can be sure that our trip is also of benefit to the people of the country/countries we visit. I think we must not under-estimate the importance of tourism to many developing countries, and the value of experiencing different cultures.

Jaki Kennedy | September 21, 2006 4:51 PM

Flying should be a last option. It is hugely damaging in terms of CO2. I think budget flights are one of the biggest problems and the sooner aviation fuel is taxed properly the better.

Hugh Dunkerley | September 21, 2006 4:00 PM

My elderly parents live in Amsterdam and I live in Wales. The last few years there have been no emergencies, so I've gone to see them by ferry, however, I'm still grateful for the opportunity to be able to fly if it is necessary.

Iris Gordijn | September 21, 2006 3:50 PM

I am half Thai so have to go back there every year but I used to love flying for mini breaks and I am definitely going to stop this and take the train. As for business I am going to use i-chat. When I fly I also offset the carbon.

narisa chakra | September 21, 2006 3:34 PM

narisa chakra | September 21, 2006 3:33 PM

I have already made a conscious decision not to fly very often. The last time I flew was nearly 4 years ago. People need to travel more by train and boat. However, the cheap costs of holiday flights does not encourage people to fly less - this needs to change immediately and people should be taxed heavily for flying. We need to save the environment now and our children will have a world to look forward to!

Ann Waite | September 21, 2006 2:54 PM

I believe the only way to stop the culture for convenience flying is for governments to stop subsidizing the industry so that prices reflect the true costs involved. Local tourism will benefit much more, and those people who really want to travel furher afield will take the trouble of going via trains and ferries and not pollute the most beautiful parts of this world with the disrespectful, un-cultured attitude that tourists are becoming known for.

Mike Tomlin | September 21, 2006 1:54 PM

Absolutely. Not only is flying about the worst thing we can do for the environment, but also we have lost the adventure of travel. Train travel around Europe is a great adventure, far less damaging to the environment, and usually supports local economies and environments much more than vast tourist resort destinations.

Ruby Walters | September 20, 2006 11:44 AM

It's a real quandary. I live in London,& have family in India & America that I need to visit. I don't drive, take public transport in London & take the train to travel around Europe. I try to minimize my air travel but definitely couldn't cut it out altogether.

Dhun Silverstein | September 18, 2006 3:36 PM

Of course - I could not continue to fly without any regard to the consequences. With forward planning it is usually possible to go by train and ferry to your destination, and it can be quite fast and cheap - see www.seat61.com. Even where it isn't fast and cheap, it's better to save up and travel less often than fly and help to kill our children and poor people in the developing world - not to mention poor people in New Orleans.

Duncan MacKenzie | September 17, 2006 10:38 PM

Post a comment here

Please note that this is a moderated comments system. Your comment will be checked by a moderator prior to publication. We do not guarantee that comments will be published.

Name:

Email address: (this will not be made public)

Comment: