The pain with trains is starting to show the strains

I usually quote articles. But often the letters in response to them are more revealing. And sensible.

Take these to an Indy piece on trains: Train blame

I was mainly attracted by the one about the 'Gee whizz' reporting on growth on usage.

As with waaaay too much these days, and it doesn't matter if it's making a case for good or bad, up or down, it seems oddly facile to me that too many journos and editors seem to have a slight blind spot to the fact that there are a lot more of us doing stuff year on year, and that will often explain a lot much more simply than some of the notions that they attempt to gush over or spin into a headline.

Holding up mirrors

I am about to start my Sunday Trawl of the papers..

Before I click on a single article.I just wanted to share the first thing that popped up in front of me.

I have not yet opened it, so it may be a critical appraisal. Or maybe yet another uncontradictory though unusual complement to editorial elsewhere on climate change. Let's see.

The Observer - 'Would madam care to taste the cloud juice?'

To stir, with love

Welcome aboard Air Ashcroft, the Tories' favourite airline (just make sure you offset)

And while others may do their weekly commute surrounded by fellow peons, I do note they also do it by air.

This is of course a cost/time issue, and fair enough for that for those aware of the purse of those they serve and time poor (though a lot can be done on a train that cannot on a plane). Like many of us.

I am just unsure who you need to be and when it's OK to choose you transport option on that basis, and when it is not.

Star bucks

It's down to time. And money. And money is time.

I just watched a thing on the news about train travel. All I can say is great. If it takes roughly the same time and costs roughly the same amount... why wouldn't you?

Take my trip to Brussels next month.

I'm staying over at a London chum's again after a weekend event, and taking the Eurostar. Brillo. And £60 door to door. No plane to match it.

And even the timing is great, even factoring in the getting to's and fro's. Coming back not so great, but at £12.50 for London to Gloucester (please let it run!!) I can live with the 2hr bus trip back home.

No brainer for next to no money. And the time is on par. When it works, it works (now, please work.... pretty please:)

Who does is cost to save the planet?

Well, it should come as no surprise as to who is trying to gain financially.

Green travellers face VAT shock

All I could manage was a slight giggle. I think it has gone beyond farce.

Offsetting journalistic integrity

This will make me popular. I've tried to answer a Telegraph travel writer's (how do they get to afford 2nd homes?) question: Corporate guilt breeds corporate jargon

At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.

Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.

On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).

So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.

Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.

And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .

Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?

I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.

Flying in the face of reality

I'm just back from my first holiday in a while, and intend to share some thoughts inspired by my travels soon, but first would like to share a press release from the NCC (National Consumer Council).

UK holidays are good for the environment but bad for the pocket

The NCC calls for collective action on climate change by urging government, business and regulators to address the domestic tourist industry and make UK destinations more attractive and better value for consumers.

As record numbers of Britons fly abroad, the NCC argues that far more could be done for climate change by making UK holidays better value, in particular by reversing the high costs of rail fares, accommodation and leisure facilities.

Despite the UK being hit by floods this summer, a new report reveals that many people think Britain is becoming warmer and a better place to spend holidays. Around one in three (32%) say they are prepared to switch future holiday plans to avoid flying. But, in the face of high costs and inertia, only one in twenty five (4%) do so. Examples emerging from research show that:

· Barcelona is cheaper than Blackpool. For example, the total cost of travel to Blackpool with accommodation in mid-August can work out more expensive than a similar trip to Barcelona. A return flight with seven nights’ accommodation costs £518. This compares to £554 for a return train ticket from London to Blackpool and a week’s accommodation.

· Planes are cheaper than trains. Seven in ten people have decided not to travel by train because of the cost of a ticket, according to fellow consumer organisation Passenger Focus. Only 40% of people who do travel on trains feel they are getting value for money. However, the vast majority (80%) would travel more on trains if the fares were a bit cheaper.

Ed Mayo, NCC Chief Executive said: ‘People are increasingly being asked to think before flying, but poor value at home means that this is a stick without a carrot.’

The NCC’s report: The Environmental Contract: How to harness public action on climate change

I couldn't agree more with almost all of this, but there are certain facts that cannot be escaped.

While my holiday was mainly to see relatives, it did coincide with being in a place that had sun, sea and sand.

Ignoring costs of travel and accommodation, the simple fact is that because of these factors (plus being happy with a $2 bowl of noodles for lunch), I sat in a deckchair for several days doing sod all (and spending same), while my kids played in the sea and made sandcastles. Sadly, in the UK each day of any holiday requires at least £100 to feed and entertain, sun out or not (more if not).

This is a simple matter of money. And a lot of it. And little here will change that, though many of the initiatives suggested will help. Along with global warming... if that is indeed what is going to happen. This summer has not bee the best evidence for this, though.

A holiday is about relaxing. Sitting in a wet tent seeing your bank account getting sucked dry hourly is not really going to do that. Sorry.

Something for another time

I was idly watching (is there any other way?) BBC Breakfast 'News' this morning, when an innocuous little piece came on about some Eastern European state whose capital has become a City of Culture.

So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.

Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.

Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.

And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.

'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.

Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.

I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'

Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?

Mea Culpa?

"This is your captain speaking .......... I'd like to welcome you aboard our low CO2 emission flight to the south of France."

The airline pilots association are claiming that the airline industry is being unfairly targeted as the worst of the contributors to climate change. Full ABTN article.

“Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more. World air travel actually accounts for only 2% to 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions according to the International Panel on Climate Change and while air travel is proving more popular, carbon dioxide emissions will not be more than 6% by 2050 – a tiny amount compared to the big polluters.”

Isn’t it amazing just how easily human nature forces all of us to adopt an ‘it’s not us, it’s them’ type of attitude? Just one question – who is giving us the real numbers and the actual facts?

But we all may stop jetting off to the Mediterranean sun anyway if the researchers at New Scientist are correct – it will be waaaay tooooo hot for us Brits to handle! See Dangerously hot.

Back to sunny Skegness it is then.


Arms dealing - the career of the future?
Meanwhile, how to profit from Global Warming - become an arms dealer! Taken from The Observer.

'Expect huge migrations of people looking for food and shelter as they flee areas that become uninhabitable because of crop failure or flooding,' he says. 'You are already seeing this happen in places such as Bangladesh. That will force western governments to increase their military spending to keep people out.'

Now that’s how to put an optimistic slant on forthcoming geo-political disasters caused by global warming! Just to be fair though, he has hedged his bets by putting some huge investments into Green technologies too. Heads he wins, tails he wins?

He mentions Bangla Desh – the UN reckons the disastrous Darfur conflict, as well as smaller episodes in Somalia and Ivory Coast, are also a direct consequence, to some degree, of global warming, too. Sci-Tech Today story.

Stuck on a rut

As readers of the last few blogs will gather, there seems to be a new form of thinking to solve all our problems: stick a label on it and it will go away. Or at least become someone else's to deal with. I have my doubts.

Labels will tell passengers the damage their flights do

OK, this is possibly an effective piece of guilt-tripping, but effective in any other way? Hmnn.

And in light of the report on the effectiveness of offsetting schemes, this airline-endorsed (and why not?) solution seems a very dodgy form of compensation. But I bet Mr. Blair will trumpet all the ways he's working with his big City mates to deal with the 700-ton consequence of his ('not really practical not to, well, you know, for guys like ME') latest jolly.

To boldly reprint a press release...

I know it's just business, but...

Virgin planning elite fleet with business-only flights to the US

Is Richard Branson still part of Virgin? That's the Richard Branson
who is doing all he can to address climate change, with his good mate
Al and others. The Richard Branson who is listed in the top ten of a
recent survey as an environmental champion?

I don't know too much about the fine details of aeronautical
engineering, so there may be some mitigation in the reduced weight,
but on a passenger miles/fuel basis, might this not suggest a pretty
darn retrograde step on the old emissions side of things? But I'm sure
we can plough over what's left of Brazil to compensate with magic
hydrogen plants.

If one concedes there is a problem, the only real solution is doing
less that causes exhaust fumes. But if we have to, I'd suggest cramming
the most folk in to one flight is better than having a crew, four
passengers and a mile high bowling alley.

Personally whoever thought up such a scheme should be given a
rocket. Oh... what am is saying... they have.

I used to be ethical, but now I'm not it's all ok

Has flying been unfairly demonised?

So I watched the cause of reduction being simply being played with for a year, and then figuratively as well as literally get dropped into the bin at the end.

Now, having waded through a lot of interesting, useful, worrying and frankly gob-smackingingly scary stuff here, I think the most potentially damaging thing to the environment I have read is in the original post: '...now that I’m not Ethical Man'.

You can do a lot more damage from within. Ask any Trojan.

Hope the ratings were worth it.

All roads (and train lines) lead to London. Darn it.

Caption 1 - The carpark at Didcot Parkway. Rich in symbolism, I felt.


Caption 2 - The goodie bag from the do. I'd have to say a few trees were hurt in the making of this show. Ah well, all in a good cause. And I did get a few things I can now re:view.

For a London boy, I find myself oddly in dread of going there. Yet, inevitably, I find myself doing so, again and again. Big lights, big city. Centre of all things.

Yesterday was another long day, but a worthwhile one.

The trip itself was very pleasant, both ways, though at four hours in either direction totalled a working day alone. I have been further experimenting with my options, and this time decided to try Didcot Parkway in another car/train combo.

By way of nerd analysis, I break down the trip in several ways, pretty much in this order of importance:

1) Cost (miles, fare, parking, tube, etc)
2) Time (on the road, on the train, hanging about for connections)
3) Convenience (turn up and step on or sweat on a connection)
4) Reliability (will they shut the motorway... again. Will the cancel the train.. again)
5) Flexibility (can I turn up or do I need to book? And can I change my plans?)
6) Comfort (sitting in my case next to the loos. Sitting at Swindon waiting for the missus to get me)

The drive was lovely, but did take 2hrs. I'd say petrol was pretty fair, especially as I took the small car. What was nice was the ticket price (except the parking) - £20 - but it was pretty restrictive. It kicked in at a a fair (fare?) enough post-rush hour 9.30am, but had a rather inflexible, pre-4pm, post 'lord knows how late' return, which made for an undignified early duck out and some Cinderella style scampering to get there to avoid becoming a pumpkin (or end up being penalised). This added the additional 2hrs. Other than standing on the way back, it was all comfortable, but the time and convenience was pretty low. Not sure I'd do it again, as all I managed was a rushed few hours to do the biz.

And this was two-fold. First up was to meet a potential advisor on hooking up with venture capital/business advisers for RE:tie. This went very well and is looking promising. I'd not go so far as to say that RE:tie is a no-brainer, but in the current climate its business applications are pretty clear... IF handled well. I came away feeling this chap knew where I was coming from and, more importantly, what and who it would take to make the journey to where I want to go a decent one for all concerned.

The other bird that got duly well stoned was the annual Bray Leino (possibly the world's most soothing homepage) networking bash (oddly, though this was held in London, most there who I met were from anywhere but). This is a specialist eco-PR agency who I came across as a consequence of them and us being involved with ecover. Sadly no one from that company was there, but a lot of other more than interesting, and I hope mutually regarding folk were. Such as dyson (new product out, which I plan to review soon), ecotricity, green.tv... and innocent. And it's true what they say - you can be as virtually whizz-bang as you like, but it really only happens in person over an organic quiche and a glass of fresh OJ (I made that last bit up).

Bonds were forged, with luck, and opportunities will I hope soon be created.

'No flies on us' zone

Nothing like a good bit of in-depth, critical repor... printing of a press release:

Global travel firms unite in climate-change drive

I look forward very much to the arrival of any bio-fuel that is 'carbon free', as I rather suspect that some may still be involved.

However, in the great trading scheme of things, if we are on a possible window measured in decades, it may be wise, no matter how unpalatable to the current lifestyle expectations of the richer nations and their populations, to also look at the possibility of a little less gadding about in the first place. That way we don't have to knock down forests to make the stuff and burn it in the first place.

Pretty please:)

Beans there. Heard that. Ad nauseam.

Beans are bad for Greens...

Not too terribly sure what the point of this commentary is.

It's a done deal, so may as well give up? We're doomed, so let's go out with a bang... in Benidorm rather than Bali (or vice versa, as advocated)?

Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing the job would not be too much fun, or the paper getting to sell too many more issues, if you restricted your function to cycling around your home and work base reporting on low [mode of transport here]-miles camp sites around London.

It all rather smacks of the regular self-flagellation and rather hypocritical pontification that the media engages upon to show it's up there on the concern front with green issues, but 'please would everyone else change their ways first as we have jobs.... very nice ones, too... to do.'

Will you not be trying out the largesse that follows these press releases? And sharing it? 'As I savoured my first real lamb kebab, courtesy of Tikka Air and Hotel Payola, I could only reflect on how cheap it was...'.

Only yesterday I watched BBC news solemnly advise the latest from the IPCC, with correspondents in Brussels, Mexico and even Antarctica specially flown there to share the anguish of those who are losing tourists... because of the tourists and media going there.

The whole thing would be ironic if it were not slightly more tragic, and an indictment of those who talk a lot, but do very little, especially as whacking a fir in the firmament in compo is now accepted as pretty pointless.

Have a nice Easter . That was something to do with a guy who suffered so others would not, right?

Fly away, Peter. Or, maybe, not.

Make green taxes fair

Like you, I am middle of the road, greenwise (though wondering when ever it could be OK to straddle the white line). So I pretty much agree.

But I would make a small plea to pols, activists and media from the London C-(for centric) zone to at least acknowledge that some do not live within our fine capital.

Noting the dashing hybrid, I can only wonder how I am helping the planet driving along the motorway or along country lanes (no trains worth mentioning here) lugging a heavy battery.

That said, I also wonder how a Porsche Cayenne, at a dead stop parked in the City after a 3 mile trip, is 'worse' than such a vehicle buzzing about all day, emitting away.

And before we get on taxing fuel, like the ill-considered road-pricing first outing, bear in mind the district nurse racking up a hundred miles a day. She has a vote and knows how to use it. Tricky, ain't it?

As to flights, who is this 'us' who are accorded short haul flights, and who is the 'them' who decides to take or bestow upon this Peter, to the detriment or benefit of 'whom'? I just ask, because there may be some Kalahari bushmen breathing the same air as we do who will be well chuffed to get such an allowance to trade.

Or is just for 'us' to play with, and not 'them'? Also pretty tricky, huh?

As to fair, well, you are having a laugh, right?

Funny old thing, irony, eh?

Are we all explorers now?

'Package holidays are in such steep decline that holiday companies are taking drastic action.'

And here was me thinking folk were getting the green bug and staying at home.

Nope, they are just going even further.

Next thing they'll be punting themselves into outer space atop a pillar of greenhouse gasses just to take a picture of what the planet used to look like before, well, they started punting themselves into outer space atop a pillar of greenhouse gasses just to take a picture of what the planet used to look like.

Funny old thing, irony, eh?

What chance doing if they are still not yet understanding

Gordon the green engine?

Whatever measures Mr. Brown does take, and lord alone knows some are necessary, it is to be hoped that they will be thought through and 'sold' to the public a darn sight better than they have been to date.

One major hurdle is to convince those who do not live in the London-C - for centric- zone (between the BBC in the West, Canary Wharf in the East, and all the various political and activist hotspots in between, which are easily accessed by tube, bus and bike (weather, lack of kids, more than one shopping bag, not living in a flat city... permitting}) that this is not some half-baked notion cooked up by an urban elite with no idea of the real world most of the population is struggling to live and work in.

So how one financially dissuades a squillionaire Yummy Mummy in her annually renewed Cayenne, whilst not bankrupting a farmer in their 30 year old Land Rover (how much is produced simply in in a car's manufacture?), to get both in a Hybrid (good log pullers, I'm sure) is anyone's guess.

Especially, as I understand it, in London (all hail) the EverReady-buggy can buzz about all day, emitting away, for free, while a Suzuki Vitara would get busted for a 3 mile trip to and from Paddington from Wandsworth to be parked, CO2less, all day. Kensington to the City and you're golden... er.. green to go in a Hummer, of course.

So how long 'it' emits is surely as key as what? But then you need to work around the district nurse in the Dales with her Fiesta, and you have a Gordknotian problem to unravel.

As for air travel, well let's just not go there. Really. Let's not. At least, if you are serious (Tony B, Al G, all climate 'experts' with conferences and/or book deals, etc, please note).

I wish any pol good luck signalling their understanding of this. And in ways I not only understand... but believe.

If not... see you at the voting booth.

Telegraph - Brown's green tax rise on 'gas-guzzling' cars

The rich are different to you and I. They can better afford to cope with (knee) jerks.

I suspect that I will be adding links from elsewhere to these, not to mention a whole raft of emotive comment, Just what the media loves.

Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers

Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget

As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.

Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.

ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.

BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes

Sir,

As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.

Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.

What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.

The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.

Train, train, go away.. come right back another day

Millions to pay more for train tickets

I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.

Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.

Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.

I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.

Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.