BootsnAll Travel Community

I am in the midst of planning a trip to Portugal and Spain in May. My plans have been pretty loose, the main one being that I need to be in Sevilla by a certain date. Then I have some time after that reunion to hit one more city.

As I was going through my guidebook, they had a call out about environmental responsibility. It made the fantastic point about reducing air travel, staying in a place a little longer, etc. It got me thinking, perhaps, rather than flying to another region of Spain (which I would likely do due to limited time), maybe I should stay in one place and explore the environs.

I am still debating. But it brings up a good question and discussion. I know we go back and forth on these boards, from "screw the environment, I want to travel," to, "I am reducing everything." How do you make the decision? Have you ever changed plans to be green?

Hiya anniebanannie

I've changed plans to do it more eco wise loads but the decision is usually dependent on time and money to be honest.

With all the low cost airlines and flights in Europe it's so easy to nip from London to Italy or Spain for the weekend, and then it's cheaper when you get there, that thinking green ends up being an ideal reather than a constant reality.

But when you're travelling across a few countries, train is the best way to cram in as much as possible so I'll always go for that over flying anyway.

I've trained it around Spain and Italy and South East Asia instead of flying and am planning to train it around Australia. The Ghan takes three days to go from Adelaide in the south to Darwin in the north so I'd love to do that. And then I want to do the Trans Siberian from Moscow to Vladivostoc and sail to Japan.

And one day, when I ever get the money I want to sail from Ireland down through France and Spain across the Med to the Suez Canal through the Red Sea and across the Indian Ocean to Australia. So if you've got a few million hanging about can I have a lend?

L

www.ecotravellogue.com

These are all good thoughts. Staying in one place a bit longer uses less fuel and also helps me find the rhythum of the place. Using more mass transit is a good idea on the road or at home. (Wish my home had some.)

We need to think harder about how we travel and how we live, but we need to keep traveling. So much learning and cultural exchange happens, and the communities we travel to benefit. Travelers have always been the cultural embassadors to the world, and we certainly need good embassadors today!

Keep thinking AND keep traveling, I say.

Perhaps take a look at ride share sites as a way of getting across Spain - sharing a car could be much more fun than flying and it has the benefit of being greener too.

When you get to Seville though, you'll also be able to rent an electric car or take a segway tour - definately more fun than 'responsible'. www.blobject.es

I don't think traveling green means it will be any less of an experience, and in fact seeking out ecofriendly hotels or tours or whatever often ends up with finding some great stuff that's not in the guidebooks.

Taking the right kit also helps too, I'd argue that a solar powered charger, for instance, is a hell of a lot cooler, cheaper and greener than having to keep buying batteries.

Probably the simplist way to go green is just to continue the stuff that most people now do at home - recycle your waste, buy local food, reuse water bottles etc. It's no real effort but makes an impact.

I am more concerned with flying somewhere vs. staying in the same area (in this case, Andalusia).

I have no interest in driving...if I am going by land, I will take train/bus. I don't have time for any of that.

It is less about it being less of an experience, and more a question of has anyone changed plans to be more green (i.e. covered less ground, etc.).

I live my life pretty green as it is. But it is irresponsible to overlook the impact that flights have on the environment (but at the same time, not being able to give up travel). Since I am already damaging enough getting over there, should I stay closer and reduce the number of flights I could potentially take? I don't know. I was curious had anyone changed their plans, seriously, to try to reduce their impact. And not those carbon credit things, because I haven't made up my mind on their legitimacy.

*Insert politically slanted answer*
If you are serious, then give up (or reduce) meat and dairy and you'll drastically reduce your greenhouse gas 'footprint'. People often overlook that aspect and focus on cars and planes. Even Al Gore found it too inconvenient to mention that truth.

Thanks, Insubordination, but for the most part I eat very little meat and consume very little dairy. Trust me, I live a pretty green lifestyle. I am not looking for more ways to be green, I am looking for travel-specific cuts.

My assumption is that most people here haven't cut back on their travel to be green. I think this is proving correct.

I try and live a green lifestyle too, but I haven't cut back on travel to be green - what I have done though is made the decision to seek out the eco-friendly tour operators and hostels etc, and that has definately enhanced my travels.

Also, some of my best travel experiences have been the result of sticking in one place for at least a week - but with a local to show me around. When I did this in the past it wasn't to 'be green', but to get to know a destination better. When I plan travels now though the green benefits of this kind of slow travel are definately a factor I consider too.

I've pretty much always traveled overland (or sea) rather than fly when it's been an option, e.g., fly to Europe then get around by train, bus, ferry, and to a lesser degree hitching and ride sharing. However, until recently that was mostly for economic reasons. But now I would and have taken environmental considerations into account. Last year I traveled from Germany to Barcelona by train even though it was a fairly short trip to Europe.

Spain is a pretty big country by European standards but it's possible to see a fair bit in a short time by train or bus. Without knowing your time constraints or interests, you could easily get from Sevilla to Granada, Cordoba, even Madrid by train within 1 - 3 hours.

Hi, as i just posted on my other thread I am definately conscious nowadays about the total number of flights I am taking each year. And wherever possible I avoid taking internal flights within the country I am visiting. It's not always easy though, trying to balance the pros and cons of taking an extra flight somewhere.

In a small country like Spain with modern transport infrastructure I wouldn't even consider taking an internal flight - due to the environmental impact.

A couple of years ago a took a 3-night weekend break in Krakov, flying from London. But thinking about it now I doubt that I would do the same thing again. Nowadays I would only take a flight somewhere if it was a proper-length holiday. Next time I want a short weekend break I will stick to England or Wales, places where I don't need to fly.

quote:

In a small country like Spain with modern transport infrastructure I wouldn't even consider taking an internal flight - due to the environmental impact.

Hmm...In comparison to the States, Spain is small. But it is one of the larger European countries. And their infrastructure isn't that great if you have very limited time.

This is something I am still struggling with. Because I lived in Sevilla, I have done most of the day trips around there. And I want to hit the beach, if possible. And, there are some other constraints I need to consider, as well, that may dictate where I can go.

The positive, however, is that my work travel has been drastically reduced (from an average of one plane trip a month to, essentially, none). So even if I take a short hop flight, my overall footprint has been reduced a lot. Gah, we'll see.

Having lived in Sevilla you probably have an idea (or can figure out) the time and cost logistics of getting to various other places in Spain. If you just want “the beach,” the Costa del Sol is within easy reach. But if you have some other place like the Costa Brava or the North of Spain in mind, that’s another matter.

But I’m with Craze_b0i – I’d pick someplace I didn’t have to fly to. The rest of Spain will still be there for another time.

Again, still deciding. But I don't want to go to Costa del Sol. I am leaning towards Valencia.

Yes, Spain will be there, but considering I have been there several times...

And, weighing that my footprint has been drastically reduced this year (again, from about 12-13 trips - so 20 flights or so - to maybe 4 flights), well, that adds more to my feeling ok with taking one extra flight in Spain. I am already going from Lisbon to Sevilla overland (appx. 8 hours), and getting from Sevilla to Valencia takes around 9 hours, which is a whole day on an itinerary that doesn't have any extra time.

At any rate, thanks for the discussion. This wasn't supposed to focus on my specific trip, but more adjusting travel to be "green," and what are some of the tradeoffs.

Well I've given my own opinion on short flights. On the other hand I accept that there is no strict right or wrong answer to how much you should fly, it's always a balancing act.

*Also if you are travelling to Valencia did you know you can take take an overnight train from Cordoba to Valencia? (or at least you used to be able to) Saves a day of travel...

Thanks, CB, I will have to check that out.

I have a hunch that annie's theory that in practice it is rare for people to cut back is right.

Although I think of myself as traveling a lot, before this year (transport between US cities) it was rare for me to take more than one return flight a year, although it was sometimes across the Atlantic. So while I do make an effort to recycle, conserve, and so on in my normal life, I can't say I've cut back on travel to be green.

There's some kind of term for this (something like zero sum? but not), but I also think that just seeing the world we are interested in saving via travel is important too. Obviously there are cases where one form of transport is clearly better than another for the environment, but I think seeing the world and taking a flight can also broaden people's perspectives about the environment, and also let them see how people in other countries conserve, etc.

quote:

I think seeing the world and taking a flight can also broaden people's perspectives about the environment, and also let them see how people in other countries conserve, etc.

Well that all sounds nice in theory, but as a rule most travellers travel for personal enjoyment - not to learn about conservation. Besides, with modern day mass-media you don't need go all the way to somewhere like Brazilian rainforest in order to become aware of environmental issues.

I think whatever way we try and justify it the fact remains that flights are bad for the environment.

Well, yes

But I still think being in a place, even if it's only for your own trip and you're not thinking about conservation, still just makes you a little bit more connected.

Compared to people who never fly/never leave the country in some cases, I think people who do travel may well have more appreciation for what is being conserved.

But I guess after a few flights the effect doesn't just keep increasing...

Craze_b0i and KateL57, I think both your theories are right. It’s important to travel, for many reasons, but one of them is to have a greater understanding of a place and its people, this encompasses everything about that place including its conservation methods. When people travel they pick up these things by proxy. Sure people can look things up on line/use mass-media, but where’s the affinity?

When people travel they learn not to be so racist or bigoted, to be happy with what they’ve got, that the world isn’t all about them and their wonderful country. It makes people think. It humbles them. It teaches them more than any form of mass-media could. Is that not worth one long-haul flight a year?

Sure, everyone is well aware that flying is bad for the environment but it has to be looked at in relative terms. There are a lot of things that are far, far worse. Look at some industries and their effects, especially in the US and Australia, or the oil and gas industry, methane produced by the over-production of cattle for our selfish needs, the cruise liner industry; all these produce effects much more harmful than flying. It's just that the arguement about air travel is de riguer and some say many governments are happy to leave it that way so the bigger problems aren't more closely scrutinised.

But in saying that, I strongly believe that the frequency of flights per day should be cut because at the rate we’re going there’ll be no more air space in a few generations. I think the key to everything is moderation. If all flights were cut to once or twice a day instead of the ridiculous 12 available in some cases, everyone would still be able to do their trips at some point without there being a devastating effect on the environment. But then pigs might fly before that happens. Airlines are just too greedy and people too demanding. God, it’s a never-ending vicious circle, eh?

Sooooo, to get back to the original post: Have you ever changed plans to be green?
I apply it to whatever situation I’m in. Depends where I’m going and how much time I have available but more often than not I plan green rather than change plans to be green.

Check out The Man on Seat Sixty One for alternative travel ideas around Spain anniebananie.

Ecotourism Logue (previously EcoTravelLogue)

Linds I agree with a lot of the points you make. Yes I agree that a lot of other things harm the environment too and it is the responsibility of governments to cut those emissions.

However I think the reason flying gets highlighted is that it is important for individuals to contribute as well as govenments.

btw. I LOVE The Man in Seat Sixty One, he rocks.