UKC

Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work. Environmental group campaigns to curb growth in air travel but defends paying a senior executive to commute 250 miles to work by plane

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10920198/Greenpeace-executive-fl...

Maybe they'll even realise that how sanctimonious it is difficult for large organisations to be squeaky clean. Or maybe they are above worrying about that sort of thing….

In reply to Postmanpat:



Did you mean to type "however sanctimonious", between two commas, and perhaps type some other words?

In reply to Postmanpat: Seems to me it's teetering on the slightly dubious versus sensible margin.

Unlike our own Prince Charles who paid to have his Bentley driven to an environmental conference in Eastern Europe that he had flown to...

In reply to Postmanpat:

I enjoyed the idiotic comments beneath the article.

I have to say, if I worked in one location most of the time, but twice a month had to travel to another location, I would a) not class that travel as a "commute" and b) not consider moving my entire family to the second location.

Anyway.

Aren't offspring a bigger contributor to a "carbon footprint" than anything we might do ourselves? They should be attacking him for having children

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Something like that. I really hate it when people can't type their own OP correctly…...

In reply to Postmanpat:

He only flies twice a month. It's the same as doing a daily 70 mile commute in a green 99g CO2 /mile car.

It's above average, but not excessively so.

I agree it sets the wrong impression, but there is no detail about any co2 he saves by not having to commute on the other 20 or so days a month, which he may have to do if he moved to avoid the air flight.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Or Bongo out of U2 paying for a seat for his hat to fly out to him...

I wonder if Mr Greenpeace has heard of the interwebz and teleconferncing?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think we can rely on most of the Greenpeace organisation being a force for the good.

In reply to stroppygob:

Our company has not seen the inconsistency in it's travel policy, It has all the VC equipment, but continues to give staff the air miles from the tickets that the company pays for, thus there is an incentive for staff to find reasons to fly to meetings, rather than use VC , as they can then use the air miles towards their own holidays.

Other companies as I understand it, pays for the tickets, and keeps the air miles in a company travel pot towards future flights. If they manage it carefully , it could be quite a saving, in both miles and money.

In reply to stroppygob:


>

I wonder whether you read the whole article.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Why would one need to "meet him in the flesh"? Mind you, freebees to Amsterdam, would be just so fun, who can blame him? Spark up a fatty for me Mr Greenpeace.

In reply to stroppygob:

I go to meetings in a person a lot, which means I drive a lot; they're a world apart from what can be done remotely.

In reply to Philip:

But presumably it would be greener to drive/take the train for that 250 mile journey twice a month?

In reply to Phil1919:


Sweet

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm more annoyed about the £3 million they lost through financial mismanagement and incompetence.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I think we can rely on most of the Greenpeace organisation being a force for the good...

Aye ... the Brent Spa was a resounding success, Or the whole emotive "Arctic Drilling" fiasco , when they ignore the environmental decimation In West Africa. Then again I don't know how well a bunch of Nigerian Pirates would treat them in comparison to the Russians?

In reply to Jim C:


I travel a lot for work, and we get to keep the airmiles (and hotel rewards etc). However far from it being something that makes you travel unnecessarily, it just takes the sting out of something you need to do.

Having frequent flyer status with a number of airlines means I get to use the business lounges at airports meaning I can work better on short haul (when I'm not allowed to use business class) layovers. But since business travel is a drag, I don't know anyone in our organisation who would travel when they don't have to - I certainly wouldn't.


That is really tight. And also I can't see award flights being that useful to a business, they're often difficult to get at the times you need and don't have flexibility.

Business travel isn't really a perk, its something you have to do and it helps if it can be made more enjoyable. Therefore it annoys me when companies don't do what they can to smooth the effort asked of their employees (jet lag, time away from home, extra time spent travelling outside office hours etc). My wife's company enforce economy class all the way (so saving her airmiles herself, in order to upgrade is important) even for trips to China and Indonesia. Her and her colleagues are incredulous at our company travel policies which is very generous, but I guess I'm lucky in my employer.

I use video conference technology every day, but as other posters have said, its not always a perfect substitute for being in person.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I had a great argument with some women who had travelled all the was from near London to Edinburgh by car to attend a protest about climate change.
They were having a go at my friend who is American and owns a Jeep. They couldn't quite understand that if you live in a place where there is snow on the ground for ~5 months a year owning a 4x4 was quite a sensible option and aside from that he rides a scooter to work when the weather allows so it's not like he's the no.1 enviro enemy.