UKC

Innes FitzGerald

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 mutt 26 Jan 2023

Innes FitzGerald has it right. The world class climbers could learn from her stance on ambition and the climate emergency. 

 Robert Durran 26 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

If everyone took her approach it would pretty much end international sport. But maybe that is desirable.

 Mark Eddy 27 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

Agreed. A hard stance needs to be taken, good for her for doing so. This quote in Athletics Weekly “the plane will fly with or without her” is so weak yet so predictable. Yes of course 'that' aircraft will still make the flight, but if number of people flying reduce the number of flights reduce, so future skies are quieter.

Stopping travel entirely doesn't work, but Innes is showing it to be quite feasible to overland within Europe and taking a bike to further reduce the CO2 footprint. Can only help with her overall fitness too. Good luck to her

3
 gazhbo 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Mark Eddy:

> Stopping travel entirely doesn't work, but Innes is showing it to be quite feasible to overland within Europe and taking a bike to further reduce the CO2 footprint. Can only help with her overall fitness too. Good luck to her

She hasn’t shown that though - by her own admission her performance at the European race was adversely affected by her travel choices.  Riding a brompton between train stations is not going to improve the race fitness of an elite distance runner.  She had to fund the travel herself which is unsustainable.  She isn’t realistically going to find a sponsor to cover her separate travel costs.

Her stance is obviously admirable but ultimately there’s no way she can have a career as an athlete without traveling, unless all international athletics is reduced to a series of time trials.

2
Removed User 27 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

Pointless virtue signalling.

39
OP mutt 27 Jan 2023
In reply to gazhbo:

I think she was also commenting on the environmental consequences of international meetings. I heard the head guy from last year's commonwealth games saying that it was carbon neutral because of offsetting. He then went on to say that the offsetting relied on acquiring land to plant trees and that wouldn't be completed for 36 years and then we need to wait for the trees to grow and capture the carbon and then we have to hope that the trees don't get cut down and burned. We will all be under 10m of glacial meltwater before that has any meaningful effect!

If Innes stance gets people to focus on the facts of the climate crisis it's worth doing .

2
 gazhbo 27 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

Well offsetting is obviously a load of bollocks but I was going to make the point that if she is concerned about the environmental impact of international competition, she can’t really justify competing even if she herself has only had to travel a (relatively) small distance.

...which kind of limits her career options.  On the basis of what I’ve read about her, purely on athletic ability, that would be a massive waste of talent.  She might think there are more important things to worry about.

> If Innes stance gets people to focus on the facts of the climate crisis it's worth doing .

It won’t though.

6
 DaveHK 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If everyone took her approach it would pretty much end international sport. But maybe that is desirable.

I think it's long past time for that but I appreciate this will be about as popular as cock flavoured lollipops and as likely as hell freezing over.

1
 Tyler 27 Jan 2023
In reply to gazhbo:

> she can’t really justify competing even if she herself has only had to travel a (relatively) small distance.

Jesus Christ!

 DaveHK 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Removed User:

> Pointless virtue signalling.

Or living out a firmly held belief.

2
 gazhbo 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Tyler:

> > she can’t really justify competing even if she herself has only had to travel a (relatively) small distance.

> Jesus Christ!

Why?  The carbon footprint of an international athletics meet is probably the same if it takes place at your local track or on the other side of the world.

OP mutt 27 Jan 2023
In reply to gazhbo:

> It won’t though.

are you commenting about yourself, or do you have some sixth sense seeing into other peoples minds?

Post edited at 15:02
4
 gazhbo 27 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt: 

> are you commenting about yourself, or do you have some sixth sense seeing into other peoples minds?

I’m being realistic.  A teenage athlete, who most people will never hear of, taking a stance by not flying to Australia, won’t stop people making millions of objectively unnecessary flights every year.  

7
 Tyler 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Removed User:

> Pointless virtue signalling.

I thought virtue signalling, in the pejorative sense, only really applied when it comes at no cost to the signaler. That’s not the case here as it has come at enormous personal (possibly life changing) cost to her. 

2
 Luke90 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Tyler:

> I thought virtue signalling, in the pejorative sense, only really applied when it comes at no cost to the signaler. That’s not the case here as it has come at enormous personal (possibly life changing) cost to her. 

In practice, of course, 'virtue signalling' now refers to any action at all...

  • In support of a cause that the person using the term disapproves of (particularly if they can't think of any real solid arguments against the cause or the action other than just not liking it)
  • That makes the person using it feel bad because they know they should probably be doing more too

Perhaps used most emphatically when both are simultaneously true.

1
 Rob Parsons 27 Jan 2023
In reply to DaveHK:

>... this will be about as popular as cock flavoured lollipops ...

I quite like those.

Removed User 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Tyler:

She's even more of an idiot then.

32
 FactorXXX 28 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

> are you commenting about yourself, or do you have some sixth sense seeing into other peoples minds?

Does that mean that you won't be going to Sardinia again like you did less than six months ago?

2
 DaveHK 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Removed User:

> She's even more of an idiot then.

A young woman stands up for her beliefs on the biggest issue facing humanity and this is your response. Depressing.

1
 Ciro 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Removed User:

> Pointless virtue signalling.

I'm curious as to what other efforts to cut personal environmental impact you might find pointless virtue signaling?

Reduce/Re-use/Recycle?

Improving your home insulation?

Switching to a green energy supplier?

Buying an electric car?

Changing jobs/moving home to reduce commute?

Buying local to reduce food miles?

Cutting meat out of your diet?

Choosing which businesses to spend your money with based on ethical and environmental credentials?

It seems to me that if we all did these things, along with not taking unnecessary flights, the world could be a significantly better place to live in 50 for our children and grandchildren than the current projections...

1
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Ciro:

While there are a lot of things on that list they everyone should be doing, I disagree that they will have any effect on climate change. Let me explain. It is clear to me that nothing can change without a concerted, multinational shift of the rules around industry, and massive immediate investment to green forms of energy. We're talking mid-20th century/space race levels of spending. This action can only be taken at the government level.

I am afraid that changes to individual citizen's lifestyles are an easy target for governments to CLAIM to be doing stuff without actually taking any real action that will have any effect whatsoever on climate change. In other words, they will result in big reduction of living standards to reduce emissions by a couple of percent that will almost certainly be overtaken by industry releasing /more/ CO2 into the atmosphere in some greenwashing offsetting scheme.

Let's take the example at hand on this thread. Imagine if everyone stopped flying to help fight climate change. How much reduction of emissions would there by if civil aviation ceased to be a thing? The whole of the aviation industry, including freight, emits 2-2.5%, so we're looking at a reduction of 1% or so. Will that change anything? No. Will it remove considerable freedom from citizens? Yes. Will it be used by governments as an example of the massive sacrifice others have to do and not make the hard decisions to shift the economy? Also yes.

At the moment, the powers that be have been extremely successful in vilifying the green movement and planting the seed that climate change and more issues with the environment are a hoax. People WANT to believe they are a hoax, so that's pretty easy to do. While this is the case and while misinformation is allowed to flow so freely I doubt anything can happen in western nations long term. Sure, one government could start the long process but then some other demagogue will be voted in and reverse all progress. We're seeing this already when it comes to social progress, LGBT rights etc. We saw it happen with the response to COVID. 

Innes FitzGerald'a stunt will be preaching to the choir for one side of the argument, and virtue signalling for the other side of the argument. It's a person sacrificing their career to unfortunately not achieve very much.

We're doomed.

9
 George Allan 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

If you say 'we're doomed', we will be doomed- that's a philosophy of despair.

It's not either individuals acting or governments/business acting- it's both. The former can push the latter (i.e. China and covid but that's perhaps an alarming example--).

Also, it not true that nothing is happening- lots of things are happening, it's the pace at which they are happening which needs to accelerate rapidly.

 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to George Allan:

I think you are vastly underestimating the fragility of current action in the current political climate, that is what is making me pessimistic. Chances are that the next US president will be a republican climate change denier. How well do you reckon that will go with regards to action for climate change?

There has been so much dissent sown that any progress can be undone at the drop of a hat, can you remember any other time where society was THIS split down the middle on pretty much everything?

 twoshoes 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

A government or business is more likely to make changes if they believe there's something in it for them, be that financial gain, winning votes, whatever. If they believe society will back them/spend money with them they are more likely to act. Or even just be pressured into acting. 

If we all sit on our hands and wait for these things to magically happen, they won't.

The only other way a government or business changes is through the actions of an individual in that government or organisation. And the more people in society change their behaviour, the more people follow them and then the more likely these individuals are to be inspired to act. 

In other words, individual actions do matter.

Post edited at 11:39
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to twoshoes:

Same response that I gave to George. There is currently so much dissent, so much division, that any government can just use the fact that they have about 50% of the voting population behind them, one way or the other. You can have 50% of the population trying to make a change and the other 50% trying to undo said change. 

It will take a true catastrophe for reality to dawn, and even then people hate admitting being wrong so will claim there was nothing that could have been done or it was natural phenomena.

People didn't change their minds after over a two hundred thousand people were lost to COVID, they instead question whether it really happened, what exactly gives you optimism?

Post edited at 11:56
 twoshoes 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

It's not optimism as such, more that governments and business very rarely, if ever, act without incentive or pressure. Fifty per cent or a businesses customers changing their habits is a lot. Fifty per cent of a voting population is more likely to be noticed than five per cent.

The argument that individuals actions make no difference and that it's down to governments is ultimately true, but usually seems to be trotted out by people trying to justify their own inaction. 

Post edited at 12:10
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to twoshoes:

> Fifty per cent of a voting population is more likely to be noticed than five per cent.

One word: Brexit.

> The argument that individuals actions make no difference and that it's down to governments is ultimately true, but only ever seems to be used by people trying to justify their own inaction.

That sentence conveys a lot of cognitive dissonance. 

1
 twoshoes 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

You're right, I phrased that badly. The actions of businesses and governments are needed, but that doesn't mean that individual action is not worthwhile. And the fact that the argument is frequently made by those who don't want to act themselves still stands.

Post edited at 12:24
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to twoshoes:

The problem is that individual action that is going to make a big difference, at the scale where it is going to make a difference, (and on that I mainly count things like home insulation, efficient heating systems at home, etc.) can currently only be done via legislation, otherwise the economies of scale to make it affordable are just not there.

Yes, it goes without saying that reusing and recycling is something everyone should be doing at all times, and people can reduce meat consumption (for example I ate pretty much no meat for the whole of November and most of December), and can buy things like veg locally but beyond that it, the things people can do to make a difference very rapidly become unaffordable, or involve degradation of already quite stretched quality of life.

Take a young person on the minimum wage for example. Are they going to be able to improve insulation on their dwelling? No, they will be asked(/forced by the price of gas) to keep their thermostat at 14C. Are they going to be able to buy an electric car? No, they will be asked to add a couple of hours of underfunded, underdeveloped, and overexpensive public transport to their 10 hour shifts. Are they going to be able to purchase from companies that are ethical? No. Are they going to be able to reduce their food miles? Also no. Plus, these last points keep the profit in the pockets of companies that will do their utmost to keep the status quo. Sure, they could avoid flying to Spain once a year to escape their misery for a week at an affordable price, that will make such a huge difference (not).

The demographic where the economics works out like that has been getting older and older over time. It's not just young people on entry level jobs.

There are two things that can improve the situation: Voting, and changing people's minds so that they change their voting too. With division being how it is right now, I don't think that's possible without a full on catastrophe, things will have to crash and burn before they get better, and that doesn't just apply to climate change either.

 twoshoes 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make.

Post edited at 13:32
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to twoshoes:

I suspect I'm too jaded and dispirited to get your point.

Edit: I did get to read your full message that you removed, the explanation is much appreciated. Unfortunately that's specifically what I currently lack the optimism to see working without something going horrifically wrong first.

Post edited at 13:52
OP mutt 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/28/flybe-all-flight-cancelled...

So if there was any real doubt that withdrawing your custom from an airline had any real impact here is some evidence that an underutilized service does eventually stop the environmental damage. 

In the shorter term of course, whilst airline are forced to use or loose their slot then every empty seat makes a difference. prices rise and more seats lie empty.

This is the power over individual action. The end of a short haul operator. Sad for the workers but great for anyone who objects to airport expansion or objects to easy cheap flights.

1
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

And what difference is this going to make to climate change? As I cited above, the entirety of the aviation industry is 2-2.5% of CO2, including freight. If all short haul aviation stopped, how much of that would it be? The giant polluters will find a nice gap in carbon "accounting" to fill and claim they are now greener while polluting more.

6
OP mutt 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

I don't dispute that but progress is measured in fractions of percentage points. Human nature I suppose to look for one big answer but success is measured in every windmill, every photovoltaic panel, every journey taken on bicycle and in this case every holiday taken locally. Every now and again something big happens like an airline going bust but that is not the norm. 

1
 Ciro 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> While there are a lot of things on that list they everyone should be doing, I disagree that they will have any effect on climate change. Let me explain. It is clear to me that nothing can change without a concerted, multinational shift of the rules around industry, and massive immediate investment to green forms of energy. We're talking mid-20th century/space race levels of spending. This action can only be taken at the government level.

To save the planet we need both the concerted  multinational shift of rules *and* the shift in personal behavior.

We can't aim to be the solution, but we can aim to be a part of it.

One thing that personal action can do is raise awareness and build the community consensus that we will need, if we want to see the people vote for the big changes that are required at international governance level.

> Let's take the example at hand on this thread. Imagine if everyone stopped flying to help fight climate change. How much reduction of emissions would there by if civil aviation ceased to be a thing? The whole of the aviation industry, including freight, emits 2-2.5%, so we're looking at a reduction of 1% or so. Will that change anything? No.

On its own, 1% won't change anything, no. But if we do that and find another 49 ways to save that same 1% we have halved the problem.

There is no magic bullet for this, saving the planet (or at least keeping it habitable for our grandchildren) requires lots of cumulative action... Towards that goal any individual step which could cut a whole percentage point of carbon emissions is huge!

 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Ciro:

> One thing that personal action can do is raise awareness and build the community consensus that we will need, if we want to see the people vote for the big changes that are required at international governance level.

Yeah, this is the bit I have problems with, in the current political climate I just don't see that working. The people that are likely to take notice are the same people that already know, and care, and vote in the appropriate way.

How do you think this will be framed by the Sun, the Express, the Daily Mail, GBNews, the 55 Tufton Street lot etc. and how do you see their readers taking it? Until that rancid influence wanes I don't see us going anywhere good, and I can't see it waning without a catastrophe. In all fact we had a catastrophe that should have killed them off and it seems to have solidified division along the same fault lines even more. These people are actively arguing for more gas, more coal, dropping of all green levies, dropping of all funding of green projects, and they have the numbers to be disruptive. Things are fragile, could win an election and get the ball rolling only for some maniac to win the next election and undo everything.

> On its own, 1% won't change anything, no. But if we do that and find another 49 ways to save that same 1% we have halved the problem.

But it's never going to be 1%. Civil aviation is not going to cease to exist altogether and shouldn't cease to exist altogether, that would be a massive loss. We live in a highly interconnected world, that genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

 Ciro 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> Yeah, this is the bit I have problems with, in the current political climate I just don't see that working. The people that are likely to take notice are the same people that already know, and care, and vote in the appropriate way.

> How do you think this will be framed by the Sun, the Express, the Daily Mail, GBNews, the 55 Tufton Street lot etc. and how do you see their readers taking it? Until that rancid influence wanes I don't see us going anywhere good, and I can't see it waning without a catastrophe. In all fact we had a catastrophe that should have killed them off and it seems to have solidified division along the same fault lines even more. These people are actively arguing for more gas, more coal, dropping of all green levies, dropping of all funding of green projects, and they have the numbers to be disruptive. Things are fragile, could win an election and get the ball rolling only for some maniac to win the next election and undo everything.

The same could be said about pretty much every important change in society until it happened.

How do you think abolition of slavery was framed? The various stages of democracy that got us to one person one vote?

Progress will always be a drawn out battle between those who want to change for b the better and those who want to profit from the status quo. 

When you decide those who want to profit from the status quo can't be beaten, they win.

> But it's never going to be 1%. Civil aviation is not going to cease to exist altogether and shouldn't cease to exist altogether, that would be a massive loss. We live in a highly interconnected world, that genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

It'd be a small loss. The planet becoming uninhabitable would be a massive loss.

1
 Alkis 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Ciro:

> The same could be said about pretty much every important change in society until it happened.

You are not wrong, but until now change has always brought progress. In the past few years we've started to see a serious push back and regression. See: Roe vs Wade, culture wars, etc. Social media has been weaponised and that's something that was not there back then.

I don't really know how to regain something resembling optimism about the world. I have totally lost mine.

> When you decide those who want to profit from the status quo can't be beaten, they win.

Oh, I don't think it can't be beaten, I think that things will have to get much worse for it to be beaten. I have the same view about Brexit: It is impossible to convince people it was a stupid idea, so all there is to do now is to make sure to still there to slap them with an "I told you so" and pick up the pieces. My worry is that with climate change "much worse" might be past the point of no return.

> It'd be a small loss.

I hugely disagree. Insularism, which would be the inevitable result, has never done any good anywhere. 

Post edited at 22:01
 Forest Dump 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

In a globalised world with shared Internet, media and popular culture and zoom calls up to our eyeballs how much of our interconnected society is attributable to a tiny minority of frequent flyers?

1
 Ridge 28 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> >... this will be about as popular as cock flavoured lollipops ...

> I quite like those.

I think there's definitely a market there. 

OP mutt 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

I wonder whether your friendship group is perhaps quite elderly? you are expressing a defeatist and rather negative view of the world. What I see is that more and more of the younger and adult and even middle aged people are getting on board with our new world. Those who can are installing solar power and electric heating. many are WFH. and many more people are introducing meat free foods into their diet. This is actually whats happening but I am aware that the older generation are very stuck having worked hard through to retirement only to be told that they can't spend their bountiful final salary pensions on what they thought the could (cruises and international air travel). That is going to be a hard message to hear.

The denial you are expressing is however a positive indicator. Denial is a natural stage of grief, and Kubler Ross shows that accepting change is very much a grieving process. The next step is bargaining - are you doing that? I'm not trying to patronize you but I hope that soon you will be through 5 stages of grief and will have come to accept. 

If you find you are stuck then you might find if helpful to see a grief counsellor. 

https://www.change-management-coach.com/kubler-ross.html

Post edited at 12:54
11
 Alkis 29 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

> I'm not trying to patronize you

🤣🤣🤣🤣

How you could have written this response while having that sentence in it is absolutely incredible.

Negative view of the world? Yes, have you looked around for one bloody second? In the past 7 years, I've had my status in a country I've spent my entire adult life come into question by the right, I've had pushback against my rights as an LGBT person, I've had the purchasing power of my income plummet because of the policies brought in by the same people that have done all of the above things, and now they are pushing *quite successfully* against climate action, so EXCUSE ME if I can't see how positive everything is and how it will all be alright: It won't be. Until people get FULL ON BURNT they are going to be happy with the status quo. Hopefully there will still be something left to salvage at that point.

No, neither myself nor my peer group are elderly. Instead I am of the generation that can't afford the EVs and solar panels that you are touting because of how much of their income house prices have taken. I'd love to put panels on, wanna pay for them? 

Edit: Let's just say that this is a very toned down version of my response, as your message is frankly insulting as all f***.

Post edited at 16:55
3
 Rob Parsons 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> ... I've had pushback against my rights as an LGBT person ...

What pushback against those rights have you had?

 Alkis 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I don't know if you have been paying much attention but there is a massive increase in homophobia lately, pushed by the Tufton Street lot in the U.K. and generally swallowed by the Brexiteer movement. This kind of pushback can easily result in the "wrong" kind of government (ie. another bunch of populists) reversing hard earned progress. It is happening over in the US, there are currently 184 bills attacking LGBT rights in flight. Some of them won't pass. Some of them will.

Edit: It's scary. Before Brexit I would have told you there is no chance such seemingly extreme and niche positions would ever do much damage. I was wrong. 

Post edited at 17:20
3
 Rob Parsons 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> I don't know if you have been paying much attention ...

I was just asking you a straight question regarding your claim that "In the past 7 years ... I've had pushback against my rights as an LGBT." You can choose to answer that, or not.

4
 Alkis 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I have answered! Right wing media and their followers have increasingly openly started fighting back as part of the culture wars. Nothing has changed yet, but if they are allowed to get their way like they did with Brexit things can get scary. Unimaginable, yes? Well, a lot of things were unimaginable before 2016.

Edit: We have just had a prime minister who referred to gay people as "tank-topped bum boys" for crying out loud.

Post edited at 17:56
4
 Nic Barber 30 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt:

I've skipped through many of the above posts as not enough time, so this may have already been covered, in terms of travelling to closer races (UK, England)

Several UK athletes who race in Europe over the summer (mainly on the Sky running scene) have the luxury of taking a good chunk of time (2-6 weeks, say), so they can take a longer method of travel out there (e.g. train) and hit a few decent races in their trip before heading back.

I know that Finlay Wild (Fort William based) won the British Fell Running Championships last year with minimal carbon outlay, often train and biking and throwing his tent up. For example, at Buckden Pike he trained down to Oxenholme, then cycled to Kettlewell way, tent up, next morning breaks a 30+ year old Colin Donnelly record many thought unlikely to be challenged, cycles back to Oxenhome and back on the train. Of course he has the ability to work a locum job so he can pick and chose his work around his sporting requirements/decisions.

Of course this is unlikely to be feasible to Innes for the recent European XC championships - as she's school age, I imagine getting more than a couple of days off school to allow for the extra travel requirements, let alone a couple of days to recover pre-race, would be difficult.

It does seem to come down to life choice * ability to make that decision (from a social/economical perspective)

OP mutt 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> Negative view of the world?  EXCUSE ME if I can't see how positive everything is and how it will all be alright: It won't be. Until people get FULL ON BURNT

> Edit: Let's just say that this is a very toned down version of my response, as your message is frankly insulting as all f***.

Well excuse me for suggesting that you might be experience some mental anguish. Grief is an entirely normal response to the loss of our liberties and our familiar environment. 

Your first post ended 'we are all doomed' didn't it? To me that sounds like you are depressed as well.

Have I understood your posts correctly, aren't you arguing that all action is hopeless? Perhaps you are just an angry man.

3
 Rob Parsons 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> I have answered!

Your answers and arguments might get more attention if you didn't preface them with opening remarks like 'I don't know if you have been paying much attention', and finish them with remarks like 'for crying out loud.' When people hector me, I ignore them.

There is another poster here who can't resist openers like 'Nonsense!', or 'Why on earth ....', etc. It's a very tedious way of dealing with other people and, since I don't need the grief, I just generally ignore any such posts.

 Alkis 31 Jan 2023

Hi everyone.

I would like to apologise. I should not be taking part in threads like this while I'm feeling this bleak. It's not fair on the rest of you when I can't the positives in anything and lash out.

 Rob Parsons 31 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

Thanks, and no worries. Take it easy.

 Robert Durran 31 Jan 2023
In reply to mutt: 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/28/flybe-all-flight-cancelled...

> This is the power over individual action. The end of a short haul operator. Sad for the workers but great for anyone who objects to airport expansion or objects to easy cheap flights.

Except that I hear their staff are being snapped up by Easyjet and Ryanair and I keep reading about their expansion with new routes. Seems more like they were outcompeted than people choosing not to fly.

Post edited at 09:54
 Robert Durran 31 Jan 2023
In reply to Alkis:

> I would like to apologise. I should not be taking part in threads like this while I'm feeling this bleak. It's not fair on the rest of you when I can't the positives in anything and lash out.

I think your bleak outlook is a perfectly reasonable part of the debate. Best not to lash out, but some of the responses have been pretty provocatively patronising.

1
In reply to Alkis:

Feeling bleak about the state of the world is a reasonable response; you aren't alone in that. I think it's less a case of seeing the positives and more about damage limitation at this point. I don't think anyone is saying that the unfolding climate disaster should be framed as a positive.

Personally, and I think for a lot of other people, doing something (however small) can also be framed as an act of self-care though. Overwhelming and seemingly intractable problems start to feel a little less overwhelming when I've taken a step in the right direction (even if that step is comically minute). Even if you are right and we are doomed either way, then I want to face that reality with as much resilience and as little unnecessary suffering as I possibly can. For me, part of that is trying my best to behave in line with what I value and believe to be right, and knowing that I did all I could, even if it does turn out to be futile.

(Edit: I'm hoping that doesn't come across as patronising or trite. It is intended with sincerity and compassion.)

Post edited at 10:03

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...