dantheman
Bah humbug
But isn't one of the problems that the gases are being released right where they can do the most damage- ie the upper atmosphere?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Birdwatchers' world record bid (BBC News) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BF Newsroom
- Start date
But isn't one of the problems that the gases are being released right where they can do the most damage- ie the upper atmosphere?
dantheman
Bah humbug
When I looked at the website (looking impressive btw) I didn't notice an itinery anywhere- is this because it's top secret? Or they haven't decided yet?
If they are going for 4000 species, a lot of the travelling is going to have to be between neighbouring countries, which will minimise the long haul flight component. A year's travelling is going to use up a lot of CO2 admittedly, but probably less than doing all those countries as separate trips. As long as when they do come back they live out the rest of their days in a straw bale house, plant trees all day long and bury their poo deep underground it might all equal out . . .
If they are going for 4000 species, a lot of the travelling is going to have to be between neighbouring countries, which will minimise the long haul flight component. A year's travelling is going to use up a lot of CO2 admittedly, but probably less than doing all those countries as separate trips. As long as when they do come back they live out the rest of their days in a straw bale house, plant trees all day long and bury their poo deep underground it might all equal out . . .
Twite
Well-known member
This is not what birding is about http://www.tropicalbirding.com/littletwitch/INDEX.HTM (Thanks to Harold for the link.) Ticking birds heard, do people really do that? Can't figure leaving South America in the first place. Would it not be possible to equal what they achieved there?
Twite.
Twite.
rob stoff
Well-known member
planes have a cooling effect on the earth's climate via global dimming, not ideal of course but take away planes and the temperature will rise very suddenly as it did after the September 11th attacks on New york:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
climate, and anthropogenic influences on it, are rather complex!
Rob
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
And aviation seems to get the biggest hammering, yet at the moment it puts out a meagre 1.6% of all emissions. I see no one having a go at shipping ot power generation or agriculture, all of which have a bigger impact.
The biggest culprit is the destruction of forests - why don't the anti-aviation lot spend their time more usefully campaigning aganst that?
MSA
I may be relaxed but I'm not drunk....
Personally, I believe that the CO2 emissions are a price worth paying if enough people visit the rain forests or wherever and make it more economically viable for the locals to embrace tourism rather than destroy the habitat being visited. At the current rate of destruction, there's going to be precious few places worth visiting long before global warming does any significant damage. Anything that makes the ignorant majority of the planet realise there's something worth saving has got to be a good thing, surely?
The Raptor
Bristol City's No.1 Fan!
The biggest culprit is the destruction of forests - why don't the anti-aviation lot spend their time more usefully campaigning aganst that?
Exactly.
ROD.
Exactly.
ROD.
James_Owen
Well-known member
I read on their diary that they expect to be passing through Gatwick/Stanstead several times, with trips to Ecuador, Finland, Brazil and Spain, among other destinations. Now considering a return flight from London to New York releases about 1.5 tonnes of carbon, while the average carbon footprint for a British resident is around 11 tonnes (perhaps about double what's globally sustainable), you have to imagine all the flights this couple are going to undertake, plus the hotels, taxis and car travel, it's going to add up to something quite sizeable.
On top of that, their diary tells of previous birding trips around the world, so big though their plans are for 2008, jetting around the world is hardly new to them.
Of course it's very easy to be holier than thou about all this, but on the other hand, when well-meaning 'conservationists' have a bad idea, it really ought to be pointed out to them.
To put is another way, raising funds and awareness for conservation project in Ecuador is one thing, but do you suppose the indigenous peoples of the Arctic are exactly going to be applauding rich people jetting all around the world on 'eco-holidays' while their homes are melting from underneath them, particularly as we're all well aware now that needless air travel has an expanding influence on the plight of the Arctic? Who knows, maybe they will.
Ultimately, this is an example the typical Western conservationists disease, that notion we can do whatever we wish, choose luxuriant lifestyles that we know aren't sustainable and which do damage to the planet, we can do it all with impunity, so long as we mean well and have membership of the National Trust or RSPB or whoever else. A disease, I might add, which frankly, I'm something of a sufferer of myself.
James_Owen
Well-known member
I'm going slightly off topic here, but I don't see it this way at all.
For me, Eco-tourism is an excuse for foreign holidays, and just isn't going to contribute anywhere near enough to preserve enormous habitats like rainforests. At best, it'll pay for pockets of trees, and we'll end up with reserves like in Britain, islands of biodiversity that aren't sustainable and actually add very little to our natural environment, and which will ultimately be imperilled by climate change.
We must begin thinking is that we need the rainforests, not because they are pretty, with strange enigmatic creatures we want to go see it, but because they are vital to making Earth so very habitable for us. It's governments, we really must begin paying megabucks to encourage countries to protect their rainforests as the life-preserving resource they are.
I can understand the desire to go see all those birds, but until we figure out a sustainable way for all of us to go watch them, we really ought to consider that it's enough for us to know they are out there, but more than that, that they are out there and valued and that we are doing the right things to keep them there.
That's got to be the aim.
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
I won't disguise the fact I love travelling (and don't see why I should disguise the fact either, nor will I give up travel - I make concessions elsewhere) but there are many places I won't see due to cost and logistics but I am happy knowing the birds (and other fauna and flora) are there. But that isn't enough to preserve it because if local people can't see the value of habitat and the creatures therein, they are going to use it for something else - usually agriculture.
As for paying megabucks to other countries for conservation, Indonesia has agreed to preserve rainforest, as long as it's compensated for doing so. It's a cost worth paying, even if it does sound like blackmail. But, what's to prevent a country from reneging on the deal?
As for 'jetting all over the world', it has been pointed out on here that aviation accounts for a very small percentage of CO2 emissions (even accounting for the fact it is high-altitude emissions), so why can't the anti-travel lobby accept that instead of bashing it all the time? Is it because there's envy involved? Or is it because aviation and travel is an easy target? What about having a go at people for having loads of kids? That's pretty environmentally damaging considering there's 6 billion people on the planet and that figure is rising.
Edward woodwood
Member
Everyone knows rainforests need protecting
but a few middle class people staying at home won't change anything
the birds are still disappearing, the forests are still disappearing. Eco-tourism is a bit vain at times but it has helped to save Gurney's Pitta in Thailand and numerous other species. Without birders travelling there'd be no OBC, ABC, NBC and you wouldn't even know about half the endangered birds of the world - many of which have been rediscovered by UK birders birding overseas. I got into conservation seriously through travelling. If i'd stayed in Derbyshire watching birdless reservoirs I wouldn't have done half the things I have for conservation - and my birding and non-birding life would have been desparately empty and boring.
It does help - see the lodges in the Peruvian Amazon or Ecuador etc. The region of India I visited in spring is being helped through the cash of visiting birders to protect the newly discovered Bugun Liocichla. Without this cash these areas would be cut and trashed as soon as.
At the end of the day, in an entriely selfish manner, it would be sad not to see some of these wonderful things for yourself too. You won't cause the destruction of the planet by seeing something breathtaking. It's the idle Sun-reading idiots of the world you want to focus on. Or the birders who aren't aware - those who would refuse to buy a raffle ticket to help OBC because they'd 'never see a Gurney's Pitta' so why should they?
but a few middle class people staying at home won't change anything
the birds are still disappearing, the forests are still disappearing. Eco-tourism is a bit vain at times but it has helped to save Gurney's Pitta in Thailand and numerous other species. Without birders travelling there'd be no OBC, ABC, NBC and you wouldn't even know about half the endangered birds of the world - many of which have been rediscovered by UK birders birding overseas. I got into conservation seriously through travelling. If i'd stayed in Derbyshire watching birdless reservoirs I wouldn't have done half the things I have for conservation - and my birding and non-birding life would have been desparately empty and boring.
It does help - see the lodges in the Peruvian Amazon or Ecuador etc. The region of India I visited in spring is being helped through the cash of visiting birders to protect the newly discovered Bugun Liocichla. Without this cash these areas would be cut and trashed as soon as.
At the end of the day, in an entriely selfish manner, it would be sad not to see some of these wonderful things for yourself too. You won't cause the destruction of the planet by seeing something breathtaking. It's the idle Sun-reading idiots of the world you want to focus on. Or the birders who aren't aware - those who would refuse to buy a raffle ticket to help OBC because they'd 'never see a Gurney's Pitta' so why should they?
Gill Osborne
Well-known member
Too damned right - it's amazing the amount of birders I've met who will not fork out even a few coppers for a deserving charity yet will spend hundreds/thousands on their optics! :C
:t: Amazing how few folks will admit to this! Or they WILL say it's a problem yet quite happily churn out their own bunch of sprogs, thinking it doesn't apply to them.
I decided there were too many humans causing too much damage when I was 10 years old and I haven't changed my mind yet or regretted it either! My husband's weding present to me was a vasectomy...and that's only because my patronising doctor wouldn't 'do' me because, as he always insisted, ''you'll change your mind'' :C I'm 40 in March......somehow I don't think my body clock is gonna start ticking any time soon
:-O I hope this couple have a fabulous time and I look forward to reading up on their exploits and what they are seeing :t: I'd do the same if I had a house to sell
Looks like I'll just have to wait for those elusive six numbers to pop up.......or keep on working!!!!As to when this couple get back after their Big Year........they do what other folks who are starting over again do! They get a job and rent!!! You don't NEED a mortgage and material things in life to 'be a success' or have meaning in your life. If i had the choice between a mortgage (which tends to leave nowt left for fun in this day & age!) or a once-in-a-lifetime holiday I'd choose the holiday everytime!!! You can buy a brick but you can't buy memories!
Last edited:
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
MSA
I may be relaxed but I'm not drunk....
I agree with all this, James, but only in an ideological way. My fear is that whilst we are "aiming", the target will disappear. The richest habitats are in the poorest countries, whose inhabitants aspire to our lifestyle, and the only way we're going to save anything is to chuck money at them, in some shape or form, to convince them that conservation's the best way forward.
James_Owen
Well-known member
To some degree I'm quite certain it's envy, equally I'm sure it's the exasperation of moderating one's own behaviour only to hear stories of what others saw by not giving two hoots about their carbon emissions. A little of column A and B, I'd say.
As far aviation being an easy target goes, I'm sorry but that really does come straight out of the crazy page of the Daily Mail. It may be glib to put it this way, but when you effectively spend maybe 8 hours emitting a quarter of what your ideal annual carbon footprint really ought to be, perhaps it's time to consider whether you're making the right choice there. If that makes some folks feel guilty or defensive, well, good.
Because every green measure, every conservation effort and all the little economies we could make in our daily lives, may look insignificant if we choose look at the big picture. On the other hand, if we view that big picture as millions of little choices made by people just like us, that's how we can come to understand why it's our own choices that are so important.
While I'm grandstanding, I'll say just one more thing on this topic.
We all have the choice to attempt to live in a way that is sustainable, that will leave the planet in a better or worse state for the generations who follow us. What I can't understand, is that we'd idly choose the latter because it's what suits us, or because it's what we'd enjoy doing the most.
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
But if they're so interested in the rainforests, rather than the pointless exercise of ticks on a list, why not sell everything and just give it to the rainforests? Drop the trip, and the charity gets the money (arguably more than they'll raise in this exercise, seeing as the trip wont have to be financed) and the carbon footprint is zilch.
A bit fatuous, yes, but then let's stop pretending this is about rainforests. It's about a holiday and lots of ticking. Fair enough, there's no law against it. But in this day and age is it is more than a tad hypocritical.
So there are 500 people on this flight, so the return flight is using 0.003 of a tonne of carbon per head.
So.. in a year, if you flew everyday you'd use 365 x 0.003 tonnes of carbon = 1.095 tonnes.
Compared to the average of 11 tonnes per UK citizen?
Am I missing something here!
antshrike69
Well-known member
I've been reading this thread with interest and it has finally persuaded me to log in and post!
Describing foreign travel as the 'pointless exercise of ticks on a list' is a little loaded to say the least. I'm a world birder, and get enormous pleasure out of seeing new species whatever they may be. I do not see birds as ticks on a list, anymore than most British birders birding their local areas. Just because you count your tally does not automatically mean that this is the only important result of your birding.
Unfortunately, world birding does involve aviation miles and I do worry about the carbon foot-print implications of this. Like many, I am very careful elsewhere in my impact on the environment. I recycle; I have turned my garden from 1/3 acre of grass into a rich wildlife habitat full of native trees and shrubs and 70 species to date. I am a member of OBC, OBC, ABC, RSPB etc etc. Perhaps most fundamentally, like Gill I have made an active decision not to breed and add to the problem of overpopulation.
Anyone who has travelled in the tropics, in particular, will know the value of ecotourism. There are many pockets of habitat in areas like Mindo, which simply would not be there if it were not for visiting birders. Although sometimes small, these areas are vital for biodiversity of lots of other species too. I simply do not agree with James that such areas are automatically unsustainable.
It is also easy to underestimate the role of visiting birders in showing local people what fantastic species they have on their doorstep. Often, people have no idea that the bird you have come to see exists nowhere else in the world. I have seen many examples of direct benefits in terms of local awareness, leading to protection of habitat on private land, hummingbird feeders, nest boxes etc etc. This can only be a good thing.
Must stop rambling! I could go on about the benefits of birders on the ground in areas which are poorly known as well. It is startling how little is known about even widespread common tropical species.
Describing foreign travel as the 'pointless exercise of ticks on a list' is a little loaded to say the least. I'm a world birder, and get enormous pleasure out of seeing new species whatever they may be. I do not see birds as ticks on a list, anymore than most British birders birding their local areas. Just because you count your tally does not automatically mean that this is the only important result of your birding.
Unfortunately, world birding does involve aviation miles and I do worry about the carbon foot-print implications of this. Like many, I am very careful elsewhere in my impact on the environment. I recycle; I have turned my garden from 1/3 acre of grass into a rich wildlife habitat full of native trees and shrubs and 70 species to date. I am a member of OBC, OBC, ABC, RSPB etc etc. Perhaps most fundamentally, like Gill I have made an active decision not to breed and add to the problem of overpopulation.
Anyone who has travelled in the tropics, in particular, will know the value of ecotourism. There are many pockets of habitat in areas like Mindo, which simply would not be there if it were not for visiting birders. Although sometimes small, these areas are vital for biodiversity of lots of other species too. I simply do not agree with James that such areas are automatically unsustainable.
It is also easy to underestimate the role of visiting birders in showing local people what fantastic species they have on their doorstep. Often, people have no idea that the bird you have come to see exists nowhere else in the world. I have seen many examples of direct benefits in terms of local awareness, leading to protection of habitat on private land, hummingbird feeders, nest boxes etc etc. This can only be a good thing.
Must stop rambling! I could go on about the benefits of birders on the ground in areas which are poorly known as well. It is startling how little is known about even widespread common tropical species.
Last edited:
Gill Osborne
Well-known member
Well said JNewman :clap: And welcome to BF :t:
If and when I do get the chance to go abroad (I don't even possess a passport yet!) I fully intend to visit these kind of sites and I WILL be making sure the locals know why I'm there and why I'm happy to spend my hard-earned cash there.
If and when I do get the chance to go abroad (I don't even possess a passport yet!) I fully intend to visit these kind of sites and I WILL be making sure the locals know why I'm there and why I'm happy to spend my hard-earned cash there.
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Amen to that, JNewman! Well said. And hello, by the way. :t:
Personally speaking, while yes I have flown three times in two years (and I am not going to apologise for it nor justify my actions to anyone) I do moderate my impact in other departments (recycling, reducing energy consumption, not driving as much, not having children, etc). Travelling isn't merely about ticking birds on a list (yeah, sure I have a list but it's a small part of a bigger experience) it's about living life more fully. Also, while I was abroad I made sure I visited reserves and donated money to their cause.
Ok, I have no plans to go anywhere in 2008, but that's more down to the fact that I am now unemployed and have no money!
What I can't understand, as I have already said, is why the anti-aviation campaigners such as 'Plane Stupid' have a one-item-agenda when it is just one part of a much, much bigger picture. As for the jibe about the 'crazy page' of the Daily Mail from James Owen, that's just insulting; I don't read the Daily Mail (or any other tabloid for that matter) but I do read other sources of news and information and aviation IS an easy target (but I daresay it'll be something else soon). If people really want to campaign against climate change, then make a fuss about deforestation, which does the most damage.
If we all stopped flying tomorrow, the rest of the human race's CO2 emissions will ensure that the climate problem will still continue. We need to cut back in all areas, while making use of the best and cleanest technology available, not just have a single target. Only then will progress be made.
By the way, flying: travelling with an airline with the newest fleet of planes helps. Modern planes have lower emissions than older ones.
Last edited:
Similar threads
