Quite Random

Sustainable

The etymology of the word POSH, at least the explanation that it was put on the doors of those who could afford a room in the shade on the voyage to the colonies and back (Port Out, Starboard Home), is unsubstantiated, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Nevertheless, it’s a plausible story. I mean I wasn’t there at the time, but I’ve watched Titanic. Rose’s fiance was well-to-do, so she travelled in a room the size of a tennis court. As Jack was as poor, he travelled in the rat-infested steerage section, with nothing but alcohol and toothless Irish women to keep him company. Comfortable travel was the preserve of the rich – but at least they had bitching parties in steerage.

In the last ten years, cheap air travel (pennies for tickets within Europe, or £75 to Hong Kong, less than it costs to take the train from Leeds to London at peak time) allows more people to reach destinations that were unaffordable for most of the last century, and even with Ryanair, in reasonable comfort. The world shrinks. I have taken advantage of this revolution in affordable travel – too poor to travel far for most of my life, I’ve been able to circumnavigate the globe on a ticket that cost less than a 1998 Ford Fiesta.

Now, it turns out that air travel is unsustainable. My flights so far have generated around ten tonnes of CO2 – while I wouldn’t take away the experiences I have had, I can’t undo the damage I’m responsible for, so the best I can do is bung fifty quid the way of a company which plants a few trees to soak up some of that CO2.

An alternative method of travel if you want to see places and not choke mother Earth? Go by land and sea. I’ve been germinating some ideas for my next trip, and I’d like one characteristic of it to be that my travel is as ‘sustainable’ as possible. So I’ve looked at the excellent and comprehensive resources provided by The Man in Seat 61 and other websites. But here’s the problem, as highlighted in this case study – it costs more to travel overland – quite a lot more. It takes longer – quite a lot longer. London to Bangkok by air costs £575 and one day. London to Bangkok overland costs £2,282 and 22 days. Going overland saves nearly a tonne of CO2 emissions, or two thirds of what you create by flying, and no doubt it’s an interesting experience, but unless you’re prepared to travel in the same level of comfort as Jack in steerage, it’s exorbitant for most people, both in terms of money and time. So overland travel seems to be indulgent but impractical, green but inaccessible.

So, should you even travel anywhere? I can’t say I deserve the right to travel and do all the things I want to do, and then tell anyone they can’t have a package holiday unless they tick enough ethical boxes. And I certainly can’t tell someone from a developing country that they can’t fly wherever they want and see whatever they want to see, just because they’re new to it and they haven’t offset their carbon emissions. Sustainability is something we’re all being told we should ‘do’, and yet sustainable travel is made extraordinarily difficult. Airlines could factor carbon offsetting costs in to their prices if they weren’t terrified of losing business by bumping up the price of a return to New York by a tenner, railways in the UK are overcrowded and overpriced, rural bus services are as common as rocking horse droppings, and it’s easier to buy a car than it is to fall off a log. If you want sustainable travel, you positively have to battle for it.

Affordable air travel seems at the moment like something that has a thirty year life span, if that. It can’t always be this cheap, fuel is finite, and those who argue that climate change is not our fault are dwindling in numbers in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And all the time, sustainability is a buzzword that seems to mean less and less unless you have the time and money. So sustainable travel becomes POSH.