Flight Free UK

Can we get to overseas conferences without wrecking the planet? Two Oxford researchers share their eye-opening journey to a conference in Marrakesh by train and ferry instead of flying: https://lnkd.in/eiwEmtRF "Travel to global conferences is seen as one of the ‘perks of the job’, and it’s generally considered important for networking and disseminating our research. It can also be a sign of our professional status, it gets us out the office or lab to experience new places and keeps our interest fresh. "But… we know the climate crisis demands urgent action and that air travel is about the most carbon-intensive individual activity there is. So, can we square our love for being at important conferences, our mission to push the boundaries of knowledge in our field and progress our careers, with our desire to travel responsibly? "There is a way to get to conferences without damaging the planet. It may not always be the quickest, easiest, or cheapest option, but it comes with other benefits." Highlights:  - grabbing lunch under an orange tree in Malaga - the quirky Globales Reina Cristina hotel in Algeciras - an “exhilarating” taxi ride from the port to the railway station in Tangier Challenges: - Cost of tickets - Travel time - Time spent booking: Most university travel systems assume we fly and are not set up to facilitate international train travel, so piecing together the elements of a long journey relies on patient research. Read on for detail of the journey and how it worked on a practical level, more about the benefits and emissions savings, as well what needs to change to make this kind of travel more accessible to more people: https://lnkd.in/eiwEmtRF Thanks to Alison Chisholm and Juliet Carpenter for putting this together!

Don't let the industry fool you into thinking they've solved the emissions problem with SAF. So-called 'sustainable' aviation fuel, or SAF, is the industry's get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to aviation emissions. It's the easiest, most immediate 'fix': we switch one fuel for another, and don't need new planes or different infrastructure – we can just carry on flying as normal. The claim is that SAF reduces emissions by up to 80%. But delve underneath those claims, and it's not that simple. > around 30% of SAF comes from biofuels – a leading driver of deforestation and on balance, worse for emissions than kerosene > e-fuels could genuinely be zero-emissions, but only if made with renewable energy, and our renewables are more urgently needed in other areas, i.e. decarbonising the grid, or powering our road fleet > current SAF use is less than 1% The industry has repeatedly missed its targets to use SAF at a scale that might go some way towards putting aviation emissions on a downward trajectory. Why should we believe the current claims? Especially when the 'wrong' kind of SAF (biofuels, waste oil etc) makes up the largest proportion of non-fossil fuel currently. There's a brief explainer on our website about why SAF isn't the answer: https://buff.ly/4f5jHzO There's also this analysis by Transport & Environment about where SAF comes from and how much is being used: https://buff.ly/3VrRQTF You can also read this critique by Possible about how the industry has repeatedly missed targets for introducing more SAF: https://buff.ly/3ZrbMaB

"Greenland split over benefits of tourism as territory opens to the world" https://buff.ly/3D3jX5e The tourism debate rages on. On the one hand, tourism will bring welcome economic growth to Greenland. On the other hand, an influx of visitors and the infrastructure needed to support that (including two new airports) will damage the precious landscapes that they are coming to see. Greenland's glaciers are retreating year on year as the world warms up – caused in no small part by our increased emissions from things like flights. Is it really such a good idea to be encouraging high-carbon tourism, when the resulting emissions will destroy the very thing that makes Greenland special? The social impacts shouldn't be forgotten either, with the majority Inuit population voicing concerns about what increasing numbers of tourists would do to Greenland's pristine beauty. For some, it's a chance to see the glaciers before they disappear. Last-chance tourism feels in particularly bad taste. A local glamping guide says, "We need a reality check. Greenland is special. It is amazing. It is beautiful. But it's not the only amazing and beautiful place on the planet." Let's keep our planet amazing and beautiful by choosing to visit the places that don't require a flight. #FlightFree2024

If you like snow, do your bit to preserve it ❄️ In the last few years, the lack of snow has been noticeable at ski resorts. Some resorts are even considering focussing on summer activities instead of skiing because there's no guarantee that, come winter, there will be snow. What should we do about this? Should we stop skiing? Not necessarily. Did you know that 66% of the emissions from your ski trip come from the flight to get there? If we switch out the flight for another transport mode, we can significantly reduce our emissions, while still enjoying the benefits of a ski holiday, and preserving the snow for future generations. There are plenty of options: as well the dedicated Eurostar ski train, there's the Snow Express coach, and plenty of other train combinations. Even driving is better than flying (as long as there are at least two people in the car). Our website post 'How to ski flight free' gives you all the info you need for a flight-free ski holiday, as well as showing the emissions for different transport modes: https://buff.ly/3CzTWdv

🌟 Interrail sale on RIGHT NOW! 🌟 There's currently 25% off Interrail passes on the interrail.eu website. Interrail is a fantastic way to travel, giving you access to train travel in 33 countries across Europe, and buying a pass is a great way of keeping travel costs down. Passes are valid for 11 months from date of purchase, so you don't have to have travel plans right now – you can plan and book your journey at some point in the next 11 months. An adult 4-day pass is just £176 with the discount, which is an absolute bargain for rail travel in Europe! With four travel days, you could get all the way to the south of Spain, or France, or Italy and back. A 7-day pass could get you all the way to Greece. Some trains require a reservation which is extra – for example, the Eurostar is €32. But even with the seat reservation costs, it's an absolute steal for a rail holiday. See our guide for using Interrail on Instagram: https://lnkd.in/dYPRmTk7 or on our website: https://lnkd.in/da3m5QKP The sale is on until 17th December – grab it while you can! 🚄 🚄

Bristol Airport is planning to expand from 12 to 15 million passengers by 2035. The airport claims the expansion will create jobs and boost the local economy, but is that really the case? Economists like Alex Chapman have shown that promises of job creation by airports are overblown; and in any case, airports take out more money from an economy than they bring in, by virtue of encouraging people to leave and spend their money elsewhere. Then there is the personal picture of the harm done to local communities. More flights means more noise, more air pollution, and increased traffic congestion. Expansion destroys natural habitats and harms insect and bird populations, adding to the damage to the environment. Airports pretend that they cater for growing demand. But demand grows in response to expansion, not the other way around. It's like widening a motorway and being surprised to find that it's still congested. What can we do? Write to our MP, lobby the local council, respond to the consultation, join on-the-ground protests. But above all, don't fly. https://buff.ly/4fUw2Z1

Wouldn't it be great if we treated fossil fuel products in the same way we treat tobacco? If cigarette packets can carry warnings like "Smoking kills" to inform people of the risks, why can’t we do the same for flying? Aviation is a major contributor to an individual's carbon output, and yet its environmental harm goes largely unreported. Imagine if every airline ticket came with a message spelling out the reality of aviation's climate impact. Would it make us think differently about how we travel? Just as the tobacco industry once claimed smoking was harmless, the aviation sector plays down its impact on the environment, meaning that many people simply don't know the climate impact of their flights. We need to start questioning how blindly we accept flying, and work towards a future where the damage caused by flying is as widely understood as the risks of smoking.

Tune in to BBC One this evening for 'What Cheap Flight Really Mean for You' - a really important opportunity to explore the negative sides to aviation that many consumers simply don't know about or consider. Cait Hewitt, one of the contributors, sets out below what's needed to reduce aviation emissions (spoiler alert, it isn't carbon offsetting) 👇

Our end-of-year party is coming soon! Join us online on Monday 16th December to celebrate #FlightFree2024 and look forward to #FlightFree2025. We will have plenty of travel inspiration from our special guest speakers (including flight-free skiing, a girls' holiday in Ibiza, and a train/ferry adventure all the way up to the Arctic circle!), a musical interlude from Viola de Gamba player Sarah Small, and our legendary flight-free quiz. Register now for your free ticket! https://buff.ly/3CJVNMX

Great to read about UK businesses banning domestic flights for staff: https://buff.ly/3AYVbTi Removing the option to fly where there are low-carbon options available is key in changing the way we travel. And while our rail system isn't perfect, if more companies do this, it will help put pressure on government and industry to provide better services. "Imperial College London is believed to be the first university in the UK to have introduced such a ban, putting an end to domestic flights for its 8,000 staff members when there is a rail alternative that takes less than five hours. "Earlier this year, NHS England banned work flights within mainland Britain for its 1.5 million employees."