As regular readers will know I like to take my holidays without the use of an aeroplane. This is a somewhat recent occurrence. In December 2007 I flew to Amsterdam for a friend's 30th birthday having never properly considered the impact of flying (I know, late to the party). It was while we were there that another friend, who had also flown, said they were surprised that I had chosen to travel by plane. Apart from getting to france by ferry or chunnel I hadn't even considered the possibility you could get on holiday by anything other than a plane (d'oh! I would like to add thought that despite this I have not flown many times as a consenting adult). I was mortified to discover that we could have travelled to amsterdam by ferry or train for less money and only slightly more time than a plane.
Since them I have taken 2 holidays by ferry/chunnel and car to france, one holiday by train to russia, mongolia and china, and then on by ferry to japan, and one this year to brussels and amsterdam by train. This year I will be travelling to the south of france by train.
I am now starting to daydream about future holidays. I may have a baby by next summer so who knows how far in the future I am dreaming! My most desired holiday destination at present would be somewhere in southern africa, botswana probably. I have found a fantastic overland tour of south africa, botswana and zambi, starting and ending in johannesburg. I would love to do this, but how to get to Jo'burg? Freight ship appears to be the answer, but as the journey takes 30 days I am not likely to be having this particular holiday anytime soon.
I started to read more about travelling as a fare-paying passenger on a cargo ship. It sounds most adventurous! So, the next trip I have planned is in South America... Freight ship to mexico via new orleans and the bahamas! Once in South America I would like to see mexico, peru and chile (and visit my friend in Bolivia). But as the freight ship alone takes 22 days again, I don't think I'll be doing that for some time.
So maybe north africa then? Morocco is on a serious list of a holiday that I hopefully really will do in the near future. You can get to morocco via train and ferry with a day in Madrid along the way, in only 48 hours.
However I have just found this great Egypt to Istanbul journey that I think I would like to take. You can get to egypt by eurostar to paris, and then train to venice, then ferry to cairo, arriving in cairo on day 3 (you can make the journey overland which sounds very exciting, but does involve a 19 hour bus ride and takes a total of 19 days and sounds like it has the potential to go a bit wrong!). Then I would spend 22 days travelling from egypt through syria and jordan to turkey. i would then like a couple of days and nights in istanbul, before taking the train home. Train home would take in Bucharest, Budapest and Vienna. I like the sound of this for my next "big" trip, whenever that may be.
I hope I never have to step foot on a plane again, overland travel is so much more fun. I just wish I had endless amounts of time.
Showing posts with label buses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buses. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Sunday, 20 December 2009
A petty problem
We are currently a no-pet family, although I am hoping we will be getting cats, rescue cats, 2 of them, after Christmas. That was until my husband read an article in the Guardian saying that some pets are worse for the environment than an SUV. My first instinct was to be outraged. I want a cat, how can a cat be worse for the environment than an SUV? (To be fair, cats aren't it's medium and large dogs which are, according to the article). Then having gotten over my outrage I decided to think rationally - if cats really are that bad for the environment then maybe I shouldn't get two, or even one. It's no good only listening to the green info I want to hear.
I arranged my thoughts into some sort of order and then read the Leo Hickman (who I do really like, I subscribe to his blog, but must have missed this post, I have his books on my amazon wish list too!) article. So, the article is quoting research from Time to Eat the Dog by Robert and Brenda Vale which finds that a cat requires 0.15 global hectares to keep it fed, the equivalent of driving a VW golf for 10000 miles a year, plus the energy required to make the car in the first place. So my two cats is almost at the energy cost of buying a 4.6 litre Toyota Landcruiser and driving it for 10000 miles a year (0.41 global hectares). Luckily I don't drive a Toyota Landcruiser as well then!
My next thoughts all concern the fact that I would be getting a rescue cat, so that cat is already having that footprint regardless of whether I own it or not. So actually so long as I promote responsible pet owning and only get a rescue cat I should probably get the cats so as to reduce the load on the shelters. Plus if it is going to be having the footprint anyway someone might as well get the joy from it, which I would.
My next thoughts all concern all the positives about having a pet. For instance, the joy and love that I myself would get. Then there is the positive personal and social impact that pets have on children (which I don't have yet, but would like to, although of course they have a far larger footprint than a cat, no joke). The article also explained some additional benefits - people with pets have greater immunity and visit the doctor less, 21% less when they are elderly, how many global hectares does that account for one wonders. Plus the mental health benefits that pets bring.
I would also think I might be less likely to go out if I had a pet thereby reducing my consumption and waste in shops, pubs, restaurants and cinemas. Of course I don't drive a car at all, very often. We have a small car between us which neither of us drive very often. I walk to work and get the bus and train further afield, despite the additional time, money and stress costs that this can often entail. I take all my compostable waste to work, I bring home any recyclable waste from work. That's right - I carry bags of waste to and from work despite the fact I walk, often in the rain - because it is the right thing to do. I don't eat any animals (that themselves have an eco footprint), I try to minimise my plastic consumption, I try not to fly. I pay extra to have 100% renewable electricity from Good Energy. We try not to have the heating on, and didn't turn it on at all until December this year (except one freakishly cold day in November).
I don't think that doing that means I can do anything I like, indeed I hate to hear people say, "I can do this ungreen thing because I recycle most of my stuff at home". But actually, surely I have reduced my footprint by that of a cat, so I am still on a positive even if I do have a cat? Plus the fact that my children will be more socially adaptable and I will use the NHS less later in life, and I will go out less. Maybe all these things add up to a cat having less of a footprint than it would seem?
I do think we should consider the ecological footprint of activities we partake in and lifestyle choices we make, but I don't think that means we have to not do anything which carries a number, which everything does. It's a case of weighing up pros and cons, and making thoughtful choices. How many global hectares does going to a pub every friday and saturday take? How many global hectares for out of date food which has been thrown away (I eat yoghurts 2 months out of date), how many global hectares to buy a newspaper every day? How many to have a cup of tea every day?
I appreciate the article for giving me the chance to consider the impact of having a pet (which I already had from a vegetarian standpoint, but i think this post has maybe been going on for long enough!) and I have added the book to my wish list, but I have weighed it all up and will still be getting my cat in the new year :)
(do you know I didn't even discuss the indoor cat/outdoor cat arguments, maybe I will do that when I have the cat)
I arranged my thoughts into some sort of order and then read the Leo Hickman (who I do really like, I subscribe to his blog, but must have missed this post, I have his books on my amazon wish list too!) article. So, the article is quoting research from Time to Eat the Dog by Robert and Brenda Vale which finds that a cat requires 0.15 global hectares to keep it fed, the equivalent of driving a VW golf for 10000 miles a year, plus the energy required to make the car in the first place. So my two cats is almost at the energy cost of buying a 4.6 litre Toyota Landcruiser and driving it for 10000 miles a year (0.41 global hectares). Luckily I don't drive a Toyota Landcruiser as well then!
My next thoughts all concern the fact that I would be getting a rescue cat, so that cat is already having that footprint regardless of whether I own it or not. So actually so long as I promote responsible pet owning and only get a rescue cat I should probably get the cats so as to reduce the load on the shelters. Plus if it is going to be having the footprint anyway someone might as well get the joy from it, which I would.
My next thoughts all concern all the positives about having a pet. For instance, the joy and love that I myself would get. Then there is the positive personal and social impact that pets have on children (which I don't have yet, but would like to, although of course they have a far larger footprint than a cat, no joke). The article also explained some additional benefits - people with pets have greater immunity and visit the doctor less, 21% less when they are elderly, how many global hectares does that account for one wonders. Plus the mental health benefits that pets bring.
I would also think I might be less likely to go out if I had a pet thereby reducing my consumption and waste in shops, pubs, restaurants and cinemas. Of course I don't drive a car at all, very often. We have a small car between us which neither of us drive very often. I walk to work and get the bus and train further afield, despite the additional time, money and stress costs that this can often entail. I take all my compostable waste to work, I bring home any recyclable waste from work. That's right - I carry bags of waste to and from work despite the fact I walk, often in the rain - because it is the right thing to do. I don't eat any animals (that themselves have an eco footprint), I try to minimise my plastic consumption, I try not to fly. I pay extra to have 100% renewable electricity from Good Energy. We try not to have the heating on, and didn't turn it on at all until December this year (except one freakishly cold day in November).
I don't think that doing that means I can do anything I like, indeed I hate to hear people say, "I can do this ungreen thing because I recycle most of my stuff at home". But actually, surely I have reduced my footprint by that of a cat, so I am still on a positive even if I do have a cat? Plus the fact that my children will be more socially adaptable and I will use the NHS less later in life, and I will go out less. Maybe all these things add up to a cat having less of a footprint than it would seem?
I do think we should consider the ecological footprint of activities we partake in and lifestyle choices we make, but I don't think that means we have to not do anything which carries a number, which everything does. It's a case of weighing up pros and cons, and making thoughtful choices. How many global hectares does going to a pub every friday and saturday take? How many global hectares for out of date food which has been thrown away (I eat yoghurts 2 months out of date), how many global hectares to buy a newspaper every day? How many to have a cup of tea every day?
I appreciate the article for giving me the chance to consider the impact of having a pet (which I already had from a vegetarian standpoint, but i think this post has maybe been going on for long enough!) and I have added the book to my wish list, but I have weighed it all up and will still be getting my cat in the new year :)
(do you know I didn't even discuss the indoor cat/outdoor cat arguments, maybe I will do that when I have the cat)
Friday, 11 December 2009
I use a lot of public transport and every so often I get a bit knarked with it all. The other day I wanted to come home from Derby to Nottingham, a distance of merely 18 miles, less than half an hour by car. I went to a gig, and would have happily got the train home, except for the fact that the last "train" left at 9 something or other, and the last "train and bus replacement service" also left not only before the gig ended (10.30 on a sunday), but would have taken an hour to get home. It also would have cost me a fiver on the train, plus either a 20 minute walk and then £1.50 on the bus on my own in the middle of the night, or £6 in a taxi, which aren't very environmentally friendly. I actually only live a mile and a half out of the city centre.
A while ago we car shared to get to Leeds, and the petrol worked out at about £5 each, unfortunately the car broke down just as we were leaving to come home, and the AA tow guy could only take 2 people in the truck, so 2 of us needed to get the train home. The walk up fee for a single home was £31 each. £62 therefore for both of us, 12 times the cost of the petrol, and a longer, colder journey, well not longer and colder than the journey in the broken down car, but you know! What motivation is there to take public transport?
Today I was on the bus with some canadian people who had clearly just moved here. "How do we know what stop we are at, Dad?" the kids kept asking. They mused on how they would know, would the driver announce it? Would it stop at each stop like a train? Where was the screen to tell them where they were? "Should I explain it to them?" I wondered. Eventually they concluded that they were OK cause they remembered where they were.
It throws open the question though of how do you know when to get off a bus if you don't actually know the route or the area that you are travelling in? If I get a bus to somewhere I don't know I like to have a map with me to assist me with knowing when to get off, and also where the hell I am should i get off in the wrong place! But it isn't always practical or possible to have a map with you. Do all buses in canada have screens telling you where you are? Trains have those screens, plus they pretty much stop at each of the possible stops and there are huge boards on the platform which tell you where you are. Trams have screens telling you where you are and what the next stop is. Of course you can ask the bus driver to tell you when you get there, but they don't always remember.
And then, today after thinking all this, I got on a bus to come home, and there it was, a screen, with all the info you would need about the route, the destination and the next stop. Maybe this is the future of buses?
I hope so, whatever we can do to make buses seem more appealing the better IMO!
None of this of course solves the problem of when you turn up early for a bus and the bus must have been even earlier or didn't exist and then the next one is late, which happened to me twice today. I can see how all but the most keen of public transporters would be put off.
A while ago we car shared to get to Leeds, and the petrol worked out at about £5 each, unfortunately the car broke down just as we were leaving to come home, and the AA tow guy could only take 2 people in the truck, so 2 of us needed to get the train home. The walk up fee for a single home was £31 each. £62 therefore for both of us, 12 times the cost of the petrol, and a longer, colder journey, well not longer and colder than the journey in the broken down car, but you know! What motivation is there to take public transport?
Today I was on the bus with some canadian people who had clearly just moved here. "How do we know what stop we are at, Dad?" the kids kept asking. They mused on how they would know, would the driver announce it? Would it stop at each stop like a train? Where was the screen to tell them where they were? "Should I explain it to them?" I wondered. Eventually they concluded that they were OK cause they remembered where they were.
It throws open the question though of how do you know when to get off a bus if you don't actually know the route or the area that you are travelling in? If I get a bus to somewhere I don't know I like to have a map with me to assist me with knowing when to get off, and also where the hell I am should i get off in the wrong place! But it isn't always practical or possible to have a map with you. Do all buses in canada have screens telling you where you are? Trains have those screens, plus they pretty much stop at each of the possible stops and there are huge boards on the platform which tell you where you are. Trams have screens telling you where you are and what the next stop is. Of course you can ask the bus driver to tell you when you get there, but they don't always remember.
And then, today after thinking all this, I got on a bus to come home, and there it was, a screen, with all the info you would need about the route, the destination and the next stop. Maybe this is the future of buses?
I hope so, whatever we can do to make buses seem more appealing the better IMO!
None of this of course solves the problem of when you turn up early for a bus and the bus must have been even earlier or didn't exist and then the next one is late, which happened to me twice today. I can see how all but the most keen of public transporters would be put off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
