Out of Context Observation: The Travel Ethic
Participated in an Arup workshop recently with a great diverse group on the future of the business hotel. One insight i had during the workshop seems to be sticking. An emerging travel ethic that seemed to resonate with most of the participants all though it goes against all current trends.
We’re currently in a phase of democratization of business travel due to low costs, more people have international relationships in organizations and many smaller organizations/micro companies. So we’re jetting around the globe, flying back and forth in one day to London, Berlin, Paris, etc. just for a meeting or two. Some people think this is hip and happening - it’s at least something seen as a status symbol to be busy traveller. But i think a very big counter trend is about to emerge because we’re starting to see the extreme liability air travel has compared to other travel forms in terms of global warming. Imagine a comparison between someone biking to work back and forth each day and somebody doing 4-6 business trips a month with 1-4 hour flights in terms of emissions. And technology doesn’t seem to have any easy solutions in a 15-30 year time scenario in terms of big advances of sustainable air travel.
So i propose a travel ethic that i think is like to emerge in 5-20 years:
1. Travel as seldom as possible.
Get as much done with communication tools, really push the need to say “i’ll come to the meeting”.
2. Travel as sustainable as possible (probably means much slower travel).
Take the train, take a ferry.
3. Stay as long as possible.
Get as much done now that you’ve exposed the environment to your travel emissions. See all your local friends, do three months of collaboration in two days, make sure you won’t have to visit the local place again that year/decade etc.
Makes sense? Other points to the ethic?
December 14th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
As far as I know the framing you give to the environmental concerns is actually a bit off from the real problem. Measured in fuel per passenger mile airflight has been approaching the car over the last couple of decades (fuel per passenger mile for a full modern airplane is closer to fuel per passenger mile for a car with only one person in it that you’d think). It’s not the choice of vehicle that’s the problem - it’s the number of miles, so the only real cure is to just do it less.
The other thing is that of course meeting people is both enjoyable and terribly efficient as communication - much more so than any other means of communication, and since conversation only breeds more conversation, the only real answer is “We should all just move to the same city”.
Which of course is exactly what is happening, even without the travel ethic.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Thought-provoking. I’ve posted my thoughts.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:01 am
@claus. Hmm, not sure your framing is better (not saying mine was good). Air travel is nowhere near trains, http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/pollu_co2transp_ooh - but you’re right - close to single-person driving. That being said compared to a effective collaboration (wiki, im, etc.) with almost-zero emissions 2×3 hours of air travel has extreme implications.
My core suggestions was the concept of a travel ethic. Everyone i know from teachers to ceo’s love to talk about their latest travel to an interesting conference, etc. I think that’s whats really changing with a new travel ethic.
December 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
The framing of a downing travel ethics is near perfect Thomas and I think the trend is much closer than you believe. Besides being far from land public transport efficiency, air travel is much more harmful due to the types of gasses airplanes release and beacuse they do so at higher, much more ‘vulnarable’ altitudes of the atmosphere. John Thacara realized recently (http://www.doorsofperception.com/archives/2006/10/post_8.php), that the anual Doors of Perception meeting in Delhi can no longer be defended precisely due to this. So actually, I think Reboot next time should include the theme of how the web can bring us closer without physical proximity (and realize the paper less sociaty - both as envisioned for the web).
December 18th, 2006 at 12:03 am
@mikkel. probably read some of thackara stuff some time ago which influenced me. that being said this is not near term - there are so many mega trends going in the other direction (i listed a couple of them) - but what’s very near is awareness and extreme examples of actually changing habits.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I like the think along the ethic line. I think however that it is difficult to see what trend is going where in terms of evolving ethics. Imagine however that more thought was put into the reason for travel and why travel is necessary. Face to face, physical proximity seems to be an essential in negotiations and some forms of collaboration. Why is that? What element of relationship is being created with proximity, and how can this element be nourished without extensive non-sustainable travel?
March 28th, 2007 at 8:11 am
[…] I’ve been referring to ‘hipster green’ for a while now, discussed when flying can no more be excused on friends blogs, argued that acting cosmopolitan will be the mark of a clueless proletariat, pondered the future of ‘globalization’ except as a soon bygone époque and if the tipping point of ‘greenness’ often referred to by Worldchangers was not merely wishful thinking. But the doubt diminishes every hour - it is happening right now. Much faster than anybody predicted. When Seth Godin declares ‘Zero [impact] is the new black, it is as good as a new natural law. It even got it’s own new explorative action hero: No impact man making the rest of us feel like Hummer loving, obese consumerists without a clue and consciousness (the name is badly chosen if he wishes to impact ethically). […]