When Barbara Haddrill, 28, was invited to her friend’s wedding in Australia in October, she had a dilemma. She had promised not to fly any more for environmental reasons but as bridesmaid, she felt obliged to attend.
“I’d said that was it, I wasn’t going to take the plane anymore and wasn’t going to travel long distances,” she says. “But then this came up and it wasn’t something I could immediately say ‘No, I’m sorry, I’m not flying any more and not coming to your wedding.’ Then I spoke to friends and it became apparent it was possible to get there using another route.”
So instead of a departure hall at Heathrow and a possible stopover in Kuala Lumpur, Barbara went via Moscow, Beijing, Hanoi, Bangkok, Singapore and Darwin in an epic journey taking nearly two months and taking in train, boat and bus.
[Barbara] no longer drives, buys organic, locally-sourced food and uses a wood-burner to heat her home, which is a caravan near Machynlleth, in a forest in mid-Wales. And while the 51 days Barbara spent getting to Oz would be longer than many tourists’ holidays, as a part-time worker at an eco centre she has the flexibility to build such a journey into her life.
Speaking from a farm in Adelaide, where she is planning her journey home and appealing for anyone who can help her get from Darwin to Singapore, she said it had been a very rewarding experience.
“Perhaps it’s not for everyone to think they’re going to go on a boat to Australia but maybe they can think ‘Do I need to go to Australia in the first place?’ And look at things in your day-to-day life.” [BBC]
Hmm, the story reckons that she had lower total CO2 emissions going over land and by boat. I thought planes were better per passenger per mile, and it was the length of the journey that was OK.
One thing I've never understood about this idea - surely it's sufficient to use planes less? I mean, if everyone only flew if they had to attend an important wedding or a once-in-a-lifetime type experience, wouldn't that be okay?
Although it's hard to argue with this: maybe they can think ‘Do I need to go to Australia in the first place?’
> it's hard to argue with this: > maybe they can think ‘Do I need to go to Australia in the first place?’
To be fair, I don’t think too many people find themselves saying, “I’m bored with the Pig and Trumpet pub quiz, Steve, how about this Thursday we nip over to Australia instead?”
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
“I’d said that was it, I wasn’t going to take the plane anymore and wasn’t going to travel long distances,” she says. “But then this came up and it wasn’t something I could immediately say ‘No, I’m sorry, I’m not flying any more and not coming to your wedding.’ Then I spoke to friends and it became apparent it was possible to get there using another route.”
no subject
no subject
no subject
By which I mean, not OK.
no subject
Although it's hard to argue with this:
maybe they can think ‘Do I need to go to Australia in the first place?’
no subject
> maybe they can think ‘Do I need to go to Australia in the first place?’
To be fair, I don’t think too many people find themselves saying, “I’m bored with the Pig and Trumpet pub quiz, Steve, how about this Thursday we nip over to Australia instead?”
no subject
(An ozone depleted, carbon emissive world obviously. sigh)
no subject