Aredwood:

 

So in otherwords you are saying that I should not eat any steak. (due to its effect on the environment) Yet you find it perfectly acceptable to engage in overseas travel, just to avoid filling out a form for the government. Even though your overseas travel will cause lots of carbon emissions. All to try and avoid Statistics NZ obtaining some information from you. Even though Immigration NZ provide information about you anyway to SNZ, for the purposes of generating the official stats on arrivals and departures of visitors and immigrants. And by travelling, your information is also provided (or can be provided to). The Police, IRD, NZ customs, Ministry of Justice, WINZ, Interpol, And the other countries that are members of the 5 eyes intelligence sharing network. Plus of course your airline, and possibly your bank as well. So international travel is the last thing you should do if you don't trust the government to keep your personal information secure.

 

Apologies if this comes across as a personal attack. But im interested in your logic, In that the carbon emissions from overseas travel are OK. Because you genuinely feel like travelling. But the carbon emissions from choosing to eat one food instead of another are not OK (despite me genuinely feeling like eating that food). And of course, I have to eat to stay alive. Yet you don't need to travel to stay alive. (at least not internationally). Is there something in your logic that I haven't thought of / considered?

 

I do not take this as a personal attack at all. I enjoy your posts. You have good arguments and you back them up with facts. I don't agree with all of your conclusions, but I certainly don't mind debating them.

You are pulling in my posts from another thread to accuse me of hypocrisy. But you are also twisting them for the sake of a fake argument. Let me get that out of the way first because it is easiest to dispose of. I am not suggesting you should stop eating, so there is no threat to your survival. I am just saying that according to the article I cited, you will have to change your diet. That really is threatening your survival, along with everyone else's. You can agree with that or not, but that is the argument being made, and there seems to be some good evidence to back it up.

You seem to suggest my air travel is excessive and frivolous. That is incorrect. Let me start with the reality. Then I will go into the reasoning.

I travel very little these days. I did in the past, before the environmental issues began to be publicised. Compared to some others here, who seem to be flitting around the world every week or so, my trips are pretty insignificant. But like many Kiwis, not to mention tourists and business people and god knows who else all over the world, I take occasional holidays overseas. In fact the number of people doing this seems to be growing exponentially, but my trips have become less frequent. I don't even go every year. But I do go on census years. So I combine the two. I am not going only because of the census. The last time I went to Nieue. I was curious about it and I'm glad I had the opportunity to see it.

Your observations about data collection are not really relevant to this thread. I don't really care what information is gathered on me by official agencies when I travel. I don't object to that as long as it is legal. I object to the census. If the same data can be garnered by other means, then I guess that proves the census isn't necessary.  

I have frequently stated in multiple places that I am not a Greens supporter, though I usually vote for the Greens as the lesser of evils. I believe human activity is damaging the planet but I am not an activist. I don't chain myself to trees. I do try to minimise my own impact where I can and I am prepared to accept any measures that facilitate this, but I am not obsessive about it. The Greens would probably also accuse me of hypocrisy but I don't care. I do what I can and that includes discussing the issues in places like here. 

Air travel is a reality. In today's economy it is also a necessity. Nothing is going to change that. I do wish other options still existed. I do not travel for business so I am not in a hurry. I would love to be able to make voyages by dirigible and tramp steamer, but regrettably that time is past. So I use the means available to me. Passenger jets are much more efficient than they used to be and improvements continue to be made. Work is also being done on bio-fuels. I do not feel guilty for the small amount of flying I do. Nor should you feel guilty for enjoying the occasional hamburger, if that is what you want to eat. I believe there will always be meat production, but it will become a boutique luxury type of food, something for special occasions, not every day. 

You ask what my logic is. My logic is that the way we do things has to change on a worldwide basis if we want to survive and we want to still have a planet we can live on in the future. My logic is that we have to change the way we think about things in order to achieve this. The way we travel does indeed have to change, as does the way we produce and consume food. I am sincerely convinced this is essential. 

My logic is I will advocate for change and will make use of greener alternatives as they become available and urge others to do the same. For everyone there is a trade-off between convenience and responsibility. Different people draw the line in different places. Like most people, I am prepared to sacrifice some convenience for a principle I believe in. But business and government also have to do their part, and that is where politics come in. A simple example is packaging recycling. New Zealand is the only country I have lived in that does not impose a deposit on bottles and other containers to encourage their return. I think we used to and I don't know why that was abandoned. I suppose the shops didn't want to go to the trouble. Of course we do have glass recycling but some people need the extra encouragement of a deposit return. But that is something that can only be made obligatory at the government level.

I do not choose to give up travel. For me that is a step too far. But I would choose a greener form of travel if it was available at a price I could afford. This kind of infrastructural thing cannot be imposed at an individual level. It has to come from society. People have to demand it. Industry and government have to make it possible.

I hope this answers your question. My logic is not an all or nothing thing. We have to find better ways of travel and food consumption and other things in order to keep from trashing the planet. That doesn't mean we have to give up travel and food and other things. It is a matter of balance, not all or nothing.