A good piece, Lucy. But the overall gist of your argument does not apply exclusively to Gen Y. The big gap between sentiment and action occurs in every generation.

The stock phrase "somebody should do something about it" has been around a long time and applied to every major challenge faced by the human race . It's simply a demand that somebody else, rather than oneself, does whatever is being proposed. My baby boomer generation has long been guilty of that in spades. Your generation is too.

The debate over carbon emissions is illustrative. The whole intention of putting a price on carbon (which has overwhelming support) is to push up the price of carbon-creating energy (which has near universal opposition). When power prices, or fuel prices or food prices (driven by higher energy costs) go up, we all whinge. We want the government to fix the problem in a way that leaves us out of it.

In my view, the appeal of an ETS mechanism to politicians is that it makes it look as though the big end of town will pay and the rest of us won't. And that's why the concept of a carbon tax, which makes much more sense than an ETS on all fronts except the PR angle, is being left on the shelf.

It galls me that the media use the term "activist" for people who go on demos and shout a lot. There are real activists out there and they are too busy to go on demos. There are folk out there burning the midnight oil to work on energy alternatives, farmers who spend their own money and time on landcare, ordinary people who give up their own time to do bushcare, rivercare etc and so on. There are baby boomers, Gen X and Gen Y out there doing all that sort of real activism. Unfortunately, each of our generations still has far too many who can't go beyond the "somebody should do something" cop out.

Rudd's change of 'morals' and Copenhagen should be enough to show anybody that climate change, particularly the human-cause con, is merely a political ruse to gain more money and power.

Lucy - its nice that you defend Harry Potter, but one of the reasons that younger people are more concerned with climate change is that they know less than their elders. Crucially, they will not have seen so many scare stories come and go. Being nearer the far end of the age spectrum than the youthful end I can think of at least four or five off the top of my head. In no particular order these are Y2K, acid rain, the ice age scare of the 1970s, AIDS in Australia (all Australians should have been infected by now, if we believed the stories of the 1980s), Japan taking over the world economy, nuclear holocaust plus a range of entertaining disease scares.
all of those had a similar anatomy to the climate change story in that they were all endorsed by the industry experts of the time, with a few dissenters, and those experts held to their forecasts until they were completely disproved by events.
About the only difference between those scares and the global warming fuss of recent years is more shouting, and its appeal to the innate beliefs of activists (who are also mostly youthful).
So you'll have to forgive us old fogies for failing to become enthusiastic over yet another scare story. We have seen it all before.

Well you go Lucy girl because only a few of my generation have been fighting successive governments since the 70’s on air pollution. And while society sets its peepers on the federal government and its failure on climate change performance, state governments are handing out licences to pollute like toffee apples – no more evident than in the state of WA, governed by megalomaniac, Colin Barnett. The WA EPA has advised Mr Barnett that carbon emissions will rise by more than 70% in just a few years but Barnett is notorious for overriding EPA environmental impact assessments.

Federal governments in Australia do not regulate on air pollution – the states do and society remains asleep at the wheel. Australia is coming second last on climate performance, out of all the OECD countries – pipped only by Canada as the worst performer.

The Environmental Protection Acts in Australia (most implemented in the 70s) have been abused and corrupted to appease the polluters and ramp up the economy, sacrificing human health and the environment.

Successive governments are very adept at omitting conditions in licences to pollute therefore, the lack of conditions in a specific licence renders EPA enforcement impotent since legally, the polluter has had not had a condition of licence to breach. Licences to pollute are public documents.

Environmental matters are hotting up in the good old United States of America where environmental groups are successfully suing polluters and those same polluters are polluting this nation with impunity. Successive governments in the US have been as corrupt as those in Australia but a discerning public in the US has put them on notice.

Greed merchants rule and only people power in vast numbers will alter the status quo. The collective powers of Generation Y have that opportunity – go for it, if only to ensure the survival of your own generation and those who follow.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2215/

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/7540381/groups-say-exxon-violates-us-air-laws/

Lucy it's not about younger generation versus older, it's not about left versus right and it's not about environmentalists versus energy corporations. The climate debate should purely be about the science. Sadly science has been hijacked by politics.
Next time you hear any speaker on climate, please consider their background, funding and potential motives. We all know climate change has happened since the beginning of time, but this is the first time in history that we have contemplated paying a carbon tax on it. Just think, if the earth warms and cools naturally what is the tax meant to achieve.
I don't believe you have you seen the latest satellite temperature data. Young Australian's certainly have the most at stake in this debate and I would urge you to spend a little less time at the AYCC, who are basically supporters of the not very youthful and not very truthful IPCC. Your future is very much at stake and you are your own worst enemy. Every green job created in Spain cost 2.2 traditional jobs, they now have 19% unemployment and 100% increases in electricity prices.
Your landlord might start looking like an angel once you realise what the IPCC has planned for your future. They were trying to get you pronounced guilty of climate crimes in Copenhagen. I understand it's free ice cream locally for participating in their promotional events. It's a bit like the story of the Pied Piper of Hamlyn.
I suggest you look at the other side of the debate before it's too late. I'm not aware of anyone that wants more pollution in the world, so we have agreement on that point. 'Doing something' about CO2 which is not a pollutant would have to be one the greatest hoaxes ever tried upon humanity. Why not start your re-education with the following link http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
If you don't care about your own living standards please consider how expensive energy and food will affect the poor souls of the third world.

To summarise Gen X feels that action should be taken by someone else?

Shadow Minister - quite right, Gen X have become so concerned that they think strong action should be taken by their parents, who should also pay.
While on the subject of being concerned Lucy should also note that a la Nina is on the way - scientists can at least agree on that - abd quite a strong one too, so temperatures will plunge irrespective of whether the global warming science is right or not.
Get out your winter woolies kids..

Lucy

as you grow up you will tend to demand evidence before introducing an ets on pensioners who can't pay heating bills due to the big freeze. You will realise that the climate has always changed and like Ms Gillard you will come to the conclusion that its not our biggest moral dilemma as a nation. You will learn that if Australia cut all emissions it would be stuff all in the context of the world. If you are worried about emissions your energy would be well harnassed by supporting the nuke industy. Otherwise you are just playing childish games encouraging money to be wasted that could be used to cut power bills for those who have paid for you to attend a plush uni.

"CO2’s" credibility is immediately questioned when he refers us to the SPPI link when founder and president Robert Ferguson, a past recipient of Exxon’s generosity, draws heavily on papers written by extremist, Christopher Monckton who traffics in falsehoods and absurd conspiracy theories.

Monckton and Ferguson have no more qualifications to speak as authorities on the science of climate than "CO2".

But who funds SPPI? 'On its website, the group discloses nothing about its funding sources, and does not say if it has a policy on what types of funding it will or won't accept. Asked directly whether SPPI receives funding from companies with energy interests, Ferguson was not forthcoming. "Funding comes from private interests," he said. "That's all I'm going to say."' (Centre for Media and Democracy)

Monckton is a dead set escapee from a Monte Python skit and one can assess how scientifically strong his case is if he has to go on the Glenn Beck Programme to present it – unchallenged to a fawning host.

Rush Limbaugh who told an African American female caller to ‘take the bone out of your nose and call me back,' seizes on comments by Christopher Monckton to continue the fear-mongering.

97% of self-identified, actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change but the monkeys and their organ grinders don’t read scientific papers so they dance to the tune of the fossil fuel industry.

As another member of Gen Y (albeit at the older end of the Gen Y spectrum), I'd like to offer a different perspective here.

I, and many people I know, am not foolish enough to believe that I know more than the scientists about climate change. And, as scientists themselves are quite often funded by far-from-impartial benefactors, it is unsurprising that they present contradictory findings on quite a regular basis. Some say we are stuffing our planet up completely, others say we are not. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

From where I am sitting right now (in the rain, in winter, in Townsville - bizarre) it makes little difference to me. I will no doubt be dead, buried and quite well on my way to compost before our quality of life is compromised if - and I say it again, if - climate change is a real issue. Selfish? Certainly. But with no kids of my own to worry about, and none looming on my immediate horizon, I have the luxury of that selfishness.

However, regardless of the truth (or otherwise) behind the climate change scare, I think the scare itself is quite useful. It is forcing us (or some of us) to rethink the way we do things, so that we can do them in a more sustainable fashion. Businesses are installing low energy light bulbs, turning their air conditioners up a degree or two and recycling more. We are looking at ways of cleaning up our energy sector. We are offering both rods and carrots to industry to encourage more sustainable practices. Are all of the ideas being floated good? Certainly not. Are they practical? Not necessarily. But, if we can identify ways of going about our lives without significant extra burden and with a smaller carbon footprint, how can that possibly be a bad thing?

Otokonoko, true a scare story can be useful. the trouble is that it is being used to justify a regressive tax (increases in electricity prices). These hit pensioners far harder than the wealthy. If it was a matter of simply refitting office buildings it could all be ignored.

Protagoras - what does the funding of SPPI have to do with the debate? If we are going to look at funding by all means let us examine the budgets of Greenpeace of WWF and a host of other environmental organisations. (All many times larger than SPPI.) Then ask yourself are you going to ignore their reports? If we start arguing about vested interests or who is crazier than all the green guys and almost all the scientists (who accept funding for research on the basis that global warming exists) would be knocked out first.
Those living in glass greenhouses should not throw stones.

That's what I'm saying, Curmudgeon - though probably not very eloquently. I have holiday brain at the moment.

I'm reluctant to support massive changes that will have an adverse effect on our society, or even simply on part of our society. But I do think that, if we have sustainability at the front of our minds, we are better equipped to make decisions and put practices in place that improve our physical environment and, ultimately, improve our quality of life. Little things count: Ergon tells me each quarter how my power consumption stacks up against others in the Herbert and Lower Burdekin region. Doing that makes me conscious of my power usage and, being a naturally competitive person, I put practices in place to do better each time. Will I single-handedly save our climate? No. But it's a start. If we all did the little things that are within our means, then the scare would have served a positive purpose as we move on to other worrying things.

Protagoras, apparently you are unaware that Shell and BP funded that bastion of scientific integrity known as the CRU of the University of East Anglia, which was at the centre of the 'climategate' scandal. The 'climategate' scandal also goes a long way in explaining the suppression of alternative and in my opinion far more convincing scientific views. When one side of the debate receives over 99% of total funding, imbalances are likely to occur.
Monckton alerted the world to what was contained within the 'Draft Copenhagen agreement'. It's there in black and white, yet some prefer to shoot the messenger. In contrast, others will tell you they believe in world government. It's a bit like the climate change debate which has splintered into so many peripheral issues and agendas, it means different things to different people. Someone easy going like Otokonoko will tell you, why not give it ago? He fails to answer his own question. If giving it ago, means trashing our economy, wouldn't you investigate a little further? I would answer yes to that.

So tell me, Lucy - how many of your generation - for whom climate change is allegedly a defining issue - are planning overseas trips? In fact, probably many overseas trips? Certainly all the Gen Ys I know seem to regard overseas travel as a basic fact of life.

You are aware, no doubt, of the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted by a single overseas plane trip?

You are also, no doubt, aware that 'carbon offset' schemes are essentially useless 'greenwashing' scams?

Hmm. Seems your generation can talk the talk, but you ain't willing to walk the walk.

Come on, Clownfish. You have just illustrated the same dismissive attitude towards Generation Y that the author is working to overcome. I have flown overseas many times, and will do so many more times. I doubt, though, that I'll ever spend as much time in an aeroplane as my Baby Boomer father. It may also reflect my choice of destination, but my fellow tourists tend more often than not to be middle-aged and elderly Americans. Overseas travel is hardly a 'Gen Y' phenomenon.

But raising the topic of international travel does contribute to my argument. We have established a very good standard of living for ourselves, due in no small part to the hard work of our parents and grandparents. We have luxuries like affordable flights and electronic gadgets to do pretty much everything. It is now time to look for ways to maintain that standard of life in a more sustainable way.

I am interested to know, though, why you say that carbon offsetting is a scam.

Airlines endorse it:

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/fly-carbon-neutral/global/en

Travel agents endorse it:

http://www.statravel.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/au_division_web_live/hs.xsl/carbon_credits.htm

Environmental organisations endorse it:

http://www.wwf.org.au/act/takeaction/carbon-offsets/

Ecojournalists endorse it:

http://www.ecozine.co.uk/FlyingandCarbonOffsetting.htm

The Guardian is critical not of the idea, but of its present implementation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2006/dec/10/ethicalholidays.escape

ResponsibleTravel.com does not support carbon offsetting because they believe it is a distraction, not because they don't believe it makes any difference:

http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101331.htm

Certainly, what almost all of these sources have in common is the belief that we need to think carefully about whether or not we should get on a plane in the first place, which is a valid point. But, just as my father and his father before him found, there's a great big world out there. To spend our entire lives within an hour's drive of our homes would contribute to the narrow-mindedness that already plagues our world. It would also preclude the sharing of many great ideas that could do all of us a world of good. If we are mindful of the harm we are doing, and take some steps to counter that harm, surely it's a good thing?

The warmist teachers in the secondary schools and universities have done mammoth damage. They have brainwashed those lacking scientific awareness, such as this young author and many of her generation, to unquestionably accept the warmist hypothesis that human activity is the driver of climate change.
The IPCC has been searching for over 20 years for proof that CO2 emissions are a main driver of anthropogenic global warming, but has failed utterly. The strongest endorsement that the IPCC could give in its 2007 Report, was the assertion, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Scientists are unable to explain why, as admitted by Phil Jones of Climategate fame, there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years, despite CO2 concentrations increasing over that period.
There is no scientific or economic justification for implementation of an ETS or a price on carbon.

So, Otokonoko, your argument is 'the oldies do it too, so why shouldn't we?' and 'but we really, really, really like emitting tons of greenhouse gases'.

So much for your great moral challenge.

Of course airlines and travel agents endorse carbon offsets (the Indulgences of the Church of Gaia): they make a bucket off the gullible twits who buy them.

Anyway, let's play URL tennis, shall we?

Carbon Offsets: Government Warns of Fraud Risk
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17814838

'Carbon trading: a corporate scam'
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/36791

'The great carbon trading scam'
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1492&Itemid=6

'The case against carbon trading'
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading

'Carbon Neutral Isn't: a hoax to distract from honest policies'
http://www.permatopia.com/carbon-neutral.html

'Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming'
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbon-offsets-may-ease-eco-guilt-but-not-global-warming

To continue, Otokonoko, besides entirely sidestepping my question (how many times have you flown overseas - or, how many tons of greenhouse gases have you personally generated for the sake of your own entertainment?), you fail to address the basic morality of carbon offsetting.

Is it morally acceptable to continue to do something which you say is morally wrong, by paying someone else *not* to do the wrong thing?

To take the logic to its absurd extreme: would it be morally acceptable to murder someone, as long as you paid someone else to have a baby?

Anyhoo, your final defence boils down to, 'but emitting all those tons of greenhouse gases has made me, like, such a broad-minded global citizen, man!'

I'm sure the planet that you assert is being endangered by greenhouse gases genuinely appreciates your enlightened attitude. When we're all scrabbling to survive on our desertified, flooded planet (as the Warmists shrilly insist will happen if we don't mend our wicked ways), at least we can say, 'but, hey, at least all those Gen Y kids got to smoke heaps of great dope at a Full Moon Party! So totally worth it!'

Clownfish:

1) I have flown on 12 international flights. Four were for immigration purposes, six for work. I don't know how I sleep at night because of the last two.

2) Never did I say that 'the oldies do it too, so why shouldn't we?' and 'but we really, really, really like emitting tons of greenhouse gases'. What I said is that the ideal way forward is to find more sustainable ways of doing the things that have made our lives great. That includes the air travel that has been enjoyed by several generations and is not, as you implied, a Generation Y 'thing'. I think that answers the question about morality, but keep drawing long bows if you want. It's entertaining.

3) Your first link doesn't say that carbon offsetting is a scam. It says there is potential for fraud there.

4) Your second had nothing to do with carbon offsetting of flights. It had lots to do with tree planting, which none of the flights I have looked at do as a means of offsetting emissions.

5) Your third called for investment in renewable energy. Interestingly, carbon offsetting with both QANTAS and Virgin Blue is invested in renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

6) Your fourth highlighted the ResponsibleTravel argument I had already linked to. Once again, though, it had nothing to do with flights.

7) Your next link tells us that 'carbon neutral' isn't something it never claimed to be. Nowhere have I seen the claim that my carbon offset will recapture the pollution my flight has released. Instead, they claim that it will be invested in technologies that will reduce further pollution.

I shall reiterate. I do not support wholesale, wasteful pollution. I do not support cutbacks which limit our quality of life. I do, however, think we are now at a place where we can think about enjoying our lives more sustainably.

By the way: I addressed you respectfully. You should try the same. Dismissiveness is unpleasant.

CO2 – I'm more aware than you that Shell/BP were sponsors in the establishment of the Climate Research Unit at the UEA. Despite your silly claim, the laboratory/facility set-up was to the detriment of Shell/BP et al. However, the UEA transparently and publicly acknowledged the sponsorship (among other donors) and also their gratitude.

Unlike denialists, the UEA are not laundering massive millions of dollars through institutes and foundations to support a war against mitigating pollution, therefore, ignore clowns and curmudgeons perpetuating erroneous and despicable disinformation:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10604

Are you suggesting that the UEA board who allocates this funding to its campus divisions is corrupt? If yes, then you must also acknowledge that the University of Sydney is corrupt since Rio Tinto's recent donation was $21 million for R&D ‘to support their global mining and processing activities.’

Are you suggesting that researchers who accept public funding to investigate causes for cancer or the dreaded muscular dystrophy, Parkinsons etc are corrupt? What about the cancer pervading Planet Earth, the result of an international mining industry, corrupt and out of control?

And I would request that you do not jump to conclusions since I have been vehemently opposed to the ETS. I do not support paying rogue industries to pollute with impunity and I have adhered to the “Polluter Pays” principle for thirty years.

Yet it remains unarguable that we are heading toward a world ecological crisis even without adding in the damage of climate change.

Biodiversity is declining rapidly, as the habitats and ecosystems of forests, wetlands, coral reefs, rivers and oceans are plundered for resources with impunity. Anthropogenic pollution - particularly hydrocarbons, radionuclides, contamination of aquifers, overfishing, desertification, salinity, massive losses of organic soil carbon and extinctions, collectively, has humanity on the road to crisis before climate change added fuel to the fire - literally.

CO2 is the final progeny of some of the most hazardous chemicals known. The last decade was the hottest on record (BOM) - are they too 'corrupt?' Ignoring the irrefutable scientific evidence will be to your extreme disadvantage. I have offered a solution. What's your solution Pal?

Oto, I didn't say you *literally* said those things, I said that that's what it boiled down to. When challenged on GenY's flying addiction, you responded that Baby Boomers did it more, and how much you enjoy overseas travel.

All well and good, but it still avoids the basic problem: you are repeatedly indulging in an activity which is apparently morally wrong, but you're not prepared to give it up because it benefits YOU.

Despite what you think, you have studiously avoided answering the question of the morality of carbon trading, instead you've made some vague motherhood statements about 'finding more sustainable ways' of enjoying your indulgent lifestyle.

But the point is, you *don't* have sustainable ways of doing so; nonetheless, you have no intention of giving up the very things you say are endangering the planet.

I might say that cheating on my wife is morally wrong; I mean, I'd prefer her to agree to an open relationship, but in the meantime I'll keep on cheating on her because I just like sex with other women so much.

What's the word I'm looking for ..? Oh yes: HYPOCRISY.

Alright, Clownfish. We clearly are not going to agree here. Certainly I do not believe I am a hypocrite, any more than you are likely to believe that you are bitter and unpleasant. Maybe we're both wrong.

As for Gen Y's flying addiction, I must be an anomaly, having enjoyed one overseas holiday. Hardly 'repeatedly indulging in an activity which is apparently morally wrong', is it? Not that I have ever said - or suggested - that it is morally wrong. If you think it is, that's all well and good. And I certainly haven't said anything about enjoying overseas travel - I said that it was beneficial. I stand by that.

As for my 'indulgent' lifestyle, you have no right whatsoever to state that my lifestyle is indulgent. You do not know me, you know nothing about my lifestyle and you have no reason to believe that it is indulgent. Once again, you are making silly and unfounded assumptions based entirely on the generation to which I belong.

Your last post does, however, illustrate perfectly my point about dismissiveness. Rather than rebutting my argument that we can make progress by finding more sustainable ways of maintaining our standard of living, you simply call it a 'vague motherhood statement'. Can you please either address this issue and explain why it is wrong, or leave it alone? I haven't (at any point) said that we have a perfect solution to the pollution caused by international flights. I'm well aware that we don't. I did, however, question your assertion that carbon offsetting flights is a scam - something you have yet to support with any evidence at all.

Wow, now I'm confused: is it one overseas holiday you've taken or two? Or twelve, or more? First, you describe your 'many' flights and your 'choice of destination' and 'fellow tourists', then you say that of 12 overseas flights, 10 were necessities, not recreational, now you lay claim to just one overseas holiday.

I say 'repeatedly', because you state quite unequivocally that you have flown overseas 'many times, and will do so many more times.'

However, to the question of morality: Perhaps I am assuming too much here, but given your previous statements, you at least agree that climate change is a very serious problem, and that you would not dispute the claims of climate scientists. Climate scientists are generally quite unequivocal about stating that aviation is one of the most significant contributors to climate change. Folks like Plane Stupid are quite vocal about telling us how bad it is.

Surely it should therefore follow that if frequent flying is contributing substantially to what you acknowledge is a serious environmental problem, frequent flying is thus morally wrong? Or perhaps the good chaps at BP should just be let off scot-free after all?

Quite specifically, you described overseas travel as a luxury: 'a pleasure out of the ordinary allowed to oneself; a foolish or worthless form of self-indulgence; a material object, service, etc., conducive to sumptuous living.'

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but treating oneself to a 'worthless form of self-indulgence' (thus, an 'indulgent lifestyle' *as regards flying*, which was quite obviously my point), even though you acknowledge that it is contributing to an environmental disaster, is surely morally wrong?

Cont. ...

Cont. ...

Saying airily that 'we can make progress by finding more sustainable ways of maintaining our standard of living' is a 'vague motherhood statement' because that's exactly what it is. You haven't made any specific argument as to *how* we can apparently do so in any way - much less with regards to aviation, which is what we're specifically what we're discussing here - all you've done is indulge in some wishful thinking said is that 'we can'. And in the meantime, let's continue with our old, polluting ways, 'cos it's just so *beneficial*.

As it stands, you've advanced nothing more than wishful thinking. I could say, as that rather tiresome song goes, 'Imagine all the people
sharing all the world', but it's hardly a plan for addressing malnutrition or global resource distribution, is it?

Still, I'll agree that I come across here as 'bitter and unpleasant'; people say the same about Richard Dawkins, too, so not bad company I think. All in all, it's pretty inevitable when you have a low tolerance for b@llsh!t. If there's one thing I've found, it's that the sanctimoniously serious purveyors of zealotry, whether they be Creationists or Warmists, really can't stand, it's being made fun of. Pop their self-righteous bubble and they immediately accuse you of 'bigotry', 'intolerance' and 'unpleasantness'.

Another is that glaring hypocrisy is their stock in trade.

I'm not sure which of my posts has given you the impression that I think climate change "is a very serious problem", Clownfish. In this thread, I have made it quite clear that I am something of a "climate change agnostic". Consider the following from my initial post:

"I, and many people I know, am not foolish enough to believe that I know more than the scientists about climate change. And, as scientists themselves are quite often funded by far-from-impartial benefactors, it is unsurprising that they present contradictory findings on quite a regular basis. Some say we are stuffing our planet up completely, others say we are not. The truth probably lies somewhere in between."

To put it simply, I am not arrogant enough to make "set in stone" statements about something outside any area of my own expertise. I did, however, say that it is a good idea to look at better ways of doing things, which for some absurd reason (which you have yet to explain) you seem to find objectionable.

Also, to ease your confusion: when one goes on a holiday, it is customary to come back. Thus my one overseas holiday involved two international flights. I thought it was pretty obvious, but had forgotten that you have never flown (an assumption based on the fact that to fly and then criticise others for doing the same would be hypocritical).

And finally, the sorts of "more sustainable" practices I am talking about are the little things we can do that count. The use of energy saver bulbs: they produce the same light, but consume less energy. Timer switches on appliances: not using standby power when I am asleep. Using public transport where convenient: reducing the fossil fuels burnt when I move around. They are not perfect practices, but they are ways of achieving the same ends with better environmental outcomes. If that is a bad thing, please explain how. If it is not, please acknowledge that my ideals aren't as silly as you imply.