Well it is a wide topic !
Climate change includes a lot of externalities.
As the initial post is about travelling, I guess we talk about global warming/greenhouse gases.
Not (at all)* agree with your speech @kielsznia.
There is a future nobody want to see, and to me there is absolutely no point to 1. Blame others (whoever it is, company etc…) and 2. Call to enjoy while doing your “best”.
You unwritten conclusion looks like a call for a statu quo (waiting for solution), isn’t it? Partying on a sinking boat.
(Yet i am happy you flew to büppel to meet )
Companies too, do their “best”**, in every sense. Implement new regulations, while lobbying so that the change is still manageable while blaming the others, the consumers.
But hey, I’m quite radical.
I have a different mindset. I changed my lifestyle without waiting for solutions. (I.e left my well payed job in automotive industry for cyclo logistics, became veggie, no flight/no car for a few years now, and activist on the Belgian scene)
Now, regarding the polo scene, for me, it’s the same as the flinta discussion:
1- For sure polo isn’t responsible for the context (it is historical) yet, do we want polo to set a direction in it’s sphere of influence ? do it’s best to change the future, making tomorrow’s footprint better than yesterday’s ?
2- if yes, then let’s start about setting some rules/ incentives promoting footprint reduction (event supplies, player’s travel are exemples).
But it has to start from the mindset, point 1. Then it follows, at whatever level, before being a new standard.
*At all between brackets because the only point I agree is, yes indeed, we’re going to a wall. And the only rule that seems to lead us is “sauve qui peut” (every man for himself ?)
PS: no surprise the inequality explodes, good luck with that, history as a loooot of exemples
PS2: no surprise the 2nd biggest fight after greenhouse gaz is climate justice acc. the UN
(And that also why the comparison of flight distance by @flat_humour is so meaningful!)
** 50% of my job was product development but the other 50% I was working on the environmental footprint calculation and future strategy. I was mainly working with metals (engine components) Believe me, converting the whole industry to anything greener within 10years is a hell of a challenge (technically feasible, but not within this time frame).
Why ? Because trillions of tons are necessary every years.
It’s not an easy swap, it represents a looooot of money and time (to change the energy type at all levels, mining, smelting, manufacturing, while being able to produce this new energy in sufficient quantities).
Meanwhile, we sell/we buy cars that are heavier and heavier… Because there is a automatic trunk opening, or a light to help you find the door ahah (well done automotive lobbying, for "helping EU to set a co2/kg target )
And today when I say this to friends they are like "oh you exagerate, that’s so useful "
Well my grandmother walked everyday 2x3km to school, her parents used the car like twice a month to go to the city without an automatic trunk and guess what, she’s alive (not the parents ahah), she’s 85 and I think an automatic trunk, heated seats, electric mirror or other piece of today’s comfort/luxury technology would have changed anything.
And by the way science says the opposite, as people become more and more sedentary. i.e life expectancy reduced last year in America for the first time in a century !
So here is my conclusion: the thing with the biggest impact that can work right now, is lowering consumption.
And obviously I’m not the only one to think that way, that’s why 3R (reuse, recycle, repair) / the Lansink scale are so in focus by EU.