watervole: (Default)
Judith Proctor ([personal profile] watervole) wrote2010-12-13 08:50 am

TAFF

I've been asked if I'd like to be a candidate for TAFF and I'm seriously considering it.

It's an odd situation for me as I haven't flown since 2001  (I used to go regularly to US conventions and I went to Eclecticon in New Jersey shortly after 9/11 because I was damned if terrorists were going to stop me visiting my friends in America)

Not long after that, I became aware of the carbon footprint of a typical flight - and I made the decision to give up overseas travel.

However, in the case of TAFF, someone is going to go in any case, so the carbon footprint does not change if I go instead of someone else.

I have mixed feelings about TAFF, largely because it involves people flying.  On the other hand, it's the only way I'll ever see America again.  (having looked into carbon offset schemes, I concluded that a lot of them were pure greenwash and none of them could actually absorb carbon here and now.  Trees are all very well, but if you plant trees now, it'll take them around thirty years to absorb your carbon - and a lot of damage will have been done in that time.)

Should I stand?  Am I betraying my principles by doing so?


[identity profile] rockwell-666.livejournal.com 2010-12-13 01:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you actually have to go to the USA? If it's just to meet and chat with other people wouldn't video-conferencing work just as well?

Personally, although I'd like to go to the USA sometime, I refuse to participate in the nonsense of Security Theatre at both ends which assumes that everyone who wants to travel on a plane or visit the States is a potential terrorist and must be ritually humiliated and body scanned despite the unsurprising fact that this has *NEVER* caught a terrorist.

(The argument that "it proves it works" is about as realistic as CMOT Dibbler's amulets which protect you against crocodile bites which must work because nobody who's bought one has ever been bitten by a crocodile...)