FEBRUARY 6 — Generally, there are three main modes of intercity travel in the UK – bus, rail or plane, with most people opting for either the bus or train.
But when Jordan Cox, an 18-year-old student, was planning his trip home from Sheffield to Essex, the long travel hours in a bus and the astronomical prices of rail tickets in the UK made him decide to fly home from Sheffield to Essex via Berlin instead!
Now, we all know that public transport is the more environmentally friendly method of travel. Moving people in masses decreases the use of private modes of transport and hence individual carbon footprints. When the three modes of travel are compared against each other, the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) released increases in the following order: bus (0.05kg/passenger/km), rail (0.11kg/passenger/km) and plane (0.47kg/passenger/km).
Here, the most environmental friendly choice would be to take the bus. However when the prices of the tickets were factored in, Jordan found that the flight tickets were even cheaper than taking the train and with an extra bonus of a trip to another country, who could blame him for flying home?
Similar problems
As a fellow student, I can relate to this dilemma very well and admittedly am guilty of making many price-based instead of environmentally-friendly choices. Just the other day a group of friends and I decided to call an Uber instead of taking the London Underground train simply because it was cheaper when the cost was divided among us.
Besides, there have been many times when I have opted for the less environmentally friendly product when it came to grocery shopping. For example, I would usually go for conventional food products since organic, fair trade or environmentally-certified foods are usually much more expensive.
Aside from the price factor, convenience can also motivate us to adopt less environmentally-friendly options. Having organised events for large crowds in the past, I often find it difficult to stomach the frequent use of disposable water bottles and polystyrene food containers.
Although frowned upon, it was a necessary arrangement since catering for the masses and getting participants to bring their own containers is a difficult task especially if the event is organised outside campus grounds.
Thus at the end of a beach clean-up activity, a group of volunteers would have ironically generated large amounts of waste themselves.
Here the convenience factor can be seen as a time-based decision. The event could have served the participants buffet-style and made them clean their containers after eating, but that would have reduced time spent on the actual activities.
These situations reflect the relatively low considerations we give to the environment when making decisions and beg the question of whether or not we are willing to sacrifice time and money to keep individual environmental values intact.
Behavioural changes
Nonetheless, there are many ways to be money savvy and environment-friendly at the same time. Simple actions like switching to energy efficient appliances, carpooling and printing on both sides of the paper will go easy on your wallet and reduce environmental impact.
In some cases, convenience does go hand in hand with environmentally-friendly decisions. In 2013, a University of Washington study showed that doorstep delivery of groceries reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than half when compared against individual weekly trips to the supermarket. One can simply place an order online and be comforted with the knowledge that it will arrive with minimal environmental impact and require even less effort.
I admit that an overnight change in behaviour is unrealistic but at the same time argue that the awareness of environmental outcomes of our decisions is very important. Individual reflections may eventually lead to a gradual transition to more environmentally-friendly choices. One must be conscious of these choices so when the luxury of time and money becomes available in the future, changes in behaviour can be easily made.
However, we should note that awareness only provides one with the knowledge of the outcomes of their individual actions but does not guarantee that the target group will adopt more environmentally-friendly choices.
I am of the opinion that environmentalism has to be institutionalised to some extent for immediate delivery of outcomes. When Penang and Selangor launched their "No Plastic Bag Day" campaigns, there was some initial behavioural inertia and minor complaints from residents. Today however, the use of cloth bags or the reuse of plastic bags has become the norm.
In the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Lord Stern emphasised that the cost of inaction greatly outweighs the cost of strong and early action. Although I would very much like to have breakfast in London, lunch in Paris and dinner in Kuala Lumpur, I believe this to be very true and urge everyone to act now!
* This article was written by an Associate Editor from CEKU, the editorial arm of the United Kingdom and Eire Council of Malaysian Students (UKEC).
** This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
