Are you embarrassed about flying to Thailand?
In the Netherlands, environmental fetishists are trying to make everyone feel guilty. Besides the fact that every middle-aged white angry man is at least a pervert and racist, because he sometimes looks at a beautiful woman and cherishes the Sinterklaas party with Zwarte Piet, there is something new to hit you with: fly shame .
Flight shame means that you should feel guilty when you get on a plane. Because airplanes are polluting and, through CO2 emissions, contribute to global warming.
Political parties such as GroenLinks and D66 are fully committed to the environment and want the Netherlands to become the best boy in the world. If it is up to them, we will no longer fly to Thailand, but from now on we will go to the Land of Smiles by electric bicycle. If you do get on the plane, then you should at least be ashamed of yourself, because you are helping the earth to hell, or so the argument goes. And if you think you can enjoy a piece of meat on board the plane, then you are completely an environmental terrorist, because meat is also bad for the flowers and the bees, so from now on only a very dry vegetarian burger made of wheatgrass.
It only becomes really fun when people start researching the political color of the so-called environmental destroyers, who keep getting on the plane. And guess what? Dutch people who vote for D66, VVD or GroenLinks are on average the most likely to board an airplane, according to a study by the Ministry of the Interior into the sustainability of the population. Hooray, long live the hypocrites!
The average Dutchman flies 0,76 times a year, but the D66 voter is the most above that average at 1,12 times, followed by the VVD voter (1,06) and the GroenLinks voter (0,83). Quite striking, because these parties present themselves as environmentally conscious.
The research carried out by I&O Research also shows that flying is most popular among highly educated people and people with an above-average income.
And you, dear readers, are you embarrassed if you get on a plane to Thailand this year?
Read more about the research here: www.zakenreisnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/72/algemeen/kiezers-van-d66-vvd-en-groenlinks-vliegen-het-vaakst
About this blogger
-
Known as Khun Peter (62), lives alternately in Apeldoorn and Pattaya. In a relationship with Kanchana for 14 years. Not yet retired, have my own company, something with insurance. Crazy about animals, especially dogs and a lover of good music.
Enough hobbies, but unfortunately little time: writing for Thailandblog, fitness, health and nutrition, shooting sports, chatting with friends and some other oddities.
My motto: "Don't worry too much, others will do that for you."
Read the latest articles here
HealthJanuary 11 2025Study shows: More vitamin D keeps PSA lower in men
HealthJanuary 9 2025Can supplements reduce the harmful effects of particulate matter to some extent?
HealthJanuary 3 2025Why Walnuts Are Powerhouses For Your Health
HealthDecember 15 2024Strength training keeps your body younger at the cellular level
These kind of moral knights are always nicely described at Geenstijl.nl
The Netherlands is full of patrons. If you have been staying in Thailand for a longer period of time, you will see what a bubble some politicians live in.
Don't be ashamed at all! Although flying is not a necessity of life for me, having family and friends is, let's just leave some of them in the Netherlands and Thailand, so for the time being I will continue to take the plane regularly, moreover, it is also beneficial for collecting FlyingBlue miles.
It should be clear that the above parties cannot count on my vote, hypocrisy at its best!
I'm not ashamed at all. It's all nonsense and scaremongering from those moral knights that it's about the future of the children. I think they have been indoctrinated by climate gurus, including Al Gore. Who pays quite a bit for a lecture on climate.
…and he doesn't come by bike. !!
Those so-called green ones are only green with envy. And the youth who will now go out on foot or by bicycle. By car, no, that should not be polluted. With the train, the electricity is not made in a nuclear power plant or with petoleum or natural gas. The youth is the future let them invent the alternatives. By or with arguing, nothing changes just by doing something. It's up to them.
I fly vv to Thailand once a year and a few times domestically.
I'm not ashamed of it at all.
Try to spare the environment by separating waste, buying consciously, etc.
But sometimes flying is just more practical.
These kinds of ideas come from people who have a lot of money and want the road/airspace to themselves.
“Are you ashamed to get on a plane to Thailand this year?”
I'll keep it short.
Not even for a second am I ashamed of what I do, eat or where and how I travel.
Has our NL government not recently increased its interest in Schiphol? Contradiction or what? So fly less but want more money…
Suppose I'm not flying.
Will the plane not leave then???
As long as politics doesn't concern itself with the large-scale deforestation around the world, I'm not worried about the one-way flight I'm taking. At least 8 football fields of tropical forest are cut down every day. Trees convert CO2 into oxygen. The oceans are responsible for producing 50% of the Co2. Are we going to dampen the oceans now? Bunch of fringe morons. They should be more concerned with the real reason why the Co2 level is rising!
In no way am I ashamed of what I do and the way I travel.
In fact, it will only get more.
The Netherlands is increasingly resembling an open organization. Crazier than crazy is what the Netherlands has become.
I'm counting down to be as little part of that merry-go-round as possible.
The climate concerns us all, regardless of political preference or whatever. I appreciate thailand.blog for the information about everything around Thailand. There is already more than enough space on other social media for political opinions or criticism and reactions to others.
It's a pity that my finances don't allow it otherwise I would fly much more often and for those vinegar whiners they can all go to hell.
Environment is only a label to be able to levy taxes.
The Netherlands is a dot on the globe and is nothing.
Old cars are allowed to go to Africa to pollute there.
How hypocritical do you want it.
There is a good solution for these parties of moral hypocrites: to be punished on March 20
I fly to Thailand 3 times a year for a holiday and I am absolutely not ashamed of it. On the contrary, I consider myself fortunate to be in a position to do so.
Wholeheartedly agree with you Peter. Climate and related sectors have become industries.
Similarly, debt restructuring, social assistance, parts of the health care, the rdw, etc.
A lot of money is involved and many people earn their living in those sectors. They don't solve the problem, because then they cancel themselves, so declare the user guilty.
As you mentioned in your entry there are many contradictions to be found, ¨The shirt is closer than the skirt¨
Nevertheless, it is everyone's responsibility to handle the things our earth gives us with care. And that is not always easy in this period full of conflicting interests…
If I now go to Thailand on my electric bicycle, will the plane not fly or will all 300 passengers have to go by bicycle? So it goes much further than talking to an individual about an environmental complex.
The Netherlands is certainly not the best boy in the class at the moment:
https://www.zelfenergieproduceren.nl/nieuws/nederland-in-top-10-meest-vervuilende-landen/
Transition to clean energy is a fantastic challenge and the development of all kinds of new technology can provide an economic boost. Most of the wind turbines in the North Sea are made by Danish companies… that would be better done by Dutch companies.
Unfortunately, for example, Mr. 0,00007 Thierry Baudet (in the context of quick scoring with populist cries) only hammers on the costs. That is a one-sided and above all very short-sighted view: all that money does end up in the economy, it is not the case that this money is burned. Of course we will feel it in our wallet through taxes, but it is an investment in the future of our children and grandchildren. That brighter future should not stop 'angry white men' (who are afraid that their pleasant life will be somewhat limited).
And clean energy… oil, coal, gas all originated under the influence of the sun, it is much smarter to bypass that detour and (among other things) use solar energy directly. Because it is certain that oil and gas will run out in 50-100 years, so why should we wait with the energy transition? And clean air… no more polluting, noisy cars…. what a blessing.
And yes, to answer the question: I am ashamed when I fly, because I contribute to CO2 emissions and thus to global warming. I've already reduced it from once a year to once every two years.
Finally: we have to create 10.000 and square kilometers of forests, which absorb CO2, with which the earth can cool down, history has shown that: during 100 years (around 1600) the Europeans killed 56 million Indians in North America. As a result, agriculture largely disappeared, with the result that forests reappeared in those areas. They absorbed so much CO2 that the climate cooled. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/world/european-colonization-climate-change-trnd/index.html
If someone is ashamed, then they should never ever get on a plane again. That deserves respect. Now it is only an ounce less to ease the conscience. But that was already apparent from the survey into voter behaviour. Take the measure of others, but do not set a good example yourself.
China plans to build 15 more airports in the next 200 years. The Chinese government has set itself the goal that in the future every Chinese, and there are quite a few, should be able to board an airplane. So that idiocy in the Netherlands is mopping with 10 Chinese taps open.
Dear Kees, you rave, especially that last one about the Indians, almost made me fall off my chair, I thought Holland's terrible slavery past would be added, but no, he's saving that valid argument for later. Thank you, you also show what kind of wood the environmental geeks are made of.
Greetings from Pa-Sang.
And what about all those MEPs who I believe move everything from Brussels to Strasbourg twice a month, and then all those "study" flights that our MEPs make, must be flying because by train to Italy or whatever that costs them too much time.
They can take an example in this regard from Kim Jung Un who spent days on a train to travel from North Korea to Vietnam. LOL
Good or bad question, am I ashamed that I regularly fly to Thailand, for example? My answer is NO, not for a moment.
I have been a member of a political party for about 43 years, held various positions, served on the city council, etc. So I have some experience. Personally, I put on as much as possible, let's call it 'climate control'. I collect waste paper (goes to the local broadcaster) throw the empty bottles, sorted or not, in the bottle bins, the plastic also goes in the appropriate bin, etc. etc. To go to work I take, (by wind and weather an hour), the bicycle. I have optimally insulated my house, installed solar panels and use source heating, so no gas connection. How sustainable can one be? In short, my contribution is not small. I can't say that about my former (con)colleagues, left and right!, in politics. Either they have never thought about it or they lack the ability to actually give substance to the environmental idea. It is precisely those people in certain parties who pride themselves on being in favor of sustainability, but who personally do not do much about it or for it. That people are now going to shout that one should feel guilty when the plane is taken, then my answer is; Remove the beam from your own eye before removing the speck from another.
The problem is that we all know that things are going in the wrong direction, but no one wants to give up the luxury that the measures would require. And large countries such as China, India and Brazil really do not allow themselves to be stopped by drastic environmental measures in their development now that they are finally on the rise. Yet future generations will pay dearly for climate change. But whether we as humanity can stop that with whatever measures…?
As a progressive rascal, I say flying is a necessary evil. Of course we have to think about the environment and our fellow man. But we also just need to be able to live a little normal life. Great if the Netherlands continues to work with others for a better world, you do that together, because otherwise it will be impossible. Little by little we will get there, and if not, we humans will die out. Earth will survive us. So with embarrassment to board the plane? Certainly not because the Netherlands and Thailand are my home and there is no other way to get there within a short period of time.
I think it will be ok with the extinction of humanity. The earth had also already given up when it came to acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.
Sea level rise is a problem for the Netherlands. I would rather they use money for the energy transition to raise the dikes considerably. In my opinion that is the most important thing to do.
Furthermore, I hardly ever hear from the environmentalists about deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil, which is a huge problem. But hey, there's no money to be made for them. The entire energy transition in the Netherlands is of course 'big business', after all, it involves billions and many of those environmental clubs and green companies will become alarmingly rich from that.
Oh how we are busy again.
I fly to Thailand at least once a year.
I live in Amsterdam and am very much and increasingly bothered by the air traffic above me. Can I not complain about this nuisance?
It is of course about people who take the plane for every trifle or step trip. The troublemaker goes unpunished and the polluter still pays nothing, not even a tax on the kerosene. We'd better be ashamed of ourselves for allowing all this.
Why does Schiphol have to keep expanding? Curtail short flights and only allow sustainable flying machines.
And if we do fly: the longer we stay in Thailand, the better for the environment.
So you regularly fly to Thailand yourself, but if others do, you suffer from it and should they ban it? I cannot give a more striking example of strange twists of thought.
According to scientific debate on Flemish TV channel, airplanes are responsible for 3% of climate pollution. So there are still 97% of other polluting matters left… These can perhaps also be tackled? Making plane tickets more expensive again is apparently the only solution that our Belgian politicians like… because that simply brings in money!
In other words: we keep flying to Thailand once a year to visit our family… without feeling guilty 😉
Our government now has KLM shares….
I fly when I want. And I don't intend to touch the two snot noses of green left and D66. Definitely won't vote for either party.
What a pity now. Suddenly the true nature of man appears again .
You often read sensible things here. But now that it affects you yourselves, everyone is playing dumb.
Go and calculate what that "ugly duck" costs in fuel and that dreamliner. Then that plane is a lot more environmentally friendly. (yes, calculated once).
Zaventem-Schiphol: agree: nonsense. ditto e.g. Breda – Waterloo station: better by HSL (if it runs)
it has always been like this: one makes arrangements for others and exceptions for oneself 🙂
As a medicine against belching flight-shame, or against the moralists, besides emotional and subjective arguments you can also adduce objective and rational arguments in favor of flying!:
(1) flying is a means of obtaining the necessities of life (as indicated by Sir Charles), supported by at least three rights in the Universal Declaration of Man.
(2) If I meet that need through an annual visit to my loved ones in Thailand with my VW Passat (sjoemeldiesel), this results in a total CO2 emission of 1827 kg.
The ride from Centrum Breda to Clock Tower Chiang Rai is 11562 km, at least via Kazakhstan..
(3) A study by CE Delft indicates that the train to airport (AMS) emits 2.6 kg of CO2 per passenger. The Boeing 777-300 with 80% occupancy emits 1349 kg/pax in flight AMS-BKK. Then the BKK-CEI flight (A320-200neo) with 80% occupancy 93kg/pax. Total 1445 kg CO2 !! So less than by car! OK the tuk-tuk from CEI to Clock Tower will be added..
(4) by car I also use 11562 km of infrastructure: asphalt, road lighting, toll gates, petrol stations, bridges, viaducts, etc. By train and plane: 1 train station and 3 airports..
The total emission of C02 by the respiration of all mankind per year is 2500 million tons. Stop breathing. The internet costs the energy production of 4 medium-sized power stations. Quit the internet.
I'm ashamed of other things. But I do think that we should all try to reduce CO02 emissions. Each in his own way and without blaming anyone else. We can do that without affecting our happiness in life.
I would like to take the environment into account a bit, but let those flap turds from green links d66 sp pvda cda take care of themselves, especially jets from d66 fly 5x a year and then say bad for the environment, but then extra tax means if you if you have a lot of money you are allowed to pollute, it is about money or about pollution. But if you are a member of parliament you earn 2000 euros more than a member of parliament who earns 6200 euros. per month and a professor between 4-5000 euros.
And if we go on holiday to relatives once a year, we should get guilty feelings, well not at all. Let them get that, they should be ashamed.
Joseph, I agree with you. Sensible responses are usually given here, often criticizing Thailand, but now it's just self-serving preaching.
Yes, I voted D66 and now green left. Yes, I have been a vegetarian for 45 years and yes I fly to Thailand twice a year just like I wear leather shoes because there is no good alternative.
We can decide for ourselves what we do and do not have to be immediately put in boxes as a left-wing rascal, environmental geek, etc.
Especially on Thailandblog.nl you expect understanding for each other. No, I am not ashamed that I often fly to Thailand, but I am concerned about the environmental impact this entails. Asking the question and immediately attaching a negative, left-wing image to it is, in my opinion, incorrect and does not give a nice atmosphere to this excellent blog.
Edward
After the acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, the prophets of doom are now coming out of the top hat with a CO2 ghost. With the message: we will die if we do nothing! These new Jehovah's Witnesses mainly want to scare you. Because fear works best to influence large groups of people. Also read another sound and then draw some conclusions: https://www.climategate.nl/2019/02/79644/
We flew to Thailand last November and recently returned. Because of the border run we also went to Taiwan and back. I/we are not ashamed of that. On the contrary: in life and well-being, a week in NY is scheduled for next May. Only when there is indeed worldwide awareness and the decision that we will travel en masse differently, will we do so. But only then only when Jesse Klaver (GL) and Rob Jetten (D66) also spend their holidays in Europe by bicycle.
About 2 years ago, Sharon Dijksma, then State Secretary for the Environment, was a guest at Jeroen Pauw. She was pleading for people to fly less. However: when asked, she admitted that she had been on holiday to the Dominican Republic with her family (a total of 5 tickets there and back) that year. “Mistake!” she smirked!
Ed Nijpels, chairman of the NL Climate Council, was asked a few months ago by Eva Jinek where he was last summer. Answer: New Zealand! Visiting friends for anniversary.
Just sayin.
Schiphol Suvarnabhumi is as the crow flies: 9.188 km and with a direct flight we will be in the silver bird at approximately 11.00:XNUMX am.
The driving route, by car, is 12.670 km long and would take at least 149h 13min. It takes much longer by bike. To reduce emissions, of course, we have to go by bicycle.
Because of the guaranteed saddle sores on those jaws, I have no shame on those other jaws 🙂
For short-haul flights, there are undoubtedly sound alternatives conceivable.
I am not at all ashamed to fly abroad, especially since I just read that a:
AN ELECTRIC CAR IS GREENER THAN A PETROL CAR ONLY AFTER 700.000 KILOMETERS.
Currently, a 60-kilowatt-hour (kWh) electric car that consumes 20 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometers would have to travel exactly 697.612 km before it is greener than an average petrol car…
So people just keep flying and eat what you want.
First check carefully what you read, especially if it comes from the tube of the telegraph.
Indeed, you should read carefully because it is in the AD, so no stupid comments
Science is already well on its way to developing trees 2.0, the conversion of CO2 into oxygen, which is now done by trees and plants, will be done by technology in about 5 years and is also expected to be a lot more efficient.
We will also overcome this problem as humanity, just like acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.
I think it is mainly the intention that the klootjesfolk are talked into a complex not to fly.
If it is up to the climate knights, this will soon no longer be affordable for the normal man with the flight tax in the making.
So work work and pay for all wind turbines and solar panels no longer go on holiday because the government would rather not have that.
The green high earners do fly for us, they earn enough anyway.
So no more flying for normal employees, but for the green canal belt.
If there's anything I'm ashamed of, it's our drivers.
it's impossible to do on foot, since I also have a job. So just fly. 555
No regrets, and no hair on my head thinking about the environment, and it will stay that way.
You don't have to be ashamed to fly, see below when an Electric car becomes greener.
'Electric car greener than petrol car only after 700.000 kilometers' | Car | AD.nl
Currently, a 60-kilowatt-hour (kWh) electric car that consumes 20 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometers would have to travel exactly 697.612 km before it is greener than an average petrol car…
Nope I'm not ashamed of it.. I work all year round to save for my vacation, that should be an example for many of those left-wing extortionists and not the other way around...
I think the politically colored position of this article is very black and white.
As if you are no longer allowed to fly to Thailand from D66, VVD and Groen Links… what nonsense and mood-making. Anyone who says this is just trying to scare you.
Of course you can fly to Thailand, you shouldn't see it all so black and white.
It is unfortunately a fact that the earth is warming up too quickly, partly due to human influence. We can no longer deny that. So we will have to come up with / devise / innovate something so that in 30 years we will still have enough water and food for everyone. A transition will have to take place to something else, a different way of producing. We need to start “thinking” and not doom and gloom.
Doing nothing, burying our heads in the sand is of no use to us either… that is naive denial, or as the English say “kicking the can”. Pushing problems forward without actually solving them. We should not NOT do things, but do things differently. Thinking and becoming aware of your own actions and then being open to changing this. Only then can we achieve anything.
And don't be fooled by any political party.. they are ALL out for self gain and power. They all say the most foolish things to blacken the other. Double check the facts first!
Have a nice weekend everyone and best regards.
You say: It is unfortunately a fact that the earth is warming up too quickly, partly due to human influence. We can no longer deny that
The earth is warming up, that's for sure. But whether or not that is due to humans is just an assumption and not a fact. There are many scientists who claim that other factors play a role, such as the sun. If you look at historical data, it has often been very warm on earth, there was not even ice at the poles then. Not because of man, because there were none then.
It is mainly scaremongering, because the environmental lobby has a hidden agenda. It is mainly about power and money.
There are many scientists who claim that other factors play a role, such as the sun.
But very little, Peter. Not even 1 percent.
solar radiation
It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:
•Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
•If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
There is an incredible amount of fiddling with numbers. For example, it is invariably claimed that 97% of all scientists say that humans are responsible for climate change. That is not true. That story is a lie and numbers have clearly been manipulated to arrive at that number. Just read this: https://opiniez.com/2019/02/12/het-creatieve-boekhouden-van-de-97-klimaatconsensus/robertbor101/
Another breath of fresh air:
https://www.climategate.nl/
http://www.courtfool.info/nl_Feiten_en_leugens_over_het_klimaat_3.htm
http://www.earth-matters.nl/7/11871/aarde-en-milieu/feiten-en-leugens-over-het-klimaat.html
https://www.ninefornews.nl/klimaatleugen-ontmaskerd-wetenschappers-verklappen/
https://www.onzichtbaremacht.nl/de-leugen-rond-klimaatverandering/
If it were possible that we could all affordably and efficiently drive an electric car in a relatively short time, this would certainly be a good thing for the environment.
Only as long as this alternative is not affordable and efficient available, I will not be ashamed if I actually have no other option to use my car for a slightly longer distance now and then.
Even if I take the comparison ship or plane, I will take the plane without any shame.
Someone who is so full of mouth that he wants to move others to think more about the environment, should himself lead by example and sacrifice.
Governments that controlled the auto Industry for years, and actually overslept with this Industry to look for alternatives, now often play the moral apostle.
The Friday demonstrations of the young Swede Greta Thunberg would also find no support at all among most schoolchildren in Europe, if they had to go to school an extra Saturday instead of a free school day in protest for the same environment.
All moral apostles who make rules for others, and like to make exceptions for themselves.
Real activists who, besides their beautiful spells, actually perform sacrifice themselves are usually very scarce, so most of us need not be ashamed at all.
It is true that the average temperature on earth always fluctuates. Ice ages, warm periods, influence of volcanic eruptions, influence of the sun, solar storms and meteorite impacts. Of course that all has an influence and no one denies that. And nature then slowly adjusts to that and also recovers from the change.
But the problem is, and get that in your head, it just goes unnaturally FAST.
The temperature is just rising TOO FAST without the natural factors changing much.
And if you eliminate the other factors, you still end up with humans. Well, 95% of scientists agree on that (don't listen to politicians or the business community because they have their own interests).
Who are you going to believe? The 95% or the 5%? What you want.
Because things go so fast, nature cannot adapt quickly enough.
So if we manage to slow down or stop the process of temperature rise, nature can adapt and it won't be all that dramatic.
That is why investing in stopping climate change also makes sense. But it will be a long-term transition. We probably no longer experience the results of our good will. But I hope my grandchildren do. And I also wish them a beautiful green earth.
That 95%, which is 97% by the way, is not correct. Read this: https://opiniez.com/2019/02/12/het-creatieve-boekhouden-van-de-97-klimaatconsensus/robertbor101/
Any story about restricting air traffic from or to the Netherlands is completely pointless. Just like car use. 17 million people live in the Netherlands, comparable to many cities in Asia. The fact is that the number of aircraft will double in the next 20 years, partly thanks to the economic development in Asia. In 2017 there were 21450 aircraft, this number is growing to 47990 according to a publication from 2017. And after these 20 years probably another strong increase. Resistance is futile = resistance is futile, according to a quote from Startrek. Google on: number of planes prediction.
Denying that no 97% scientists say that humans are to blame for climate change is just as manipulative sleight of hand as enforcing this 97% climate consensus. So I stay away from it. Nevertheless, when I wait at BTS Udom Suk for the free shuttle to Mega Bangna, I want Thailand's newly installed government to switch all traffic in Bangkok to electricity.
I'm not ashamed when I get on a plane. But vicariously I am ashamed of Thailandblog, which poses an environmental question accompanied by a dredge of political prejudice.
If an opinion disagrees with yours, is it prejudice? Your comment seems more like an attempt to silence dissenters. Not very democratic, everyone is entitled to an opinion. So speaking of dredging…..