The Early Retiree Travel Thread

zagfles

BLB53 wrote: »

Thanks.

On a personal level:
1. I don't fly at all. Train for any longer UK journeys and public transport for local trips.

2. I agree that food plays a big part in the fight against climate emergency. I have been veggie for the past 40 years and in business have set up organic veg delivery schemes - but now retired!

We have an emergency and I think we are the only generation that can make a difference so, for the sake of my grandchildren, I and my children do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint. Air travel is a priviledge enjoyed by less than 10% of the world's population but the emissions affect everyone.

We all have a responsibility, if we accept the warnings from the IPCC, to live a more climate friendly lifestyle - diet, travel/leisure, energy use, work etc. There is no planet B!

There's a lot of ignorance with this "planet B" rubbish, some people seriously think the planet itself, or all life on earth is at risk. It isn't.

The worst case IPCC prediction is around 3-4 degrees warmer by the end of the century. The Earth has been much hotter than that in the past, and I'm not talking about it's formation but a mere blink of the eye in geological history, 50 million years ago, when temperatures were 14 degress higher than now, and there were no polar ice caps at all.

The planet will survive, as it did then. Humans will survive, though probably not in the current unsustainable numbers (that's the real problem, but telling people not to reproduce excessively seems to be less PC than telling them not to fly).

Rising sea levels will force migrations, wars etc. Massive problems, but not this "extinction" rubbish. Not of us anyway - some species may become extinct, and new ones emerge than can better adapt, as has happened thoughout Earth's history. But we can adapt, even dinosaurs managed to survive through bigger climate change during their 100+ million years on Earth, and they had brains the size of a walnut! They were only wiped out by an asteriod that hit Earth with far more power than all the nuclear weapons all countries currently have.
So yeah, it's a problem. But not one for which we need a new planet.

hugheskevi

The planet will survive, as it did then. Humans will survive, though probably not in the current unsustainable numbers (that's the real problem, but telling people not to reproduce excessively seems to be less PC than telling them not to fly).

Agreed.

One of the things which makes me feel a personal responsibility to make an individual effort is that it will not be me who feels the effect of the environmental changes. That isn't because they will not occur in my lifetime, they are occurring now and will very much continue in my next 50 or so years of life.

But living in a developed country and being pretty well-off within that country, the impact on me personally is very likely to be minimal. It is firstly wildlife which will suffer the most as humans increasingly occupy all possible land. It is then people in more marginal climates and poorer countries who will take the brunt of the change.

So if I were to shrug my shoulders and think that my individual impact is trivial in a global context so why bother making any effort, I would feel that to be an extremely selfish approach when it isn't me who will be taking the consequences of my decisions.

I also feel that I shouldn't need legislation to force me to do things which I should be doing, nor that I should do something (or not do something) just because many others are doing it. Many people talk about 'Nanny State' but when you see 2/3rds of the population overweight and most with little or no environmental awareness (or claiming to be aware, but not taking any action in response) it is difficult to argue that most people do need a Nanny State approach to effect change.

zagfles

hugheskevi wrote: »

I also feel that I shouldn't need legislation to force me to do things which I should be doing, nor that I should do something (or not do something) just because many others are doing it. Many people talk about 'Nanny State' but when you see 2/3rds of the population overweight and most with little or no environmental awareness (or claiming to be aware, but not taking any action in response) it is difficult to argue that most people do need a Nanny State approach to effect change.

Yes, although look what happens when Nanny State does try to nudge people towards being more environmentally friendly. The Yellow Jackets in France, which was a response to increased tax on diesel (whatever the loony left and right wing extremists who tried to piggy back the protests claimed), the fuel blockades here in 2000 when Blair tried to do similar.

Here in Manchester 10 years ago the politicians were daft enough to hold a referendum on whether a congestion charge should be introduced. Guess what. Overwhelmingly rejected, by a landslide, 79% against. And just to get a bit of virtue signalling in, I was in favour :A;)

Probably the most environmentally friendly thing this govt have done is the 2 child policy for benefits (no extra child ben, tax credits or UC for third or subsequent children born after April 2017). I know a single parent with 5 kids who freely admits she would not have had 5 had this policy been in place before hers were born. She simply couldn't have afforded to. In fact the most environmentally unfriendly thing I've probably done in my life is tell her how the benefits system works years ago when she only had one

Yet how often do you hear the environmental aspect of such policies discussed? Lifestyle choices such as eating to excess, breeding to excess, having dogs, living alone etc which are more environmentally damaging than taking a few flights a year aren't discussed in the same way because it's un-PC to do so.

robin61

I retired early at 57 on 1st August. For me travel isn't really the be all an end all. We enjoy spending time at home, doing stuff we like doing and not having to work..

We had a family holiday to France in a villa last August.

We've had a few trips back to my native North East which I will now do more often than I used to and I'm combining a trip up there with a motorbike tour of North Yorks and the Lake District with a mate of mine. My wife and daughter are visiting her family in Italy later this year.

I really dislike airports and flying and would be perfectly happy to avoid them for the rest of my life. It's not an environmental thing at all for me I just don't enjoy the experience.
I can see us doing a no fly cruise in the not too distant future. I think we will enjoy that more. Boat, car and motorbike far more enjoyable than flying.

lisyloo

zagfles wrote: »

People always go about repatriation, but unless you're in a country with poor medical facilities (or on a cruise at sea) it's not usually necessary.

Agreed but the point of insurance is to cover risks that might not usually be necessary

If a foreigner has a serious accident/medical condition I doubt they'd automatically get airlifted back to their home country, they'd be taken to a local hospital..

Yep and if you want your spouses costs covered e.g. hotel, possibly a translator and possibly to fly home with a nurse and broken leg (e.g. 9 seats) then it’s worth having insurance cover.

As I said I understand why people do it and also why they wouldn’t.
Depends on how much money you are have and your attitude to risk.

bugslett

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, although look what happens when Nanny State does try to nudge people towards being more environmentally friendly. The Yellow Jackets in France, which was a response to increased tax on diesel (whatever the loony left and right wing extremists who tried to piggy back the protests claimed), the fuel blockades here in 2000 when Blair tried to do similar.

Here in Manchester 10 years ago the politicians were daft enough to hold a referendum on whether a congestion charge should be introduced. Guess what. Overwhelmingly rejected, by a landslide, 79% against. And just to get a bit of virtue signalling in, I was in favour :A;)

Probably the most environmentally friendly thing this govt have done is the 2 child policy for benefits (no extra child ben, tax credits or UC for third or subsequent children born after April 2017). I know a single parent with 5 kids who freely admits she would not have had 5 had this policy been in place before hers were born. She simply couldn't have afforded to. In fact the most environmentally unfriendly thing I've probably done in my life is tell her how the benefits system works years ago when she only had one

Yet how often do you hear the environmental aspect of such policies discussed? Lifestyle choices such as eating to excess, breeding to excess, having dogs, living alone etc which are more environmentally damaging than taking a few flights a year aren't discussed in the same way because it's un-PC to do so.

I like someone that nails their colours to the mast!

Fuel protests of 2000 were interesting. I did and didn't support them. Didn't on the grounds that as far as I was concerned, government could have doubled the price of fuel and I would have increased my charges proportionally. So as a haulier it would make no odds to me. (Trouble with a lot of small haulage firms is that they do ad hoc work and their customers were not willing to pay more, so it came close to making their business unviable). The part where I did have sympathy was the competition from foreign hauliers that were running on much cheaper fuel and within (mostly) the confines of the law, doing some uk work and undercutting uk hauliers.

The rail network, AIUI, can only tolerate a small increase in freight traffic. Freight is going to move, unless you exponentially increase the costs of doing business, but then there has to be some interesting business (of all sorts), ramifications.

Congestion charge in Manchester. I live in Runcorn, worked in Salford. There would have to be a huge change in public transport for me to get there at 6.30 in the morning. No, my life was in Runcorn, I was not going to move to Salford.

I understand what you say about things like dogs and living alone, but I'm not living with a stranger, I dont want to live with someone I know for that matter, I'm a fairly solitary person. As for dogs, I'd be lost without mine. I'll accept a tax on them if there is a tax on children that I suspect are more environmentally damaging!:rotfl:

zagfles

lisyloo wrote: »

Agreed but the point of insurance is to cover risks that might not usually be necessary



Yep and if you want your spouses costs covered e.g. hotel, possibly a translator and possibly to fly home with a nurse and broken leg (e.g. 9 seats) then it’s worth having insurance cover.

As I said I understand why people do it and also why they wouldn’t.
Depends on how much money you are have and your attitude to risk.

Better not drink on holiday then - most policies won't cover you if under the influence! Certainly not if you're drunk.
Plus buying financial products like insurance is apparently environmentally unfriendly :rotfl:And air ambulances...well...the carbon footprint of what is effectively a personal jet :eek::eek::eek: can you imagine it!
Switzerland might be a good holiday destination for someone who's terminally ill and is more worried about money or the effect on their estate if they need major treatment than their own remaining months of life.

zagfles

bugslett wrote: »

I like someone that nails their colours to the mast!

Fuel protests of 2000 were interesting. I did and didn't support them. Didn't on the grounds that as far as I was concerned, government could have doubled the price of fuel and I would have increased my charges proportionally. So as a haulier it would make no odds to me. (Trouble with a lot of small haulage firms is that they do ad hoc work and their customers were not willing to pay more, so it came close to making their business unviable). The part where I did have sympathy was the competition from foreign hauliers that were running on much cheaper fuel and within (mostly) the confines of the law, doing some uk work and undercutting uk hauliers.

Yes, like a lot of things it needs international action or it's fairly useless.

The rail network, AIUI, can only tolerate a small increase in freight traffic. Freight is going to move, unless you exponentially increase the costs of doing business, but then there has to be some interesting business (of all sorts), ramifications.

There's a lot of stuff that is being transported simply because it's cheaper to produce somewhere else, increase transport costs and it changes the equation. For instance I read somewhere that most pre-packed sandwiches sold in London are made in Wales!

Congestion charge in Manchester. I live in Runcorn, worked in Salford. There would have to be a huge change in public transport for me to get there at 6.30 in the morning. No, my life was in Runcorn, I was not going to move to Salford.

You wouldn't have been affected. It was only peak traffic, no charge before 7am. There was a lot of misunderstanding of it all, from both sides. For instance we kept being told there was no charge to use the M60. They were right if you used it from outside, but not from where I live, within!

I understand what you say about things like dogs and living alone, but I'm not living with a stranger, I dont want to live with someone I know for that matter, I'm a fairly solitary person. As for dogs, I'd be lost without mine. I'll accept a tax on them if there is a tax on children that I suspect are more environmentally damaging!:rotfl:

Yup - point is lots of lifestyle choices are environmentally damaging - but flying seems to get singled out all the time while others are ignored.

Just_me_1

But what if your children and grandchildren were abroad?
Never to see them ..apart from online?

shinytop

1a, 1b. Like some others I haven’t got a particular sum in mind but travel is a big part of our plans. We’ll do at least one long haul, several short haul and multiple UK trips each year.
2. We will spend significantly more on travel in retirement that we do while working.
3. We tend to travel low budget; a bit higher up the scale than backpacking but we try to use local business, public transport, etc. We will definitely do longer trips and it will be good to lose the 2 week restriction that working imposes. Definitely no business class; it’s still 12 hours in a metal tube with 300 other people and a slightly bigger seat sitting next to richer people doesn’t really help. My approach is to keep as fit, slim and supple as I can so that I fit in a standard seat. Modern electronics mean there’s plenty entertainment available too.
4. South America definitely. We’ve been once but there is a lot more to see. I speak reasonable Spanish so that makes roughing it a bit easier and more fun. USA too, I find that a fascinating place and very easy to travel in. I’m going to do some motorcycling based trips; an organised one soon - maybe Morocco – and also Europe on my own. I’ve done France/Spain lots of times but want to go east. That’s solo as OH doesn’t do bikes. She’s got a few solo trips in mind too.

And the environment? My main contribution is not buying a motorhome.;)