I haven't stepped into an airplane for about 12 years. I travelled a lot through Europe with ferries, trains, busses and hitchhiking. It was my plan to stick to that on this big trip.

It's a simple fact that there is no viable option to use airplanes on a regular basis in a responsible way. There is no thinkable way that all humans on this planet can have access to planes. It only works because it's a privilege of a rich minority. And there's no thinkable way of combating climate change with the current growth rate of the aviation industry - not to mention the dangers of Peak Oil and unconventional oil extraction.

Some environmentalists who like flying found a very creative way to circumwent this: Compensating emissions. You pay an amount of money that's invested in some climate project for every flight you do. If I had to name the three most ridiculous actions people invented in combating climate change, compensating flight emissions would certainly rank amongst them (for the other two I'd vote carrot mobs and lights off actions). As above, this only works for a very small minority of rich people.

Ok, so back to our trip. It was my plan to avoid flying. I wanted to proove myself and others that it's possible. I failed. I took a plane from Beijing back to Germany. For a relatively trivial reason: Our plan was to take a train to Urumqi, then go to Kazakhstan and then we had two options, one with a train through russia to Ukraine and one through the caspian see to Azerbaijan (I will describe those in detail in a later blog entry). All of them requried getting to Urumqi first. There's no alternative route with public transport. And here's the problem: All tickets to Urumqi were sold out - for the whole time they can be booked in advance. So we wouldn't get tickets for an unknown amount of time.

I the end, after checking all alternative options I could think of, I decided to take a plane back to Germany and shorten my trip. I wasn't that unhappy about it after all, because I experienced our trip much more exhausting than imagined.

There would've been one other option: Taking the transsiberian train back. But that imposes another difficulty that has to do with russias visa regulation. A russian tourist visa is valid for 30 days. So ours is expired. It is not possible to get two visa at the same time, so it was not possible to arrange this in advance (it was our original plan to go back through Russia). And it is not possible to get a russian tourist visa anywhere else than in your home country. It used to be possible in Hong Kong in the past, but recently russia has tightened its visa regulations and according to several online sources this is no longer the case. The only option is getting a Russian transit visa. But that means you have to do the whole trip in a row and have all the tickets to Moscow and further to another country ready beforehand. This means several days in a train without much possibility to pause. I decided that I'm not up for that. I already found the many long train trips we did very difficult, partly because I'm slightly claustrophobic. My girlfriend will do the train trip - I won't. If you are ever in the same situation and need a travel agency, I can suggest Monkey Shrine - they are quite expensive, but their service was excellent. They were able to arrange all tickets including ones from Moscow to Kiev or Tallin and offered a lot of different options for all parts of the trip.

Now I don't think that my single flight will change much. It was a symbolic thing. But I think that opening options for flightless travelling is essential and gets far too less attention. If people talk about environmental or sustainable tourism, the issue of aviation is rarely spoken about. Often enough the problem is just that it is never considered. Take the visa regulation: If you enter and leave a country with an airplane, you usually don't need any visa - even if you change the plane within the country. There's no comparable rule for trains. You even need a visa if you enter and leave a country in a train without a stop. If you're looking for organized transsiberian railway trips, almost all the time it's taking the train for one direction and the plane for the other. Different public transport options often don't fit very well together. I always illustrate this with an experience I had last year when I switched from the train in Zeebrugge in Belgium to the ferry to Edinburgh - there was not any proper footpath from the train to the ferry, although they were only some dozent meters apart. You had to either illegally cross the railway lines or walk on a big street without a footway. I think many missing links for travel options could be closed if there would be more people doing it (e. g. there is no ferry from Singapoure or other Asian countries to Australia and none between Russia and Alaska, although the way isn't that far).
These are just some unfinished thoughts, but I could imagine there is a need for a lobby for flightless travelling. There's much more one could write about it. Flightless travelling means slower travelling - which brings up a discussion about our relation to working time.

If you're interested in flightless travelling, the best online ressource I found is the great webpage seat61.

My trip ends here, but some more blog entries will follow with stuff I didn't find the time yet to write down.

I already wrote in the past that a couple of times that I'm worried about the insane high energy consumption of DSL and WLAN hardware that's supposed to run all the time.

Recently, I switched my internet provider from O2 to Kabel Deutschland and got new hardware. I made some findings I found interesting:

It seems very many power supplies today have a label on their energy effiency. If you find something called "EFFIENCY LEVEL: V" - that's it. V is currently the best, I the worst. Higher values are reserved for the future (so this is much more intelligent than the stupid EU energy label, where A stands for "this was the best when we invented this label some years ago"). I haven't tried that yet, but from what I read it seems worth replacing inefficient power supplies with better ones.

The cable modem I got eats 4 Watts. Considering that it's the crucial part that cannot be switched off as long as I want to be able to receive phone calls, I consider this rather high. The power supply had effiency level IV. If anyone knows of any energy saving cable modems, I'm open for suggestions.

I was quite impressed by the router I got for free. It's a D-Link 615 and it's using 2,4 Watts with wireless and 1,4 Watts without. That's MUCH better than anything I've seen before. So at least we see some progress here. (and for people interested in free software: it seems at least DD-WRT claims to support it and the other *WRT projects are working on it)

Though I still fail to understand why there can't be a simple law stating that every electronic device must put information about it's energy consumption on the package.

I'm currently on a ferry trip to Helsinki.

The next days, I'll be on the Nuclear weekEND near the finnish nuclear plant Loviisa. It's a meeting of anti nuclear activists with international participation. Finland is currently trying to build the first nuclear plant since many years in a western country (I say trying, because the Olkiluoto plant is about two years behind it's time table).
There's a german press release about the event.

A week later, I'll visit the Alternative Party, a small demoscene party in Finland. I was on the Assembly some times in the past and always wanted to take the chance some day to see the AltParty.