On the road: Robert Ashton considers his travel choices

‘Where do I stand on the spectrum between radical activist and reluctant accepter of the status quo?’

We’ve just bought an electric car. We’re putting solar panels on the roof to charge it, so, for all but the longest journeys, we will be fuelled by the sun rather than nuclear or gas-fired power stations. I don’t expect to use a public charging point more than once or twice a month.

I’ve been driving for more than fifty years, but this is our first departure from petrol or diesel. I’m sure I’m doing the right thing, but I’m a little daunted by the new technology. It’s also an expensive option: the same car with a petrol engine would have cost considerably less.

Our builder also questioned our decision to make our home all electric, explaining that, even with high energy costs, a gas boiler would cost a lot less than the eco-system we have commissioned. Perhaps it is always the case that doing the right thing is not the cheapest option.

But a chance conversation with a Friend recently prompted me to question the choices I was making. We’d been discussing the idea of a Quaker event to which Friends from across the region would be invited. ‘It’s a great idea’, she said, ‘but many Friends won’t attend as it’s too far to travel by bicycle.’ Her unexpected response made me think. How do we reconcile our wish to travel with our desire to avoid harming the environment? Was I being selfish in buying a new car? Should I instead make myself reliant on public transport? It would mean making considerable sacrifices: public transport is patchy in rural East Anglia. Would I really want to cycle several miles home after an evening out in the depths of winter?

There are Quakers making huge personal sacrifices to protest our nation’s reliance on oil. Other Friends choose to own a car. Where do I stand on the spectrum between radical activist and reluctant accepter of the status quo? This inner debate went on for several days; I was painfully aware that, for many people, the choice is between burning fossil fuels or being cold, as they simply cannot afford the new technology I am buying.

My conclusion is that while all Quakers are committed to living sustainably, we are all also individuals, with different interests, skills and networks. I know that the books I write can challenge people’s assumptions, and perhaps prompt them to make positive changes. Others are comfortable taking direct action, to draw attention to the harm our way of life is doing to the environment. Both are important.

Encouraging change is not a competitive sport, but an opportunity each and every one of us has to play our part in making tomorrow better than today, so I do not feel guilty about choosing not to join public protests, nor do I feel guilty about buying an electric car.

---

Comments

Should Quakers eat meat?

By Lee@No18 on 29th June 2023 - 9:22

---

Please login to add a comment