REALITY CHECKlying has been in the news a lot lately. Not
because of the usual stories like delays, staff
strikes or excess luggage fees, but because of
a more fundamental problem: aviation’s huge
carbon footprint. We’ve recently learned of
Prince Harry and Meghan’s penchant for private
jet t ravel, and Sir Elton John has raised the idea
of buying offsets as a way to f ly ‘carbon neutral’.
Elsewhere, environmentalists like Greta Thunberg
and thousands of her followers are giving up flying
completely. But is air travel really such a big problem?
Unfortunately it is. The aviation industry consumes
five million barrels of oil every day, contributing
a rou nd 2.5 per cent of global ca rbon emissions.
If considered as a country, its carbon footprint is
simila r to t hat of Germany. The vast majority of
flights are taken for leisure – around two-thirds in
the UK – and just 15 per cent of passengers account
for 70 per cent of flights.
And aviation is growing, fast. Thanks to growing
affluence and affordable fares – helped by a long-
standing zero-tax regime for international jet fuel- demand keeps rising. Passenger numbers doubled
over the last 20 years, and are predicted to double
again from around four billion annual journeys to 8.2
billion by 2037, according to the industry body IATA.
As things stand, air travel could account for 22 per
cent of all emissions by 2050, putting huge strain
CARBON OFFSETTING: A SOLUTION
TO FLYING EMISSIONS, OR JUST
PASSING THE BUCK?
Can we justify
long-haul ights
with measures to
o set carbon?COMMENT
COMMENTon ot her v ita l sectors to deca rbon ise
even faster. Some question whet her it
is fair to demand deep cuts in sectors
like ag r icultu re or energ y, wh ich a re
fundamental to human survival, while
exempting aviation, which isn’t.
Under pressure, the industry’s
regulatory body, the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
has come up with the Carbon
Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for
International Aviation, or CORSIA,
to deal with the industry’s carbon
emissions. The scheme has two key
assumptions. First, that aviation can
continue to grow. Second, that there
can be ‘carbon-neutral growth from
2020’, by making flights more efficent,
and by purchasing large-scale carbon
offsets. Some argue that these goals are
mutually exclusive, and the scheme
won’t kick in fully until 2027.FLYING NEUTRAL?
A few i nd iv idua l f lyers ta ke mat ters
into their own hands by offsetting their
flights. Offsetting means compensating
for one activity that produces carbon, like
a f light, by paying for another activity
which removes an equal amount of carbon,
like planting trees. Sir Elton John claimed
t hat because he bought offsets for t he
royal couple’s flight, their air travel was
therefore ‘carbon neutral’. However, this
cla im may be too good to be t r ue, for
several reasons.
Time-wise, a f light ta k ing off today
emits its carbon today. Waiting for trees
to matu re to t he stage when t hey ca n
remove that carbon takes many years –
time which we may simply not have to
spare. Furthermore, offsetting isn’t always
effective: a recent EU report concludedF
“O setting isn’t particularly
e ective: a recent EU study
found that 85 per cent of o set
projects failed to produce the
promised carbon reductions”
GET T Y IIMAGESREALITY CHECK
lying has been in the news a lot lately. Not
because of the usual stories like delays, staff
strikes or excess luggage fees, but because of
a more fundamental problem: aviation’s huge
carbon footprint. We’ve recently learned of
Prince Harry and Meghan’s penchant for private
jet t ravel, and Sir Elton John has raised the idea
of buying offsets as a way to f ly ‘carbon neutral’.
Elsewhere, environmentalists like Greta Thunberg
and thousands of her followers are giving up flying
completely. But is air travel really such a big problem?
Unfortunately it is. The aviation industry consumes
five million barrels of oil every day, contributing
a rou nd 2.5 per cent of global ca rbon emissions.
If considered as a country, its carbon footprint is
simila r to t hat of Germany. The vast majority of
flights are taken for leisure – around two-thirds in
the UK – and just 15 per cent of passengers account
for 70 per cent of flights.
And aviation is growing, fast. Thanks to growing
affluence and affordable fares – helped by a long-
standing zero-tax regime for international jet fuel- demand keeps rising. Passenger numbers doubled
over the last 20 years, and are predicted to double
again from around four billion annual journeys to 8.2
billion by 2037, according to the industry body IATA.
As things stand, air travel could account for 22 per
cent of all emissions by 2050, putting huge strain
CARBON OFFSETTING: A SOLUTION
TO FLYING EMISSIONS, OR JUST
PASSING THE BUCK?
Can we justify
long-haul ights
with measures to
o set carbon?COMMENT
COMMENTon ot her v ita l sectors to deca rbon ise
even faster. Some question whet her it
is fair to demand deep cuts in sectors
like ag r icultu re or energ y, wh ich a re
fundamental to human survival, while
exempting aviation, which isn’t.
Under pressure, the industry’s
regulatory body, the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
has come up with the Carbon
Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for
International Aviation, or CORSIA,
to deal with the industry’s carbon
emissions. The scheme has two key
assumptions. First, that aviation can
continue to grow. Second, that there
can be ‘carbon-neutral growth from
2020’, by making flights more efficent,
and by purchasing large-scale carbon
offsets. Some argue that these goals are
mutually exclusive, and the scheme
won’t kick in fully until 2027.FLYING NEUTRAL?
A few i nd iv idua l f lyers ta ke mat ters
into their own hands by offsetting their
flights. Offsetting means compensating
for one activity that produces carbon, like
a f light, by paying for another activity
which removes an equal amount of carbon,
like planting trees. Sir Elton John claimed
t hat because he bought offsets for t he
royal couple’s flight, their air travel was
therefore ‘carbon neutral’. However, this
cla im may be too good to be t r ue, for
several reasons.
Time-wise, a f light ta k ing off today
emits its carbon today. Waiting for trees
to matu re to t he stage when t hey ca n
remove that carbon takes many years –
time which we may simply not have to
spare. Furthermore, offsetting isn’t always
effective: a recent EU report concludedF
“O setting isn’t particularly
e ective: a recent EU study
found that 85 per cent of o set
projects failed to produce the
promised carbon reductions”
GET T Y IIMAGES