Air travel: friendor foe?
42 wanderlust.co.uk March 2020
EXPLORE OPINION
The Conscious
Traveller
More and more travellers are debating whether to fly or not in an attempt to be
more eco-conscious. Emma Thomson takes a look at both sides of the debateTo fly or not to fly has become the most
pressing question among travellers in
recent years. This was highlighted three
years ago when Swedish singer Staffan
Lindberg announced he had given up flying
because the carbon footprint was too great.
It launched a nationwideflight-shame
movement that has nowgainedworldwide
traction thanks to
Greta Thunberg, the Extinction
Rebellion protests and a new UK Flight
Free 2020 campaign that is currently
being copied in France and Canada.
Flights do emit more carbon
emissions per passenger than any
other form of transport, but does
this mean we shouldn’t fly at all?
Reports reveal the average British
holidaymaker only takes a short-haul
flight every two years and a long-haul
flight every five years. The majority of
us are not frequent flyers spurred on
by airline-alliance schemes and
incentives, and most of us do not travel business class
(where the seats take up more room and reduce the number
of passengers to share the carbon footprint). Furthermore,
aviation accounts for just under 3% of global carbon
emissions compared to 25% for electricity and heat
production and 24% for agriculture and forestry.
However, there’s no denying there is an impact and flying
short- or long-haul doesn’t really make a difference.
Short-distance routes use more fuel taking off and landing
and depart with more empty seats, while longer flights
accrue more emissions due to distance.
Grants are being given to speed up research into
electrification and sustainable bio-based aviation fuels.
However, unlike the car, advancement is minimal because
electric motors can’t get a 41,000kg plane off the ground
and the arable lands required to produce enough viable
biofuel would be vast and unsustainable.And, sadly, carbon-offsetting flights – the practice of paying
a little extra to support an initiative that cancels out the
carbon dioxide emitted on a flight by investing in tree-
planting projects, wind farms, etc – isn’t always an effective
solution either. The travel company Responsible Travel
reports: “a 2017 study commissioned by the European
Commission,foundthat 85% of offset projects under the
KyotoProtocol’sClean Development Mechanism had
failed to reduce emissions and, from
2021, the EU will stop allowing offsets
to be counted towards emissions
reductions targets.”
But boycotting air travel overlooks
the huge social impact. Hilary Bradt,
founder of award-winning Bradt
Travel Guides, says: “there’s the very
strong argument that reducing
tourism to the developing world
[most easily reached by air travel]
will have a disastrous effect on those
countries dependent on the tourist
dollar. We in the travel business have
seen similar effects when there is
political upheaval – small businesses collapse, wildlife
suffers, hotel employees lose their jobs. We owe it to the
countries in Africa, Asia and South America to encourage
responsible tourism and that means flying.”
Perhaps the solution is to stick to our allocated ‘carbon
budget’ – the amount of carbon dioxide emissions we can
emit while still limiting a global temperature rise of 2% as per
the 2015 Paris Agreement. The World Resources Institute has
calculated it should be 2.3 tonnes per year per person and, for
example, an economy-class return flight from London to
NewYorkemitsanestimated1.67tonnesofcarbondioxide
perpassenger.Perhapsinsteadofnotflying,wejustneedto
managethatallowance.Likeallthings,it’saboutbalance.The British Guild of Travel Writers’ Travel Writer of the Year
2019 , Emma is a regular contributor to Wanderlust, as well as
to The Daily Telegraph, The Times and Bradt Travel Guides.Fli ore
car per
pa ny
other form of transport,
but does this mean we
shouldn’t ly at all?