9) My passengers

Let’s begin where I left off(setting) last week. Airlines around the world are being accused of ‘greenwashing’, reducing your guilt of flying by offsetting the carbon emissions from your flight. But this doesn’t stop you flying: rather it encourages you to continue flying because you’re not “adding” more carbon into the atmosphere. So if offsetting isn't the solution, what can I do to reduce the environmental impact of flying?

As a faster and cheaper alternative to surface transportation (trains, coaches, ferries), flying has become an increasingly popular way of getting around. This is particularly the case on short-haul routes with the rise of low cost carriers (LCCs) such as Easyjet (Europe) and Southwest (US) airlines amongst many others. Although these low costs are predominantly attributed to strong competition between airlines and minimal services included within ticket costs (baggage, in-flight meals etc), there is another reason why flying is cheaper than travelling by rail and car: taxation. Or rather, the absence of any taxation on kerosene (aviation fuel). Although the ICAO's 1944 Chicago Convention prohibits the taxation on aviation fuel already onboard flights arriving from international destinations, this does not apply to any fuel taken on board before an aircraft returns to where it came from.

Arguably, the greater environmental cost of flying compared to rail should be incorporated into ticket prices through increased fuel taxes or a carbon tax (as France has done). A study by the European Commission suggests a kerosene tax could reduce passenger demand (and thus emissions) by 11%; this would also generate greater competition with rail travel, as the prices would be more comparable to flying. IATA, however, believes that taxes are ineffective given there are no guarantees such funds will be used to reduce emissions. Taxes also marginalise those who rarely fly in favour of frequent fliers; just 15% of the UK’s population are responsible for 70% of flights taken. An interview with John Stewart highlights a promising alternative:

Source of Image: Retiree News

Although taxes could harm revenues from tourism, penalising frequent flying instead of rewarding it would make people think twice about whether they needed to fly. Almost half the flights taken by a group of Lund university students were deemed unimportant or unnecessary, comprising mainly of leisure trips. In order to encourage its customers to use less polluting surface alternatives on their short-haul and domestic routes, KLM recently launched their ‘Fly Responsibly’ campaign; check out their advertisement here.

This idea of avoiding flying also forms the foundation of the Flygskam movement, Swedish for flight-shame. High-profile figures including Great Thunberg have forsaken flying due to its environmental impact, encouraging others to follow suit. Such consumer awareness surrounding the 'flight shame movement' was responsible for a 9% decline in passengers travelling on Swedish domestic flights since 2018! So yes, choosing not to fly as much or avoiding flying altogether is the ideal solution to growing emissions in an industry that is notoriously difficult to decarbonise. But that's not going to happen overnight.

Source of image and quote: BBC Future

Flying is still a socio-economic necessity for many. The flight-shame movement is seen as something that inhibits one's freedom to travel around the world, to visit family members and even conduct face-to-face business (although improvements in e-communication and the coronavirus lockdown have proved this isn't necessarily the case). Air travel is also a crucial part of our economy, with the tourism sector still heavily reliant on international travellers arriving by air. It also goes without saying that me and my owners literally depend on carrying passengers (and cargo) around the world.

What I am trying to get at is the idea that, yes, cut out flying if you can, but for those of you who need to fly, do so more responsibly. And educating yourself on the impact of your flying habits is the first step towards this. A good starting point is this video, providing a number of suggestions that can go a long way to cutting emissions. First and foremost, you should avoid business-class; their spacious (and often empty) seats mean fewer passengers can be transported per unit floor space, tripling your emissions compared to if you flew in economy. Flying direct is also preferable to having a stopover somewhere, given 25% of emissions occur during take-off and landing phases of flight. Other considerations such as flying from your local airport (avoiding long car journeys), minimising the luggage you take and choosing to fly on the most fuel-efficient planes all help to reduce fuel-burn and thus your emissions. Returning to my London-LA example, a passenger in economy emits 4010kg of CO2 on an old 747 like me but 2985kg of CO2 on a B787.

Long-haul travel causes the most environmental damage but is also the most difficult to tackle (Photo taken at LAX)

And despite all its flaws and criticisms, offsetting remains the easiest way to reduce the impact of your flying. But again, educating yourself is crucial. Do some research on the project your carbon offset credits are going towards. Consider how old the project is, how long it will take for the project to offset your emissions and whether the website is trustworthy. A good place to start is the Gold Standard because, well, they are the gold standard in terms of offsetting projects. Ultimately, doing something is better than doing nothing.

So the take-home from todays post. Educate yourself about the environmental impacts of flying. Make conscious decisions to reduce the impact of your flying. Or better yet, avoid flying where viable surface alternatives are present.