"One return flight from Toronto to Venice, Vienna, or Prague, for example, produces about 2.5 tonnes of GHG emissions per passenger — emissions that will stay in the atmosphere long after other souvenirs are tossed into the trash," writes Albert Koehl.
A New Year's resolution for the planet: stop flying
While it’s debatable whether the world will be a better place once you’ve visited Bali, Barcelona, or Budapest, it’s irrefutable that your flight will add to the atmosphere’s burden of GHG emissions.
"One return flight from Toronto to Venice, Vienna, or Prague, for example, produces about 2.5 tonnes of GHG emissions per passenger — emissions that will stay in the atmosphere long after other souvenirs are tossed into the trash," writes Albert Koehl.
Losing weight continues to rank among leading New Year’s resolutions. In today’s world the most important kilograms to shed are our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A great place to start on our 2024 slimming ambitions is with airline flights taken for tourism.
One return flight from Toronto to Venice, Vienna, or Prague, for example, produces about 2.5 tonnes of GHG emissions per passenger — emissions that will stay in the atmosphere long after other souvenirs are tossed into the trash. The fossil fuels burned to travel these distances (in each example, over 13,000 km) account for most of the emissions, plus the negative impact or “radiative forcing” from a jet’s altitude.
For many people, 2.5 tonnes of GHG emissions are the equivalent of driving a car for a year. And while some people can plausibly argue that “I have to drive to work,” it’s far more difficult to argue that “I have to fly for my vacation.”
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Many justifications are suggested for air travel to distant places — broadening one’s horizons, contributing to the livelihood of local populations, or escaping work pressures — but while it’s debatable whether the world will actually be a better place once you’ve visited Bali, Barcelona, or Budapest, it’s irrefutable that your flight will add to the atmosphere’s burden of GHG emissions.
There is of course — given the money and privilege at stake — an eager army of defenders of flights for tourism. The arguments generally ignore the obvious social justice issue, namely that those people who benefit most from air travel are also the ones best able to insulate themselves from grave climate change consequences.
In fact, it’s no surprise that climate plans and agreements generally ignore emissions from flying. It’s also worth noting that there is no technology on the horizon that will significantly reduce flight emissions, while fuel efficiency improvements are quickly being cancelled out by the increase in flights globally.
In the absence of air travel, tourism can still be enjoyable, adventurous, and relaxing but to destinations that are closer to home and accessible by train, bus, car, or even bicycle — and absent the anxiety and frustration of airports. After giving up flying 15 years ago, I also have more tourism dollars to spend at shops, restaurants, and hotels.
It’s sometimes argued that an airplane will fly whether or not I’m on it, but this isn’t how the supply-demand equation works. Less demand equals less flights equals less emissions. Yes, airport workers will need help transitioning to new jobs, but such a transition is far easier than one to wildfires, heat waves, drought, and flooding. And while it’s true that governments must target the worst emitters, politicians get their motivation from a voting public that demonstrates a willingness to change its own behaviour.
Let’s stop pretending that someone else will solve our climate crisis. Each of us has a role, and in 2024 the planet will be grateful for the slimming of our personal GHG emission figures.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Albert Koehl is an environmental lawyer and writer.
