Flying or Frying? The Moral Dilemma of Travel in a Warming World

Fire Danger Forecast, 15th July 2022. Copernicus EMS

Waking up to ash covering the ground and the smell of smoke from wildfires in rural Italy, it was difficult to ignore the detrimental impacts we are having on the earth’s climate and wonder how travel is contributing to it – I fought with this issue as I sat watching smoke plumes… whilst being over 900 miles from home.

Europe saw its hottest summer on record in 2022 with soaring temperatures contributing to wildfires in many countries including Spain, France, and Italy. On the hottest day of the year in the UK, where temperatures rose above 40C for the first time since records began, over 800 wildfires were recorded across the country. CO2 emissions, vapour trails and nitrogen oxide emissions from aviation all can be linked to rising global temperatures, and with the number of airline passengers worldwide having doubled since 2004, the concern regarding how flying is affecting global temperatures is rising. Currently, aviation emissions contribute to 2.5% of global CO2, however, this is a contested value, and the aviation industry is expanding at a drastic rate – a 21-hour, 11,000-mile non-stop flight from Sydney to London will take off in 2025. Furthermore, as planes fly high in the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases they emit do more damage than if they were emitted on the ground, and planes release comparatively far more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than almost all other forms of transport.

There is a controversial option of carbon offsetting flight emissions, which is a $2 billion market, where consumers can pay a company to try and make up for the CO2 released elsewhere. However, not only are a lot of these schemes run by profit-making companies with no standard certification, but evidence has also recently come out revealing that more than 90% of carbon offsets by the biggest certifier are likely to be “phantom credits” and have not shown any reduction in carbon. This has raised serious questions about how effective these schemes are and if there is anything the consumer can do to reduce their environmental impact. There is also the moral consideration about whether it is right for those who can afford it, to simply pay to pollute the world. 

This is the greatest ethical consideration when it comes to the environmental impact of flying, as only around 5% of the world has ever flown, and more worryingly only 1% of fliers cause half of the global aviation emissions. This figure takes into account celebrities, where Taylor Swift is a notable contender as the highest polluter with her total flight emissions in 2021 being 1,184.4 times greater than the average personal total annual emissions, corporation owners, and politicians. Private jets, especially those doing incredibly short journeys, produce significantly more emissions per passenger than commercial flights. Comparatively, although we may think budget airlines may be worse for the environment, they have much lower emissions per passenger as the planes are so well-filled. Paradoxically, the world's poorest people are suffering the consequences of climate change first and hardest. Poorer countries often lack the resources and infrastructure to cope with erratic weather changes and events making them far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 

It can often feel as a consumer that we are told that climate change is our fault and to keep hold of environmental guilt, something I definitely feel. I try to fly as little as I can but still want to travel, so instead, I have turned to trains, which helped me explore Italy for 2 months last summer.  Taking a train can substantially reduce your carbon emissions, but at a cost of increasing your journey time and often increasing the cost of the trip. It is a privilege to have so much time to travel around a country that flying is not necessary. But as with all contributions to climate change, the everyday consumer cannot be held responsible above many corporations and elites who don’t seem to care about the detrimental impacts and instead prioritise profits. In Europe, Ryanair has now entered the top 10 most carbon-polluting businesses, but have done little to reduce their environmental impact. Without an intentional move from major corporations to develop zero and low-emission planes, it seems the only option if you want to reduce your aviation emissions is to go on trips closer to home and explore some fun and different transport alternatives. 

Bikepacking anyone?