Can you still call yourself an environmentalist if you fly?
Exploring a controversial topic, for which there is no simple answer.......
Messages like this pop up in my social feeds a LOT. I get it, we need to model behaviour change but I just don’t think these callouts land for anyone.
Firstly, they call on individuals to change their lifestyle but don’t reference the “big polluters”. People do need to assess their lifestyles and make changes, but I think we need to be done with black-and-white demands like this. Not everyone is going to go vegan or quit flying, especially not through being shamed.
It is also posed as “giving up” something to “save the world”. A one-two combo of martyrdom and savourism. You only have to look at the comment section to see how many people see a message like this and sieze the opportunity to announce their virtue, lamenting the “selfish” people who don’t care. I personally find these threads tiresome and “echo-chambery-y”. And, if someone is newly considering their behaviours, my hunch tells me reading them would be offputting.
A message like this plays into all the tropes of environmentalism that so many people can’t stand - judge-y and self-righteous. Espousing the idea that to care about the planet you have to live an austere existence devoid of any luxuries. Life is already tough, people do not want to make it any tougher for themselves voluntarily.
People want to have joyful travel experiences, and they want to share them. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Environmentalism isn’t some exclusive club, reserved only for those who meet certain requirements. Rather than gatekeeping being an environmentalist, we need to broaden it to include as many people as possible and encourage everyone to consider their impacts on the planet.
And, of course, it doesn’t include the opinion of the millions of people globally who rely on international tourism for their livelihood and who would suffer greatly if that industry suddenly ground to a halt.
It just isn’t as simple as flying = bad, and people who give it up = good.
Just how bad is flying anyway?
Aviation currently accounts for approximately 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions. This increased to 3.5% when we take non-CO₂ impacts on climate into account.
This might not seem so bad, but when you consider that most of the world’s population doesn’t fly, it’s clear that this is not only an emissions issue but also an issue of inequality. The numbers on this vary, but estimates frequently state that around 80% of the world has never flown. That means that 20% of us are responsible for that 3.5% - and that is a problem.
Those who can afford to fly have a level of wealth that likely means they are insulated from the current effects of climate change to some degree, and those who cannot are most likely to be the ones experiencing the worst impacts.
If you are someone who flies, even irregularly, this is likely to be the largest part of your personal “carbon footprint”. It goes way beyond the emissions of diets or energy usage from homes or cars. Therefore, opting out of flying will bring down one person’s emissions dramatically.
It’s also largely “unnecessary”. People can’t live without energy in their homes, but they can survive without flying. There are other methods of transport, depending on where you are going.
However, there’s more to this than what we can or can’t survive without. People want to thrive, to live lives full of experiences that bring them joy. Your circumstances - where you live, where you’re family is from, what kind of work you do or hobbies you have - all come into play when considering where to travel, how to travel and how often.
I grapple with the guilt of the air miles I’ve already racked up. I have pledged to go flight-free a couple of times but ultimately caved and took the quick flight to Ireland to see friends and family - beating myself up for not sticking to my commitment.
The pros and cons of something go beyond GHG emissions
The climate and sustainability sectors have long-term “carbon tunnel vision”. Tackling the climate crisis, and the multiple other environmental and social crises requires us to accept complexity and not to oversimplify things. We will not solve climate change with simple carbon calculations.
Flying as a mode of transport is not environmentally friendly, that much is clear. However, a trip does not begin and end at the airport.
Not all travel is recreational
I know I’m stating the obvious, but people fly for a multitude of reasons, not just to go on holiday. People fly for work, for love, for research, for humanitarian aid, to study, to flee conflict.
Most of us have friends and family overseas - giving up flying could mean giving up spending time with people who are very dear to us.
There is no simple calculation we can use to quantify the value of these flights, either personally or to society, versus any negative impacts.
Travel has many mental health benefits
For those of us who do fly for leisure, the benefits are hard to argue. At the very least, a getaway gives reprieve from the neverending “life admin”. That pile of laundry can’t taunt you if you can’t see it. And a break from the weekly shop and daily piles of dishes in favour of hotel breakfast buffets and trying new restaurants does wonders for the soul.
Escaping to warm climates and sunshine for people who live in countries with long, dark winters is a tonic for Seasonal Affective Disorder and general malaise during the colder seasons.
It can get us outdoors and more active too. Sports like hiking, skiing and surfing are often destination-specific.
Travel stimulates economies
It’s not ideal, but many Global South economies are heavily dependent on the income from overseas tourism.
Island nations like Sri Lanka, for example, cannot be reached by land and rely on international tourism for a significant portion of their income. If everyone in the Global North decided not to fly any more, what would happen to their economy, and the people who rely on them?
If done right (much more to come on this in future posts), travel allows us to transfer wealth to communities that have been extracted from it for far too long.
Travel is education
Visiting other countries broadens our understanding of the planet - different ecosystems, plants and animals. It also exposes us to different cultures and ways of living. People in the US and Western Europe often hold the belief that their experience is the “default” and seeing how many varied ways there are to live in this world, helps to challenge that.
We can reduce aviation emissions without ending all commercial flights
Lower and middle-income countries are full of people who have never flown. It’s a little rich for those of us in the Global North to tell them they shouldn't, because of the damage we have done to the environment.
Everyone deserves a chance to explore our beautiful planet. In my version of a better, greener world, more people travel not less.
Taxes
Last year, for COP28, the UK sent THREE separate private jets to Dubai. David Cameron, Rishi Sunak and King Charles all travelled in separate private planes. To discuss the climate crisis. The irony was completely lost on them but not on climate activists.
Time’s 2023 Person of the Year, Taylor Swift, has clocked up a staggering 138 tons of CO2 emissions.
Private ownership of jets needs to be banned. Public figures may have a strong case for using private aircraft due to security, but this doesn’t justify having one of their own and using it as a primary means to go anywhere and everywhere without pause.
Taxing the mega-rich for their private jet usage, and introducing a frequent flyer levy to deter excessive air travel, would generate much-needed funding for investments in other forms of transport like rail networks.
End unnecessary domestic flights
“Slow travel” is something I will always champion, but the reality is that it’s not an option for so many due to time, cost and accessibility.
Domestic routes that can be reached by rail, for example London to Cornwall or Edinburgh, should no longer be allowed. To make this feasible, governments need to invest in rail travel that is reliable, affordable and a genuinely better option than flying.
It’s doable, and would make a considerable dent in emissions. France, where rail travel is affordable and comfortable, did this last year.
Asking ourselves better questions
As always, my belief is that there is little point in searching for the one “best” way to do something. Instead, we could make more of a positive impact by;
Acknowledging that everyone has different circumstances and different needs
Avoiding judgment (let those without sin cast the first stone and all that….)
Encourage mindfulness - ask questions about the impact that our behaviours can have on people and the planet, and explore how we can minimise any negatives and maximise positives
Loudly do things differently, in creative and joyful ways to showcase what is possible