Banner image: Pixabay.com

By Eric Conroy

I’ve written in the past about cutting my carbon footprint, but I hadn’t mentioned flying much, so here goes. This was sparked by an An Taisce campaign in 2024 that looked to encourage flying alternatives. An Taisce is dedicated to advocating for less polluting modes of travel, such as active transport, public transport, along with rail, and sea transport.

Flying is the most carbon-intensive form of transport per passenger km. We will never address climate change unless we bring flying substantially down. It is estimated, that aviation could amount to 50% of emissions in our efforts to reach net-zero by 2050. Air travel is inherently unequal – around 1 per cent of the world’s population accounts for half of aviation’s emissions and, despite improvements in efficiency, the sector’s increasing emissions are fundamentally incompatible with the urgent reductions required under the Paris Agreement. It is rising significantly despite the drop during Covid. Environmentalists are campaigning against this inexorable rise in plane travel.

Graphic: Our World in Data

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of total carbon emissions worldwide. However, this does not include non-CO2 emissions of water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and various aerosols. These are emitted when planes are in the air and are short-term in nature. If they were included in full greenhouse gas reporting, aviation would total around 4% of Co2-equivalent emissions. The airline industry doesn’t want you to know this.

Flying is also a very unequal activity in world population terms. Only around 20% of people worldwide have ever been on a plane in their lives. Other sources go as low as 5%. Many countries would have populations where the vast majority have never set foot on a plane. We in Ireland would be in the 1% who fly regularly. Private jets exacerbate this inequality. They should be banned as helping to kill the planet.

I know we live on an island. I haven’t flown since I retired in 2019. I use ferry and trains to get to the UK and to accessible places in mainland Europe. It’s more expensive and time-consuming than a flight, but more enjoyable – especially the train. We need carbon taxes and jet fuel taxes to make overland travel competitive with air travel. A past An Taisce student membership initiative, 'Slow Travel' showed the way. You can read about the unexpected perks of European train travel in a story by winning entrant Adam Ó Ceallaigh by clicking here.

The passenger cap at Dublin Airport is in the news at present. The aviation industry wants to raise it from 32 million to 40 million, while other cities are bringing their maximum levels down to help address climate change, such as Schiphol in Amsterdam (including noise reduction). Numbers have increased dramatically in recent years (apart from Covid) and must be brought under control. Why do we have to increase flights every year? Surely 32 million is plenty for a population of 5 million people? We cannot have infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Read the excellent An Taisce comment accompanying its submission on Dublin Airport's Capacity Expansion Application.

Current projections estimate that demand for air passenger journeys in 2050 could exceed 10 billion. T.& E. (Transport & Environment) estimates that, even with Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), the industry will only reduce its carbon emissions by 3% due to excessive growth in passenger numbers. I am a supporter of Stay Grounded, an environment organization that lobbies against air travel in Europe and beyond. It's a global network of more than 200 member organisations.

Could we reduce our flying by enjoying our own country more?

With climate change, other countries are experiencing hot summers, wildfires and floods. These have ruined holidays in the past. Who wants to sunbathe in 40°C heat? Or have to be rescued from a raging forest fire? In addition, there is a lot of time wasted going to airports and waiting for a plane.

To reduce the carbon footprint of flying, it is proposed to use far more SAF’s as jet fuel. However, it is more of an aspiration than a reality at present. To reach 2030 climate targets, airlines will need to increase their consumption of SAF’s more than 30-fold. Most airlines have vowed to address their growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions by using vastly more fuels derived from lower-emitting sources like used cooking oil and energy crops. SAF accounted for only about 0.3% of commercial aviation’s fuel consumption last year, according to IATA’s (International Air Transport Authority) estimates. There are also concerns about supply of SAF, as only a handful of companies have historically produced the cleaner fuels. 

Airlines also talk about improved fuel efficiency. Targets here have also not been achieved. Even if these fuel and efficiency goals were met, they will be trumped by the exponential growth in flights made, leading to more fossil fuels being consumed. This is the Jevons Paradox in operation: increased efficiency in using a resource leads to overall consumption of that resource increasing rather than decreasing. There is also the issue of impact on food production by SAF’s. Growing crops for use in planes will reduce production of food for people to eat. It’s the same argument used against biofuels for use in cars.

In conclusion, I advocate for us all to live simpler lives including much less globe-trotting involving getting on a plane. My mother had waited 28 years to fly to Australia in the 1980’s to see her brother due to the cost involved. With ridiculously low air prices these days, it is hard to make a decision not to fly.

Let’s help save the planet and with a little effort, have a better experience into the bargain.