Should the responsible traveller be flying?

Press release 10/2/06

We call on the EU to implement aviation emissions trading in 2008

As we fly into the Alps for our skiing holiday our flight is contributing to its destruction; our honeymoon flight to the Maldives is sinking it under rising sea levels and destroying coral through bleaching associated with global warming; and our safari flight to Africa is contributing to drought, famine and disease. Even if our holiday benefits local people should the responsible traveller by flying, and what is to be done about emissions?

Aviation - the fastest growing cause of global warming
Air travel currently accounts for 3-5% of carbon emissions. However it is the fastest growing cause of global warming, and by 2020 is estimated to be the single biggest contributor to global warming (one EU report states that it will be bigger than all the other sources of carbon emissions combined).

To put this in context at this level air travel would account for all the UK's carbon allowance - meaning that every single business and person in the UK would need to have zero emissions to meet our targets of reducing emissions by 20% on 1990 levels (which many feel is not sufficient anyway).

In addition emitting carbon (and nitrogen oxide) directly into the atmosphere has a more damaging effect than ground level emissions. The emissions from a transatlantic flight per person are double that of the average car in the UK for a year.

The airline industry is effectively subsidised to damage our environment
Kerosene - airline fuel - is one of the very few untaxed fuels in the world, and is also zero VAT rated. The airline industry argues that it is effectively taxed as UK airlines pay air passenger duty of £5 per passenger for a European flight - Gordon Brown halved this from £10 per flight in 2000 - which raises £900m per year. However despite this it is estimated that the airlines are beneficiaries of a £9bn tax subsidy per year.

This means that we are paying an artificially low price for flying - one that fails to take into account the damage to our environment, or meet a fair tax obligation. The airline industry has basically shifted the real costs of the flight - which include the vast costs associated with global warming - elsewhere in pursuit of profits.

What can the tourist do?
Is there anywhere in the world more beautiful than the UK in summer? We can certainly holiday closer to home to reduce the carbon emissions associated with flying.

Some destinations are possible to visit on trains such as Eurostar rather than low cost airlines - a train journey typically creates 1/8th of the emissions of a flight. We've created a responsibletravel.com short break without flying section here .

However at other times we want to spread our wings a little and travel further - and this requires a flight. The desire to travel and discover new places and cultures for trade and pleasure has been with us since the earliest hunter gatherers, through to the first pilgrims and the original package holidaymakers.

Responsible tourism can provide real social and economic benefits to local people and destinations. UK tourists spend £2bn a year in developing countries - similar to the UK governments AID budget - some of which trickles down into local hands. Tourism revenues support the conservation of National Parks (which account for 6% of our land surface) and cultural heritage worldwide. As an industry tourism is the biggest employer in the world. In short in we all stopped flying altogether then both development and conservation worldwide would be negatively effected - which would have its own impact on global warming associated with, for example, deforestation.

In 2001 responsibletravel.com was one of the first companies in the UK to offer tourists the opportunity to offset their carbon emissions through a carbon calculator offered in partnership with Climate Care. By entering your flight details into the calculator your emissions, and the cost to offset them, are calculated.

For example, a return flight to Paris emits 0.05 tonnes and would cost £5 to offset via contributions to schemes such as providing low emissions stoves to people in India that burn crop waste (and help farmers generate supplementary income), low energy light bulbs for hotel in St. Lucia and through tree planting.

responsibletravel.com are more in favour of examples such as the stoves than tree planting as a) there are real benefits here to local communities b) the 'accountancy' behind the amount of carbon that trees emit is less precise.

Voluntary offset schemes for tourists are not the answer
While we encourage our clients to offset emissions the polluter pays principle suggests that it should be airlines that must be responsible for dealing with emissions.

An alliance of airlines have formed a green skies alliance and believe that through technology that they can reduce emissions by 50% from where they are now. While this is highly desirable it is not enforced in any way, and given the rate of increase in flying is not sufficient to address the problem.

responsibletravel.com believes that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the best tool to reduce emissions. In essence net carbon polluters such as airlines are required to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions. There are two key benefits to this approach over a flat green tax on flights.

Firstly some airlines - with newer greener planes; the 'right' planes flying the right routes; more passengers per plane; higher load factors; and better flight path planning are lower carbon polluters than others. The ETS effectively means that greener airlines will pay less than less green airlines - creating a real commercial incentive for improvement which a flat tax does not. Secondly, taxing flights might simply generate revenues for the Chancellor whereas the ETS directly funds the development of lower carbon and renewable energy.

Of course the airlines will pass these costs onto passengers and the cost of flights will go up to reflect the true cost of flying - which includes the airlines costs to run the flight and generate profits and acknowledges the cost to the environment. This - and the rising price of fuel - is likely to impact on demand for air travel. In short we will al have to get used to paying more for our flights and traveling less. How much the cost of flights goes up will depend on the national carbon allocation plan set by the EU.

Towards a solution
responsibletravel.com calls on the EU and UK Government to implement the ETS from 2008 on all flights from the EU to other EU destinations AND worldwide destinations - we hear that there is some doubt that the scheme will be implemented in 2008, or that it will apply to long-haul flights.

Only by tackling the aviation industry and accepting that the cost of flights must go up can the Labour Government meets its manifesto pledges to tackle global warming. A Guardian/ICM poll in June 2005 suggested that 51% of people accepted that there needed to be some restrictions on air travel - it is now time for action.

In the future it will not only become essential that when we fly our emissions are offset, but also that our holidays support conservation and local communities - only in this way can flying be environmentally justified.

For more information:

Justin Francis
justin@responsibletravel.com