Should you fly if you care about climate change?

If we are “addicted” to oil (as even George Bush admitted), then I guess air travel would need to be classified as heroin: Extremely harmful, and yet almost impossible to quit.

As an example of how deep this addiction runs:
I’m on an email group list of well known climate bloggers, and one of my colleagues recently asked, “So… what bloggers on this list are going to Copenhagen?” (for the UN climate meetings next month)

A few of the Answers:

“We will have several people there.”
“We will be sending two people.”
“We are sending 12 Midwest delegates.”

You get the idea. These folks are among the most active and engaged on the issue of climate change, and yet many will be jetsetting multiple writers to Denmark (possibly myself included).

They are almost certainly aware that in terms of personal carbon impact, flying is one of the worst things you can do: Without flying, the average person’s carbon footprint in the US (the amount of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses we emit as individuals) is 16 tons. But for the 25% of American who fly, the average footprint is 6 tons higher. And for the roughly 6 Million ‘frequent fliers’ in The US, the typical footprint is 40 tons – almost triple the average. Yikes!

Flying is especially harmful because the emissions are released much further up in the atmosphere. There was a memorable scene in the movie The Age of Stupid, where a family tries to work out a reasonable carbon budget, and realizes that their holiday flying makes it impossible. As the father says, “the only thing worse than flying seems to be to set fire to a rainforest.”

So what is a concerned eco-citizen to do? Waiting for the airlines to fix the problem is certainly not a good option. The Air Transportation Association is lobbying to avoid taxes or cap-and-trade on their industry, while also making vague promises to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 40 years. Unfortunately, most estimates are that airline travel will actually grow substantially as a portion of total emissions in upcoming decades.

Can we stop flying? Given the global nature of business and politics, as well as the importance of cultural sensitivity and awareness in an interconnected world, I hope not (although we can fly less, that’s for sure.) I’m glad that concerned writers will be in Copenhagen to document the UN climate talks, even if they need to get on airplanes to get there.

The only remaining answer seems to be for fliers to fund activities that reduce their flight emissions via what is known as ‘offsetting’ — funding other programs that do more good than the harm we create. Offsetting often gets a bad name, sometimes called the equivalent of a medieval pardon, or simply purchasing guilt reduction. But what it really does is pragmatically mitigate a potential environmental problem through a ‘swap’, something we do all the time. As examples, we chose to set aside national parks rather than halt westward expansion, conservation funds often trade forest tracts and logging rights with timber interests, and we support hatcheries to make up for dams and lost Salmon habitats. So why not set aside forests or support wind energy to make up for the flying we can’t seem to avoid? While none of these ‘swaps’ are perfect, they are much better alternatives to doing nothing to mitigate activities that – for economic and other reasons – we just can’t stop doing.

In the case of flying, offsetting the impact of a one way trip overseas adds roughly 2% ($15) to the price of a ticket. In an era where airlines now charge $32 for advanced seating assignments, $25 for an extra bag, and even for meals, that seems like a bargain to me.

Going back to the original heroin analogy, I suppose offsetting would be the moral and practical equivalent of Methadone — a safe way to allow us to gradually withdraw from our addiction, rather than quitting cold turkey.

I think it’s a good solution to the air travel dilemma, but I know not everyone agrees. What do you think?

Read more: airlines, carbon, climate change, global warming, offsets

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdport/ / CC BY 2.0

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Casey B.

4:32PM PST on Dec 6, 2009

i disagree...this is impractical. sure in theory it would be great if we could just teleport but until we find a better way to run our planes we will have to cut other things to keep them. they are too important to our species.

send a green star

Dmitry B.

10:24AM PST on Nov 26, 2009

Jets should fly on electricity
No pollution

Judy C.

5:04AM PST on Nov 23, 2009

We need to ground planes. Besides adding an exorbitant amount of carbon to our atmosphere, jet fuel damages each tree that it passes over. Because of the economic realities of the situation, I don't see this happening, but if we really cared about the Planet -- as much as we do about our ability to analyze, editorialize, witness, and investigate what is "wrong" with what we are doing, we would act now with the best scientific knowledge available to curtail climate change. This means that 1. We would quickly shift to renewable energy with industrialized nations leading the way . 2. Coal/ gas production must end 3. We would stop consuming vast amounts of meat (vegetarianism is good for climate change) 4. We would live in urban areas or "sustainable" communities 5. We would develop green mass transit system 6. We would work to protect the rainforests as do the following project: the Princes' Rainforest Project and the Amazon Conservation Team 7. We would begin planting "perennial" crops -- as the Land Trust is doing 8. We would begin to reforest desertified areas -especially around the equator 9. We would invest in new bio-technologies proposed at sites such as EcoGeek 10.To fund these actions, we would de-invest in military activity (because right now the greatest threat to our security is Climate Change and the millions of environmental refugees that it will produce.)

Carol H.

12:31PM PST on Nov 21, 2009

Unfortunately there is no way to ground planes because we can no longer go by wagon train anywhere but the planes should be able to change the kind of motors that have to used in plane that is what could be changed if we really try hard.

Lisa B.

11:38AM PST on Nov 17, 2009

Catherine, that is exactly the kind of attitude that encourages the rest of the world to hate Americans. We read that as “We will do what we want, because we can, and stuff the rest of you”. A government is meant to represent it’s people. Why should your government care, when you obviously don’t?

Catherine O.

8:44PM PST on Nov 16, 2009

As long as I can afford it. I will fly & drive my car too.When the big wigs in Government worry about how they waste fuel then so will I.

Lionel M.

6:38AM PST on Nov 16, 2009

Panthera,
Unfortunately there are no Transatlantic trains, but you have a point as regards internal travel.
Sir Walk,
Sure, climate change is by no means completely attributable to human activity, but we can do much to lessen its effects, if only to address the concerns of some Pacific islanders and a polar bear or two.
Nicky,
Venomous outbursts help not one whit. Al Gore is trying to arouse awareness of an urgent situation, a very praiseworthy activity. Aged 82, the problem hardly affects me, but I worry about our children's future.

Robert D.

5:50AM PST on Nov 14, 2009

First, let me say that I am a Christian and believe that there is a God and have modeled my life after Jesus'. So that being said It is irrelevant to me how people view climate change. The fact is we have caused it our greed for more and our selfishness will be our own undoing.

We consider ourselves as a species intelligent, and technologically perhaps we are but we have no cure for greed and selfish behavior and we are to proud to admit defeat in this area. Until people admit to themselves that we are not in control but God is and give our lives over to Jesus to live as he did then we are doomed.

You can talk till your blue in the face or put the blame where ever you want, nothing will change until we do and that just isn't going to happen. GREED wins out, WE all lose

Sir Walk F.

9:05PM PST on Nov 13, 2009

Leslie, your tired argument about "global warming" and climate change is nonsense for the layman. the term "Climate Change" has been in use for decades, and is being popularized now because people such as yourself (because of the popular media perpetuating it) believe that the earth's climate temperature increasing means ALL surface temps will increase.

That isnt the case, and never has been. The earth climate is indeed WARMING, (an irrefutable fact) which is effecting (as predicted decades ago) surface temperatures all around the world in bizarre ways. Do yoou ever read the news? Or look outside? The weather is changing.

While many of the politics behind our RESPONSE as to how to deal with climate change may be very questionable, this does not change the simple, irrefutable FACT that the earth's CLIMATE has already increased in temperature significantly, and is continuing to do so.

So, again, to recap-repeat to yourself: "Climate is not Temperature Climate is not Temperature Climate is not Temperature". Instead of believing what you read in the news of your choice, verbatim, try researching multiple, contradicting, competing sources and using common sense.

Climate is not Temperature, and never has been. Climate Change is not a new term.

Panthera L.

5:57PM PST on Nov 12, 2009

We also need to keep pushing for other travel alternatives. The high speed rail service in the United States is downright awful for example. It's practically non-existent. Development of high speed rail lines would be a win for everyone. It reduces pollution. It's faster than airline traveling for regional trips. It's more comfortable than airline traveling (decent sized seats, lounge cars, diner cars, etc.). And it reduces terrorist concerns (even if you hijack a train, the only place you can go is where the tracks go. And train dispatchers can remotely send an emergency stop signal to a train if they need to).

High speed rail is a win for everyone. To hell with the airlines. Lets bring the trains back.