The environmental costs of flying

[Ianno87]

Cant have people enjoying themselves and seeing the world, can we.

Not when it's destroying the world for future generations to enjoy, no. Not for the sake of a few frequent flyers flying less frequently and taking more responsibility.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think if the world returns to pre-Covid levels of flying then we've done something wrong. Though ideally this should not be done by making flying less affordable.

Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?

 

[Ianno87]

Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?

I'm not denying anybody anything, other than perhaps the people going on cheapo EasyJet weekends away every other week, and business travellers making a cottage industry for themselves flying here and there week after week for meetings that can be done remotely more often. It's this sort of nonsense that needs to stop.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not denying anybody anything, other than perhaps the people going on cheapo EasyJet weekends away every other week, and business travellers making a cottage industry for themselves flying here and there week after week for meetings that can be done remotely more often. It's this sort of nonsense that needs to stop.

So you are denying people then? This is probably a subject better discussed elsewhere but the myth that air travel is destroying the planet needs to end. There are far more pressing issues at hand that are hidden behind this air travel shaming.

 

[kristiang85]

I think if the world returns to pre-Covid levels of flying then we've done something wrong. Though ideally this should not be done by making flying less affordable.

You're right about business travel - there is less need for it now many people have got used to zoom etc (although it's still not as effective as in person networking).

However, NZ did specify tourism and leisure travel in the quotes I saw. Which can't be great for the huge percentage of people in that country who work in that industry...

 

[Richard Scott]

Not when it's destroying the world for future generations to enjoy, no. Not for the sake of a few frequent flyers flying less frequently and taking more responsibility.

Aircraft on their own are causing this are they? I don't deny that flying should be reduced, especially internal flights but there are other issues as well that need addressing. Focusing on one allows others to go unnoticed until it's too late? Haven't we been here before, maybe over past 12 or so months?

 

[TravelDream]

I think if the world returns to pre-Covid levels of flying then we've done something wrong. Though ideally this should not be done by making flying less affordable.

Unless something goes drastically wrong, the number of passengers will increase beyond its previous peak (2019) pretty soon.
A positive viewpoint would see that by 2023 and I'd be hoping by 2025 at the very latest.

You do realise that there are billions of people who have never flown in their lives. What right do you have to say that they can't do so? As countries, especially India and China, increase their wealth and middle class numbers, the pool of potential flyers is just going up and up.

Domestic flying in China (https://www.flightglobal.com/airlin...mestic-traffic-growth-in-april/143762.article) and the US (https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput) is already at, or very close to, three quarters of pre-Covid levels even with restrictions still in place.

 

[big_rig]

So you are denying people then? This is probably a subject better discussed elsewhere but the myth that air travel is destroying the planet needs to end. There are far more pressing issues at hand that are hidden behind this air travel shaming.

A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.

 

[Ediswan]

A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.

I did a quick search for those figures. Every one I found indicated that the return flight is about half the annual British average.

 

[221129]

A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.

Presumably you have a source for that statement?

 

[TravelDream]

A round trip flight for one person from London to Sydney causes more carbon emissions than the average Briton does from every activity they undertake in a year. It is about the most environmentally destructive activity humanly possible.

This is totally wrong.
Accurate data for each flight can be found on https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx.

You can't fly London to Sydney direct, so I've done two calculations.

You can (pre-Covid at least) fly London to Perth direct. Qantas uses a 787-9 aircraft which is exceptionally efficient.
ICAO estimates the CO2 produced per leg is 498.6 kilograms so 997 KG for a return flight.

A common indirect route would be London-Singapore-Sydney. Connecting flights are much less efficient than direct because take-off and climb are very fuel-intensive stages of flight and obviously there are two of them compared to one on a direct flight.
ICAO averages the aircraft emissions for the aircraft which fly the routes (A380, 777-200ER, 777-300ER for London-Singapore and A330-200, A330-300, A380, 777-200ER, 777-300ER, 787-8, 787-9 for Singapore-Sydney). They estimate the CO2 produced as 501.3 KG for LHR-SIN and 370.0 for SIN-SYD meaning 1744.6 KG for a return flight.

Google says Britain's average emmissions per person is 5800 KG which is the equivalent of almost six return flights from London to Perth and three return flights to Sydney via Singapore.

 

[ExRes]

Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?

I'm off tomorrow to collect my brand new diesel car, it seems that many, many people want to deny me the right to do that, to travel, to see new places, to meet new people and make new friends, I'd be interested to know why my choice should be so wrong while flying appears to be perfectly OK?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?

No, but they should potentially be influenced into doing so by more environmentally friendly means, such as rail, and businesses need to plan for those slower modes of transport. (Consider for example that if you can work from home, unless what you're doing is super-confidential you can also work on a train!) And not all business travel is necessary anyway.

I'm not sure the "Kangaroo route" is the major part of it, to be honest. It is true that a lot of CO2 is released by flying half way round the world, but there are neither all that many people nor that many aircraft doing that, because there aren't that many people who have interests split between places thousands of miles apart. Most of the unnecessary flying is relatively short-haul.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm off tomorrow to collect my brand new diesel car, it seems that many, many people want to deny me the right to do that, to travel, to see new places, to meet new people and make new friends, I'd be interested to know why my choice should be so wrong while flying appears to be perfectly OK?

That's a two way street though, there are many people who are happy to drive absolutely everywhere without ever considering alternative means of transportation, whilst berating those people who choose to fly. Somewhere in the middle is a more amicable solution.

However, and I'll come on to this in another post another time, air travel is far from the worst source of unnecessary CO2 production. One of my biggest bugbears of all is the amount of food waste we generate every year. In the western, industrialised world this can be an estimated 30-40% of all food bought for consumption. That is a far more pressing issue, not only because of the environmental impact of that, but the fact that this wasted food could & should be helping millions from starving.

No, but they should potentially be influenced into doing so by more environmentally friendly means, such as rail, and businesses need to plan for those slower modes of transport. (Consider for example that if you can work from home, unless what you're doing is super-confidential you can also work on a train!) And not all business travel is necessary anyway.

I'm not sure the "Kangaroo route" is the major part of it, to be honest. It is true that a lot of CO2 is released by flying half way round the world, but there are neither all that many people nor that many aircraft doing that, because there aren't that many people who have interests split between places thousands of miles apart. Most of the unnecessary flying is relatively short-haul.

I read recently that the French government are looking to ban short haul flights where a HST option is available under 4-5 hours (?) travel time. I'd be very much in favour of this here & elsewhere, especially in Europe where high speed options are much more widely available. I'd also support some kind of scheme to get business travel down wherever possible, perhaps in the form of tax exemption / rebate. You'd need something like that in place because many airlines are now offering more consistent WiFi access along with plenty of space in business classes to work. This of course might have an impact on pricing for the higher end carriers, and they might find themselves reviewing their use of cabin space with their products in future although if this led to less first / business class seating, it might make an improvement of passenger vs CO2 emissions overall.

 

[big_rig]

This is totally wrong.
Accurate data for each flight can be found on https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx.

You can't fly London to Sydney direct, so I've done two calculations.

You can (pre-Covid at least) fly London to Perth direct. Qantas uses a 787-9 aircraft which is exceptionally efficient.
ICAO estimates the CO2 produced per leg is 498.6 kilograms so 997 KG for a return flight.

A common indirect route would be London-Singapore-Sydney. Connecting flights are much less efficient than direct because take-off and climb are very fuel-intensive stages of flight and obviously there are two of them compared to one on a direct flight.
ICAO averages the aircraft emissions for the aircraft which fly the routes (A380, 777-200ER, 777-300ER for London-Singapore and A330-200, A330-300, A380, 777-200ER, 777-300ER, 787-8, 787-9 for Singapore-Sydney). They estimate the CO2 produced as 501.3 KG for LHR-SIN and 370.0 for SIN-SYD meaning 1744.6 KG for a return flight.

Google says Britain's average emmissions per person is 5800 KG which is the equivalent of almost six return flights from London to Perth and three return flights to Sydney via Singapore.

Nope. The ICAO calculator does not include the radiative forcing effect. No doubt because of who produces it.. An accurate calculation gives a reading of 6t for a London to Sydney flight, which again is above the per capita emissions of the UK.

CO₂ emissions calculator: Calculate your carbon emissions

Calculate your CO₂ emissions, reduce your carbon footprint and support climate protection! Do you know how many CO₂ emissions arise when flying, driving, living?

co2.myclimate.org

As DEFRA states* "On the other hand, consideration of the non-CO2 climate change effects of aviation can be important in some cases, and there is currently no better way of taking these effects into account. A multiplier of 1.9 is recommended as a central estimate, based on the best available scientific evidence"

*https://assets.publishing.service.g...ghg-conversion-factors-methodology-v01-02.pdf

 

[lachlan]

That's a two way street though, there are many people who are happy to drive absolutely everywhere without ever considering alternative means of transportation, whilst berating those people who choose to fly. Somewhere in the middle is a more amicable solution.

However, and I'll come on to this in another post another time, air travel is far from the worst source of unnecessary CO2 production. One of my biggest bugbears of all is the amount of food waste we generate every year. In the western, industrialised world this can be an estimated 30-40% of all food bought for consumption. That is a far more pressing issue, not only because of the environmental impact of that, but the fact that this wasted food could & should be helping millions from starving.


I read recently that the French government are looking to ban short haul flights where a HST option is available under 4-5 hours (?) travel time. I'd be very much in favour of this here & elsewhere, especially in Europe where high speed options are much more widely available. I'd also support some kind of scheme to get business travel down wherever possible, perhaps in the form of tax exemption / rebate. You'd need something like that in place because many airlines are now offering more consistent WiFi access along with plenty of space in business classes to work. This of course might have an impact on pricing for the higher end carriers, and they might find themselves reviewing their use of cabin space with their products in future although if this led to less first / business class seating, it might make an improvement of passenger vs CO2 emissions overall.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, as countries develop the appetite for flying grows. The impact of aviation on the environment is relatively small because few people do it and an even smaller number of people fly frequently. I'm not saying we should ban people from flying abroad, but we have to accept that it has a major environmental impact.

And no, I don't drive. We also have to drastically reduce car use though given this is a railway forum I imagine many of us will support that.

 

[Philip]

So you are denying people then? This is probably a subject better discussed elsewhere but the myth that air travel is destroying the planet needs to end. There are far more pressing issues at hand that are hidden behind this air travel shaming.

I can see the need for continuing air travel, without travel shaming, for overseas travel.

However, I think we really need to make it clear that domestic travel by air should be a last resort, perhaps with some new form of air tax to get rid of cheap flights and persuade people to travel by other means, or removing typical direct domestic flights.
We have a fast electric railway as a means to cover the typical short haul flights such as Scotland and Manchester to London. This method of transport should be promoted, yes with cheaper rail fares if need be.

Journeys like the UK to France, Ireland, Belgium, Scandinavia, Holland and Germany I think should have better incentives for travel by rail or ferry, however I accept the current status of non-aviation travel to these places is such that air travel should remain an acceptable method of transport for them, at least until overseas rail travel is made more affordable.

 

[Failed Unit]

When you look at the choices for domestic long distances it is a rock in a hard place.
London - Scotland is nearly always cheaper to fly (I include end to end and in my case getting to Luton airport). But for me personally the premium is worth it for rail. Then the big but appears - I normally want to travel back at the weekend. This is where rail loses, you can't book in advance because of engineering which can make the journey time uncompetitive. It is often difficult to find out where the engineering work is. On LNER it could between Leeds and Wakefield but you can't buy a ticket to Edinburgh before all tickets are available. Rail needs to fix that as that is what pushes me more to driving flying. It must be even more compelling for people South of the river in the Gatwick catchment area.

Getting to the South West is the same, at the moment I can fly to Newquay but I don't want to. I have no idea what GWR will be offering in the first week of July (the fact I need to wear a mask on public transport is another negative) so I am driving (bad for the environment, but more because the rail product is unknown)

Southampton - Edinburgh is possible by XC - but again hardly attractive.

Rail needs to up its game, the biggest challenge is the weekend engineer work, but until this problem is solves flying / driving will be first choice for many.

Looking at the wider problem, we have too many people with a 2nd home in Europe that are flying to them every week. But if you have that kind of money then increased tax won't put you off. Covid is interesting, the "Indian variant" us a good example of this conflict. Airline need people to fly, then are the first to complain when lockdowns happen because people have flown the latest variant in.

 

[neilmc]

I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.

 

[Failed Unit]

I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.

It is interesting when those stories come up, you don't ever see a saving with lots of splits on operator specific ticket. I got from Newcastle to London for £20 but had to travel via Glasgow, Reading and Bognor Regis

 

[Ediswan]

I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.

There is a substantial air traffic control system to maintain, which is charged for.

 

[johncrossley]

How bad are ferries for the environment, as some people use ferries for a cleaner alternative?

 

[HST274]

How bad are ferries for the environment, as some people use ferries for a cleaner alternative?

Certainly not as bad as planes I think I can safely say.

Any particular reason why? Is it right to deny people the opportunity to travel, to see new places, meet new people, make new friends?

Won't be any friends to make if we carry on destroying the planet. But seriously sacrifices will have to be made and I don't see anyone about to give up there cars so perhaps a diminishing of overall flights is a good idea.

I did a quick search for those figures. Every one I found indicated that the return flight is about half the annual British average.

On the basis that we have one flight a day in both directions that is still 365 british people carbon produce a year for one route which is a lot when you take in the thousands of other long haul flights across the world and the fact that Britons life style produces a lot of CO2, probably tooo much.

Finally on my own opinion I think we need to rapidly change our outlook, but I don't see it happening for one sole reason. We in the UK are not going to feel the affects first so we will never have universal support for large climate tackling things. The people who will suffer are not the current under 18s but probably their children but also many of the countries in Africa and near the equator who will suffer from drought early on, whilst we will get slightly wetter with longer floods, but not much life threatening climate twists. (my sources is my Geography teacher if anyone wants to know)

And now I wait for everything I have said to be torn apart.

 

[Jozhua]

So, I like flying and I like riding trains. So I don't really have a priority of modes.

However, I think that rail corridors that can replace road travel, alongside air travel, are certainly the way to go from a climate perspective. E.g. The Northeast Corridor in the US serves a lot of routes that would involve otherwise flying, but also serves many intermediate destinations.

Long haul is hard. Considering passengers will require more facilities (therefore space) if their journey will take two weeks instead of a few hours, boats tend to have higher fuel usage and emissions per pax.

The ironic thing is that shorter routes are easier to decarbonise, while also being easier to replace with other modes.

The hardest routes are long haul, especially over ocean, where rail doesn't stand a chance.

I think the key technology in terms of energy density will be hydrogen. Wether this will be more expensive than hydrocarbons remains to be seen, but it is certainly technically feasible, much more so than batteries. I mean it isn't far off being able to just inject it into jet engines and burn it like kerosene.

I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.

When you look at rail, people typically book much closer to travelling, and there isn't the same deep discounting to fill seats that you see on airlines. Prices also tend to not jump as much during busy periods (although this is relative).

Still, the UK rail does have an issue with a lack of capacity, but the DfT uses this as a way of increasing their returns by jacking fares up massively. I think rail would benefit from simply more rolling stock. In this way they could lower the cost per passenger, especially if there was some wiggle room to tactically reassign to whatever the busiest service happens to be.

HS2 should be able to lower costs, because the rolling stock will be able to carry out more journeys, the infrastructure will be designed to be more resilient and lower maintenance. Both the classic and high speed network will also be able to be utilised more effectively, which should expand capacity and reduce costs quite well.

 

[bramling]

I can see the need for continuing air travel, without travel shaming, for overseas travel.

However, I think we really need to make it clear that domestic travel by air should be a last resort, perhaps with some new form of air tax to get rid of cheap flights and persuade people to travel by other means, or removing typical direct domestic flights.
We have a fast electric railway as a means to cover the typical short haul flights such as Scotland and Manchester to London. This method of transport should be promoted, yes with cheaper rail fares if need be.

Journeys like the UK to France, Ireland, Belgium, Scandinavia, Holland and Germany I think should have better incentives for travel by rail or ferry, however I accept the current status of non-aviation travel to these places is such that air travel should remain an acceptable method of transport for them, at least until overseas rail travel is made more affordable.

In my immediate work circles there’s at least two people who commute from Ireland each week, by air. Personally I couldn’t begin to live like that, however if one has made that lifestyle choice then air is essentially currently the only realistic way of doing it. It’s the sort of thing which I’d tend to agree should probably be discouraged or disincentivised.

 

[Aictos]

I used to use rail to travel up to Scotland but my last three trips either to/from there I've flown instead as the timing and the ticket price was far far cheaper to fly then it was to get the train so I will continue to fly if the tickets are cheap and the times work out for me especially as I only fly once or twice a year.

 

[Philip]

In my immediate work circles there’s at least two people who commute from Ireland each week, by air. Personally I couldn’t begin to live like that, however if one has made that lifestyle choice then air is essentially currently the only realistic way of doing it. It’s the sort of thing which I’d tend to agree should probably be discouraged or disincentivised.

A fast but more fuel efficient ferry than the previous HSS is what is needed for UK-Ireland crossings. Currently the ship between Holyhead and Dublin Port takes nearly 4 hours and a lot of faffing around at either end, so this could be improved.

 

[Bantamzen]

I suggest that the challenge for rail versus any other kind of transport is the cost of tickets. When someone wishes to travel from Newcastle to London and finds that the rail fare is more expensive than to fly and change planes somewhere on the continent, as has cropped up in the news, something is badly wrong. Remember that this situation occurs in the UK when air travel is taxed but rail travel is supposedly subsidised! Of course, once you're off the ground flying needs no infrastructure to be maintained between boarding and destination.

Indeed, if trains are to replace short haul flights, price is going to be a big factor & almost certainly won't happen with the any franchise system similar to the one currently being reviewed.

Certainly not as bad as planes I think I can safely say.

Ferries may be, but longer distance cruise ships most certainly are not.

Won't be any friends to make if we carry on destroying the planet. But seriously sacrifices will have to be made and I don't see anyone about to give up there cars so perhaps a diminishing of overall flights is a good idea.

As I've previously said, air travel is nowhere near the worst thing threatening the planet. However how would you image humanity would evolve if we massively reduced interactions between nations? Aside from the loss of valuable+ tourism income for many countries, history doesn't paint a favourable view of humanity when we are isolated. Isolation tends to lead to suspicion, which turns to hatred, which leads to war. And it turns our war is far, far worse than air travel. Travel has allowed more and more people to discover new cultures & new people, which is more likely to lead to at least some people becoming more tolerant of each and not chucking missiles at each other. And the world has lots of missiles, including some you should be really concerned about.

If you really want to make a difference to the environment, I mean really make a difference, redirect that flight-angst to looking at the problem of food waste in the industrialised nations. Now that's a real problem!

 

[HST274]

As I've previously said, air travel is nowhere near the worst thing threatening the planet

No it is not, but what do you think is? Sadly I believe global warming is, on which food waste has little effect (excluding over production and the meat industry but that is a different argument).

 

[Bantamzen]

No it is not, but what do you think is? Sadly I believe global warming is, on which food waste has little effect (excluding over production and the meat industry but that is a different argument).

Its been estimated that industrialised nations waste anything between 30-40% of food. That's a lot of wasted food, that's a lot wasted production, that's a lot of wasted logistics, that's a lot of wasted packaging, not to mention disposal. That will add up a to a lot.

But aside from that, what about mass consumerism? How much do we produce that simply gathers dust in warehouses, drawers, cupboards? And what about energy production, we use a lot of energy and aren't really making as many inroads into renewable energy sources as we could. I could go on but I hope you get my point.