The Fight Between Low Cost and Low Impact Travel

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an extremely hot topic in business, and air travel is its next big target. There is no doubt that air travel is the fastest way to reach many destinations (especially intercontinental destinations), but it is also damaging to the environment. Approximately 2% of global carbon emissions are caused by aviation with 4.5 billion estimated passengers on commercial flights in 2020, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects for ridership to nearly double by 2037 (Bernabe, 2020). A domestic flight, on average, emits 254g of carbon (adjusted for high altitude) per km travelled (around 158g/mi) while a single passenger in a car will contribute roughly 171g per km (106.25g/mi), with flying being almost 1.5 times as bad for the environment (BBC News, 2019)! Air travel is a popular option for many, but whether or not it stays popular is dependent on the industry’s sustainability efforts while it continues to grow. 

Consumers are much more aware of their carbon footprint and when it comes to flying, passengers are experiencing what they call the “flyers’ dilemma” (Higham, Cohen & Cavaliere, 2014). This flyers’ dilemma is the struggle between the personal utility derived from travel and tourism weighed against the negative effects that air travel has on the environment. In a 2014 study, authors Hingham, Cohen, and Cavaliere found that among consumers who experience flyers’ dilemma, the desires to stay sustainable were easily outweighed by those of convenience and low prices. That same study also found that the need and desires for global climate change exist, and even though the consumers bought the airline tickets for convenience and cost, they still felt remorse for the environmental impact of their actions (Higham, Cohen & Cavaliere, 2014). Air travel is not (yet) threatened by its environmental impact, but that does not mean that customers are happy. In order to increase consumer happiness, the airline industry must become more sustainable.

Of course, individuals can do their best to decrease their own carbon footprint when flying. Most airlines ask you to offset your seat’s emissions when checking out online, paying a small additional fee based upon your seat selection to pay for your share of the emissions (the offset for my recent round trip flight between Amsterdam and Dublin cost less than €5) but this money is not funding carbon scrubbers on the back of airplane engines, so its impact is much more indirect than advertised. Website FlyGRN, a booking site that will offset your emissions for you, has a page dedicated to other sustainable travel tips, including choosing direct flights, not flying short distances where a train or car might be a better option, or flying with a more sustainable airline. FlyGRN also mentions more sustainable air travel options on their website, such as electric and hydrogen-powered aircrafts. Hydrogen planes are not technologically feasible today, but may be able to enter into service close to 2040 (Maniaci, 2007). Electric aircrafts are in operation but only carry a small number of passengers and can only fly short distances. For longer flights, biofuels are in use more widely across the market, and can reduce emissions by 80% compared to traditional jet fuel; however this does come at a price several times more expensive than the traditional fuels (FlyGRN).

While some airlines might opt to use biofuels in their planes, only five airports worldwide have infrastructure and systems in place for regular biofuel dispense, Los Angeles being the only one in the United States. These biofuels can cost up to 4 times as much as traditional fuels. However, just switching fuel types isn’t the only way to curtail pollution. The Airbus A320neo reduces carbon emissions and limits fuel consumption by 16% when compared to its predecessor aircrafts. Couple this 16% consumption reduction with 80% emission reduction with biofuels and airlines’ carbon footprints will be drastically decreased (Bernabe).

With biofuels costing up to four times as much as traditional jetfuel and not as readily available as the traditional, our best hopes at decreasing our carbon footprint while flying will come at a cost. It has proven clear that the essential question to flyers is no longer about whether or not sustainable options are being tested or invented, but rather whether or not flying green can be done while flying cheap. It seems that, as of now, the least expensive way to fly green is to pack light, book an economy seat, and pay off your share of emissions at checkout. Of course, the best way to fly green is actually to never leave the ground. Short-haul flights on inexpensive airlines (such as RyanAir in Europe) are some of the worst contributors to airline emissions. In circumstances like these, taking an overnight train might be the best option. In places like the United States where train infrastructure leaves something to be desired, take an overnight bus. While it is possible to fly green(ish), for the time being at least, you cannot fly green and fly cheap.

References

BBC News. (2019, August 24). Climate change: Should you fly, drive or take the train? 

Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 

Bernabe, D. (2020, February 7). The future of sustainable air travel. Retrieved from

https://fortune.com/2020/01/25/airlines-offset-carbon-emissions-flight-shaming/

FlyGRN. (n.d.). Sustainable Flying: is sustainable air travel possible? Retrieved from

https://flygrn.com/page/sustainable-air-travel

Higham, J.E.S., Cohen, S.A. & Cavaliere, C.T. (2014). Climate change, discretionary air travel

and the ‘flyers’ dilemma’. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 462-475, DOI:

10.1177/0047287513500393.

Maniaci, D. (2007). Operational Performance Prediction of a Hydrogen-Fueled Commercial

Transport. 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. doi: 10.2514/6.2007-34