Pro & Contra
Is flying still appropriate in this day and age?
Air travel facilitates human and cultural connection, but is also a burden on the climate. An aviation expert and a scientist discuss who is accountable and whether air travel needs to change.
Pro
Laura Frommberg is an aviation expert and editor in chief of aeroTELEGRAPH.
Contra
Dr. Charlotte Senkpiel is a scientist working in the area of energy systems analysis and involved in the terran association that promotes travel without flying.
Ms Frommberg, Ms Senkpiel, can we still take a plane with a clear conscience these days?
Yes. We naturally need to discuss from a climate protection point of view in which cases flying is reasonable and justified. However, we are also experiencing a return of nationalism in many countries as well as increasing national isolationism. I believe that this makes it all the more important to promote direct human and cultural exchange. If you want to cover a long distance, taking a plane is often your only choice. Truly getting to know other cultures also means meeting people in person and witnessing their everyday life, in my opinion. There are limits to the extent to which this is possible from afar.
I generally take a critical stance here. We’ve recently had temperatures of up to 38 degrees in Freiburg and haven’t had any rain in about two and a half months. Climate change and the resulting extreme weather events, such as torrential rain, drought, storms and wildfires have long become reality. For me this gives rise to the question of how we want to live and what type of transportation is appropriate. Air travel is the form of transportation that is associated with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per kilometre. That is a clear fact. At the same time, air travel is heavily subsidised while more climate-friendly alternatives are not promoted enough.
Who is responsible for ensuring climate-friendly travel? Travelers or policy makers?
Everyone should, of course, ask themselves which trips do actually require flying. However, planes also allow people to quickly reach far-away places in urgent situations. Two years ago, I had to attend a funeral I would not have made it to in time without flying. Not long ago, members of my family got married in Bilbao. I had to work earlier that week, so I took a flight. Some other guests drove there, and that took them three days and cost 220 euros in motorway tolls alone, excluding fuel costs. I simply did not have the time and the money. In many cases, travelling by car or ship isn’t any more eco-friendly than flying, either.
It bothers me how this social aspect of cost and time is not acknowledged sufficiently. Taking an overnight train or going by car and ferry can cost a lot more than flying. This means that you have to be able to afford not taking a flight, in terms of both time and money. This is why it should not be up to individuals alone to take responsibility for climate-friendly mobility. Policy makers must ensure that more climate-friendly alternatives are affordable and feasible.
Policy makers obviously need to accept responsibility here, too. They must create the framework conditions that make climate-friendly travel easier and more attractive. However, that does not release individuals from responsibility for their own choices. I think that it is important to consciously reflect on what your needs are, how much time you have, and how you can get to your chosen travel destination. There are numerous platforms where people can find inspiration and find out about ways to get to places without flying. Statistics show that only around ten percent of the population fly on a regular basis. Nevertheless, air travel is responsible for up to five percent of global heating. This means that this share of global heating can be attributed to the lifestyle of a comparably small number of people. Air passengers are therefore accountable, too.
Could more climate-friendly air travel be a solution?
Yes. People are not going to choose to give up flying entirely. This would ultimately require comprehensive bans, and I reject that kind of approach. Instead, we need to focus on making air travel more climate-friendly. The industry has been investing enormous amounts of money to develop more efficient aircraft, alternative fuels and new technologies, a lot more so than is the case in many other industries. It is essential to keep a critical eye on whether and how quickly it is possible to achieve the desired climate neutrality. Stopping air travel can, however, not be the solution here. Mobility, economic exchange and a large number of jobs depend on air travel.
More climate-friendly technologies can contribute here. However, there are three general aspects that must be taken into account. First of all, producing synthetic aviation fuels requires a lot of energy. The second aspect is that different sectors are competing for the energy carriers whose availability will be limited in the future, and the third one is that non-CO2 emissions cannot be avoided with synthetic fuels either. To stay in line with the objectives agreed in Paris in 2015, the trend in air travel therefore must be reversed from rising to falling. This is why we need to talk about how often we fly and to what extent we take it for granted. In this context I find the argument short sighted that the share of global air travel accounted for by Germany is too small for our choices to make a difference. Germany is a large industrial nation and is therefore accountable for a significant share of global emissions. I know a lot of people who will say: “I’m flying to Portugal for a week now and then to the US for another week.” Air travel has become a very normal thing here and in many other western countries. Is flying really that normal, though?
What has shaped your personal attitude to air travel?
My parents used to take me on overseas trips as a child. These experiences have left a strong mark on me. I can observe the same in my daughter, who I have taken on long-distance trips. Most recently, we attended a wedding and then spend a few more weeks in inland Mexico. She sees how people talk differently, eat differently and think differently. And how all of this can coexist naturally. Stepping onto a plane and then arriving in a different culture a few hours later opens up perspectives, that are virtually impossible to convey from afar.
Taking a single flight to the US produces twice the emissions a person in Nepal produces in an entire year. Air travel busts people’s personal annual emission budget in relation to reaching the Paris 1.5-degree target. These numbers are personally relevant to me because I care about the planet and future generations. For me this shows very clearly that policies are required for establishing fair taxation of environmental damage, as to “keep going” translates into a massive transgression of our planetary boundaries.
