To meet GHG reduction levels, the number of flights globally will need to be significantly reduced.
There are a number of implications.
Firstly, the more people who migrate to other countries, the more people will need to travel back to visit family and friends, and the more consequent travel will be required. This will be exacerbated by the fact that many migrants will be workers who do not have the luxury of time available to use other forms of transport.
Secondly, most airlines operate on a knife-edge, with slim margins and the last 15% of capacity representing profitability. Any reduction in airline passenger numbers will impact the profitability almost certainly to a degree that will make many airlines inviable, with a consequent impact on prices and a reduction in competition that could lead to a price spiral.
Thirdly, we have to look at whether there are any credible alternative forms of transport. Road, rail and sea travel are unlikely to be able to compete with air travel in terms of convenience, time or, indeed, cost (unless subsidised, for example in the case of current rail travel – a single journey from London to Edinburgh costs more than a return trip by air.
Fourthly there is the contribution of air travel at current levels to global GDP. This stands at circa $3.5 trillion at current passenger levels. That’s 4.1% of world GDP.
Reduce it and the money available to finance alternatives (and indeed other forms of climate impact mitigation) will be reduced – potentially leading to lower funding of key mitigation measures and even some country-specific financial difficulties.
So, individuals have a vested and growing interest in potentially expanding air travel.
Governments have a vested and growing interest in at least sustaining air travel.
Where does that leave us? Offsetting is simply not credible anymore and, in any event, as industries become increasingly more carbon-efficient, it will no longer be an option.
For air travel to continue to exist at anywhere near its current levels (the other alternative) means a significant dependence on advances in aviation and fuel technologies to the degree that they mitigate aviation GHG impacts to net zero.
This is an enormous issue that the world currently seems to be ignoring, and in the UK government’s case it’s one that will be exacerbated as carbon credits are removed and stricter GHG emission targets are imposed, leading to the nightmare scenario of increased demand, reduced supply (airline closures due to unviability), reduced competition (leading to higher pricing), leading to travel inequality (the preserve of the wealthy) leading to civil unrest amongst migrants (for example) who are unable to afford to travel to see friends and family. And if the pat response is that these people can use technology to meet with friends and family virtually, think again. Like rail and sea are to aviation, so too, face-to-face versus digital engagement simply doesn’t compare.
Published by Mark Lumsdon-Taylor, Executive Development & Sustainability Lead
