The travel season is just around the corner.  For me, it’s finally going to start again this year, after I’ve done without it for the last few years due to Corona and Co. Maybe you’re planning your next vacation? Then you might know the struggle I’m facing right now: To fly or not to fly. Or to put it another way: Considering climate change, are we still allowed to fly?

We will probably not get an answer to this question in this blog article. And we also know that flying is one of the most climate-damaging methods of transportation. But some destinations are almost impossible to travel to any other way. It costs an immense amount of time and money to reach them by other means of transport. And if the tourists stopped coming, what would it mean for my destination?

It is important to note that this article will not be about whether we can still fly, but rather about making us aware of the impact of our sustainable travel. This means focusing not only on the environmental aspect but also the socio-economic one. What does that mean for air travel? Read for yourself!

Flying as a climate killer – Arguments around air traffic

We don’t need to explain that flying is harmful to the climate, do we? But if you want to come up with facts for the next discussion on this topic, we have something for you here: We’ll show you how to dispel some popular myths. This will also help when you explain to Uncle Willi why you don’t want to fly from Berlin to Paris.

1. Airplanes only emit exhaust gases. Just like cars.

Aircraft refuel with fossil fuel and then emit the exhaust gases at high altitudes. In addition to carbon dioxide, other pollutants such as nitrogen, soot particles and water vapor are emitted. It is not yet entirely clear how harmful these additional substances are, but because of these two factors (high altitude plus other pollutants), the greenhouse effect is multiplied by a factor of 2.7 according to a recommendation by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Thus, almost two thirds are due to substances apart from CO2. By the way, the additional pollutants are given as CO2 equivalents.

2. After all, flying generates only a tiny fraction of global emissions.

95% of global CO2 emissions have other causes, with the energy sector in particular accounting for an enormous share. According to the IEA report, the burning of coal for power generation is responsible for over 40% of global CO2 emissions (15.2 billion tons). This is followed by oil (10.7 billion tons) and natural gas (7.5 billion tons). So, you could simply ask Uncle Willi if he already uses green electricity.

Become part of the energy transition

The most important factor to limit global warming (the word “stop” is unfortunately no longer possible) is the energy turnaround. If you (or Uncle Willi) do not yet use green electricity, you can find a list of real green electricity providers here, to which you can easily switch. (According to a calculation by co2 online, you can save about one ton of CO2 per year in a two-person household (70 m²) by switching to green electricity).

Not to forget, nevertheless:

• Global air traffic is still responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gases. This is according to an international study led by Manchester Metropolitan University with the participation of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), which was published in 2020. That’s a hell of a lot.
• Global CO2 emissions climbed to a record of 3 billion metric tons in 2021, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). This is 6% more than in the previous year.

More than environmental  impact – Socio-economic aspects of air travel

In our region, it’s easy to get the impression that everyone takes the occasional plane trip. It is easy to forget that here in Central Europe we live in the wealthiest countries on earth (about in the top tenth compared to the rest of the world) over the tales of Thailand, Mauritius, and Co. A study showed that in 2018, only 11% of the world’s population (Reminder: this now stands at 8 billion people) used an airplane. Frequent flyers even made up only 1% of the world’s population.

Tourism as an economic factor

Let’s forget about flights and their undeniable impact on our planet for a moment. If you’re reading this article right now, you probably live in a rich country in the global north. Maybe Germany, Austria, the USA, or France. What do these countries have in common? The economic system does not rely on just one branch, but is relatively broad-based. If one branch were to break off, like it did with tourism during the pandemic, it would be dramatic and threaten the lives of the people who were affected, but the economy of the country could handle it.

The situation is different in countries that rely on tourism as an economic sector. These include, in particular, so-called developing and emerging countries, which often have no or only a few other economic sectors.

Tourism creates jobs there, strengthens the infrastructure and helps to preserve nature and culture. As travelers, we contribute with our money to reduce poverty and support the country.

Example Cambodia: Currently, 30% of the Cambodian population lives below the poverty line. The result: a lack of prospects and heinous abuses such as child prostitution. At the same time, the country is one of the most beautiful destinations in Southeast Asia. NGO’s like the Farmhouse Smiling Gecko want to attract tourists to the country so that they can help the local people with the money they make. Smiling Gecko has handicraft training centers and 40 workers in the farmhouse who can help their families with a fair income. Your expenses as a tourist do a good job there.

Example Thailand: For the emerging country Thailand, tourism is an important economic factor. The income from the tourism industry makes various projects possible, such as the coral conservation project on the Phi Phi Islands, with our Green Pearls® partner Zeavola. You also support the advance of sustainable hotels and accommodations by staying in them.

But, am I still allowed to fly now?

Traveling to foreign cultures offers fantastic opportunities to broaden one’s view of the world. And it provides jobs and the preservation of natural and cultural assets. I would even have to say that, if possible, you should definitely take long-haul trips. If it weren’t for the environmental concerns.

We must also be aware that a trip, no matter how long or short, is a real privilege. So, you should think carefully beforehand about the purpose of your trip and how your trip can benefit the local people and nature. It doesn’t matter whether you fly there or arrive by train.

Tip: Even if you decide to travel by air, you can at least make up for the impact by compensating for it. There are various climate protection partners that specialize in just that. In 2022, foundation product tested several of these projects. The test winner was Atmosfair. You can find more inspiration for sustainable long-distance destinations here.

Short distance? No, thanks!

Short-haul flights should be left alone, as the disadvantages and negative effects outweigh the decision and recommendation against it. Item. Greenpeace is particularly critical of ultra-short-haul flights of less than 500 kilometers and private jet flights. Here, people are usually better off taking the train. Even though we’ve probably all had to deal with cancellations and delays. If you’re traveling with friends, then even the (packed) car can be a more environmentally friendly alternative.

Three reasons for more train travel

• Taking the train is often faster. It is often about two hours shorter than the train ride, but air travel simply consumes much more time due to the long waiting time, controls, and the whole shebang. (Example, Cologne—Paris: 3 hours and 10 minutes by plane, 4 hours and 43 minutes by train).
• Train journeys are regularly cheaper. In 2017, the market research institute Quotas determined that train travel was around 90% cheaper than domestic German and intra-European flights—even compared to low-cost airlines.
• The train gets you closer to your destination. Airports are outside the city, and trains stop in the middle. (Example: Charles de Gaulle Airport Paris is 23 kilometers from Paris and the Gare du Nord train station is in the middle of the city).

Tip: Almost all Green Pearls® accommodations in Germany and neighboring countries can be easily reached by train. You can find some examples in our article about train travel in Europe.

Even more environmentally friendly: long-distance buses

In a 2021 emissions comparison of individual means of transport by the German Federal Environment Agency, the long-distance bus emerged as the most sustainable means of transport. It is primarily since long-distance buses have a better load factor than trains that long-distance buses leave a smaller carbon footprint than trains. But they are not only the most CO2-saving way to travel, they are also the cheapest! Quick comparison for tomorrow’s date: The route Cologne—Milan currently costs around 150 euros with the train and only 37 euros with Flixbus. For this, of course, the bus takes longer. The train is (with change) 9 hours on the road and the bus 12:40 hours.

Our tips for destinations you can reach with Flixbus:

For only about 70 Euros, you can travel from Germany with Flixbus to Naples in Italy. From here it’s another 47 kilometers to Salerno by the sea, where you can reach the cozy and sustainable apartments (all with terrace and sea view) of A’ Cràpa Mangia in the middle of the Cilento National Park.

The Hôtel Le Pavillon in Paris is located 4.4 km from the Gare Routière Porte Maillot long-distance bus station and is easily accessible by metro. It is a shabby-chic hotel with “green spirit” in the lively Rue Saint-Dominique in the 7th district, with a special reference to art and music. (Price Flixbus, about 40 euros per person from a German city to Paris).

Directly in the center of Milan there is the zero-emissions hotel Milano Scala. There are regular long-distance buses to Milan from German cities. From the bus station Lampugnano it is about 6 km to the hotel, which is in close proximity to the famous Scala and other sights of the city. (Bus ride with Flixbus about 50 euros).

Conclusion: Are we still allowed to fly?

We won’t be able to do without airplanes in tourism quite so soon. Many countries that depend on us would also experience a disaster. Many other things have to change first. Until then, we can make conscious decisions and limit our air travel. Maybe it doesn’t have to be one or two plane trips every year, but look forward to a big and far trip every few years, where you also spend more time in the country. Or perhaps you look around for alternative transportation options and discover a whole new way to your favorite destination.

What do you think? Do you still fly? Or do you do without air travel altogether? What alternatives do you suggest? Kindly let us know in the comments!

 

Want to save this post to share with your friends (or Uncle Willi)? Then just pin it on Pinterest!