Ed Note: On the “good example” end of the spectrum is a zero carbon retreat next Monday and Tuesday that is entirely online and free: https://www.zneretreat.com/
By Lloyd Alter
Should we just stop flying to conferences? It really isn’t necessary but it sure is a lot of fun. I am conflicted.
The Passivhaus movement is growing all over the world, and the people behind Passivhaus Portugal are very active, running a conference every year in Aveiro, a small city between Lisbon and Porto. I did a presentation by video last year which was evidently well received, and this year they asked me to come in person.
I did so knowing that it was silly, putting big heavy cement overshoes on my carbon footprint to speak at a conference about reducing our carbon footprint. But there is something about meeting people in person, and I had never been to Portugal.
It got still sillier when I flew Easyjet from London to Porto, paying less for the fare on a two-hour plane ride than I did for a two-hour train ride from Aveiro to Lisbon.
I loved Portugal. The food was wonderful, the people are friendly and warm, the cities are models of walkability, and did I mention the food? I loved running along the beach in Costa Nova, (and staying in a Passivhaus) and climbing the stairs in Lisbon.
Having participated two years in a row in the Passivhaus Portugal conference, I can attest that being there and meeting everyone and seeing the other presentations is a whole lot better than phoning it in. I learned a lot, made some great connections and came back refreshed, excited and intellectually stimulated.
But I can’t help feeling that it was an illicit pleasure, that I can’t justify the carbon footprint, particularly given the topic being discussed at the conference. This, while I am trying to decide about going to next year’s Passivhaus conference in China! Is it better to go, to learn, to talk, to exchange ideas, or should I stay home? But I have submitted an abstract for the China conference and if it is accepted, will be presenting a paper. Is this not too great an opportunity to miss?
Many in academia are starting to say no, it isn’t. One group led by Parke Wilde of Tufts University is trying to get academics to stop flying, noting that they fly a lot more than the general population:
Many university-based academics fly much more than 12,000 miles per year. We have faculty colleagues who diligently limit their environmental impact in many areas of their lives, but not their flying behavior. For an academic professional who eats comparatively little meat, commutes by public transportation, sets the home thermostat at a reasonable temperature, and drives a fuel-efficient car, unrestrained flying behavior easily may be responsible for a large fraction of his or her total climate change impact.
This is absolutely the case for me. I do all of the above, bike everywhere in town, and flying is by far the biggest component of my climate footprint. And flying is even worse than just the carbon.
They do not consider the enhanced impact due to the release of aviation emissions at high altitudes, where they influence climate change through the process of “radiative forcing.” This radiative forcing may multiply the climate change impact of flying by a factor of 3. The more conservative adjustment factor used in the CoolClimate Network calculator from the University of California Berkeley to account for radiative forcing is 1.9, meaning that the full climate change impact of flying is approximately double the direct impact of the greenhouse gas emissions. After accounting for this issue, some estimates suggest aviation is responsible for 5% of global human climate change impacts. (and nearly all of this by a very small slice of the populace!)
Parke Wilde notes that many academics worry that if they don’t fly, they won’t get the exposure they need and it will hurt their career: “They feel pressure not to miss the same events that other people in the field are attending.” But he also notes that not going to conventions gives one more time for research and writing. This is certainly true; I promised my editor that I would keep working while I was away, but I was too busy walking and going to museums and eating great food and drinking fine port to actually meet my work commitments. Overall, I would have been a whole lot more productive if I had phoned it in.
Over a decade ago, George Monbiot wrote about the difficulty of convincing people that they shouldn’t just hop on a plane and fly.
When I challenge my friends about their planned weekend in Rome or their holiday in Florida, they respond with a strange, distant smile and avert their eyes. They just want to enjoy themselves. Who am I to spoil their fun? The moral dissonance is deafening.
But it is so easy. The economic craziness that makes that Easyjet flight cost 30 pounds is part of the problem, a reverse incentive encouraging people to fly instead of taking shorter, greener trips. In gorgeous Costa Nova I was told that people from Lisbon don’t come there anymore because it is cheaper to catch a plane and vacation in Tunisia. There is a giant economic distortion happening here that makes flying so cheap.
When we had a beer after my talk in Lisbon, conference organizer João said he hoped I would come back for next year’s conference. I would love to; it is such a great way to mix work with play. The flight isn’t too expensive and the food and the hotels are cheap. But I am beginning to think that in all of these events, the carbon cost is just too high.
What do you think? Do the benefits of travel to conferences outweigh the carbon cost?
If it weren’t so subsidized, it would be a lot more expensive, and people might fly a lot less.
When you fill your car at a gas pump, a big portion of the price goes to taxes.
In the US, there are state taxes that are as high as 58 cents per gallon in Pennsylvania and federal taxes of 18.4 cents per gallon. But airlines do not pay a penny of tax on jet fuel, thanks to a treaty signed in 1944 that the airlines have fought to preserve. If it was taxed like other fuels, it would add about a hundred bucks to the price of a transatlantic flight.
If you fly that plane into La Guardia, you are landing at an airport going through a $4 billion renovation, half of which is being paid for by the taxpayer through the Port Authority.
If you are flying in a Boeing jet, you are in a plane that was built on subsidies. According to Erica Alini of Global News, “The company received $457 million in federal grants, which are typically non-repayable, between 2000 and 2014. In addition to that, there was a whopping $64 billion in federal loans and loan guarantees.” The company also got $13 billion in state and local subsidies. Meanwhile, Boeing complains to the World Trade Organization that Airbus got $22 billion in illegal subsidies from the European Union.
Airplanes now drink five million barrels of oil every day and are the cause of 2.5 percent of global CO2 emissions, but the effects of those emissions might be much higher. John Gibbons of the Irish Times calls aviation “the red meat in the greenhouse gas sandwich”, noting that there are 10,000 passenger aircraft in the sky carrying over a million people every day.
No other discrete human activity is more intensely polluting than flying. Yet rather than being hammered, the aviation industry instead benefits from tax breaks and subsidies other sectors could only dream of…. Rather than being penalised for their massive carbon footprint, frequent flyers are instead pampered by airlines with upgrades and incentives.
Gibbons thinks that raising the prices just penalizes people with lower incomes, so that flying should be rationed.
The real point of rationing is not to raise revenue but to constrain demand, and vast amounts of the flying we now do is frivolous in the extreme. Irish people think nothing of having their wedding in Dubai, or stag parties in Berlin, confident the (relatively) low fares mean their family and friends will join them for a celebration that could as easily have been held locally.
I am not so sure about rationing, and wonder what is wrong with the good old free market. Stop all subsidies, and tax jet fuel at the same rate as any other fuel.
The first time I got on a Bombardier C-series jet (now an Airbus A-220), I joked that Canadian taxpayers should fly free, given the level of support and subsidy the plane had received. But it is the same everywhere in the world – the airports, the highways and trains to the airports, the planes and the fuel, all hugely subsidized or exempted from taxes that everybody else pays, which is in essence a subsidy.
Charge the customer the full cost of flying and people would do it a lot less.