Flying is responsible for around 2.5% of CO2 generation worldwide.1 By comparison, in the United States emissions from private automobiles stands at about 27% or from power generation at about 31% of US emissions. US industrial CO2 output is also very high at about 21%.2
A study by the UNWTO states that emissions "from all commercial aviation are estimated to be in the order of 1,597 Mt CO2 in 2016, with a share of tourism-related emissions of 80.5%. Consequently, the tourism-related share of aviation emissions was about 1,286 Mt CO2" in 20163. International tourist arrivals stood in 2019 at about 1.465 billion anually.4 Compare this number to the ATAG figure which states that in 2019, "over 4.5 billion passengers were carried by the world's airlines" to get another indication of the number of people flying.5 This seems to place the proportion of the tourism component quite a bit different from the UNWTO study. Regardless of which measure is used, CO2 output from aviation — along with the tourism component — is significant and increasing.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, short flights have the highest CO2 factor: "flights of less than 500 km have the highest emission factors (0.206 kg CO2/pkm), as take offs and climb-outs consume disproportionately high amounts of fuel".6 Because trains are more efficient, per passenger-kilometre (pkm), this is the type of travel where a modal shift can have a significant benefit.
This data, however, must be considered in context. In 2014, "International tourism (travel and passenger transport) accounts for 29% of the world’s exports of services and 6% of overall exports of goods and services".7 Tourism, being broadly defined, does not separate out different types of leisure travel. The question here is what role do other types of leisure travel, such as students, visiting friends and relatives (VFR) or diaspora visiting home, play because these variants of leisure travel are going to happen regardless of how many tourists there are.8 One also has to wonder how many travellers move through immigration without being recorded accurately.
Still, many people are looking to discover ways to better this performance and this will happen, mostly by using more efficient jet engines. There are also newer, lower emission biofuels. Carbon off-setting also plays an important role. The Aviation industry is taking steps to reduce its environmental footprint and IATA member airlines have committed to Fly Net Zero to achieve net zero carbon by 2050.
This is a brief glimpse at the aviation aspect of the tourism industry — now what can the traveller do to help mitigate CO2 emissions such as carbon offsetting and the question there is does it actually make a difference?
There is an argument that train travel is as much as 10X less toxic than plane travel. So, if tourists were to adopt other methods of travel, would this contribute to reducing CO2 emissions generally?
There are three major components to air travel: the aircraft, the airports and the logistics of flying.
Obviously, the most impactful of these are the aircraft themselves, the CO2 generated per passenger kilometre. Just the noise from a jet engine says to anyone that a lot of energy is being used. So, any improvement in fuel efficiency will bring important reductions in this and likely reduce the noise output too. Probably, logistics of flying more efficiently would also bring benefits. There may be benefits in better managing airports but their contribution would be much smaller.
Airlines should be legislated to add information about carbon emissions to their booking pages. This would increase the awareness of the CO2 the trip generated. It would allow travellers to compare emissions between destinations in a specific way. Or flight carbon footprint calculators such as this one @ MyClimate are available.
Also, would fewer leisure tourists using airplane travel mean fewer airplane trips? Other steps may include taking longer, but fewer vacations. Planning the trip to include fewer stopovers, where possible. Even stay-cations or travel to less distant places would also make a difference. Buying carbon offsets can also help, especially well-placed tree planting. But it is not clear whether any of these actions would actually reduce carbon emissions in any substantial way because people are still travelling.
Quite apart from the discussion about the tourism component of air travel is the importance of connecting people. Air transportation clearly facilitates making this connection. The ripple effect of these benefits are most certainly being felt in improved business, education, health and a range of other sectors. Aviation itself employs thousands of people and utilizes a myriad of ancillary and support companies in accomplishing the tasks of moving people and products. And aviation helps connect and re-connect families. CO2 emissions won't be reduced through lowering use as this is not likely to happen rather, CO2 can only be reduced by improving efficiency.
Returning to tourism's role in aviation, one of the most important benefits of aviation is connecting tourists to developing destinations. These places crave tourist visits to help them lift themselves out of poverty. Without aviation, this benefit would almost certainly disappear. In one sense, CO2 emissions related to tourism in developing nations is a cost of doing business, although clearly any improvement would be less impactful. Cutting off the tourist flow altogether would negatively impact LDCs, so what alternatives or other ways to utilize aviation are available?
Educating visitors regarding the importance of their impact would make a difference. Placing the CO2 the trip generated within the context of their visit to this far-off place would add to the understanding by demonstrating the relationship between their air trip and the importance of their visit to the people and the community in the place. The idea being to implant the notion that their visit is also important to the destination and that they are making a difference and that they could make even more difference by adding some further contribution to their visit. Many people already get this connection, however, to others it may not be as clear and re-inforcing it is not taking away from the message.
2. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, US Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Tourism’s Carbon Emissions Measured in Landmark Report Launched At COP25, UNWTO & UNEP, 2019.
4. Over 1.465 billion tourists travelled abroad in 2019, UNWTO
5. Air Transport Action Group (ATAG)
6. Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges, UNWTO & UNEP, 2008, pg 124.
7. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2014 Edition, pg 6
8. (Fig. 2.2, IRTS 2008) The definition of visitor is quite general and includes several sub-classes. Accuracy of data depends on the collection methods, the skill of the recording official and the information submitted by visitors. There is also some cross-classification, for example, incentive travel is classified as business but many travellers might declare themselves as tourists. As well, some countries are going to be better at recording data and it would also be difficult to compare between countries and possibly between ports of entry.
9. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2014 Edition, pg 12