Can airlines ever claim to be ‘green’?

Commercial aviation has opened up the world in once-unimaginable ways, and the rise of cheap, no-frills airlines means jetting off to sunnier climes is within reach of more people than ever before. According to FlightRadar, some 115,000 commercial flights take off every day around the world.

But while plane tickets might be cheap, the environmental cost is high. Research from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that aviation accounts for up to 2.8% of global CO2 emissions, rising to as much as 5% when you take into account other gas emissions and the effect of vapour trails.

Despite the accessibility of flying, though, its climate impact is set to have hugely disproportionate consequences on people globally. Just 1% of the world’s population are responsible for 50% of commercial aviation emissions, and in 2018 – long before the Covid-19 pandemic hit and grounded flights around the world – just 5-11% of the global population got on a plane.

This means that relatively, just a small group of people are contributing to climate consequences that will be felt most keenly by those in the Global South.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the problem will get worse. With a growing middle-class in Asia, emissions from flying could increase by as much as 700% by 2050. If these predictions are realised, flying will be responsible for a surge in carbon emissions.

Changing opinions of flying

As the climate conversation goes increasingly mainstream, a growing awareness of flying’s role in climate breakdown has led to the gradual emergence of ‘flight shame’ – also known as ‘flygskam’. This social movement emerged in 2017 when Swedish singer Staffan Lindberg announced his decision to give up flying, prompting a global step change in the way we think about jetting off for a weekend city break or cheap package holiday in the sun.

And yet, flying is a hard habit to quit. Even if we were to disregard flying for pleasure (and few, understandably, are really willing to give up their hard-earned vacations), globalisation means that flying has simply become a mode of public transport for many, where hopping on a plane to attend a business meeting or visit friends and family overseas is as straightforward as taking a bus. Certainly in many countries, such as the UK, a plane ticket overseas is often even cheaper than a domestic train ticket between cities.

Flying, despite its clear environmental cost, is an intrinsic part of life in developed countries. Can it ever really be sustainable?

How are airlines tackling ‘flight shame’?

Airlines are well aware of flygskam. This, coupled with increased corporate reporting pressure from governments and investors, means they are urgently looking at ways to limit their impact. However, in a carbon intensive business such as aviation, there are no quick wins, and several airlines have fallen foul of greenwashing as they attempt to manage their reputations in the face of climate concerns.

Dutch airline KLM, for example, is currently facing legal action from environmental law firm ClientEarth for its ‘Fly Responsibly’ campaign. The law firm says that the message – which gives the impression that choosing KLM is better for the environment – is at odds with the airline’s plans for expansion, which will result in more emissions.

KLM’s campaign also gives customers the opportunity to purchase carbon offsets to ‘reduce the impact’ of their flights. Customer offsets are offered by many airlines, with several relying on the instrument to ‘negate’ their impact altogether. In late 2019, for example, EasyJet vowed to offset all of its CO2 emissions using offsetting schemes – a move that was said to cost the airline around £25m a year, and that is has since scrapped.

However, the problem of carbon offsetting is well documented (you can read more about the issues around carbon offsetting here). While it’s certainly the case that offset schemes – which usually involve reforestation projects or investments into renewable energy – can benefit local economies, research has routinely proven that carbon emissions and carbon offsets do not work on a like-for-like basis. The trees planted as part of these schemes take years to reach maturity (and full CO2 absorbing potential), and need to be protected in the meantime to ensure they are not felled or damaged before they can sequester the carbon their planting was intended to offset.

Indeed, a comprehensive investigation by The Guardian and Greenpeace’s investigative arm, Unearthed, found that many such aviation offset schemes are not fit for purpose, with the carbon credits generated based on a ‘flawed’ system. As such, offsetting cannot be legitimately used to back up claims of ‘responsible’ or ‘carbon neutral’ flying.