Frequent flyers are the most responsible for aviation's climate impact

[The Larch]

So, given that we're already talking about the possibility of international travel in the Covid thread, I saw this article today and foundit interesting, as it'll have to be decided how airlines will operate in a post-Covid world. Should they go back to normal or is this crisis a chance to implement radical new measures, such as a carbon tax on frequent flyers?

Elite minority of frequent flyers 'cause most of aviation's climate damage'
Small group taking most flights should face frequent flyer levy, says environmental charity

An "elite minority" of frequent flyers cause most of the climate damage resulting from aviation's emissions, according to an environmental charity.

The report, which collates data from the countries with the highest aviation emissions, shows a worldwide pattern of a small group taking a large proportion of flights, while many people do not fly at all.

In the US, 12% of people took 66% of all flights, while in France 2% of people took half of the flights, the report says. In China 5% of households took 40% of flights and in India just 1% of households took 45% of all the flights.

It was already known that 10% of people in England took more than half of all international flights in 2018. A global study reported by the Guardian in November found that frequent-flying "super emitters" who represent just 1% of the world's population caused half of aviation's carbon emissions in 2018. Almost 90% of the world's population did not fly at all that year.

The coronavirus pandemic has slashed the number of flights taken but campaigners fear government bailouts of airlines will cause aviation to return to its pre-pandemic growth trend.

Possible, the group that produced the new report, is calling for the introduction of a frequent flyer levy, whereby the first flight in a year incurs little or no tax and it therefore does not penalise annual family holidays. But the levy then ramps up for each additional flight.

"If left unchecked, emissions from polluting industries like flying threaten to crash the climate," said Alethea Warrington, a campaigns manager at Possible. "This report shows [that] while the poorest communities are already suffering the impacts of a warming climate, the benefits of high-carbon lifestyles are enjoyed only by the few. A progressive tax on aviation would treat frequent flying as the luxury habit it is."

Leo Murray, a director at Possible, said there were "desperate efforts by politicians to return aviation to its former planet-burning growth trajectory by throwing public money at airlines".

Murray added: "Air travel is a uniquely damaging behaviour, resulting in more emissions per hour than any other activity, bar starting forest fires. So targeting climate policy at the elite minority responsible for most of the environmental damage from flights could help tackle the climate problem without taking away access to the most important and valued services that air travel provides to society."

Finlay Asher, a former airline engineer turned climate activist, said: "As an engineer working on future aircraft technology, I quickly realised that technology development is moving too slowly compared with growth in air traffic. The only way to reduce emissions from the sector in time is government policy to fairly limit demand for flights. Without that, no amount of technology will help."

Data in the report shows the US, China and the UK had the highest national emissions from aviation in 2018, while British and Australian citizens had the highest per capita emissions from flying, after people from Singapore, Finland and Iceland.

Michael Gill, executive director at the International Air Transport Association, which represents the world's airlines, said: "Taxes have proved to be an ineffective way to tackle emissions. The focus instead should be on practical means to mitigate the CO2 impact of aviation, while still enabling people to fly for business and family reasons."

"Airlines are investing billions in cleaner aircraft, sustainable aviation fuels and the use of carbon emissions trading or offsetting as part of a long-term strategy to cut 2005-level emissions in half by 2050.

"We would also dispute the description that frequent flying is a 'luxury habit'. Many, if not the majority, of frequent flyers are business people who need face-to-face contact with clients and staff, particularly over the coming months as business returns to normal."

[The Larch]

I wonder if, in the post-covid world, business travel will really be back at its old habits, given how remote meetings have become so prevalent.

[garbon]

Why would airlines want to charge their frequent fliers more?

[Eddie Teach]

They wouldn't be. Government would.

[Maladict]

Taxing fuel and tickets like any other form of transportation would take care of the problem as well. Flying is too cheap.

[The Larch]

Taxing fuel and tickets like any other form of transportation would take care of the problem as well. Flying is too cheap.

Those are already taxed to a certain degree, what this organization is proposing is a specific tax on frequent flyers on top of that. I don't think it's ikely or even feasible to be introduced (it'd present so many complications), but I can see their point about putting more of the environmental cost of aviation at the feet of those employing it the most.

[Tamas]

Is it true that air travel amounts for 4% of global emissions?

In other words, is it fair to say, that all of this matters little to nothing outside the context of ensuring air travel is de-crowded for the benefit of the upper middle class and above?

[DGuller]

I'm a little skeptical of the premise.  The article seems to imply that people who fly disproportionately frequently are responsible for a disproportionately greater environmental impact.  I would be interested to see some independent statistical studies that support this conclusion.

[Admiral Yi]

Carbon tax should be a flat tax, not a progressive tax.  If you fly one mile you pay X, if you fly two miles you pay 2X.  Each of those miles flown causes an equal amount of global warming.  The first mile flown by an ocassional holiday traveler is not any more virtuous from the atmosphere's point of view than the 10,000th mile flown by a business traveler.

[The Brain]

I'm a little skeptical of the premise.  The article seems to imply that people who fly disproportionately frequently are responsible for a disproportionately greater environmental impact.  I would be interested to see some independent statistical studies that support this conclusion.

This.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Your weight should be taken into consideration, the unit for taxation purposes is the travellerkilogrammile .

[Zanza]

I used to have the golden Lufthansa card years ago and in my worst year spent about 250 hours total in aircrafts. Of course always business, a few times first class. Flying domestic German flights in business etc. At first it was an adventure, then it became normal, then annoying. I certainly did my share of climate destruction. 

While I miss private air travel, I certainly don't want to go back to that kind of business travel. I think business travel will never come back in the same way as before the pandemic. Its expensive and destroys the climate. And most things can be done via Teams.

[alfred russel]

I wonder if, in the post-covid world, business travel will really be back at its old habits, given how remote meetings have become so prevalent.

There are two sides to this coin though. Yes the increasing comfort with remote meetings will allow some previously in person meetings to be done remotely.

But on the other side, I've seen a lot of jobs being now hired on a geographically dispersed basis. For example, I was talking to a director in Denver who was just hired to lead a team in Atlanta. Everyone is remote now so it doesn't matter, and the plan is that when things get back to normal he will continue living in Denver, and leading the team remotely, only coming to Atlanta once a month or so to meet with the team in person.

I'm actually interviewing for a position in Washington state that would have a similar arrangement--my theoretical future boss says that I'd just come to Washington for a few weeks to onboard, then after that we'd meet in person about once a month--alternating with me coming to Washington and her coming to Atlanta.

[Sheilbh]

I know someone in the US who's recently been hired and had something similar. The current plan is that he'll only actually travel down to HQ once a quarter.

I think business travel will fall because a bit like working in the office if there's a commute - it's not actually that popular with the people who do it and most companies have been forced to adapt. There'll still be some but I think it'll be a lot lower than it was.

[Admiral Yi]

I think salesmen will always fly.