carbon footprint air travel

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How your flight emits as much CO2 as many people do in a year

Even short-haul flights produce huge amounts of CO2, figures show

Taking a long-haul flight generates more carbon emissions than the average person in dozens of countries around the world produces in a whole year, a new Guardian analysis has found.

The figures highlight the disproportionate carbon footprint of those who can afford to fly, with even a short-haul return flight from London to Edinburgh contributing more CO2 than the mean annual emissions of a person in Uganda or Somalia.

2019 is forecast to be another record-breaking year for air travel, with passengers expected to fly a total of 8.1tn km, up 5% from last year and more than 300% since 1990.

Taking one return flight generates more CO2 than citizens of some countries produce in a year

How about your next trip.

According to figures from German nonprofit Atmosfair, flying from London to New York and back generates about 986kg of CO2 per passenger. There are 56 countries where the average person emits less carbon dioxide in a whole year – from Burundi in Africa to Paraguay in South America.

But even a relatively short return trip from London to Rome carries a carbon footprint of 234kg of CO2 per passenger – more than the average produced by citizens of 17 countries annually.

The figures are averages taking into account which aircraft models are typically used on flight routes, and the estimated occupancy of seats on board those planes. The figures include only the CO2 generated by burning jet fuel, not any emissions embedded in the construction of the plane or any other greenhouse gases that might be produced, such as water vapour.

Aviation emissions could triple in the next three decades

The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions, and is one of the fastest-growing polluters.

According to projections from researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University, emissions from the sector could more than double by 2050 even if planes become substantially more fuel-efficient and airlines save additional carbon by optimising their operations.

Under a less optimistic scenario, a lower level of fuel savings could lead emissions to triple by 2050.

“The increase in traffic has historically outpaced the improvements in technology,” says Dr John Broderick, who researches climate policy and international transport at the University of Manchester.

How can the aviation industry’s climate impact be regulated?

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – the UN body responsible for limiting the carbon footprint from international air travel – is introducing a scheme aiming to offset emissions by allowing airlines to purchase carbon credits rather than burn less fossil fuels.

Broderick is sceptical of the scheme’s benefits. “You still have a plan to increase the size of the industry … at a time when we should be making substantial reductions in emissions, particularly from the rich parts of the world.”

When asked for comment for this story, the ICAO described it as “meaningless cherry-picking of unrelated data points”.

In 2019, almost 40m flights are expected to depart from airports worldwide – more than 100,000 trips per day.

Tim Alderslade, chief executive of Airlines UK, the industry association representing 13 UK carriers, said: “Airlines believe we need a strategy that meets the government’s ambition of promoting sustainable growth for our sector. Aviation has to earn the right to expand and that’s why we’re committed to halving our emissions by 2050, and working with national governments to agree an ambitious plan that can deliver a zero-carbon future.”

Environmental groups are calling on policymakers to constrain the total number of flights and limit further expansion of airports.

Policy proposals include a “frequent flyers’ levy” which would increase progressively with every flight a person takes in a year while minimising the impact on those who fly only occasionally.

“We don’t want to penalise hardworking families that perhaps travel abroad once a year for a holiday,” says Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth UK.

Childs cited a 2014 survey by the Department for Transport which revealed that 15% of the UK’s population took 70% of flights.

“We need to recognise that aviation is a luxury and we need to share that luxury fairly.”

Credit and data sources

Emissions data for flight connections was sourced from atmosfair.de and takes into account factors such as the fuel efficiency of different plane models and the average passenger load factor in different regions of the world.

The emissions estimates given in this article represent averages across all aircraft types serving a given route. Individual airlines might operate more or less carbon efficient planes.

The Guardian’s interactive calculator covers the world’s 100 busiest airports and selected UK airports.

Global flight path data was sourced from flightradar24.com and excludes aircraft that do not share location data with Flightradar’s network of receivers.

Emissions projections were provided by Prof David Lee at Manchester Metropolitan University and are based on work by Fleming and Ziegler in ICAO’s 2016 environmental report.

ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (ICEC)   //

ICAO has developed a methodology to calculate the carbon dioxide emissions from air travel for use in offset programmes. The methodology applies the best publicly available industry data to account for various factors such as aircraft types, route-specific data, passenger load factors and cargo carried.

The ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator allows passengers to estimate the emissions attributed to their air travel. It is simple to use and requires only a limited amount of information from the user. ICEC is the only internationally approved tool to estimate carbon emissions from air travel.

Please  contact us  or refer  FAQ  or see the accompanying  methodology to the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator  for additional information.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT
• 25 April 2024

Air-travel climate-change emissions detailed for nearly 200 nations

An inventory lists the aviation emissions of all 197 nations that are signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Credit: Getty

Scientists have compiled the first estimate of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by air travel in each of the 197 countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1 .

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01148-8

Klenner, J., Muri, H. & Strømman, A. H. Environ. Res. Lett. 19 , 054019 (2024).

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

• Climate change

NATO is boosting AI and climate research as scientific diplomacy remains on ice

News Explainer 25 APR 24

Hello puffins, goodbye belugas: changing Arctic fjord hints at our climate future

News 25 APR 24

Ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork

World View 24 APR 24

Junior Group Leader

The Imagine Institute is a leading European research centre dedicated to genetic diseases, with the primary objective to better understand and trea...

Paris, Ile-de-France (FR)

Imagine Institute

Director of the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of Palacký University Olomouc

The Rector of Palacký University Olomouc announces a Call for the Position of Director of the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of P...

Czech Republic (CZ)

Palacký University Olomouc

Course lecturer for INFH 5000

The HKUST(GZ) Information Hub is recruiting course lecturer for INFH 5000: Information Science and Technology: Essentials and Trends.

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine Seeking High-level Talents

Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Early Diagnosis and Precision Oncology of Gastrointestinal Cancers

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions within the multidisciplinary research team headed by Dr. Ajay Goel, professor and foun...

Monrovia, California

Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Goel Lab

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Do Airline Climate Offsets Really Work? Here’s the Good News, and the Bad.

Carbon credits could eventually play an important role in fighting climate change, but right now a few dollars’ worth won’t change much.

By Maggie Astor

Carbon offset programs have become ubiquitous. You’ve probably seen them as check-box options when booking flights: Click here to upgrade to a premium seat. Click here to cancel your greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s an appealing proposition — the promise that, for a trivial amount of money, you can go about your business with no climate guilt. But if it sounds too good to be true, that’s because, at least for now, it is.

The New York Times asked readers this spring to submit their questions about climate change, and several asked about carbon offsets. How do they work? Do they work at all, or, as one reader put it, “is it just guilt money?”

The idea of carbon offsets, sometimes called carbon credits or climate credits, is simple. We know human activity releases tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases every year. We also know it is possible to remove or sequester carbon from the atmosphere by, for example, planting trees.

Offsets seek to compensate for emissions in one place — for example, from passenger airplanes — by funding emission reductions or carbon removal somewhere else, like forests.

Some experts see them as an essential tool to limit environmental damage, at least in the short to medium term, until the world can make a full transition to renewable energy. Governments including California, the European Union and Australia are relying on them to meet their national goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

At some point, carbon offset programs will have to become more transparent and effective, said Bruce M. Usher, a professor of professional practice at Columbia Business School and the former chief executive of EcoSecurities Group, which has designed emissions-reduction projects in developing countries.

Scientists are clear that the world needs to reach net-zero emissions — the point where we either stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or fully counteract the gases that we do produce — by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and “it’s virtually impossible to get to zero” without offsets, he said.

But that doesn’t mean offsets work today, and Professor Usher’s advice to people right now is hardly a ringing endorsement. “If you wish to because it aligns with your values, sure, you should buy carbon credits,” he said. “But don’t be under the illusion that, for every credit you buy, it’s absolutely 100 percent reducing emissions by an equal amount.”

Many offset projects do not even come close to 100 percent of the benefits they promise.

A pair of studies published in 2019 and last year examined California’s forest carbon offsets program and found that it was likely to have overstated its total emission reductions by 80 percent or more. In a 2016 study , the European Union Commission concluded that 85 percent of the projects it examined were unlikely to achieve their reduction claims. And a 2019 ProPublica investigation found that, overwhelmingly, forest preservation projects “hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with.”

Even well-designed projects can go awry, sometimes because of climate change itself: Last summer, wildfires in California burned more than 150,000 acres of forests that had been set aside under the state’s carbon offset program.

But the biggest problems are structural, related to something called additionality.

That’s technical jargon for a simple concept: A carbon offset needs to fund reductions that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. If you pay someone to preserve a grove, but they were never actually planning to cut it down, then you’re not offsetting your emissions. And it’s difficult to establish the facts in these cases with the level of confidence required for offset programs to work.

Part of the appeal of carbon offsets is the notion that it’s possible to meaningfully combat climate change while living our lives and structuring our society in the same way we always have. For that reason, some experts see carbon offsets as actively damaging, inasmuch as they give people cover to avoid reducing emissions at the source.

“It’s a really dangerous distraction because it diverts our attention away from analyzing what we could do that is much more meaningful,” said Kate Ervine, an associate professor of global development studies at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

While individual activities do have environmental costs, and flying is one of the costliest, climate change is overwhelmingly driven by the actions of the fossil fuel industry. And the vast majority of carbon offsets are purchased by corporations, including fossil fuel companies themselves, on the premise that they can hit “net zero” emission targets without fundamentally changing how they operate.

The most basic problem with carbon offsets “is that you’re trading a known amount of emissions with an uncertain amount of emissions reductions,” said Barbara Haya, the director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project at the University of California, Berkeley. “But there’s also the whole trading approach of companies being able to buy their way out of their responsibility to reduce their own emissions.”

The sorts of programs tied to offsets are, in themselves, worthwhile and even essential to mitigate the damage already done by decades of greenhouse gas emissions; the sticky part is using them to justify more emissions. Even if we could precisely calculate how much carbon a new grove of trees would absorb, tying its planting to the release of more carbon would only keep levels steady, and we need them to go down.

Many experts say that, in principle, offsets can be valuable. Professor Usher, for instance, cited the cement industry as a good candidate for an offset program, because reducing emissions from cement production is a more expensive and technically complicated task than, say, switching electricity production to renewable sources.

But the programs would need to be designed and administered very differently than they are now, and consumers would need to pay more than the few dollars per ton of carbon dioxide that they currently do.

“If you were to reinvent the entire industrial structure, focus on a subset of activities and accept prices that are massively higher than they are today, then I think the answer to your question is, ‘Yes, we can do that,’” said Danny Cullenward, the policy director at CarbonPlan, a nonprofit climate research organization. “If the question is can we ever, at 5 bucks a ton, produce something that’s meaningful, I think the answer is no.”

For now, the best thing an individual can do remains what it has always been: Try to emit less.

For people who want to help fund broader emission reduction efforts, certifications from watchdog groups like The Gold Standard and Green-e can help identify worthwhile projects. “But think of it as a donation,” Dr. Haya said, “not as buying credits to cover your emissions.”

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized California’s carbon offsets program. The state runs a program through which businesses can pay to set aside forests as offsets; the state itself does not pay for the offsets.

How we handle corrections

Maggie Astor is a climate reporter. She has previously covered U.S. politics, the coronavirus, disinformation and live news. More about Maggie Astor

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Paris is becoming a city of bikes. Across China, people are snapping up $5,000 electric cars. Here’s a look at a few bright spots  for emission reductions.

In theory, online shopping can be more efficient  than driving to the store. But you may still want to think before you add to cart.

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

National Geographic content straight to your inbox—sign up for our popular newsletters here

Should you buy carbon offsets for your air travel?

More than a third of Americans would pay extra to offset their flights’ CO2 emissions, a new National Geographic survey finds.

Humans spew more than 44 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Tourism contributes up to 11 percent of those emissions, with flying making up the largest share, according to a 2018 study published in Nature Climate Change . It’s led to a reckoning for many travelers, who are rethinking how and why they fly—and seeking ways to reduce their carbon footprint when they do take to the skies.

One solution? Purchasing carbon offsets—an investment into a project or action, like planting trees or building solar panels, to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Airlines such as Delta, United, and British Airways have options to pay a small surcharge (in one case the charge was $13) to offset carbon emissions for seats on the flight. However, this market-based approach to reducing emissions is not without criticism.

We asked readers in a January 2022 National Geographic and Morning Consult poll if they have or would pay an optional surcharge some airlines offer to offset the carbon emissions of their ride. Thirty-eight percent of Americans surveyed think it would be a fine idea, with the percentage rising to 48 percent among millennials. But some want more information on the actual benefits of it—and where the money goes. Some experts say the focus on individual actions distracts from the more impactful improvements that happen when the industry is regulated.

The good news is that, in many parts of the world, the offsetting question is finally being addressed by the planet’s biggest polluters . In 2021, airlines that fly internationally were required to offset their CO2 emissions based on the carbon they produced under the UN agreement Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation . In the same year, more than 200 companies and 100 countries have pledged to become carbon-neutral by 2050, or earlier.

If you’re looking to purchase an offset to feel a little less guilty about flying, here’s what you should know.

What are carbon offsets?

With carbon dioxide emissions increasing by 400 percent since 1950, and coal-generated electricity producing nearly a billion metric tons of carbon emissions in 2020 alone, the impact of an individual flight on a global scale is marginal.

But in a person’s daily life, flying is by far one of the most carbon-intensive activities. One flight can produce as much carbon as driving for more than 2,000 miles. To combat flygskam or flight-shaming, third-party companies sell voluntary offsets—different from compliance offsets, which are used to meet legally binding caps. Marisa de Belloy, CEO of carbon offset vendor Cool Effect says one purchase “is equal to one [metric] ton of carbon emissions that were not emitted. The term offset just means you’re using that ton to offset a ton you have put into the atmosphere.”

For example, a consumer could pay $8.50 to a program in Honduras that replaces open fire cooking pits with custom-built brick-and-mortar stoves that require less wood to cook meals and funnel smoke outdoors via a chimney. Cool Effect estimates one new stove could reduce three metric tons of carbon emissions per year.

Cool Effect’s de Belloy credits a growing discontent with the government and private industry’s failure to deal with climate change for motivating individuals to take personal action. Many travelers and companies are invested. The market for voluntary offsets hit a record $1 billion in 2021, according to Ecosystem Marketplace .

Do they make a difference?  

Still, many travelers wonder: Is buying carbon offsets a long-term solution? Maybe.  

“Offsets shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to regulatory requirements,” says Peter Miller, an expert in carbon offsets at the National Resources Defense Council . In the United States, there’s no federal regulation over the carbon offsets purchased by individuals.

( Carbon offset sales are on the rise—but not all of them are created equal .)

“Consumers and companies should look first to reducing their emissions before looking to source offsets for those emissions reductions that are not possible or are not cost effective in the near term,” Kelley Kizzier, an expert in carbon markets at the Environmental Defense Fund , told National Geographic in 2019 . “There are a lot of questionable offsets out there, and it can be difficult to navigate the sometimes-murky world of offsets.” One reader learned that the surcharge he paid went to a conservation NGO that later hit him up with unwanted fundraising mail.

To make a real difference in carbon emissions, de Belloy says offset programs should provide an additional benefit that would not have occurred without money from the carbon offset group, a concept called “additionality.”

For example, paying someone to preserve a forest would count as an offset if that forest was slated for development. Instead of being paid to cut down the trees, a landowner would be paid to keep them standing. If there was never a threat to the forest, your payment to the landowner wouldn’t count as an offset because your money would have provided no additional benefit—the forest would have remained regardless.

There’s also no guarantee for how long a project bought with a carbon offset will last. A 2019 investigation by ProPublica found numerous examples of carbon credit programs failing to protect tropical forests.

To protect a forest from deforestation, revenue from carbon offsets need to be more competitive than the oft-lucrative industries that lead to deforestation, like cattle ranching and soy production. Reforestation offsets also are complicated by the wildfires surging around the world , which can release sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. Lands sustainably managed one year could fall under new political will or management the next.

Carbon capture vs. offsets

Purchasing traditional carbon offsets can be helpful, but their impact is hard to quantify. By removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the earth, direct air capture (DAC) may offer a more concrete solution.

A specific type of carbon capture, DAC is the focus of companies such as Swiss-based Climeworks , Carbon Engineering in Canada , and Global Thermostat based in the U.S. Its modular machines use a fan to draw air into a collector, which catches the carbon with a filter made of organic compounds. Once the filter is full, the collector is closed and heated to 100°C (212°F), releasing pure carbon dioxide. The carbon is then combined with water and piped underground. Natural basalt formations in the earth react with the carbon, turning it into stone over several years.

( Can carbon capture make flying more sustainable? )

In DAC projects where the captured carbon is not stored in the ground, it can be recycled and used as a raw material. At Climeworks’ Hinwil plant, for instance, the carbon is used to fertilize greenhouses and add fizz to Valser, Swiss mineral water. Norsk e-Fuel combines carbon with hydrogen to create a sustainable aviation fuel.

One way to think of a direct air capture facility is as a super-forest. While real forests remove carbon naturally, most experts acknowledge that the process is too slow to make the dramatic impact our planet needs.

“The terrestrial biosphere and the ocean only collectively uptake half of what we dump into the atmosphere every year,” says Jennifer Wilcox, an energy policy expert at the University of Pennsylvania, who was just appointed to a leadership position at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Not only do we need to accelerate carbon removal, but we also need to consider ocean health (absorption of carbon dioxide by the ocean causes acidification) and land use when looking at different removal methods.

“A direct air capture plant can be up to a hundred times more efficient than a forest per given land area,” says Wilcox. “Land is a limited resource … the benefit of direct air capture is you don’t need arable land, so that’s why I think of [the direct air capture plants] as a synthetic forest.”

At Climeworks, each collector captures the equivalent of what 2,000 trees would, and because the carbon concentration is the same everywhere in the world, these facilities are location independent.

While this application doesn’t permanently remove carbon from the air, it is creating a circular economy, as well as a market for carbon removal that might allow the technology to scale up to a level that has a real impact.

How travelers can help

Encouraging travelers to see the value in carbon removal could help create more meaningful journeys.

“The real difference is when you buy an offset, you are verifiably reducing carbon emissions,” says de Belloy. “When you donate to a big environmental nonprofit, you don’t know exactly what the impact has been.”

Demand for captured carbon offsets from consumers and corporations might also help to drive down the cost of the technology—which is still incredibly high. Microsoft, for instance, recently pledged to be carbon negative by 2030 through the use of various capture and storage technologies. In December 2020, the U.S. Congress reserved $447 million to research and develop large-scale carbon removal. President Joe Biden’s goal to have a net-zero-emissions economy by 2050 includes upping federal investments and tax incentives for carbon capture technology.

Christina Beckmann, founder of Tomorrow’s Air , a collective of globe-trotters that has partnered with Climeworks, adds: “There’s a lot of potential for individual travelers being able to take climate action into their own hands.”

If flying is the only option, booking large commercial airliners , which seat more people and therefore have lower carbon emissions per person, instead of smaller planes like private jets, is an oft-mentioned idea for combating greenhouse gas emissions. Traveling on a full plane also helps to lower overall emissions.

Airline passengers can offset their emissions by donating to carbon capture monthly, while receiving perks from affiliated tour companies, such as Tierra Del Volcan and Natural Habitat Adventures .

With additional reporting from Chloe Berge, Sarah Gibbens, and Starlight Williams.

Related Topics

• CARBON FOOTPRINT
• AIR POLLUTION
• CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

You May Also Like

6 tips to make your next beach trip more sustainable

Some U.S. national parks are trying to go carbon-free. What does that mean for visitors?

Free bonus issue.

From renewable energy to backing communities: how hotels can make a difference

6 eco-conscious alpine resorts around the world

Here are the hotels we love for 2024

Rail travel to the Arctic: all aboard Norway's slow train under the midnight sun

Hot topic: does carbon offsetting really make a difference?

• Environment
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

4 ways airlines are planning to become carbon neutral

The airline industry believes its quickest path to net-zero is replacing jet fuel with sustainable aviation fuel. Image:  Unsplash/Pascal Meier

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Reuters Staff

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Climate Crisis is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, climate crisis.

• The airline industry is responsible for nearly 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
• It has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050 by focusing on four key strategies.
• These include greener fuel, carbon offsets and utilizing the power of hydrogen.

Launching a 300-ton plane full of people into the sky and propelling it at 500 miles (805 km) an hour requires a lot of energy. So, taking off without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will take some doing.

The airline industry, responsible for nearly 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, has pledged to hit net zero by 2050 to help curb global warming.

But with travel demand likely to add to the 100,000 or so flights daily, some worry they could struggle with that goal .

Airlines say they are optimistic . Here are some of the strategies they are looking at:

The airline industry believes its quickest path to net-zero is replacing jet fuel with “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) made from renewable sources, such as plants or used cooking oil.

In theory, SAF can cut flight emissions by around 80%, depending on how it is made.

But SAF is not widely available because of cost. The United States and other countries are considering subsidies to bring prices down and supplies up. In the meantime, some airlines are blending small amounts into their fuel.

There are other concerns, including whether planes can run properly on pure SAF, as opposed to a mix. Engines designed for petroleum-based fuel rely on its oily qualities to lubricate internal parts and protect gaskets and seals. It is unclear if SAF offers that effect on its own.

Boeing (BA.N) is studying the issue and has committed to ensuring its planes are certified for 100% SAF by 2030.

Even if SAF can replace petroleum fuel completely, it still only reduces emissions by 80% at best.

The rest could be written off with carbon offsets – financial instruments that allow an emitter to pay someone else to cut emissions.

Offset credits are generated by investing in clean energy projects, planting trees, or supporting other types of efforts that keep emissions from the atmosphere. Airlines and other industries are already making these investments.

But scientific uncertainty as well as a lack of transparency and international quality standards mean it is impossible to be sure those using offsets are cutting the promised emissions.

Negotiators at the U.N. climate summit in Glasgow are trying to solve the issue by agreeing on standards for government-run carbon markets, which would likely then inform rules for voluntary ones. But delegates are not sure a deal can be struck.

Direct eye capture

United Airlines (UAL.O) has shunned carbon offsets, which its CEO Scott Kirby calls the "the height of greenwashing".

Instead, UA is betting on direct air capture (DAC), a technology still in development that would suck carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere and store it underground.

The U.S. airline is a "small minority" partner in 1PointFive Inc's project in Texas, which hopes to become the world's first commercial direct air capture facility with a capacity to remove 1 million tons of CO2 from the air annually.

As other sectors proceed to decarbonize, the aviation sector could account for a much higher share of global greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century than its 2%-3% share today.

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) can reduce the life-cycle carbon footprint of aviation fuel by up to 80%, but they currently make up less than 0.1% of total aviation fuel consumption. Enabling a shift from fossil fuels to SAFs will require a significant increase in production, which is a costly investment.

The Forum’s Clean Skies for Tomorrow (CST) Coalition is a global initiative driving the transition to sustainable aviation fuels as part of the aviation industry’s ambitious efforts to achieve carbon-neutral flying.

The coalition brings together government leaders, climate experts and CEOs from aviation, energy, finance and other sectors who agree on the urgent need to help the aviation industry reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The coalition aims to advance the commercial scale of viable production of sustainable low-carbon aviation fuels (bio and synthetic) for broad adoption in the industry by 2030. Initiatives include a mechanism for aggregating demand for carbon-neutral flying, a co-investment vehicle and geographically specific value-chain industry blueprints.

Learn more about the Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition's impact and contact us to find out how you can get involved.

The technology has yet to be proven up to scale. And it's expensive, costing hundreds of dollars to capture just one ton of CO2. Several previous carbon capture and storage (CCS) efforts have failed .

Kirby said he thinks the 1PointFive project will work, but isn't sure if it will be a cost-effective option.

Electric and hydrogen

Other options being studied include whether battery capacity can be scaled up to power planes, and whether hydrogen fuel made with renewable power can be produced in the quantities needed.

The technologies are still far from commercial use, with batteries heavy and hydrogen fuel still unproven in planes.

Have you read?

Japan airlines ditches 'ladies and gentlemen' for gender-neutral greetings, united airlines plans to use jet fuel made from trash, these 4 charts show the crisis faced by airlines – and the possible way ahead.

Rolls-Royce held a 15-minute test flight of a small electric plane in September, calling it a "milestone on the aviation industry’s journey towards decarbonization".

The engine-maker said it expects a market for electric "flying taxis" for short distances within a few years, while longer flights would probably need other technologies.

As for hydrogen, Airbus (AIR.PA) says it will develop the world's first commercial aircraft fueled by the gas by 2035.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Climate Action .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Climate finance: What are debt-for-nature swaps and how can they help countries?

Kate Whiting

April 26, 2024

Beyond greenwashing: 5 key strategies for genuine sustainability in agriculture

Santiago Gowland

April 24, 2024

How Indigenous expertise is empowering climate action: A case study from Oceania

Amanda Young and Ginelle Greene-Dewasmes

April 23, 2024

What is desertification and why is it important to understand?

Andrea Willige

Global forest restoration goals can be achieved with youth-led ecopreneurship

Agustin Rosello, Anali Bustos, Fernando Morales de Rueda, Jennifer Hong and Paula Sarigumba

The planet’s outlook is in our hands. Which future will we incentivize?

Carlos Correa

April 22, 2024

Reducing air travel by small amounts each year could level off the climate impact

Postdoctoral Researcher in Weather and Climate Modelling, University of Oxford

Disclosure statement

Milan Klöwer receives funding from the UK's Natural Environmental Research Council, the Copernicus Programme of the European Commission and the European Research Council.

University of Oxford provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Just before the pandemic, aircraft engines were burning one billion litres of fuel a day. But then the number of daily civil aviation flights fell from 110,000 to less than 50,000 during 2020, on average. With the easing of travel restrictions, air traffic is increasing back towards its pre-pandemic peak.

Most world leaders and delegates will have flown to Glasgow to attend COP26 – the 26th annual UN climate change summit – in person. But as they haggle over emissions targets to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and not 3°C or more , aviation is unlikely to be included in them, given the lack of low-carbon alternatives to long-haul flights.

But it should be. In new research , my colleagues and I calculated that if the aviation sector continues to grow on its present trajectory, its jet fuel consumption will have added 0.1˚C to global warming by 2050 – half of it to date, the other half in the next three decades.

Aviation is responsible for 4% of the 1.2°C rise in the global mean temperature we have already experienced since the industrial revolution. Without action to reduce flights, the sector will account for 17% of the remaining 0.3°C left in the 1.5°C temperature target, and 6% of the 0.8°C left to stay within 2°C. Airlines effectively add more to global warming than most countries.

Warming footprints

At the current rate, the world will have warmed by 2°C within three decades . To quantify how different activities contribute to warming, scientists measure carbon emissions. This is because how much the Earth warms is proportional to cumulative carbon emissions in the atmosphere. This is a very good approximation in many cases, but it is inaccurate for emissions caused by aeroplanes travelling at altitudes of up to 12 kilometres.

As well as CO₂, aircraft engines emit nitrogen oxides, water vapour, sulphur and soot, causing contrail cirrus clouds and other complicated chemical reactions in the atmosphere. The sum of these so-called non-CO₂ effects adds more warming on top of the CO₂ emissions. So the total warming footprint of aviation is between two and three times higher than a conventional carbon footprint.

While a large share of a flight’s CO₂ emissions remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years, the non-CO₂ effects diminish over time, vanishing within about ten years . So any growth in aviation, measured in global jet fuel consumption, has an amplified impact as both CO₂ and non-CO₂ effects add up.

But a decline in aviation can partly reverse some warming, as the non-CO₂ effects disappear over time until only the CO₂ effects remain. Think of the non-CO₂ effects like a bathtub – it fills up when the taps are turned further and further, despite a slow outflow down the plughole. But the same bathtub will eventually empty if the taps are gradually turned down.

The non-CO₂ effects of flights on the atmosphere will slowly disappear if fewer and fewer flights are taken, so that aviation’s contribution to warming eventually levels off. In that situation, the increase from continued CO₂ emissions would balance the fall in non-CO₂ effects, and although aviation would still contribute to climate change, the total warming from both would remain constant over time. How much would aviation need to shrink to level off its influence on global warming?

Our calculations show that flying does not need to stop immediately to prevent aviation’s contribution to global warming expanding. Flying has already caused 0.04°C of warming to date. But with a yearly decrease of 2.5% in jet fuel consumption, currently only achievable with cuts in air traffic, this warming will level off at a constant level over the coming decades.

When do we really need to fly?

COVID-19 had a huge impact on the aviation sector. Air traffic is still approximately 10-20% below pre-pandemic levels, but is rebounding quickly . Politicians should shift subsidies from flying to more sustainable modes of transport, such as train journeys. And there is much more that can be done.

Lockdowns and the shift to remote working made many people rethink the necessity of flying. People resolving to fly less can contribute considerably to reducing the number of unnecessary flights. Combining in-person and virtual attendance in hybrid meetings wherever possible is a great way to support that shift.

Reducing the space that business classes take on aeroplanes is another way to cut the number of flights, as it allows more passengers to travel on one flight.

Not allowing airport expansions could also have a big impact. The UK’s Climate Change Committee, an expert body which advises the UK government, has recommended not expanding airports to align the sector with climate targets. Yet the expansion of Heathrow airport is currently planned to go ahead .

Sustainable aviation fuels, and hydrogen or electric planes, are being developed, but none of these technologies are currently available at the necessary scale. At the moment, there is little chance of the aviation industry meeting any climate targets if it aims for a return to its pre-pandemic rate of growth.

This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world. Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.

• Climate change
• Global warming
• 1.5 degrees

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

Evolving climate math of flying vs. driving

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s June 2015 first step toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes comes amidst a drumbeat of analysis and criticism about air travel harm to the atmosphere. Flying, critics maintain, trashes the planet and in many instances represents a wasteful luxury service for the globally affluent, who may engage in “ binge flying .”

Data generally support the concern that planes pollute at inordinately high levels, making a long, energy-intensive flight for your third annual tropical vacation quite questionable, strictly speaking, from the standpoint of climate change mitigation.

But for the sake of discussion, let’s say you live in Detroit and need to visit an ailing family member in Raleigh. Or you live in Phoenix and the viability of your small business hinges on attending an annual industry conference in Dallas.

Do you fly or drive? There are myriad useful Web-based carbon calculators that can help you make most run-of-the-mill consumer decisions: CoolCalifornia ; Nature Conservancy ; ICAO , to name a few. But flying versus driving posess a very tricky example of what transportation planners call “ mode choice ,” a dynamic researchers are forever modeling to figure out how best to incentivize efficient and environmentally sound travel.

Sure, convenience – How close is the nearest airport? – may play a big role in such a decision. But on the environmental question of trips like these, most people are operating with limited information. What’s a traveler with a long, non-optional trip to do, then, short of taking a few weeks to bike?

Grounding the Numbers

The U.S. aviation industry produces 11 percent of total transportation-related emissions domestically, and about 2-3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions annually are produced by planes. Most projections, including those of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), suggest demand for air travel will continue to increase substantially in decades ahead, with 1 billion passengers on U.S. carriers by 2029. A rising middle class around the world would lead to massive growth for global air travel.

This means that, although cars and coal-fired power plants are a bigger problem, curbing emissions from aviation is a non-trivial piece of the puzzle in reducing the risks of climate change.

For those concerned about managing their carbon footprints, facts and figures in three salient areas are worth knowing, though none on its own tells the whole story.

First, in terms of pounds of carbon dioxide produced per gallon of fuel, there is not a huge difference between a gallon of gas for a car and a gallon of either jet fuel or aviation gas: Jet fuel produces an average of 21.1 pounds of CO2 per gallon and aviation gas 18.4, while fuel for cars is 19.6, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration . This nominal parity in fuel-related greenhouse gas pollution, however, obscures the tremendous amount of fuel that planes use on the runway. Longer flights are more efficient overall, as cruising requires less fuel.

Second, beyond carbon dioxide, emissions by airplanes have some particularly problematic aspects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points out that aviation emissions include water vapor, which creates clouds, and releases of ample black carbon, nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide. These in turn contribute even more to a greenhouse effect and the trapping of heat.

Thus, the total plane-related “ radiative forcing ” – a measure of the varying influences on climate change – goes way beyond just carbon dioxide spewed from engines. Aviation emissions have strong and immediate effects. Indeed, a 2010 study from researchers at the University of Oslo’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis found that “short-lived climate factors” make a decisive difference in terms of mode comparisons:

Air travel results in a lower temperature change per passenger-kilometer than car travel on the long run; the integrated radiative forcing of air travel is on short- to medium time horizons much higher than for car travel. Per passenger-hour traveled however, aviation’s climate impact is a factor 6 to 47 higher than the impact from car travel.

The primary reason for this dramatic climate impact is that the contrails and clouds produced by a plane’s waste water vapor are thought to have a pronounced short-term effect on climate, but those effects are short-lived. It is worth pointing out, however, that the precise effects of contrails and clouds produced this way are not fully understood yet by scientists, and impacts may depend on aircraft altitudes.

Finally, the energy intensity of flying, while still by no means green-friendly, has fallen by about a quarter over the past decade and has outpaced the declines for driving. According to recently published figures from the FAA , in 2012 the energy intensity gap was 3,193 BTU /passenger mile for driving, compared to 2,654 BTU/passenger mile for flying. Energy intensity for airplanes is “now significantly lower than automobiles.” (As noted below, these figures are the subject of some dispute).

Still, critics contend that aviation fuel efficiency gains have begun to tail off or even flatline over the past few years despite efforts such as United Airlines’s experimenting with biofuels and with energy-saving technologies such as FAA’s NextGen  advanced GPS-based transportation system. Those initiatives are expected to help with flight efficiency and reduce emissions.

Seat-spinning research

One of the few researchers trying to make a straight, consistent comparison across the U.S transportation sector is  Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. In working papers released over the past two years, Sivak has attempted to overturn the conventional wisdom: His main recent finding is that the average energy intensity of driving is about twice that of flying, a conclusion based on the current average on-road fuel economy of cars, pick-up trucks, SUVs, and vans (21.6 mpg).

How can that be?

First, Sivak asserts that the way some government energy intensity figures have been produced involves some inconsistencies, namely that different carrier groups for fuel consumed and passenger miles flown are used, and that estimates include cargo operations. Correcting for these, he arrives at 2,033 BTU per passenger mile for airline travel in 2012. (He uses the comparative figure 4,211 BTU per passenger mile for cars, a number derived from the federal Research and Innovative Technology Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation.)

This new transportation reality also comes down to the fact, Sivak says, that cars increasingly have only the driver in them — no or few passengers. The result is that associated energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions are very high, making air travel look like a comparatively sound alternative.

The University of Oslo team has published similar findings : “With only passenger in the car, corresponding to 20-25% [potential] occupancy, the climate impact is at the level of an average air trip.”

Sivak notes that the current average loads for each transportation mode are 1.38 persons in vehicles and 84% of seats occupied in planes. The big emissions volume produced by air travel has, by contrast, been spread out over more and more people, as airplane occupancy rates have gone up over the past four decades.

For the traveler with no choice but to go, Sivak has two pieces of advice. The first relates to the fuel economy of the vehicle: “To the extent that most families have more than one vehicle, [if you drive] take the most fuel-efficient vehicle for your trip: Drive the family car and leave the pickup truck, SUV, or van at home.” That can substantially change the calculus in flying versus driving.

In addition, Sivak suggests carpooling, as having three or more person in a vehicle “completely” changes the comparison with flying. Indeed, with a few people in the car, “driving becomes less energy intensive than flying (even after taking into account the increased weight that the vehicle needs to carry).”

Of course, finding a fellow passenger or two for a last-minute, long-distance road trip is no mean trick. Sivak puts it this way: “In other words, for a long business trip, driving solo is worse than flying, while for a long family vacation, driving is better than flying.”

Since publication of Sivak’s latest findings in April, Dan Rutherford and Irene Kwan of the International Council on Clean Transportation have critiqued the analysis a bit and warned that averaging statistics across entire transportation modes and sectors may not allow for apples-to-apples comparisons between realistic scenarios in which flying and driving both may be viable options (the Detroit-to-Raleigh case, or Phoenix to Dallas). Others in the environmental community also took issue with the analysis.

Still, Rutherford and Kwan concede that Sivak’s relative position has some merit.

“If you are driving alone in a vehicle that gets 40 mpg or less – somewhat close to Professor Sivak’s average car trip in the U.S. including commuting, shopping, etc. – flying may be more efficient,” Rutherford and Kwan note. “If you have one or more additional passengers, driving is typically more efficient unless you are in a large vehicle.” And if you are driving a hybrid with a bunch of passengers, they contend, you are “four to five times as efficient as a plane over a similar distance.” In that scenario, they say, you even beat taking a Greyhound.

Wider Factors and Enduring Truths

In 2009, Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath of the University of California, Berkeley, published an influential analysis arguing that any assessment of passenger transportation impact needs to also include infrastructure and life cycle emissions – from maintenance of roads and airports to the manufacture of planes, trains and automobiles, along with other machines and physical structures that support particular transport modes.

Maintaining the nation’s roads takes massive effort and expense, with substantial associated emissions, whereas the carbon footprint of airports is comparatively small.

In any case, it points to the slippery and complex nature of these sorts of comparisons. Adding the options of trains and coach buses, too, makes any mode choice between air and ground all the more complicated.

But at the end of the day, all of the statistics and numbers point to an enduring reality in the twenty-first century: Getting in your hybrid with friends for a classic road trip beats a free mini-bag of peanuts or pretzels and a cramped seat squeezed between two strangers anytime.

John Wihbey

John Wihbey, a writer, educator, and researcher, is an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University and a correspondent for Boston Globe Ideas. Previously, he was an assistant director... More by John Wihbey

• Schweiz Deutsch
• Suisse Français
• Svizerra Italiano
• Global English
• Deutschland
• Information
• About myclimate
• News & Press
• Partners & Success Stories
• Corporate clients
• Climate Protection Projects
• Calculate & Support
• Our CO 2 calculators

Forgot your password?

Calculate your flight emissions!

Use the myclimate flight calculator to calculate the carbon footprint of your flight in order to make an equivalent climate protection contribution. In doing so, you are supporting high-quality myclimate climate protection projects worldwide that meet the highest standards (Gold Standard, Plan Vivo and VCS (including CBB and/or SD-VISta)). The projects reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, thus directly protecting the climate. However, climate protection projects not only reduce climate-impacting emissions, they also contribute to sustainable development in the project region. This means that it is not only the climate that benefits; the local population does as well.

The myclimate flight calculator determines the quantity of CO 2 emissions that an aeroplane gives off per passenger for a given flight distance. Nitrogen compounds and aerosols are also included and converted into CO 2 . The calculation is based on average consumption data for typical short-haul and long-haul aeroplanes. The calculation also takes into account whether you are flying Economy, Premium Economy, Business or First class. Starting in November 2023, you will have the option of selecting the aircraft types that you flew with. Calculation principles of the myclimate flight calculator

We accept all customary payment methods (invoice, credit card, PayPal and TWINT).

Opportunities for industry leaders as new travelers take to the skies

Travel fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic—airline revenues dropped by 60 percent in 2020, and air travel and tourism are not expected to return to 2019 levels before 2024. 1 “ Back to the future? Airline sector poised for change post-COVID-19 ,” McKinsey, April 2, 2021; “ What will it take to go from ‘travel shock’ to surge? ” McKinsey, November 23, 2021. While this downturn is worrisome, it is likely to be temporary. McKinsey’s latest survey of more than 5,500 air travelers around the world shows that the aviation industry faces an even bigger challenge: sustainability.

The survey results indicate emerging trends in passenger priorities:

About the survey

We asked about 5,500 people in 13 countries, half of them women, to answer 36 questions in July 2021. Each had taken one or more flights in the previous 12 months. More than 25 percent took at least half of their flights for business reasons; 5 percent had taken more than eight flights in the previous 24 months. They ranged in age from 18 to over 75 and hailed from the US and Canada, the UK, Sweden, Spain, Poland, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Japan, Australia, and Brazil.

Topics included concerns about climate change and carbon emissions, carbon reduction measures, and factors influencing tourism stays and activities.

We compared the results to those of a survey asking the same questions that we conducted in July 2019.

• Most passengers understand that aviation has a significant impact on the environment. Emissions are now the top concern of respondents in 11 of the 13 countries polled, up from four in the 2019 survey. More than half of respondents said they’re “really worried” about climate change, and that aviation should become carbon neutral in the future.
• Travelers continue to prioritize price and connections over sustainability in booking decisions, for now. This may be partly because no airline has built a business system or brand promise on sustainability. Also, some consumers may currently be less concerned about their own impact because they’re flying less frequently in the pandemic. That said, almost 40 percent of travelers globally are now willing to pay at least two percent more for carbon-neutral tickets, or about $20 for a $1,000 round-trip, and 36 percent plan to fly less to reduce their climate impact.
• Attitudes and preferences vary widely among countries and customer segments. Around 60 percent of travelers in Spain are willing to pay more for carbon-neutral flights, for example, compared to nine percent in India and two percent in Japan.

This article outlines steps that airlines, airports, and their suppliers could take to respond to changing attitudes and preferences. The survey findings suggest that airlines may need to begin with gaining a deeper understanding of changes across heterogenous customer segments and geographies. With those insights in hand, they could tailor their communications, products, and services to differentiate their brands, build awareness among each passenger segment, and better connect with customers.

Would you like to learn more about our Travel, Logistics & Infrastructure Practice ?

The survey findings point to fundamental and ongoing changes in consumer behavior.

After a decade of steady growth in passenger traffic, air travel was hit hard by the pandemic. International air travel immediately fell by almost 100 percent, and overall bookings declined by more than 60 percent for 2020, according to Airports Council International. At the time of writing, revenue passenger miles have returned to close to pre-pandemic levels in the United States, but still lag behind in other markets. 2 “COVID-19: October 2021 traffic data,” International Air Transport Association (IATA), December 8, 2021. In its October 2021 report, before the Omicron variant emerged, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) forecast that the industry’s losses would be around $52 billion in 2021 and $12 billion in 2022. 3 “Economic performance of the airline industry,” IATA, October 4, 2021.

Furthermore, travelers’ preferences and behaviors have changed sharply during the pandemic, particularly around health and safety requirements. An Ipsos survey for the World Economic Forum found that, on average, three in four adults across 28 countries agreed that COVID-19 vaccine passports should be required of travelers to enter their country and that they would be effective in making travel and large events safe. 4 “Global public backs COVID-19 vaccine passports for international travel,” Ipsos, April 28, 2021. And a 2021 survey by Expedia Group found that people buying plane tickets now care more about health, safety, and flexibility than previously. But, there is also renewed interest in travel as nearly one in five travelers expected travel to be the thing they spent the most on in 2021, one in three had larger travel budgets for the year, and many were looking for new experiences such as once-in-a-lifetime trips. 5 “New research: How travelers are making decisions for the second half of 2021,” Skift, August 26, 2021.

Comparing McKinsey’s 2019 and 2021 survey results, sustainability remains a priority as respondents show similar levels of concern about climate change, continue to believe that aviation must become carbon neutral, and want their governments to step in to reduce airline emissions. Some changes were more striking. The share of respondents who say they plan to fly less to minimize their environmental impact rose five percentage points to 36 percent. In 2021 half of all respondents said they want to fly less after the pandemic. Changes in opinion varied across markets. Passengers in the UK, US, and Saudi Arabia, for example, were more likely to feel “flygskam,” (shame about flying) while those in Spain, Poland, and Australia felt significantly less guilty about flying.

It is worth tracking these trends in each market and demographic, because passengers’ experiences and opinions are increasingly relevant: passengers spend far more time online, increasingly trust each other’s recommendations more than traditional marketing, and can reshape brand perceptions faster than ever. 6 “ Understanding the ever-evolving, always-surprising consumer ,” McKinsey, August 31, 2021. In some markets consumers may reward airlines that meet rising demands for environmental sustainability—and punish those who fall behind.

The Australian airline Qantas may be acting on a similar belief. In November 2021, it announced a new “green tier” in its loyalty program. The initiative, based on feedback from passengers, is “designed to encourage, and recognize the airline’s 13 million frequent flyers for doing things like offsetting their flights, staying in eco-hotels, walking to work, and installing solar panels at home”. Qantas states that it is one of the largest private-sector buyers of Australian carbon credits, and it will use program funds to support more conservation and environmental projects. 7 “Qantas frequent flyers to be rewarded for being sustainable,” Qantas media release, November 26,, 2021. “A look at how people around the world view climate change,” Pew Research April 18, 2019. Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation climate change survey, July 9 to August 5, 2019.

Given these shifting trends, it may be helpful for all industry stakeholders to maintain a deep and up-to-date understanding of consumer segments in each market that they serve. Three main findings about today’s travelers emerged from the 2021 survey:

Finding 1: Most travelers now have concerns about climate change and carbon emissions—and many are prepared to act on these concerns

Concern about carbon emissions from aviation did not rise much during the pandemic, probably in part because air travel declined so sharply. About 56 percent of respondents said they were worried about climate change, and 54 percent said aviation should “definitely become carbon neutral” in the future.

While these numbers have increased only one or two percentage points since 2019, the share of respondents who rank CO 2 emissions as their top concern about aviation—ahead of concerns such as noise pollution and mass tourism—rose by nine percentage points to 34 percent. More than 30 percent of respondents have paid to offset their CO2 emissions from air travel.

Finding 2: Price and connections still matter much more than emissions to most travelers

Of the nine major factors travelers consider when booking a flight, carbon emissions consistently rank as sixth-most important across customer segments. This may be partly because most airline marketing centers around low cost or superior service, and pricing and revenue management are targeted at price and best connection. Most booking websites allow prospective travelers to sort by price and number of connections, for example, but not by carbon footprint. Google Flights has made a first step, showing average CO2 emissions per flight and improving transparency for travelers.

Travelers might begin to make different choices if emissions featured more prominently in the booking process—particularly if more airlines offered CO 2 reduction measures that delivered genuine environmental impact.

Finding 3: Attitudes vary widely by demographics and geography

Beliefs about the seriousness of climate change, and how to respond to it, vary across demographics and geographies (exhibit). Although younger people are generally more aware of the predicted consequences of climate change, older cohorts have become more concerned about climate change since the 2019 survey. In some countries, large majorities see climate change as a major threat, while that represents a minority view in other countries.

The survey shows that frequent travelers feel slightly more shame about flying than other respondents—37 percent compared to 30 percent—but show a much lower intention to reduce their air travel to minimize their climate impact, at 19 percent compared to 38 percent.

According to Pew Research, more than 80 percent of people in Greece, Spain, France, and South Korea believe climate change is a major threat, compared to around 40 percent of those in Russia, Nigeria, and Israel. 8 “A look at how people around the world view climate change,” Pew Research April 18, 2019. According to 2019 polling by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation, more than three-quarters of Americans believe it represents a major problem or a crisis—but fewer than half are willing to pay to help address it. 9 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation climate change survey, July 9 to August 5, 2019.

These numbers may change quickly in the next few years as discussions about climate change become less abstract as oceans rise and storms, forest fires, and droughts become more severe. Instead of being one topic of concern among many, millions more people around the world may come to see climate change as today’s greatest challenge.

This shift seems to be apparent in government action, especially in mature economies. The US, for example, announced its intention to exit the Paris Agreement in June 2017 but pledged to rejoin in April 2021. 10 “Climate change: US formally withdraws from Paris agreement,” BBC, November 4, 2020; “President Biden sets 2030 greenhouse gas pollution reduction target,” White House fact sheet, April 22, 2021. And in September, the White House set a goal for the country to produce 3 billion gallons of sustainable aircraft fuel annually by 2030—up from about 4.5 million gallons produced in the US in 2020—which would cut carbon emissions from flying by 20 percent compared with taking no action. 11 “Biden administration advances the future of sustainable fuels in American aviation,” White House fact sheet, September 9, 2021.

Taking stock of the pandemic’s impact on global aviation

How the industry can be cleared for takeoff.

Travelers’ attitudes and behaviors appear to be in flux, and will likely continue to change. Depending on the world’s progress in preventing and treating COVID-19, the industry will likely take at least a couple of years to recover from the downdrafts caused by the pandemic.

In this unique moment in aviation history, airlines may be able to communicate in new ways to inspire passengers to join the fight against climate change. Based on McKinsey’s experience in aviation and other industries around the world, there may be an opportunity for carriers to make it “easy to do good”. When following such an approach, experience shows that customers are drawn to straightforward language, demonstrations of what the industry is doing in this area, and the tangible benefits of those efforts. The most compelling stories are positive and connect with customers’ emotional needs.

As in the early days of travel advertising, airlines could reinforce the idea that the journey is the destination—that “getting there is half the fun.” By inviting customers to get involved in creating a greener future and own the solution, they could forge new partnerships and deepen loyalty.

Actual progress will be essential; organizations that talk about sustainability without demonstrating action may quickly be held to account. Simply keeping pace with trends or regulatory requirements will offer no advantages. Airlines that move boldly, such as by replacing rather than modifying a loyalty program with some kind of “planet-positive” scheme, will stand out from competitors.

The survey results and McKinsey’s work in the industry lead us to believe that the market is ready for a forward-thinking airline to chart a route to a cleaner future for the industry. Leading airlines that build a business strategy and brand promise on sustainability will likely attract a growing share of business and leisure travelers, fresh capital and talent, and new allies across the industry, government, and society at large.

In the years ahead, more customers will be willing to pay for sustainability, particularly if airlines can engage them with interesting approaches, such as gamification in frequent flyer programs, opt-out rather than opt-in offsets, “green fast lanes” for check-ins and security control, and customized emission-reduction offers. Decarbonization could become the standard to reach and maintain next-tier levels in loyalty programs. Passengers will be able to join the global decarbonization team and transform flight shame into flight pride.

Like many private flyers, corporate customers will look for ways to mitigate their CO 2 footprint. Passenger and cargo airlines could craft attractive decarbonization programs to engage the rising numbers of corporates aiming to significantly reduce their scope 3 emissions from air transport.

No single set of approaches will be effective in every geography or with every passenger segment. But airlines with a deep understanding of their customers’ changing needs and desires will continue to outperform those that don’t. Such organizations could recruit more of their passengers to the decarbonization team while protecting their brands, the future of aviation, and the planet itself.

Mishal Ahmad is a manager in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Frederik Franz is a senior associate in the Berlin office, Tomas Nauclér is a senior partner the Stockholm office, and Daniel Riefer is an associate partner in the Munich office.

The authors would like to thank Joost Krämer for his contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Scaling sustainable aviation fuel today for clean skies tomorrow

How airlines can chart a path to zero-carbon flying

• Get involved
• News and stories

Good news: traveling is back! The bad news: our travel leaves a trail of greenhouse gas footprints. Fortunately, you can lighten your travel impacts in three simple steps: reduce, calculate, offset .

Reduce what you can

• Avoid travel through video conferencing.
• Choose trains over planes.
• Choose a carrier that uses fuel-efficient planes or vehicles.
• Use ride-sharing
• Stay in LEED-certified hotels.
• Use vendors that monitor and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions.

Calculate what you can't reduce

• In the following boxes, enter the estimated number or your flights, car miles, rail trips and hotel stays per year .
• The subtotal emissions for each category, along with TOTAL Tco2/e * , will be automatically calculated.

Ready to do your calculations? Use these handy tools:

Offset Your calculated total footprint

You can reduce your own climate impact by supporting one of many emissions reduction programs. While EDF cannot endorse or recommend any particular calculator, reduction project or provider, here are three you could explore:

Thank you for doing your part!

Curious about transforming aviation to help the climate?

* Explanation of Carbon Footprint Terms: The carbon dioxide equivalence (tCO2e) with a 100-year time horizon (CO2e-100) is used for emissions estimates when non-CO2 pollutants are included in addition to CO2. For shorthand purposes we use the abbreviation CO2e. Non-CO2 emissions for air travel are mostly nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft flying over 9,000 meters. The emissions factors employed for air travel are provided by our source using an average Radiative Forcing Index of approximately 2.7. Non-CO2 emissions for hotel stays include N2O and CH4. We note that the inclusion of non-CO2 emissions undervalues their potency in the near-term, and that alternatively using a GWP-20/CO2e-20 would undervalue CO2’s potency in the long-term. Given that the majority of emissions reported here are CO2, a 100-year time horizon is reasonable for this assessment.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn

YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT

• Reducing your footprint
• Donate your old clothes
• Green your garden
• Solar power your home
• Reduce fridge food waste
• The scoop on carbon offsets
• A guide to transit travel
• Seal your home
• Don't own? Here's tips
• Try a heat pump

Think twice about buying carbon offsets when you fly

Illustration by Brock Kaplan, Star Tribune

Those offsets hold the promise of easing the environmental harm of flying by funding emission-reduction programs elsewhere in the world, such as wind farms, forest preservation and mangrove restoration.

It sounds simple, but the turbulent course of carbon offsets in recent years reveals that many travelers should think twice before buying them.

Consumers typically book carbon offsets through airlines, online travel websites, and directly through companies that offer the service by paying a fee similar to adding an extra bag or upgrading your seat assignment. The farther you fly, the more it costs.

Delta Air Lines, the dominant carrier at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, no longer offers passengers the option of buying carbon offsets when booking a flight. Sun Country Airlines, the No. 2 carrier at MSP, doesn't have a carbon offset program, although other airlines serving the airport, such as Southwest, sell carbon offsets through Chooose, a Norwegian company.

On this Earth Day, the Star Tribune offers a guide to the many ways you can take action today to reduce your carbon footprint.

You can fight climate change, starting right now

Why you should donate clothing: It (probably) won’t end up at the dump

These 6 changes to your backyard can green your life

How to solar power your home to lower your carbon footprint

Your fridge doesn’t have to be a place where fresh food goes to die

A climate-minded newcomer’s guide to riding transit

Sealing up your home can fight climate change

A renter’s guide to combating climate change

Heat pumps can replace traditional hot water heaters

Say you want to book a flight from MSP to Las Vegas in mid-May using Google Flights. The search will tell you the average number of kilos of carbon dioxide from the flight (176), and give you the option of choosing an airline and flight with fewer emissions. Or, you can try websites like trip.com that connect you to Chooose to book the offsets .

If purchasing carbon offsets directly through a standalone organization, consumer experts advise using those that support projects that meet third-party validation and verification standards, such as the Gold Standard .

But linking the offset money from your flight to actual projects across the globe can be elusive. So much so that a reporter with the New York Times' Wirecutter consumer website recently wrote that he couldn't recommend any air-travel carbon offset programs to readers.

The challenge to reduce carbon emissions in aviation is daunting. U.S. airlines transport more than 2 million passengers and 65,000 tons of cargo a day, which adds up to about 2% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, said Marli Collier, a spokesperson for the trade group Airlines for America. The industry made a commitment three years ago to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Delta opted to move away from carbon offsets to focus on decarbonizing the airline by investing in a broader strategy that includes developing sustainable aviation fuel, deploying a more fuel-efficient fleet, and reducing emissions through "operational efficiencies," such as electrifying baggage carts and other vehicles and using paper cups instead of plastic , said Mathew Lasky, a spokesman for the Atlanta-based airline.

Delta is being sued in federal court by several California residents who allege greenwashing, a marketing tactic where a company makes deceptive claims about its environmental friendliness. The suit claims the unreliable carbon offset market makes Delta's environmental claims false and misleading. Delta has said the suit lacks legal merit, and some of the claims were dismissed in early April.

Kyle Potter, executive editor of the Thrifty Traveler website , said carbon offsets are a way for airlines "to pretend they're doing something to counter aviation's carbon footprint," but he said questions remain whether that goal is actually being realized.

"There were good carbon offset programs, but far too many bad ones," he said. "If they've fallen out of favor, that's no surprise."

On the flip side, Potter says the availability of offsets in recent years "undoubtedly played an important role in actually increasing the public awareness about the environmental cost of getting on a plane — and forced us all to consider far better alternatives."

So if you really want to reduce your carbon footprint for traveling, here are a few suggestions: Fly less. Avoid flying to nearby destinations; instead, drive with more than one person, and preferably in an electric or hybrid vehicle. Better yet, take the train. Book nonstop flights, because they use less fuel. Fly in economy class, and pack light.

Transportation reporter Janet Moore covers trains, planes, automobiles, buses, bikes and pedestrians. Moore has been with the Star Tribune for 21 years, previously covering business news, including the retail, medical device and commercial real estate industries. 

© 2024 StarTribune. All rights reserved.

Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?

How can individuals reduce their emissions from transport.

This article was first published in 2020. It was updated in 2023 with more recent data.

Transport accounts for around one-quarter of global carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from energy. 1 In some countries – often richer countries with populations that travel often – transport can be one of the largest segments of an individual’s carbon footprint.

If you need to travel – either locally or abroad – what is the lowest-carbon way to do so?

In the chart here we see the comparison of travel modes by their carbon footprint. These are measured by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per person to travel one kilometer .

This data comes from the UK Government’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It’s the emission factors used by companies to quantify and report their emissions. While the overall rankings of transport modes will probably be the same, there may be some differences across countries based on their own electricity mix, vehicle stock, and public transport network.

Greenhouse gases are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 eq), and they account for non-CO 2 greenhouse gases and the increased warming effects of aviation emissions at high altitudes. 2

Walk, bike or take the train for the lowest footprint

Over short to medium distances, walking or cycling are nearly always the lowest carbon way to travel. While they’re not in the chart, the carbon footprint of cycling one kilometer is usually in the range of 16 to 50 grams CO 2 eq per km depending on how efficiently you cycle and what you eat. 3

Using a bike instead of a car for short trips would reduce your travel emissions by around 75%.

If you can’t walk or cycle, then public transport is usually your best option. Trains are particularly low-carbon ways to travel. Taking a train instead of a car for medium-length distances would cut your emissions by around 80%. 4 Using a train instead of a domestic flight would reduce your emissions by around 86%. 5

In fact, if you If you took the Eurostar in France instead of a short-haul flight, you’d cut your journey’s footprint by around 97%. 6

What if you can’t walk or cycle, and have no public transport links?

If none of the above are options, what can you do?

Driving an electric vehicle (EV) is your best mode of private transport. It emits less than a petrol or diesel car, even in countries where the electricity mix is fairly high-carbon. Of course, powering it from low-carbon grid offers the greatest benefits.

The chart above only considers emissions of EV during its use phase – when you’re driving it. It doesn’t include emissions from the manufacturing of the car. There have been concerns that when we account for the energy needed to produce the battery, an EV is actually worse for the climate than a petrol car. This is not true – while an EV does have higher emissions during its production, it quickly ‘pays back’ once you start driving it. 7

Next best is a plug-in hybrid car.

Then, where you take a petrol car or fly depends on the distance. For journeys less than 1000 kilometers, flying has a higher carbon footprint than a medium-sized car. For longer journeys, flying would actually have a slightly lower carbon footprint per kilometer than driving alone over the same distance.

Let’s say you were to drive from Edinburgh to London, which is a distance of around 500 kilometers. You’d emit close to 85 kilograms CO 2 eq. 8 If you were to fly, this would be 123 kilograms – an increase of almost one-third. 9

Some general takeaways on how you can reduce the carbon footprint of travel:

• Walk, cycle or run when possible – this comes with many other benefits such as lower local air pollution and better health;
• Trains are nearly always the winning option over moderate-to-long distances;
• If travelling internationally, going by train or boat is lower-carbon than flying;
• Electric vehicles are nearly always lower-carbon than petrol or diesel cars. The reductions are greatest for countries with a cleaner electricity mix;
• If travelling domestically, driving – even if it’s alone – is usually better than flying;
• Car-sharing will massively reduce your footprint – it also helps to reduce local air pollution and congestion.

Appendix: Why is the carbon footprint per kilometer higher for domestic flight than long-haul flights?

You will notice that the CO 2 emissions per passenger-kilometer are higher for domestic flights than short-haul international flights; and long-haul flights are slightly lower still. Why is this the case?

In its report on the CO 2 Emissions from Commercial Aviation , the International Council on Clean Transportation provides a nice breakdown of how the carbon intensity (grams CO 2 emitted per passenger kilometer) varies depending on flight distance. 10

This chart is shown here – with carbon intensity given as the red line. It shows that at very short flight distances (less than 1,000 km), the carbon intensity is very high; it falls with distance until around 1,500 to 2,000 km; then levels out and changes very little with  increasing  distance.

This is because take-off requires much more energy input than the ‘cruise’ phase of a flight. So, for very short flights, this extra fuel needed for take-off is large compared to the more efficient cruise phase of the journey. The ICCT also notes that often less fuel-efficient  planes are used for the shortest flights.

The IEA  looks at CO 2  emissions  from energy production alone – in 2018 it reported 33.5 billion tonnes of energy-related CO 2  [hence, transport accounted for 8 billion / 33.5 billion = 24% of energy-related emissions.

Aviation creates a number of complex atmospheric reactions at altitude – such as vapour contrails – which create an enhanced warming effect. In the UK’s Greenhouse gas methodology paper , a ‘multiplier’ of 1.9 is applied to aviation emissions to account for this. This is reflected in the CO 2 eq factors provided in this analysis.

Researchers – David Lee et al. (2020) – estimate that aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO 2 emissions, but 3.5% of radiative forcing/warming due to these altitude effects.

Lee, D. S., Fahey, D. W., Skowron, A., Allen, M. R., Burkhardt, U., Chen, Q., ... & Gettelman, A. (2020). The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018 .  Atmospheric Environment , 117834.

Finding a figure for the carbon footprint of cycling seems like it should be straightforward, but it can vary quite a lot. It depends on a number of factors: what size you are (bigger people tend to burn more energy cycling); how fit you are (fitter people are more efficient); the type of bike you’re pedalling; and what you eat (if you eat a primarily plant-based diet, the emissions are likely to be lower than if you get most of your calories from cheeseburgers and milk). People often also raise the question of whether you actually eat more if you cycle to work rather than driving i.e. whether those calories are actually ‘additional’ to your normal diet.

Estimates on the footprint of cycling therefore vary. Some estimates put this figure at around 16 grams CO 2 e per kilometer based on the average European diet. In his book ‘ How bad are bananas: the carbon footprint of everything ’, Mike Berners-Lee estimates the footprint based on specific food types. He estimates 25 grams CO 2 e when powered by bananas; 43 grams CO 2 e from cereal and cow’s milk; 190 grams CO 2 e from bacon; or as high as 310 grams CO 2 e if powered exclusively by cheeseburgers.

National rail emits around 35 grams per kilometer. The average petrol car emits 170 grams. So the footprint of taking the train is around 20% of taking a car: [ 35 / 170 * 100 = 20%].

National rail emits around 35 grams per kilometer. A domestic flight emits 246 grams. So the footprint of taking the train is around 14% of a flight: [ 35 / 246 * 100 = 14%].

Taking the Eurostar emits around 4 grams of CO 2 per passenger kilometer, compared to 154 grams from a short-haul flight. So the footprint of  Eurostar is around 4% of a  flight: [ 4 / 154 * 100 = 3%].

The ‘carbon payback time’ for an average driver is around 2 years.

An average petrol car emits 170 grams per kilometer. Multiply this by 500, and we get 85,000 grams (which is 85 kilograms).

A domestic flight emits 246 grams per kilometer. Multiply this by 500, and we get 123,000 grams (which is 123 kilograms).

Graver, B., Zhang, K. & Rutherford, D. (2018). CO2 emissions from commercial aviation, 2018 . International Council on Clean Transportation.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

If you want to be a more climate-friendly traveler, tough it out on the budget airlines—here’s why

This article is reprinted by permission from NerdWallet . 

As someone who cares about my environmental impact and spending as little money as possible, life is full of fraught decisions.

Should I buy organic milk even though it’s twice as expensive? Or choose an electric car for $40,000 rather than a friend’s run-down Corolla for $3,000?

Should I make eye contact with the person on the street raising money to fight climate change or awkwardly pretend to be on a phone call?

The point is that my aversion to spending money often means I’m cutting corners environmentally. Yet when it comes to air travel, these preferences aren’t in conflict. In fact, reducing one’s travel carbon footprint can actually mean spending less on airfare.

The only downside: It means flying with airlines that pack you in (and treat you) like sardines.

Plus : What’s the fastest way to board a plane? United Airlines is going all in on ‘Wilma.’

The high cost of legroom

Flying burns a lot of fossil fuels — there’s no way around that fact. If the entire commercial aviation industry were a country, it would rank sixth (between Japan and Germany) in total emissions, according to an October 2019 report from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

But not all means of traveling by air have the same impact. More expensive seats, such as  premium economy , business class and first class, burn more fuel per passenger than the sardine-like conditions at the back of the plane.

How much more? A lot.

Flying in first class on a widebody jet creates a carbon footprint nine times larger than flying in economy, according to a report from the World Bank’s Environment and Energy Team, Development Research Group.

That’s the first bit of good news for cheap, environmentally conscious travelers like me. You can  save money and shrink your carbon footprint  at the same time by choosing economy fares.

And that’s not all. Because not only does what cabin you fly in matter, but so does the plane’s layout.

Related: Summer vacation in Greenland? How climate change is raising questions about travel destinations and peak seasons.

Enter budget airlines

Imagine two types of bus: One that carries 50 passengers and one that carries 25. Assuming the fuel consumption is roughly similar for both, which bus would be more efficient in terms of gas burned per passenger mile?

Obviously, the more packed bus is more efficient.

Yet we often overlook the parallel with air travel. Some Boeing 737s operated by low-cost airlines, carry far more passengers than the same 737s operated by airlines with first- and business–class seats, simply because they lack a first-class cabin.

That’s why budget airlines Frontier and Spirit ranked best regarding carbon dioxide emissions per seat mile (in grams) in a 2022 analysis by IBA, an aviation consulting firm.

In fact, the report specifically cites the high density (i.e., sardine-like) seating of Frontier’s aircraft as a major reason why the airline ranked so well.

Another reason budget airlines are dark-horse climate winners: They offer several nonstop flights.

For example, the new low-cost airline Zipair offers four routes from the U.S. directly to Tokyo. Flying direct in this way reduces emissions simply because it covers less distance and burns less fuel.

Flying direct often means paying more, but these low-cost airlines have turned that logic upside down. That means you can spend less, emit less and spend less time in the air.

So what’s the catch?

No such thing as a free soda

Low-cost airlines might be more environmentally friendly on the whole, and their fares can be cheaper on the surface, but actually saving money with them can be challenging. That’s because they generate much of their revenue through  add-on fees  on top of the base fare.

Expect to pay for everything from a can of soda to the opportunity to select your own seat. In fact, the cost of a flight with an airline like Spirit can quickly balloon past the cost of the same flight with a traditional carrier if you’re not careful.

That’s where stoicism comes in. Yeah, you’re paying and emitting less, but only because you’re giving up on “frills” like legroom and free drinks. That might be fine for a two-hour flight, but it will test even the steeliest nerves for a trans-Pacific one.

The trick is to pay for only the frills you actually care about. Budget airlines will  try to push countless add-ons  during checkout, from bundles to trip cancellation protection.

Read next: Crowds, costs and cancellation concerns? Try these tips and tricks for booking holiday travel.

Some of these might be important to you, others less so. Being ruthless in turning down the latter is the only way to keep these costs low, and keep budget airline travel something you will want to continue doing in the future.

I like to treat this add-on fee system like a game that I’m winning by refusing to bite on needless add-ons. The fact that I’m reducing my carbon footprint while saving money is just the cherry on top.

More From NerdWallet

• More Bars in Top Vacation Spots Serving Up Nonalcoholic Drinks
• How Disney Turned Halloween Into a Money-Making Machine
• Ask a Travel Nerd: 3 Steps to Booking Holiday Travel

Sam Kemmis writes for NerdWallet. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @samsambutdif.

• Display Settings

California Air Resources Board

Climate Change

In response to AB 32 , California is implementing measures to achieve emission reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that cause climate change. Climate change programs in California are effectively reducing GHG emissions that come from all sectors of the economy. These programs include regulations, market programs, and incentives that will transform the areas of transportation, industry, fuels, and others, to take California into a sustainable, low-carbon and cleaner future, while maintaining a robust economy. 

The state is also ensuring programs funded by California Climate Investments  (CCI) are benefiting all Californians, particularly those in disadvantaged communities, by reducing health burdens of air pollution. CCI projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero-emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling and much more. At least 50 percent of these investments benefit disadvantaged and low-income communities. CCI is funded through the auctioning of allowances from the state’s economy-wide Cap-and-Trade Program .

Subscribe to keep up to date with the latest information about CARB's Climate Change programs .

AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan

The AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan is an actionable blueprint for aligning action to achieve California’s ambitious climate goals. The state achieved its 2020 GHG emissions reductions target of returning to 1990 levels 4 years earlier than mandated by AB 32. The state is currently implementing strategies in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update to further reduce its GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

Friday, April 26, 2024 6:04 pm (Paris)

Low-cost flights are increasing France's carbon footprint

According to a study by the NGO Transport & Environment, the sharp increase in low-cost airline activity since 2022 is responsible for the current increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the French airline sector.

By  Guy Dutheil

Time to 2 min.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Messenger
• Share on Facebook
• Share by email
• Share on Linkedin

Subscribers only

The more planes there are in the sky, the more they destroy the climate. This is the finding highlighted by a study by the NGO Transport & Environment (T&E) published on Friday, April 19. In 2023, the vigorous upturn in air transport activity resulted in a sharp increase in CO 2 emissions. According to T&E, which analyzed flights departing from France, the main culprits behind this rise in pollution are low-cost airlines.

In the NGO's top 10 list of the most polluting airlines, low-cost carriers EasyJet, Transavia and Ryanair occupy three of the top four places. While Air France is far and away in first place in France, it is essentially the low-cost airlines that have caused the increase in CO₂ from French airports. Last year, flights departing from Paris increased by 10% compared with 2022, i.e. some 700,000 take-offs. The 2,000 daily departures counted in 2023 sent some 20.3 million tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, up 12.5% on 2022.

T&E points out that the two worst performers are Transavia and Ryanair. "Transavia and Ryanair have far exceeded their 2019 emissions levels," the NGO found. Volotea, another low-cost carrier present in France, is only in 10 th place but also shows a sharp rise. EasyJet is the only airline in the category to have lower emissions than in the pre-Covid-19 period.

Transavia fleet doubled

According to figures for 2023, Transavia, Air France's low-cost subsidiary, takes the cake. With an increase of over 90.9%, Transavia's CO 2 emissions almost doubled compared with 2019. However, this poor result does not mean that the low-cost carrier's planes are more polluting than those of rival airlines. Transavia has polluted almost twice as much because its fleet has almost doubled in size in four years. Between 2019 and 2023, it grew from 38 to 71 aircraft.

Despite this growth, the Air France subsidiary has defended itself. It is still far from rivaling Ryanair or easyJet, Europe's two leading low-cost carriers. While Transavia is aiming for a fleet of around 100 aircraft in the medium term, Ryanair and easyJet already operate "between 300 and over 500 aircraft," said the Air France subsidiary. Above all, Transavia's growth has partly come at the expense of Air France's. Some of the new destinations operated by Transavia were previously operated by its parent company. Air France announced that it will be leaving Orly to make way for Transavia.

While not all long-haul routes have reopened, medium-haul destinations are booming. "The rebound in air travel is monopolized by low-cost airlines, which have increased their flight numbers by 13% in 2023," said Jo Dardenne, aviation director at Transport & Environment. T&E denounces the fact that polluters don't always pay. In 2023, Air France paid "only €46 million in carbon tax, whereas it would have had to pay €700 million if all flights departing from Europe had been taxed," the NGO calculated.

Lecture du Monde en cours sur un autre appareil.

Vous pouvez lire Le Monde sur un seul appareil à la fois

Ce message s’affichera sur l’autre appareil.

Parce qu’une autre personne (ou vous) est en train de lire Le Monde avec ce compte sur un autre appareil.

Vous ne pouvez lire Le Monde que sur un seul appareil à la fois (ordinateur, téléphone ou tablette).

Comment ne plus voir ce message ?

En cliquant sur «  Continuer à lire ici  » et en vous assurant que vous êtes la seule personne à consulter Le Monde avec ce compte.

Que se passera-t-il si vous continuez à lire ici ?

Ce message s’affichera sur l’autre appareil. Ce dernier restera connecté avec ce compte.

Y a-t-il d’autres limites ?

Non. Vous pouvez vous connecter avec votre compte sur autant d’appareils que vous le souhaitez, mais en les utilisant à des moments différents.

Vous ignorez qui est l’autre personne ?

Nous vous conseillons de modifier votre mot de passe .

Lecture restreinte

Votre abonnement n’autorise pas la lecture de cet article

Pour plus d’informations, merci de contacter notre service commercial.

• Environment /

Tesla’s carbon footprint is finally coming into focus, and it’s bigger than the company let on in the past

The company divulged its supply chain emissions for the first time, and it’s the most polluting part of its business..

By Justine Calma , a senior science reporter covering climate change, clean energy, and environmental justice with more than a decade of experience. She is also the host of Hell or High Water: When Disaster Hits Home, a podcast from Vox Media and Audible Originals.

Share this story

Tesla released its 2022 Impact Report this week, and it gives the clearest picture yet of the electric car company’s carbon footprint. Tesla disclosed numbers on its supply chain emissions for the first time, which makes its overall carbon footprint much bigger than it has reported in the past.

Last year, the company only disclosed how much greenhouse gas pollution it generated from its direct operations and from customers charging their EVs. Altogether that was roughly equivalent to 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. But that missed the big picture since supply chain pollution — considered indirect emissions — often make up a major chunk of a company’s carbon footprint.

This year, Tesla finally released data on its supply chain emissions for 2022, which is equivalent to roughly 30.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. That’s a huge change from what the company reported last year.

That’s a huge change from what the company reported last year

The disclosure really highlights how important it is to count up all of a company’s direct and indirect emissions. It’s especially pertinent with a fight brewing in the US between companies and the Securities and Exchange Commission over how much of those emissions ought to be reported under law .

A company’s carbon footprint is usually divvied up into three main groups or “scopes.” Scope 1 includes direct emissions from its own factories, offices, and vehicles. Scope 2 encompasses emissions from its electricity use, heating, and cooling. Scope 3 comprises all the other indirect emissions from supply chains and the lifecycle of the products a company makes. And there are 15 different categories of emissions within Scope 3 alone to give a sense of how wide-ranging it can be.

It’s a common practice for companies to only share their Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which can make its carbon footprint appear much smaller than it actually is. Tesla’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions, for example, only add up to 610,000 metric tons of CO2 in 2022. That’s minuscule in comparison to the company’s indirect Scope 3 emissions.

Last year, the SEC proposed rules that would mandate that all public companies share their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. But what caused the most uproar with that announcement was a stipulation that would also require large companies to report their indirect Scope 3 emissions in certain cases. Since then, the SEC has delayed finalizing the rule, which was supposed to happen in October. And SEC chair Gary Gensler has hinted that the final rule might not mandate Scope 3 disclosures after all, alarming some Democratic lawmakers .

Tesla’s a great example of what a difference those rules could make. The company has lagged behind other automakers in sharing details about its greenhouse gas emissions. Ford, for example, has garnered “ A ” grades for its climate change disclosures since 2019, while Tesla earned “ F ” grades from the CDP, a nonprofit that evaluates companies’ environmental reporting.

To be sure, Ford’s carbon footprint is way bigger than Tesla’s at more than 337 million metric tons of CO2 in 2022 (nearly all of which are Scope 3 emissions). That’s because Ford sold more than three times as many vehicles as Tesla last year and because most of Ford’s cars are gas-guzzling. But just because Tesla makes electric vehicles doesn’t mean the environmental impact of its own operations is insignificant .

Moreover, Tesla’s pollution seems to be growing. That’s despite the company revealing the third part of its “ master plan ” in March, which aims to achieve “sustainable energy for all of Earth.”

Those are bold words for a company whose combined scope 1 and 2 emissions climbed nearly 4 percent last year, even as Tesla made strides to make each of its electric vehicles less carbon-intensive. It’s harder to see what happened with Tesla’s supply chain emissions since it didn’t reveal those numbers until this year. And as the adage goes, it’s hard to manage what you don’t measure.

This self-transforming Megatron is as badass as it is expensive

What happens after your country runs on 99 percent renewable electricity, the fossil-size hole in wear os, microsoft’s surface and xbox hardware revenues take a big hit in q3, blizzcon 2024 has been canceled.

More from Science

Amazon — like SpaceX — claims the labor board is unconstitutional

How much electricity does AI consume?

A Big Tech-backed campaign to plant trees might have taken a wrong turn

SpaceX successfully launches Odysseus in bid to return US to the lunar surface