First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

I admit that I have always felt a little guilty about the environmental impact of air travel. For the most part, I consider myself eco-friendly: I recycle, I keep the heat low, I avoid unnecessary driving, I have a very fuel efficient car, I contribute to environmental causes, I buy local produce when it’s in season, and I turn the lights off when I leave the room. My two biggest eco-sins: long, hot showers, and travel.

Suggesting that people fly less is not at all common in the United States. In fact, the ecological impact of aircraft is conspicuous by its very absence in the recent coverage of microjets or air-commuting. (Whether this reflects geography, awareness, or policy is a matter for debate.) Across the pond, though, the United Kingdom seems to be engaged in a vigorous debate over the morality of airplane travel. Organizations like Plane Stupid and FlightPledge seek to raise awareness of the environmental effects of all those miles.

In the context of the recent debate over “open skies” treaties, George Monbiot makes the most forceful case against air travel. (Apparently, his editors felt his original title “We are all killers” was too inflammatory, though…) Monbiot’s argument is a powerful one, especially when you mull over the numbers. (The version of the article republished on his personal site contains footnotes to back up the data he presents.) Read the whole thing.

Of course, not everyone agrees. The counterpoint by Jowett and Wiltshire (who represent the airport and airline industries, respectively) suggests that carbon trading may be a solution. In such a scenario, pollutive industries (like airlines) would buy credits from cleaner industries; logic suggests that this would spur innovation on both sides. Companies seeking to sell credits to dirtier counterparts would have incentives to build up “clean” credits, and smog-belchers would replace old equipment and seek greater efficiency in order to lower their costs.

I admit arguments advanced by Monbiot and others give me pause. Yet I’m one of the hypocrites he mentions — willing to concede that air travel is bad for the environment, but not yet willing to stop traveling. I try to appease myself with arguments based on fuel economy, like this:
The distance between Los Angeles and Auckland is approximately 13,000 miles round trip. Boeing estimates that the average 747 will burn 5 gallons of fuel per mile, so the round trip would burn 65,000 gallons. An Air New Zealand 747 carries just under 400 people when completely full. Let’s assume that the plane is only 80% full, though – 320 people on board. (They don’t sell out every flight, after all.) Therefore, the roundtrip fuel burn is approximately 203 gallons per person, or 64 miles per gallon per person (mpg/p). If the plane is full, then that number rises to 80 mpg/p. Fairly efficient transportation, right? Right?…

Maybe the “enemy” shouldn’t be air travel in general, but short hops on small, inefficient (and often uncomfortable) planes. Smaller regional jets are less eco-friendly on a per-person basis. The fuel burn at full capacity for a Canadair Regional Jet is approximately 34 mpg/p — a big drop in fuel economy from the 747. Larger, modern planes (especially Boeing’s forthcoming 787) burn less fuel per passenger, and should be favored, at least until planes start flying on solar power… A viable carbon trading system could help reduce emissions, but even then, long distance travel would mean negatively impacting the environment.

tags: travel | air travel | environmentalism | carbon trading