What’s the fastest way to cut your greenhouse gas emissions? Stop flying. Taking a transatlantic flight from London to New York puts as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a typical year spent commuting to work by car.

Of course, the numbers are complicated. For example, a Boeing 747 travelling a short-haul route from London to Scotland with a full compliment of passengers will put out less CO2 per person than if the passengers had travelled by car over the same distance. However, a significant proportion of a flight’s CO2 emissions come from take-off and landing, which will be the same regardless of distance, and short-haul flights are also more likely to have empty seats (plus, it’s highly unlikely that the 747’s passengers would all take individual cars up to Edinburgh if the flight was cancelled).

Regardless, rail travel is unambiguously much, much better for the environment than flying. Giving up air travel is a great way to drive down your emissions (though giving up meat may be even better choice). So, should we all make the switch?

Aircraft are becoming more fuel efficient, and airlines are packing on more people per flight than they used to (which is better for the planet, but doesn’t always make for a pleasant experience). Yet commercial aviation is currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions out there, and airlines are predicted to triple the amount of CO2 they pump out by 2050. So, is now really the best time to expand Heathrow, or finish Berlin’s infamous €7 billion euro airport?

Should we stop flying to help the environment? Would the world be better off if we all took rail travel? Or is the airline industry improving fuel efficiency? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts!

Image Credits: (c) BigStock – CreativeNaturePhotography



48 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Hugo

    To defend the environment just stop being stupid. Don’t buy every last reased model of a smartphone or Avery piece of Chinese junk just because it’s cheap. Buy only what you really need to reduce future waste. Don’t buy a new piece of cloth or a pair of shoes every month just to be on the trend. Start thinking smart.

  2. avatar
    Jevgeni

    Stopping progress for the sake of environment is a faulty thinking of stupid people. New technologies, materials etc. should help to make a difference in fighting also environmental challenges.

    • avatar
      Marc

      we need to reduce carbon footprint of 50% in the next 10 years. No technology can provide this. The only possibility is to drastically limit the number of flights. Afterwards, we will have time to find new technologies.

    • avatar
      Alexandre

      “Technology will save us”… Keep deaming while we’re dying.

  3. avatar
    Stéphane

    Yes for small distance where the train can be quicker et cheaper ! Bring a flight between Paris and Bruxelles is like taking the car to buy a bread at 500m of your houses !

    • avatar
      Jevgeni

      trains are never cheapier as you need to keep tracks in good shape all the time. Plus if this is an electric train then electricity is not produced with wind and sun only – so it is not as green). Same story with electric cars – marketing bullshit, unfortunately

  4. avatar
    Chris

    I guess I’ll have to use a flying horse to go from Europe to America

  5. avatar
    Joseph

    A Boeing 747 uses 10,668kg of aviation fuel for the take-off, climb and descent portions of the flight and these account for about 530km and releasing over 33 tonnes of CO2. If there would be good infrastructure and TGV / ICE all around Europe, we could really travel eco friendly without polluting air so much as flying by planes, and not spending much more time than by flying (incl. getting to airport, waiting 2 hours at least there plus delays, waiting for luggate) but it seems for me just a very distant goal but we should go for it and put as No1 priority for future transportation and invest EU funds.

  6. avatar
    Aubrey

    A poorly formulated question. It would be far better to improve public transport and make it more affordable for longer distances. The amount of planes needed would be reduced as a result. Banning flying would have consequences that would pose massive economic problems, for one thing.

  7. avatar
    Paul

    Maybe if 7.5 billion stopped breathing out CO2, that could help also…but as impractical as abolishing air travel.
    Rather than look to ban such things….find (technical ) ways to ameliorate them.

    • avatar
      Marc

      Unfortunately I do not see such thing happening within the timeframe left ( 10 years?)

    • avatar
      Paul

      not sure what the 10 yrs refers to….Armageddon will take a little longer. ….planes are becoming more and more fuel efficient (driven by a demand from airlines to reduce costs)r….but keep it in perspective…aircraft produce around 2% of CO2 emmisions. ..plenty of other priority issues to address.

    • avatar
      Marc

      ‘Plenty of other priorities’ = let the others do the job, I am too lazy for it. 10 years comes from IPCC last report. Open your eyes!

    • avatar
      Paul

      strange comment….would suggest better to focus on the 98% rather than the 2% !!

    • avatar
      Marc

      Yes, that says everybody… so the 98% are never being taken care of…

  8. avatar
    Kánai

    We should stop transporting goods for thousands kms on roads by lorries, and use our railway system. … that would make much sense
    And buy local products

    • avatar
      Joris

      so true.. And still they keep making more and more trade deals so the rich 1% can get more money.

    • avatar
      Matt

      Yes, supermarkets should be obliged not to refuse selling of local produced goods. That would be a good start.

  9. avatar
    Павел

    How about with horse carriages? We will be also fertilising the soil while doing it?

    • avatar
      Bódis

      I know about a small town that uses a modern horse-drawn carriage for garbage collection. Its cost is marginal compared to a garbage truck, it’s much quieter, and it runs on fodder instead of gasoline.

    • avatar
      Павел

      Sounds like a great idea but I can bet operators will run away if municipality asks them to collect garbage all over the country ;)

    • avatar
      Bódis

      Garbage collection is a local responsibility (usually subcontracted), so they can use it. I like the municipality’s creativity. :)

    • avatar
      Kánai

      the greens are against animals because they produce gases as well … the greens are actually against biology, physics and chemistry

    • avatar
      Rick

      but then when everyone switches to using horse carriages, the gov’t will tax the methane gas the horse produce and the unsanitary poop left on the roads. It’s hard enough now to get dog owners to pick-up their dog’s poop off the sidewalks.

  10. avatar
    Paul

    I believe that many businesses could use Video conferencing more rather than flying to meet people. Yes it is better to meet in person, but business should still function almost as smoothly without the costs of time, flying expenses and of course pollution etc… However holiday makers / tourist deserve to explore the World and flying is practical . ( I use car mostly, but some dislike that also) Cruise Ships are okay but also pollute a lot.

  11. avatar
    Palmira

    Nope I wouldn’t be able to visit my family abroad

  12. avatar
    Rick

    this would from the green left “How can flying be higher taxed to curb its appeal in the market?”

  13. avatar
    Monika

    No good network too long travel time, too expensive, there would still have to happen so much, it doesn’t work in a short

  14. avatar
    Gabor

    A climatic catastrophe, which would cause a mass mortality by humans would be the most helpful, from view of the environment. By the way it would support the evolution too. It’s to bad, I see it myself too!

  15. avatar
    Robert

    Bans on flights at distances of 400 km or less where rail links exist could be an option.

  16. avatar
    Olivier

    We should all stop breathing…. To decrease our carbon print

  17. avatar
    Paul

    Would you like to stop the drugs morons?

  18. avatar
    Jota

    Great, back to the life of 1960. But remove airco and 60% of cars. And limit power supply to domestic use. Of course no fruits and vegs from other cointries.

    • avatar
      Virsta

      really? how about crossing seas and oceans? :-)

  19. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    Where can one find “Visionary (political) Leadership” and their inspiring ideas within the EU concept?

    Submitted themes & posed questions should inspire & enlighten its follower ship- not flabbergast, subjugate, confuse or (un)-intentionally brainwash them to prepare its followers to follow one supranational political concept only- intentionally!

    https://status.net/articles/visionary-leadership/

    Who within EU politics could be considered inspiring? The EU Council, EP, DE, Friends of Europe, etc…….?

  20. avatar
    Alexandra

    Yeah, let‘s travel by train to Australia!

  21. avatar
    Yannick

    If we choose to fly we should at the very minimum offset the emissions (pay for a carbon reduction somewhere else). I have done so for more than 10 years. The thing is, a single flight anywhere will blow anyone’s carbon budget. A yearly, individual Paris-friendly carbon budget stands at about 2 tons per person per year. Roughly one quarter can be assigned to transport ie 500kg (food, goods production and house energy are the other quarters). That’s ONE return flight Brussels-Rome in economy. What we need is private and tradeable carbon accounts perhaps. Once somebody goes over her budget, she needs to buy credits. What do you think?

  22. avatar
    Yannick

    Flights should be taxed to finance trains. It’s absurd that a train ticket cost roughly the same if not more than a flight on most routes. It’s also absurd that to buy a cross border ticket I still in most cases need to go in person at a central train station. Come on Europe.

  23. avatar
    kevin

    If we stop flying the economies of the med will collapse . The only thing saving some countries is the tourists flying in every day with their euros and pounds from Northern Europe .
    Makes me laugh all these anti capitalist environmentalists , they look at me as if Ive murdered their children as I pull off in the morning in my diesel van than light a bonfire every other night burning the waste from their fecking chicken run .

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.