[ad_1]
Frequent flight “super emitters” representing just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study.
Airlines produced 1 billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $ 100 billion (£ 75 billion) subsidy by failing to pay for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated. The analysis brings together data to provide the clearest global picture of the impact of frequent fliers.
Only 11% of the world’s population took a flight in 2018 and 4% flew abroad. American air passengers have by far the largest carbon footprint among rich countries. Its aviation emissions are higher than those of the next 10 countries combined, including the UK, Japan, Germany and Australia, the study reports.
The researchers said the study showed that an elite group enjoying frequent flights had a major impact on the climate crisis that affected everyone.
They said that the 50% drop in passenger numbers in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic should be an opportunity to make the aviation industry fairer and more sustainable. This could be done by putting green conditions on the huge bailouts that governments were giving to the industry, as had happened in France.
The contribution of global aviation to the climate crisis was growing rapidly before the Covid-19 pandemic, with emissions increasing by 32% between 2013 and 2018. The number of flights in 2020 has been cut in half, but the The industry expects to return to previous levels by 2024.
“If you want to solve climate change and we need to redesign [aviation]So we should start at the top, where some ‘super emitters’ contribute enormously to global warming, ”said Stefan Gössling of Linnaeus University in Sweden, who led the new study.
“The rich have had too much freedom to design the planet according to their wishes. We should see the crisis as an opportunity to thin the air transport system ”.
Dan Rutherford of the International Council for Clean Transportation, who is not part of the research team, said the analysis raised the issue of equality.
“The benefits of aviation are shared more unevenly around the world than probably any other major emission source,” he said. “So there is a clear risk that the special treatment that airlines enjoy will only protect the economic interests of the world’s rich.”
Frequent fliers identified in the study traveled about 35,000 miles (56,000 km) a year, Gössling said, equivalent to three long-haul flights a year, one short-haul flight a month, or some combination of the two.
The research, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, collected a variety of data and found that a large proportion of people in all countries did not fly each year: 53% in the US, 65% in Germany and 66% in Taiwan In the UK, separate data shows that 48% of people did not fly abroad in 2018.
The analysis showed that the United States produced the highest amount of emissions among wealthy nations. China was the largest among other countries, but does not offer data. However, Gössling believes that its aviation footprint is probably only one-fifth that of the US.
On average, North Americans flew 50 times more kilometers than Africans in 2018, 10 times more than those in the Asia-Pacific region and 7.5 times more than Latin Americans. Europeans and Middle Eastern people flew 25 times more than Africans and five times more than Asians.
The data also showed huge growth in international flights between 1990 and 2017, with numbers tripling from Australia and doubling from the UK.
Americans flew 50 times farther than Africans in 2018
The researchers estimated the cost of climate damage caused by aviation emissions at $ 100 billion in 2018. The absence of payments to cover this damage “represents a significant subsidy for the wealthiest,” the researchers said. “This highlights the need to scrutinize the sector and, in particular, the super issuers.”
The figure for the social cost of carbon emissions was actually a bit conservative, Rutherford said.
A frequent flyer tax is a proposal to discourage flights. “Someone will have to pay to decarbonize the flight, why shouldn’t it be frequent fliers?” Rutherford said. But Gössling was less enthusiastic, noting that frequent flyers used to be very wealthy, which means higher ticket prices may not deter them.
“Perhaps a more productive way is to ask airlines to increase the share of [low carbon] synthetic fuels are blended every year up to 100% by 2050, “said Gössling. A mandate for sustainable aviation fuel starting in 2025 is backed by some in the industry.
A spokesperson for the International Air Transport Association (Iata), which represents the world’s airlines, said: “The charge of elitism may have had some foundation in the 1950s and 1960s. But today air travel is a necessity for millions “.
He said the airline industry paid $ 94 billion in direct taxes, such as income tax in 2019, and $ 42 billion in indirect taxes such as VAT.
“We remain committed to our environmental goals,” said the Iata spokesperson. “This year, amid the biggest crisis our industry has ever faced, airlines agreed to explore ways to move towards net zero emissions by 2060.”
A key pillar of the industry’s plans is the carbon offset and reduction scheme for international aviation, developed by the UN air transport agency. But this was heavily criticized in June when the revisions were seen to dilute an already weak scheme, and experts estimated that airlines would not have to. offset emissions by 2024. “I think they have no interest in climate change,” Gössling said.
Another Gössling research found that half of the pleasure flights were not considered important by the traveler. “A lot of trips are made just because it’s cheap.”
He stopped flying for vacations in 1995 and, more recently, stopped attending academic conferences and taking long-haul flights. “I am not saying that I will never fly again. But if I can help it, I really try, ”Gössling said.
[ad_2]
