Flying Isn’t the Source of Our Global Warming Problems, So Let’s Focus Our Energies Elsewhere
“If you’re so worried about global warming, then why do you fly so much?!”
It’s one of the most frequent criticisms from climate change deniers. Rather than engage in substantive debate about the science of climate change, and the apocalyptic effect it will have on our lives, they resort to personal attacks.
Let’s first acknowledge the fact this criticism is a logical fallacy, an ad hominem, that in no way refutes the existence of global warming or addresses its accompanying issues. Criticizing an environmentalist for flying too much is a diversion, a red herring, meant to derail us from having a real conversation about global warming, because any real conversation about global warming ends with us realizing how enormous and urgent the issue is.
The “fly too much” criticism shifts the blame from the actually guilty parties — oil companies, and the governments and financial systems who support them — to the environmental advocate, making him a scapegoat. Instead of a systemic problem, it transforms global warming into a personal problem. The jet-setting environmentalist is turned into a convenient villain, and branded a hypocrite.
And it’s a surprisingly effective diversion at that. This criticism has been lobbed at the most prominent environmental activists in the world — Madonna, Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have been harangued for their use of private jets and their large carbon footprints.
This is where I tell you I am also that guy. I am the environmental advocate who refuses to shut up about global warming, but is also a businessman who flies a lot.
But let’s put all that aside for the moment and take some time to genuinely consider the validity of this critique. Because when we do, we realize aviation is not the source of our global warming problems, and that this supposed “criticism” is entirely illegitimate and ignorant of the real issues at hand.
There are no practical alternative to air travel
There are currently no sustainable alternatives to long-distance air travel. If there were, I’d encourage you to use one. But there aren’t. Electric air travel is still years away. The only other way to reduce the carbon footprint of an aircraft is to have it run on biofuel, but biofuel is expensive and it’s not economically viable. Attacking people for flying isn’t a productive critique.
One of the biggest misconceptions about environmental activists is that we want everyone to drastically change their personal habits overnight. But we are not naive. We know how difficult it is to change human behaviors, and how unrealistic it is to expect every individual on this planet to suddenly and completely change how they live.
While we would love people to make whatever environmentally-conscious changes they can, we understand that people need to live in the real world. And living in the real world means flying in planes on occasion.
More importantly, reducing the number of miles we fly won’t even have a big impact on global warming.
Environmental impact of flying is low
The source of global warming is carbon emitted into the atmosphere, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. It takes a lot of fuel to propel a commercial airliner, but even then, aviation accounts for only 2% of global carbon emissions. Even if we do away with the aviation industry completely, we still haven’t made a dent in the global warming issue.
The largest source of carbon emissions (42%, to be exact) is electricity and heat generation. We should focus our energies on reducing energy consumption in these sectors, as they will have the most profound impact on our environment, and give us the best chance of staving off global warming.
So how do we do it?
A valid question. It’s not enough to say aviation isn’t the solution to our problems. We have to identify solutions of our own.
The most effective methods for combating climate change are using renewable energy, optimizing energy use and preventing energy loss. These are areas we can address, today, that don’t require seismic shifts in how we live.
One strategy is to reduce carbon emissions for shorter forms of travel. We can subsidize the production and sales of electric cars. We can promote the development of high-speed electric railway systems that offer a green alternative to short- and mid-range flights.
To implement these programs, we must first start at the ballot box. We should vote for Green candidates who support Green policy and Green public works projects.
On an individual level, you can invest your money in companies that prioritize environmental and social sustainability over short-term profits. Not only is this one of the most effective ways for addressing global warming, sustainable companies on average outperform other companies financially.
You can do all the little things that are within your control. You can reduce the amount of energy you use in your home. You can select renewable energy options, such as wind and solar, from your utility provider. You can install solar panels on your roof.
And after all that, if you’re still feeling conflicted about that trip to Spain last summer, you can practice carbon offsetting and donate to CO2 reduction projects to offset the effects of your flying.
Just know you don’t have to feel bad about flying, no matter what the critics say. You can be both an environmentalist and a person who flies. Our efforts to fight global warming are better spent in areas other than aviation.
📝 Read this story later in Journal.
🌎 Wake up every Sunday morning to the week’s most noteworthy stories in Society waiting in your inbox. Read the Noteworthy in Society newsletter.
