All climate change charts and graphics on this website that say they are created by Barry Saxifrage are licensed for free re-use and modification under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our Climate Change Articles
Go to Site Index See "Our Climate Change Articles" main page
General · 18th May 2009
Barry Saxifrage
When I read in George Monbiot’s book, Heat, that there is no climate-compatible solution for high-speed air travel, I didn’t believe it. I couldn’t accept that the world must stop nearly all of its flying.

At first I thought I could bike more, turn down the heat, and still fly. But Monbiot’s indictment of people who know better, but are unwilling to make the necessary changes themselves, stung. To continue to fly, I had to prove to myself that my flying was OK.

Through two years of research, I watched my flying emissions overwhelm all my other efforts. I finally had to look at the elephant in the room sitting in front of me, and it had wings. Monbiot and others were right: a person can’t live a climate-sustainable life and still fly. Air travel is the one major industry without an available technological solution
to climate change.

Join The Club
My research did reveal that I’m not alone in this collision
between hope for a livable future and desire for high-speed air travel. Addiction to flying is forcing countless individuals, families, businesses and governments into untenable positions. Here are a few examples.

Flying Over Patagonia
Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard has been at the forefront of the environmental movement for decades. Patagonia’s mission statement includes to “use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.”

Chouinard knows the stakes. He states, “global warming is deadly serious for the future…we can’t wait for the government; it’ll be too late.” He quotes David Brower: “There’s no business to be done on a dead planet.”

Yet, when asked if he personally struggles with any environmental issues he admits there is a “special place in hell” for him, paved with his own flying emissions. Organic cotton, yes. Stop traveling by plane to favourite fishing destinations, no.

Hundreds Of Tons
Canada’s leading environmental voice for decades, David Suzuki is one of CBC’s greatest living Canadians and host of the popular TV show “The Nature Of Things” for years.

He ardently warned the public over a decade ago that global warming is the biggest threat to human beings’ survival as a species outside a nuclear holocaust. Suzuki states that, to survive climate chaos, each person can emit no more than one tonne of carbon emissions from fossil fuels a year.

Yet by his own calculations, his yearly flying emissions are hundreds of tonnes more than what the average Canadian emits for everything in their lives. More importantly, his flying emissions are hundreds of times the sustainable limit he says we all must meet. Spurred on in part by his daughter, he is now starting to scale back some on his global jet-setting.

Except For That
National Geographic recently produced one of the best primers on climate change, a Special Report titled “Changing Climate.” Currently available on newsstands, the report summarizes what everyone “should know,” and what each person “can do.”

The senior editor describes his family’s extensive efforts to reduce their emissions by bringing in a professional energy auditor and a top efficiency expert. They installed a ceiling fan, turned down the AC and the water heater, changed light bulbs, used power strips, drove less, biked more, walked to the farmers’ market and so on.

When time came to add it all up they were in for a “big surprise” because their emissions were double the average Americans. Their many efforts were “small potatoes,” more than wiped out by a single flight.

What did this highly-motivated family do when it ran smack into the elephant of their flying emissions? Skipping the flight “was never an option,” and “if you put our plane trip aside…[we] were able to cut our personal CO2 emissions by almost half. Not bad.”

In the carbon math of even the most environmentally aware, if the elephant in the room has wings, it doesn’t count.

The Business Of Stewardship
REI is the USA’s largest consumer cooperative with more than three million active members. Its mission is to “inspire, educate and outfit for a lifetime of outdoor adventure and stewardship.” REI has pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2020.

REI’s single biggest source of emissions? Adventure travel flights. They account for 30% of all REI’s emissions, while only serving a tiny 0.1% of active members. The share of REI’s greenhouse gas emissions by these 4,000 people is 75,000% more per person than for the remaining 99.9% of members.

It gets worse. REI’s total emissions grew 24% in one year from 2006 to 2007. The cause for the huge increase: “more people traveling.”

So how does one of the world’s premier, member-owned co-ops with a central mission of earth stewardship react to this elephant with wings trampling their efforts? Do they return “adventure travel” to its low-emission roots of sailing ships and trains, cycling and hiking? After all, it is hard to think of a continent more loaded with opportunities for adventure than North America. Or do they ignore their rapidly growing elephant? According to the Seattle Times: “The company will stay in the adventure-travel business, whose revenues and profits it doesn’t disclose.”

Nation State
England has made some of the most forceful calls to action of any government. How does flying fit in to the British government’s strategy? According to the UK’s own Tyndall Centre on Climate Change, aviation emissions account for over 10% of the UK’s total, and comprise the fastest growing source. At current rates, aviation alone will use up all 100% of total allowable emissions for every aspect of English life and industry within decades.

Yet last year, government employees flew over a million miles per workday on government business, not including military flights. In the age of the Blackberry, the web, instant global messaging and video conferencing, the official response seemed overly pat: “The Government would never indulge in unnecessary air travel.”

The government also has a high-profile push to expand airports including Heathrow, the world’s busiest airport. It also refuses to levy the same taxes on aviation fuel as it does on gas for road transport, providing flyers with a 30% to 40% savings on fuel costs over what drivers pay.

The British government, like individuals and corporations, doesn’t acknowledge the elephant with wings sitting on the scale as it strives to counterbalance climate change.

Why Does It Matter?
Everyone has their areas of hypocrisy and contradictions. Why focus on environmentally aware folks and their oversized flying emissions?

Because, when world-wealthy, highly-motivated, climate-knowledgeable people can’t come to grips with their biggest climate impact, one that is a non-essential luxury well beyond the reach of 90% of humanity, what hope do we have for a bottom-up, grass-roots emissions solution?

It seems we are going to have to “wait for government” to solve climate change, after all. But, sadly, even our government laws and proposed solutions are unlikely to reduce flying emissions.

Flying has a special status that exempts it from limits imposed on other emission sources: no fuel tax; not included in Kyoto; not included in any cap-and-trade schemes; not even on the emissions balance sheets of any nations.

Worse, all our laws to reduce climate changing emissions, whether carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, rely on the marketplace to distribute a limited amount of fossil fuels based on price alone. The people who can afford to buy the fuel get it.

People who fly frequently are the world’s wealthiest, the last folks on earth affected by carbon pricing. Just look at the last few years. Jet fuel has quadrupled in cost, yet aviation miles continue to grow at 7%, and aviation emissions at 5%, year after year. If years of relentlessly rising fuel prices coincide with record increases in flights and flying emissions, how will further cost increases from carbon taxes cut the bulk of emissions?

In fact, all the world’s climate changing emissions are skyrocketing even while fossil fuel prices climb to new heights. What’s going on?

The Missing Puzzle Piece
Professor Steven Pacala of Princeton suggests an answer. His latest research shows that 50% of all global climate changing emissions are caused by the wealthiest 8% of the population. The majority of emissions are caused by the folks who are the least sensitive to price. It helps explain why flying is growing despite price increases.

If the most wealthy cause the majority of emissions, we have trouble ahead. To significantly blunt demand by the most wealthy, fossil fuels will need to be extremely expensive. Long before we get to a price that changes the wealthy folks’ behaviour, most other people will have been priced out of their ability to fuel their cars or maybe even buy their food.

If so, our current tools will lead to carbon riots long before they lead to big carbon cuts. Voters will ultimately reject a system that hurts the majority of folks and doesn’t even solve the problem.

Aviation is the biggest, clearest example of the fundamental flaw we have with our current schemes. It highlights why our best plans are in danger of failing spectacularly.

We need a tool that addresses the huge emissions of the wealthiest folks world wide. A single price for carbon alone won’t do it. Carbon rationing, a personal emissions cap, tiered pricing or something else might. Now is the time to start that discussion.

Article originally published in the June/July 2008 edition of the Watershed Sentinel
Re: Dir CSR @ REI
Comment by Barry Saxifrage on 19th November 2009
Kevin, it is clear that REI has a deep commitment to sustainability and has been a leader in setting goals and tracking climate-toxic fossil fuel emissions.

However it also clear that despite the good intentions, REI has also become a leader in increasing their actual climate-toxic emissions. REI emissions have grown 22% in just two years. REI emissions are growing faster than any nation's on earth. REI growth is far greater than even China or USA, the climate bad guys.

The vast majority of this growth comes from a single source, hyper-carbon luxury adventure travel. This kind of massive climate damage for short-term luxury is becoming known as "carbon porn" for good reason.

REI needs to choose whether they are working towards sustainable climate or towards the encouragement and promotion and enabling of hyper-carbon travel choices.

REI says that there are no alternatives to long-distance travel. But there are plenty of equally amazing adventures available here at home. Perhaps a focus on 500-mile adventure travel rather than 5,000 mile would let REI continue to profit from adventure travel in a way that is actually sustainable.

REI also says they offset their high-carbon travel. But several studies recently including one in Nature have shown that carbon offsets often become "moral offsets" that lead to increased emissions as people partake in more high-carbon activities as a result.

A recent NYTimes article "Paying More for Flights Eases Guilt, Not Emissions" ( ) points out groups like Responsible Travel have cancelled their carbon offset programs because they say "while it might help travelers feel virtuous, it was not helping to reduce global emissions. In fact, company officials said, it might even encourage some people to travel or consume more."

There is no sustainable way to travel 500 miles per hour in the upper atmosphere and none coming. Biofuels will still cause almost as much climate damage as oil because of the other non-carbon ghg from jet emissions. The best science from IPCC special report on aviation says most of ghg from jets is water vapour and nitrogen compounds. These will be present even in biodiesel or even fuel cells.

REI set a goal of 33% ghg reduction by 2009. So far it has increased ghg by 22%.

As far as helping distant communities there are many ways to do that which don't also so damage the climate and acidify the oceans these communities rely on. Perhaps REI could focus on those instead.

As a Maasai recently said: "The Maasai community does not drive 4x4s or fly off on holidays in airplanes," she says. "We have not caused climate change, yet we are the ones suffering. This is an injustice and should be stopped right now."

REI needs to find alternatives ways to maintain tourism profits and support actual sustainability in its business. The climate disaster will not go away until emissions do.
Comment by Kevin Hagen on 18th November 2009
Perhaps REI Adventure Travel helps make your “elephant in the room” point, but I don’t think you do justice to the depth of the conversation this issue inspires at the co-op. The implication is that we ignore or discount the GHG impacts of flights, which is not the case – in fact, the reason this is a good example is that we count flights in our footprint and publicly report on it. This is a benefit of reporting and we appreciate the feedback from members and others. We’re not saying we’ve got it right – but we are saying that we’ve put some thought into the process.

The story uses data from our report but didn’t give a link for others to reference: REI’s 2008 climate inventory: The detail impacts of REI’s Adventures and our Green-e certified off-sets purchase

REI Adventure trips focus on human powered activities – hiking, paddling, biking, in wonderful places all over the world We believe that these trips are consistent with REI’s core purpose to inspire, educate and outfit for a lifetime of outdoor adventure and stewardship. Through these trips we help build personal, cross cultural connections between people and places and try to inspire a stewardship ethos for both local residents and our travelers.

We have been recognized by industry and non-profit organizations for the work we do to align our programs with our values and with the end goal of advancing the co-op’s core purpose. We think we’re taking thoughtful steps to mitigate the environmental and social consequences and we are attempting to increase the local benefits. For example the lion’s share of the proceeds (not counting air travel) for trips actually stays in the destination country with local guides and service providers.

So we believe that REI Adventures does advance the co-op’s core purpose. But we have to grapple with the impacts. One of the key questions for us is this: can we use the economic driver of responsible tourism to help make extraordinary places more valuable as tourist destinations than they could be as lumber?

Kevin Hagen
Director Corporate Social Responsibility – REI

Re: Damn Statistics
Comment by Barry Saxifrage on 16th July 2008
Andy, I'm very familiar with that chart. In fact my frustration with that chart inspired me to create an expanded version of it. This expanded version was also published in Watershed Sentinel and can be viewed in the article just below this one: "Travel's Climate Emissions."

The sightline chart you link to is factually correct but missing so much data that you can't compare like to like. In particular it doesn't compare similar OCCUPANCY levels for cars and planes. For example, average occupancy for cars travelling airplane distances is actually over 2...not 1 as they use in their chart. So they use average occupancy for planes but not cars.

You can read all about the chart on sightline website along with several detailed comments from me about my concerns and alternatives charts using the same data: /2008/02/08/planes-trains-and-automobiles

Or just see my expanded version of the chart using the same data sources.
Reflective essay by an economist
Comment by Andy on 8th July 2008
This is an interesting essay by the organizer of a European Environmental Economics conference regarding air travel:

Bottom-line: Take the train or buy carbon offsets. No mention of video conferencing.
Statistics, Damn Statistics . . .
Comment by Andy on 8th July 2008
What do you think of this source's claim that air travel is more CO2 efficient on a per-mile-traveled basis than the average one-passenger car? (