Someday Airplanes Will Only Be Found In Museums
We have to make some serious decisions in the next four years. Do we desire a progressively better world for our children — one with less hunger, less war, less poverty, more food, more fun, more community? Or do we desire a world of ease, frivolity, speed and excess that we’ll have to pay an impossibly high price for very, very soon? We’re making this choice everyday. In order to avoid runaway climate change, we have to make significant changes in our lifestyles. A big part of that is the virtual elimination of air travel.
According to Yale Environment 360, “Flying, particularly on long-haul flights, is so highly emitting that it dwarfs everything else on an individual carbon budget. Many climate groups have calculated that in a sustainable world each person would have a carbon allowance of two to four tons of carbon emissions annually.” (Split equally, we should each get only 1 ton a year) That yearly allowance can easily be spent with a trip on a jet air plane.
If we want our society resilient in a time of climate change, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in the next 40 years. The enormous carbon expense of air travel (and the way they are emitted) shows us that there is simply no place for it in a low-carbon society. One way or another, we’ll need to wipe our globe clean of fossil fuel driven air travel.
The truth is we don’t really need to have readily available, cheap flights in order to have an advanced, functioning society. Between electrically powered railways and cargo chips for travel and shipping, reducing our global dependence on goods by relying on local, human-scaled economies, and the power of the internet and telecommunications to further global connection, we should be set.
I think we need to reconsider the acceptable speed and time it takes to travel. Throughout most of US history it would have taken a month or more to cross the continent. Then we created a rail network and that time shrunk to a week or less. Today you can fly that distance in 5 hours. Why is 3-4 days via train no longer acceptable? Maybe we can get back to human-scaled travel speeds like sea travel and train travel. A coming transportation shift could mean a return of the dirigible, or smaller electric planes. High speed rail is also a viable solution (we just need to build it here in the States).
Whatever the future holds, there’s a good chance we’re not flying on holiday 10-20 years from now. Here’s a great video showing the impact to the skies from the Icelandic Volcano that grounded most of Western Europe a few months back:
Just image how the future will look! A post growth society will need to be a low-carbon society. We’ll be emitting no more than 1 ton of CO2/Eq/year per person. That means no more SUVs or even meager 35 mpg sedans (electric is the future). And that means more electric trains and mass transit — fueled by renewable energy. No more jet fuel, no more air travel. This is happening now. Take a stand for the rest of the world that would be devastated by your flight, by not flying.
We can holiday closer to home, or if we have to travel long distances take a train, boat or bike, even. Amtrak is pretty nice in the States, I actually like the pace and the scenery. Traveling long distance by bike isn’t that uncommon today, either.
How will you change your travels?
Image credit: Flickr Creative Commons.
Related posts (automatically generated):
- Safe Operating Limits for Spaceship Earth
- The New Normal
- Systems Thinking in a Complicated World
- Change In The Rangelands
- 12 Ideas for Strong Neighborhoods
This post was written by Joshua Nelson
Joshua has written 21 posts on Post Growth Institute. Contact Joshua
{ 5 comments }
Joshua,
That video is incredible. Love the way visuals can take abstract data — flight patterns, say — and bring it to life. From that perspective, human activity (and economic growth) looks like a frenzied ant colony going nuts all over the globe. Really interesting — and gives a great sense of scale.
Re: flying — I think part of living within ecological limits means understanding that scarcity is a part of life — and that means that some things are just worth more, and should be done/used more sparingly because they’re scarce. Flying seems like one of these things: It’s an *expensive* activity, and the price of a ticket should reflect that.
In that context, maybe flight should be thought of a bit like global trade in a post growth world: In small doses, and only when needed. The internet (a hugely important tool for getting to a post growth world, I think) could allow people to experience and communicate with the places they’d normally fly to. Webinars, which seem to be growing in popularity, could take the place of international business meetings…but maybe the technology’s not quite there yet. Don’t know.
That said, the silver lining to a less airborne society means there’s a chance we’ll start to fall in love with the places we actually are. Will all-inclusive resorts in Tahiti look a little less desirable if we actually enjoy our neighborhoods, our bioregions, our towns and cities? A bit pollyanna-ish, I suppose — but a world where “staycations” are the norm might hold some hidden joys.
Scott
Scott,
I think you’re right. At least for the bulk of the next century, and as we transition into a post-growth society in the next 20 (30?) years, we will still have flight – just on a much more limited basis. It’s only going to get more expensive and restrictive (besides, security is a pain in the arse, I can do without flight just to avoid that hassle).
I would venture that the interest in flight will drive technological advances to make it more sustainable. However, there’s nothing even remotely viable on board in the next 30 years to make jet travel zero-carbon, so we should get used to less of it.
And a slower pace of travel will be beneficial to our well-being (the journey is just as important as the destination, right?). Besides, we’ll have more free time to devote to the longer travel times in a post growth society because we’ll all be working less!
Cheers,
Joshua
Just to compare numbers on the high speed rail (HSR) topic, a cross country trip via Amtrak (Seattle to DC) takes just under 3 days (average speed of 50 mph, 63 hours total). High speed rail in the US is limited to one on the east coast which is fairly slow, only about 100mph average speed (compared to Europe’s 160-180 mpg trains and China’s 220 mph trains).
However, the proposed California HSR is designed to have an average speed of 168 mph. If you take the same Amtrak route cross country at those speeds you would cut a 63 hour trip down to 19 hours. Of course, the industry proposed USHSR plan takes a different route that I would venture is a little quicker.
Really, I think going 3000 plus miles in 19 hours is pretty damn good. Gives you time to adjust, instead of a 5 hour flight. Besides, most of us don’t make those types of trips very often so it wouldn’t be hard to plan for that travel time. A trip from Seattle to Portland would only be a little over an hour, instead of 4 hours. That’s worth it right there for me!
Cheers,
Joshua
A timely post for me, Joshua, given yours truly has just returned from Europe to Australia, a country which itself has been largely shaped by the ‘tyranny of distance’ (both to get to it, and get around in it)!
I am just back from a long-awaited trip to Italy to see that amazing country, visit the village my grandfather was born in, and attend a conference where – as per usual – much of the useful interaction occurred in the networking opportunities around the scheduled sessions. I don’t care what anyone says, teleconferencing is no substitute – but I also am committed to ensuring that any decision I make to fly anywhere is a well-considered one in terms of the reasons, the need and the likely benefits of the travel.
As a steady-stater/postgrowther, you find yourself explaining and making excuses for long haul air travel: ‘yes I’m flying halfway around the world, BUT its my first overseas holiday EVER, and my first overseas trip since 2001…’ in a vain attempt to allay climate guilt! And yet the planet does not care. It’s all extra C02, whatever the reason, and however virtuous one has been as an infrequent flyer.
[Joshua] ‘I think we need to reconsider the acceptable speed and time it takes to travel…Maybe we can get back to human-scaled travel speeds like sea travel and train travel…No more jet fuel, no more air travel. This is happening now. Take a stand for the rest of the world that would be devastated by your flight, by not flying.’
Firstly – I support what Joshua is saying. We can’t get away from the fact that air travel is a huge contributor to climate change, and that if we are serious about tackling climate change we need to limit air travel, and find non fossil fuel alternatives for flight ASAP.
Having said that, I must offer a perspective from us folks in the Antipodes, who are, as someone once colourfully put it, located at ‘the arse end of the world’…
In days gone by, travel for business or pleasure was restricted to the very wealthy who could take weeks or months away from whatever they were doing in order to travel. If we make air travel unaffordable where viable options do not exist in terms of time trade offs, then we will again restrict travel to those who are already probably the major contributors – those who can and do fly often.
I live in Australia, which means if I can’t fly, I can’t visit another country. I have four weeks’ holiday a year. If I travel any way other than flying, I will spend all my accumulated leave just getting to (let alone from) a place. Unlike Europeans, I don’t have the option of land based options such as high speed rail (which I think is preferable to flying) to visit places like Europe.
I don’t agree with a society that sets itself up so that frequent flying is the norm, I think we should be much more mindful about it and treat it like a rare commodity. At the same time, a world without the pleasure, discovery, interaction and social connections that travel brings would be a sad one. I’d rather we pursue energy efficiency, kill boomerang trade and food waste first.
How do we resolve this?
Technically – I hope we find non fossil fuel/hyper low impact means of flying sometime soon.
In the meantime, how do we divvy up a flying allowance? Give everyone equal carbon flying credits and allow them to be traded?
In the same way that some people must expend more energy to stay warm or cool by virtue of their geography, how do we make things equitable for people who live in remote locations, either with a country or from other parts of the world?
Vexed questions! It hurts my head.
Wow, Sharon! Verbose, but I think I see what you’re saying. If I may be so bold, it sounds to me as though you are truly conflicted on the matter. There are two arguments here, as I see it.
The first argument: if we value human life and believe all life is equal, as well as believe we are each equal holders of the atmosphere and earth’s climate, then there is not enough room for an ethical distribution of the remaining “carbon allowance” for anyone to use fossil fuel driven flight. In my mind this is a very sound argument of ethics, stating that those of us that emit more than 1-2 tons/year are essentially removing other peoples right to emit carbon – we are furthering their (and our) destruction by the hands of climate change. With this argument, flight becomes an ethically black area that should be avoided entirely.
The second argument: emissions from flight are bad, but only amount to a small portion of our overall emissions (something like 5%). Therefore, we should take advantage of the flight as we can, use it sparingly and for good purpose until we can no longer afford to do so.
Personally, I find the second argument to be weaker and could go into that at length, but that is beside the point. I do see the reasoning behind it, whether it is partly rationalization or not. I have flown this year, so I can’t pretend to be the poster boy for the first line of thought, either. However, I am trying to make a more deliberate lifestyle according to these values, so flight is off the table for my future. Needless to say, Sharon, it sounds like you trip was well worth it. And in light of all the issues around air travel, I believe taking a much longer trip (it was over a month, correct?) is a good way to use your air travel well – as opposed to traveling for a week and doing it again later for a short time.
I think after the shift, we will be working less, having more free time, and enjoying our local vacation spots more regularly – as well as the occasional long-haul train/boat trip for a month or two. Plus, with the way climate is changing, Australia might be a lot less desert and a lot more green, right?
Cheers,
Joshua
{ 2 trackbacks }