Find a Job
Travel dreams come at a cost, and no-one wants to foot the bill
In 2019 it is estimated that 1.4 billion people travelled globally. Destinations around the world reported visitor numbers at the highest levels following steady growth in the past decade. By the start of 2020, the tourism industry was setting itself up for further growth. Airlines were procuring more routes and larger aircraft to accommodate the increasing passenger numbers.
Cruise ships too were getting larger, featuring more attractions and activities and scheduled to visit more destinations. It became expected that if you wanted to visit a major tourist attraction such as The Louvre or the Empire State Building, you’d need to book in advance, and even then you’d need to queue, sometimes for hours, to redeem your ticket. Travel was defined by crowds, noise and eating out. That was all part of the experience.
Some industry role players raised concerns about overcrowding adversely impacting tourist destinations, but their voices were too frequently drowned out by promises of carbon offsets and celebrating increasing revenues contributing to GDP growth.
When the pandemic brought an abrupt end to booming travel dream in 2020 many were adversely impacted. It’s estimated that more than 60 million jobs were lost1 and more than 50% of revenue never materialised due to travel restrictions. It was a sobering time for the travel industry. As industry role players strategised plans for recovery when travel restrictions lifted, destinations were also given a brief glimpse into what they’d look like without the tourist crowds. While the revenue was sorely missed, the noise levels, pollution, and overflowing waste bins, were not. By April 2020, just weeks into a global lock-down, global daily CO2 emissions had declined by 17% - the biggest decline since World War II.
In 2004 CO2 emissions from air travel2 were 627 million metric tons. By the end of 2019 they’d reached 905 million metric tons. Instead of increasing as predicted to 936 million metric tons in 2020, the pandemic travel shutdown almost halved that to 495 metric tons. But with travel rapidly rebounding its estimated CO2 emissions will once again exceed 2004 levels by the end of 2022. The emission gains made will be quickly swept aside against the “need” to recoup lost revenues. The inconvenient truth that air travel is not good for the planet cannot be overlooked. It may enable travelers to get to far destinations much faster but there must be a better way. One that doesn’t come at such a high environmental cost.
Encouraging people to travel by train is one solution, but this is reliant on having an efficient rail infrastructure. Destinations such as Europe are fortunate in that cities are well linked and travel times aren’t excessive. But this is not the case in South America and Africa, for example, where rail infrastructure is limited or aging and rail operations often unreliable. It also doesn’t solve the fact that air travel is here to stay as the preferred global form of transport. Which means that if we’re ever to lower carbon emissions we need to find alternatives to jet fuel made from fossil fuels.
Sustainable Aviation Fuels and carbon offsets
While the development of sustainable aviation fuels has been in development for some time, they’ve not been widely available or used. Most airlines have opted instead to promote carbon offsets. This is often linked to frequent flyer incentives, but still expects travelers to pay more on the promise that the airline will invest in planting trees somewhere on the planet. The problem is that it shifts the responsibility to travelers and there is little accountability in terms of delivering on the carbon offsets. Some airlines have recently been taken to court over their carbon offsetting programs with claims that it’s nothing more than greenwashing. They may have to alter their PR and marketing, but this does very little to solve the actual issue – which is finding ways to actively reduce carbon emissions.
The international Air Transport Association (IATA) appears to be in support of implementing more sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The fuel is deemed more sustainable as it’s sourced from recycled materials, including green waste. It’s reported that SAF can reduce emissions by up to 80%3 and that more than 450 000 flights have already taken place using SAF. In 2021 100 million litres were produced. This may sound impressive and it’s certainly a step in the right direction. But considering the aviation industry consumed 95 billion litres4 of aviation fuel at the peak of the travel industry in 2019, a 100 million litres is a very tiny step and doesn’t come close to making the impact that’s needed.
The life of more aboard cruise ships
The cruise industry is another culprit when negative environmental impacts are considered. It’s not just that they run on fossil fuels. It’s the amount of waste and pollution that they generate that most people seem oblivious to. It’s estimated that cruise ships emit 10 times more air pollution than all the vehicles in Europe collectively. Not surprising considering a ship can use more than 250 tons of fuel in a day which is made worse by the fact that low grade bunker fuels are used which result in even higher CO2 emissions.
The cruise industry is poorly regulated and seems intent on getting bigger. Offering more activities, more food, and more entertainment without any consideration for environmental costs. Scientists suggest alternative fuel sources such as green hydrogen or even ammonia. Already trials have been successful in powering long range tankers on ammonia. The challenge is getting the cruise industry to even consider changes for the better of the environment and, more importantly, holding them accountable.
Responsible, sustainable travel
There are many travel operators, associations and destinations that viewed the pandemic hiatus as an opportunity to reset and rethink travel in a more sustainable way. Some destinations are opting to follow the model of high value, low volume tourism and this makes sense where there’s risk of major environmental impact.
Botswana, a luxury safari destination in Africa has aligned to this model for decades and the industry and environment have thrived. The Okavango Delta is a sought-after tourist destination and is priced accordingly.
Many adventure travel operators have a strong sustainability focus where they actively seek to reduce environmental impacts and increase social impact by ensuring local communities benefit from visitors. It’s a model that works but relies on individual accountability. It’s also easier to implement for bespoke travel. Applying the same principals to busloads of tourists in major metropolitan areas is an entirely different challenge. And therein lies the challenge. Exclusive retreats, behaving sustainably, versus low-cost package holidays for the rest of us.
But saying the problem is too big or too complex isn’t an answer. We’re already feeling the effects of climate change in the many extreme weather events taking place around the globe. Airlines, cruise ships and the many components of travel all contribute to negative environmental impacts and that has to change. Policies are a good start but need to be supported by decisive action to reduce carbon emissions, pollution and waste. It’s a collective responsibility for all stakeholders. The question is: will they be willing to hold one another to account?
__________________
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104835/coronavirus-travel-tourism-employment-loss/
2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1186820/co2-emissions-commercial-aviation-worldwide/
3. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-aviation-fuels/
4. https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-of-airlines-worldwide/