Flying requires a lot of energy, which means a significant amount of carbon monoxide can be released to the atmosphere. Furthermore, it takes a lot of jet fuel to keep more than 100,000 tons of weight continuously suspended in air (as well as safely bring it down). The result of all of this travel, though, is wasteful energy and the pollution of the atmosphere. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), flying is responsible for about 2% of the world’s carbon emissions. It also predicts passenger numbers to soar as high as 8.2 billion by 2027. Does how often you fly matter? The answer is yes, because less travel reduces jet fuel consumption, which in turn decreases the amount of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere … and, in turn, how much damage is caused.
Why flying can be bad for the environment
Some studies suggest that about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by traveling, which includes air travel. Burning jet fuel emits planet-warming gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the oceans and the earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases prevent heat from escaping from the atmosphere, making temperatures rise similar to that of a greenhouse. Moreover, other aircrafts release oxides of nitrogen at medium altitudes; in turn, these events can increase the total influx of global warming and radiation.
Another important consideration is nitrogen oxides. It’s believed that nitrogen oxides also destroy the ozone layer in the stratosphere. This is not only bad for the environment, but also your skin. And finally, another way that airplanes harm the environment is through noise pollution. This includes the sounds airplanes make during takeoff and landing. For those who live near major airports, the noise can cause health issues including lack of sleep, poor school performance, hypertension, and even heart problems.
Alternatives to plane travel
Cars can be the best option for short distance travel since they’re less carbon-intense when compared to planes. For longer distances, you might consider factors such as the fuel efficiency of your vehicle, the number of people you’re traveling with, and the amount of pit stops made. Taking the train is also a conscientious alternative, but you might need to consider other factors, as well. These include the efficiency of the train, the distance traveled, and how many people are on the train. For longer distances, trains can be one of the best alternatives to airplanes On the other hand, cruise ships, unfortunately, are not considered a good form of transportation. A study discovered that cruise ships produce the same toxic emissions as approximately one million cars.
Fly coach, and fly less
One study has shown that the emissions associated with flying in business class are about three times as much as flying in coach. Seats are bigger in first and business classes, so a smaller number of people are moved by a similar amount of fuel. Another option is to skip the layover, as nonstop flights are better for the environment than direct flights with a stopover. The latter would burn out more fuel and emit more carbon, as it needs a few extra miles to travel. It’s not about the fewer miles you’re traveling, however. It’s because more than 50% of carbon emissions come from takeoff and landing!
You can reduce your environmental footprint by minimizing the number of trips you take. For example, if you plan to travel to Florida, but also plan to visit friends who live near there, consider lumping those trips together. The same notion applies to leisure or business travels. By being mindful of the number of trips that you take, and by planning your journeys to overlap one another, you can do your part to minimize the impact of air travel altogether.
