To fly or not? Fashion, peer pressure and societal impacts

I don't think I've previously written about flight shame or flight shaming or whatever you want to call it and I see it occupies the minds of many people. So here are some random thoughts on the subject.

There are a lot of issues bound up in this. I'm not advocating anything one way or another. What an individual does to reduce their personal carbon footprint is their own decision. It's worth saying that multiple personal decisions can eventually add up to societal change. Also worth noting there is a lot of peer pressure involved, with some people arguing that flying is hypocritical or anti-social or whatever. This pressure can become a force for societal change as happened with smoking tobacco, sun-bathing, littering, recycling and other behaviours and attitudes over the years.

A common attack from people who don't want to stop global warming (deniers and disinformers) is if a person flies, drives a car (whether EV, hybrid or ICE), has a laptop, phone or lives in a house then it shows they don't believe climate change is real. In fact, if you take their argument to the extreme, if you're still alive and kicking you must think climate science is a hoax. Despite the ridiculousness of these sorts of attacks, they can influence behaviour. (Contrary to what deniers claim, most people want to stop global warming so we don't have to give up our lives, travel, communication, housing, food and water.)

Greta Thunberg made a big point about not flying to the USA and was given the opportunity to sail. Now that one of her key destinations has shifted from Chile to Spain, she has been asking for help to get back to Europe without flying. I haven't heard whether she's been successful (anyone?). [Update - Ms Thunberg has just now advised she has been successful!]

There are people (scientists and others) who have declared they've given up flying altogether, or are no longer flying for personal reasons only (while still flying for job-related reasons). The advantage to them is they can reduce their personal carbon footprint. Maybe if enough people join them, the total number of commercial passenger flights might drop and with it emissions. The downside is they might not get to see their families, or not as often, and almost certainly they'd not get to explore the wider world. People who give up flying altogether will (presumably) not allow themselves to consider a job that involves air travel so they will have fewer job and career options.

Another downside is that other people will not be able to meet them, talk with them, except by phone or internet hookup, unless those other people themselves travel. Anyone not on the same land mass will not get a chance to meet a non-flier face to face unless they themselves fly or sail or take a ship. (The last one, AFAIK, would generate more carbon emissions than a flight.)

Decision criteria - to travel or not?

There are a number of considerations when deciding whether to travel or not and, if so, whether to travel by car, air, train, bus, sailing vessel, powered vessel. I've listed some below, some general, some perhaps more relevant to scientists:

• Will the world as a whole be better off or worse off or unchanged?
• Will the knowledge base of the world be improved or diminished or unchanged?
• How will it affect decisions that need to be made, or events? (E.g. if you don't attend an important meeting.)
• How will it affect your job options or career prospects? (E.g. representing your organisation, gathering knowledge, networking, an expected obligation of your job etc.)
• If you don't travel does that mean there'll be one less person flying or will someone take your place? (e.g. Someone else will give the conference presentation you were going to give, attend the meeting etc.)
• Is there a feasible alternative to in-person attendance, such as telephone or video-conferencing?
• Is time, cost or comfort a constraint? Traveling from one end of a continent to another (or crossing continents) by train or bus can take a lot more time, cost more (or less) and be more, or less, comfortable than air travel. What impact will time and cost have on work and family life? If you have a physical disability or ailment of any kind, will that determine your mode of travel or limit your choices?
• If the destination is separated from you by sea, will you consider sailing or is it better to not travel at all?

If the answers to the above questions are that avoiding the trip will have an adverse effect on one or more of the above then a decision to avoid could be regarded as symbolic. It may be the person avoiding travel is doing it as a matter of principle and/or highly influenced by their peer group or by a person or group they admire. I say this because it is unlikely that a decision about flying on a commercial airline will make any difference to overall emissions in the short term (say, up to five years or maybe a decade out). Flights aren't cancelled because one person doesn't fly. If no-one flies or if there's a substantial reduction in passengers, that will reduce the number of planes in the air. 

Shouting out!

For a "no-fly" decision to make an impact on emissions it probably needs to be publicised. A person would need to shout their resolve to the world. A person of some note would have more influence although if enough people get together and let the world know they've given up flying, that would also have an impact. (This would undoubtedly and ironically draw "virtue signalling" catcalls from the same deniers who say unless you give up everything in life it means climate science is a hoax.)

What I'm thinking is, if the no-fly reason is to reduce the world's carbon emissions (rather than just being a personal "feel-good" decision), the aim is presumably to influence a large enough number of people that it does in fact reduce carbon emissions by reducing the overall number of flights.

I've seen it argued that it's frequent flyers who need to stop and that occasional flyers aren't the ones causing harm. I haven't run the numbers. Years ago probably most passengers traveled for business. I don't know if that's still so. Regardless, the difficulty is if only frequent flyers stop traveling, it would have a big (and adverse) impact on business, politics, scientific research and knowledge-sharing. (Most frequent flyers fly for work. Few people would choose the pain of flying weekly or monthly for pleasure despite the rewards of reaching the destination.) It may also add to xenophobia with fewer cultural exchanges (diplomats and tourists) between far flung nations. Would the downside be greater than the upside? I can't answer that.

Rather than people no longer traveling beyond their village or railway line, is it worth investing more in developing fossil-fuel free planes or is the world going to change so much that people will no longer visit other land masses? Maybe there'll be technological advances such as sophisticated holography (or Star Trek teleportation), so air travel isn't needed.

I don't have any answer to all this. Just thought I'd put together a few of the ideas swirling around in my head.

There's one more notion that I hesitate to put down because it might be seen as a criticism. It's that most people who announce they have "given up flying" appear to be those for whom flying is a non-essential. Distance travel is not a job requirement and their families live on the same continent. I do, on the other hand, think any action that will result in the development of fossil-fuel free modes of long distance travel across land and sea is necessary, so good for them for keeping up the pressure.