Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

1% of People Cause Half of Global Aviation Emissions, Study Says 126

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Frequent-flying "super emitters" who represent just 1% of the world's population caused half of aviation's carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study. From a report: Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated. The analysis draws together data to give the clearest global picture of the impact of frequent fliers. Only 11% of the world's population took a flight in 2018 and 4% flew abroad. US air passengers have by far the biggest carbon footprint among rich countries. Its aviation emissions are bigger than the next 10 countries combined, including the UK, Japan, Germany and Australia, the study reports. The researchers said the study showed that an elite group enjoying frequent flights had a big impact on the climate crisis that affected everyone. They said the 50% drop in passenger numbers in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic should be an opportunity to make the aviation industry fairer and more sustainable. This could be done by putting green conditions on the huge bailouts governments were giving the industry, as had happened in France.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1% of People Cause Half of Global Aviation Emissions, Study Says More

1% of People Cause Half of Global Aviation Emissions, Study Says

Comments Filter:

  • I'm not one of them (Score:5, Funny)

    by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:16PM (#60739928) Homepage
    Got sick of air travel after the security bullsh1t started kicking in. Nudie scanners, liquids prohibitions and you had Ryanair changing their terms and conditions every few months to catch out infrequent flyers.

    One day I decided to fly anyway, packed a few pheasants I shot into my suitcase and tried to check them in. But I was called back, suit case opened and they told me I couldn't check them in. They had no issue with me taking them with me but they were carrion

  • Put a heavy eco-tax on frequent flyer miles. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:17PM (#60739930) Homepage
    Miles are already tracked, just use that.

    I never thought airlines should have been bailed out. Let them go.

    • The only solution that will work, too bad it'll never happen.

      Also a lot of conservatives like to mislead first-worlders into thinking they're all the global 1%, when they're probably not - there are only around 80 million global 1%ers. If they were all Americans, that would be around the wealthiest quarter of the population, but they're not - these people are what in the US might be called 10%ers, people making well into the 6-digits per year.

    • The whole airline industry employ a heluvia lot of people. How do you expect those to be reemployed ? And then there is the side industry which depends on it and would crash and burn if airline industry crash. Yes with pandemic a lot of people are suffering, but then you want to add to the heap ? But even that aside , you scoff at the pollution, but what of the service the airline are doing ? So only local holidays now ? And what about the urgent cargo they transport ? Yes there are some cargo specialist,

      • Re:Then expect extreme unemployment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @04:08PM (#60740142)
        The externalities are real. All of the questions you ask are good questions, but your implication seems to be that since you don't think there's good answers we should pretend it's not a problem. Simply sticking our fingers in our ears doesn't make the problem go away, it just means that when we do start to deal with it, we'll have even less time to figure out answers to those questions.
        • my point was that stopping subsidy&not saving airline would brutally put people out of job, but doing over a long time would be fine. Did I say there is no solution ? I did not. There are many solution like pushing for train, finding alternative like electrical plane etc.... But the "stop subsidy and let airline die a ugly death" is not an alternative unless one is a randyan "let them eat dog food - atlas shrugged"-type of person : non empathic non social type, divorced from economic realities.
          • reminder to troll : overrated is for post which have been MODDED up and you feel it was overly modded up too much. A post at 1 should not be modded down with overrated, but with offtopic, and similar negative mods. You there modding down post at 1 with overrated are idiot. Now you can mod that one troll. See how that works out ? But i guess those idiot abusing the mod system to not look at post they dislike, won't care about proper moderation anyway.

    • Re:Put a heavy eco-tax on frequent flyer miles. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @05:49PM (#60740530)

      The EU attempted to include the aviation industry in its "cap and trade" carbon taxation system (officially, the "Emissions Trading Scheme") in 2012 - only for the US to enact the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act which prevented US airlines from participating, creating a legal standoff which would have prevented US carriers from flying into the EU. China threatened to cancel $60Billion in Airbus orders as well.

      The EU exempted the aviation industry from the scheme, opting to pursue a global agreement, which has been stuck in political hell ever since...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Cap and trade was never going to be a solution. The negotiable cap allows them to play political favoritism and exempt a huge amount of emissions. A flat tax is much harder to sneak away from.

    • Re:Put a heavy eco-tax on frequent flyer miles. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @06:58PM (#60740800)

      Miles are already tracked, just use that. I never thought airlines should have been bailed out. Let them go.

      I am not sure where this article gets its data but I would be willing to bet that private aviation / jets undoubtedly spews out more CO2 per passenger than any airline that awards frequent flyer miles. Why wouldn't you just tax the avgas and charge a premium when your CO2 per passenger exceeds some threshold?

      • Indeed, and tax the CO2 of the whole plane to the people flying in it. Right now, on commercial flights you pay some amount of tax for the ticket, but it doesn't matter if there's one person on the flight or a 100. Such a plan makes commercial flight pricing even more complex because now the airline has to guess how full a flight is going to be in order to work out how much tax to charge (and would presumably be on the hook for any shortfall). Not an easy problem to solve, actually (which is probably why it

  • I think we should stop being judgmental here. We can't expect out rich climate warriors to use remote conferencing or to fly coach when they are trying to save the world for us. If anything we should be thanking them for their service.

  • Not really surprsiing (Score:3)

    by redmid17 ( 1217076 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:21PM (#60739958)
    US is one of the only countries that has large population centers thousands of miles away from each other (others being Russia, Canada, China, Australia, prolly some others) and a lack of appropriate population density and rail transit to offset the need for flights to travel.

    Individual contributions to CO2 are miniscule compared to corporate emissions, which admittedly these are probably part of. Def on board with making things more sustainable but these is going to be a relative drop in the bucket.

    • US is one of the only countries that has large population centers thousands of miles away from each other (others being Russia, Canada, China, Australia, prolly some others) and a lack of appropriate population density and rail transit to offset the need for flights to travel.

      That's not really all that relevant. Even in Europe where the rail infrastructure is immaculate, if you're going more than about 400km it's cheaper and faster to fly even taking into account waiting time at the airport. That said I forgo the "faster" option if someone else pays the fair. i.e. I happily catch the Eurostar to London for work, but when I travel privately, I fly.

    • Europe.

      So, pretty much every large country (or group of countries with open borders) then?

      Probably not Nuie or Rarotonga, but hey.

  • Airlines? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:22PM (#60739960)

    It's not airlines causing the most CO2 issues, since each plane holds a lot of people.

    Look to private jet travel if you want to see where top Co2 emitters really come from.

    • Each private jet creates many more emissions per passenger. But there are very few private jets, so they don't contribute much in absolute terms.

  • Yes, let's tax it (Score:3)

    by ugen ( 93902 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:22PM (#60739962)

    Let's tax the flying, so that only the super-rich can afford it. Then you can have a headling line "0.1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions".
    Or any arbitrarily low number.

    BTW, how many %% of population cause the *other* half of those emissions?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Baby Duck ( 176251 )

      No, let's heavily tax corporations that insist you must fly a salesman to meet face-to-face for a business deal that could way more easily have been done over the phone or with videoconferencing. Financially disincentivize those rationalizations and make them think twice.

      If you tax individuals flying for personal reasons, the tax shouldn't start until they've reached 24 hours of cumulative flight time in the same tax year. That way, *only* the super-rich get taxed, as only they can afford to fly so much.

      • My wife is from Australia. It takes more than 24 hours for her to get home. London to Melbourne is often cheaper than London to Toronto, so I think your measure of flying time equating to wealth is invalid. Furthermore youâ(TM)d be penalising her for wanting to see her family or birth country.

        • So it's okay to keep poisoning the world because "me family"? I get it. The world is doomed because people individually won't take ownership of the problem. No single rain drop thinks it caused the flood.

      • The salesman isn't the issue. It's the G5s with the super-wealthy that is.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      The other half of emissions are caused by a long tail of occasional travelers. The other 99% might fly once every year, or once every five years, or once in their lifetime. Obviously only a fraction of the latter groups show up in a given year.

      Looking at the largest contributors to an effect is still useful; it's basic statistics, with a common distribution noted by Vilfredo Pareto. The Pareto distribution is parameterized, so while the 80-20 version is common and might even apply to airline emissions vs

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Guybrush_T ( 980074 )

      Well, the super-rich, or the ones whose job is to travel (so it's paid by the company). And as such, it is kind of a misrepresentation. Some jobs are to represent the company all over the world, and this means one person is taking the plane 4 times a week. I thank them for doing that job since it's not fun and you better not have a family. But in some sense when they travel, they represent me or others in the company. So it's not really one person, it's a fraction of a company, representing the whole compan

      • Or maybe your business shouldn't rely on poisoning the earth? Economy over the planet until it's to late. We all know how this will end.

        • Agreed. The COVID pandemic has kind of shown to companies that meetings can happen over web conferencing and hopefully they will realize the huge amount of money they put into plane tickets was not that useful.

          I was only questioning the stupidity of the article saying 1% of people cause half the emissions, and making it sound like it was a problem from the super-rich.

    • Like most things, it's likely a Pareto distribution. But the issue isn't consumer flights. It's private jets. So yes, let's tax the use of private jets people take when they could be sharing space on a commercial airliner.

  • Compared to cars, industrial production, construction etc. ?

    • Aircraft emissions are a tiny fraction compared with road emissions. Itâ(TM)s easy to attack and demonise a small group people though if you donâ(TM)t have to make any changes.

      Of course the biggest contribution one can make to climate change is having a child. Human population growth is by far the worst thing for this planet. Taxing and restricting that is a bit of a touchy subject though.

    • I understood that planes were not emitting that much (on the global scale).

      But that the real problem is where they do their emitting. Relatively high in the sky, where it has much more of an impact than emitting the same quantities on sea/ground level.

  • True for most expensive activities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:25PM (#60739976)

    This article heading could read "1% of People Cause Most of Global Emissions for { insert expensive activity here }". Is it any surprise that flying, which may seem common in developed countries but isn't that common globally, is mostly done by wealthy individuals? It looks like global emissions are at about 50 billion tonnes annually, so airline emissions are 2% of the global total.

    So the flying habits of 1% of the world's population are adding 1% to global Co2 equivalent emissions. I guess that doesn't have the same ring to it.

  • A bunch of class warfare politics. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mpoulton ( 689851 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:29PM (#60739986)

    These researchers certainly appear to be twisting the definition of a "subsidy" beyond rationality in order to push an anti-capitalist class-warfare perspective:

    "Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated."

    "The researchers estimated the cost of the climate damage caused by aviation’s emissions at $100bn in 2018. The absence of payments to cover this damage 'represents a major subsidy to the most affluent', the researchers said."

    "The benefits of aviation are more inequitably shared across the world than probably any other major emission source."

    "The rich have had far too much freedom to design the planet according to their wishes."

    This doesn't pass my sniff test for objective academic analysis, but apparently this is what gets published in the 4th-ranked environmental sciences journal these days.

    • You may not like the politics of it, but it's not wrong. Your sniff test is just easily triggered by facts that are suboptimal for our wealthy overlords.

      • Your wealthy overlords are not flying on airline flights that wold be taxed.

        They are flying around in private airliners,
        https://www.businessinsider.com.au/private-planes-jets-tech-billionaires-2019-3?r=US&IR=T

        They will however support claims like this, because they dont want YOU flying around with the freedom they have.

        • Miles are miles, they have passports that get stamped and tail numbers that get tracked, taxing them won't be rocket science.

    • Re:A bunch of class warfare politics. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:50PM (#60740072)

      These researchers certainly appear to be twisting the definition of a "subsidy" beyond rationality:

      If you take into consideration that it cost money to remove pollution from the air, you suddenly find that these absolutely are subsidies. They are incurring environmental debt that others will have to pay.

      in order to push an anti-capitalist class-warfare perspective:

      Quite the opposite. If everyone where charged money for all the pollution they create, the rich are being the most subsidized by the rest of the planet. This is literally the largest case of a tragedy of the commons.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        These researchers certainly appear to be twisting the definition of a "subsidy" beyond rationality:

        If you take into consideration that it cost money to remove pollution from the air, you suddenly find that these absolutely are subsidies. They are incurring environmental debt that others will have to pay.

        No economist would consider that a subsidy. Nor would any reputable dictionary. It's an externality. While it's true that an externality should be taxed, the lack of taxation is not itself a subsidy.

    • How do the researchers calculate this "Climate damage?"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      People people private jets cause a lot of pollution. They could get taxed more for causing more pollution. You seem pretty dim.

    • Notice how they used a phoney number but didn't include the real numbers on Oil War costs.

      That's a tell that their agenda is different than advertised..

    • The process of assigning a monetary value to climate change is guesswork at best, and yet they call these made-up numbers a "subsidy"? Someone give these guys a dictionary, because they do not have dominion over what certain words mean, so they have to learn to use the correct words.
    • "Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated." is a false number as the current measurements for total global C02 in 2019 was ~38GT of C02 - so I guess if you start out with a false number you can make the statement seem more important.

  • Ya know, can we have estimates of externalities for overbearing governments slowing down technological progress through regulatory burden, kickbacks, and general corruption? Should be in the tens of trillions by now as we don't have autodocs and flying cars and Rosie brand housecleaning robots.

  • Another way of looking at it.. (Score:3)

    by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:42PM (#60740042)

    Study says 100% of the people who fly cause 100% of global aviation emissions.

    • Is this the same logic that the USA uses to justify blaming everything on China while simultaneously having generated the largest amount of emissions per capita in history?

  • Totally missing one group! (Score:3)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:44PM (#60740048)

    Has nobody even bothered to look at how how many flights airline pilots take flights?! Talk about frequent fliers! ;)

  • US vs. EU rather than individual nations (Score:3)

    by Koreantoast ( 527520 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:46PM (#60740054)
    I think if you want a more accurate comparison, you really need to compare the United States against the European Union plus UK rather than individual nations. One big reason Americans fly so much is that the distances traveled are more representative of intra-European flights rather than the local national flights. That would be a better point to start talking about carbon emissions and who is the "worst" offender. So for example, talking about rail networks in France for example is like comparing distances within the US northeastern corridor (region from roughly DC to Boston including NYC) which a lot of Americans tend to drive, take the bus or train. The route from Paris to Brussels is about the same distance as DC to NYC which not a lot of people fly if they can help it. Whereas travel across America, say NYC to LA, is the equivalent of flying from Lisbon to Moscow.

  • If we can just do something about that other 99%, we'll have the problem half-licked!

  • The CDC points out [cdc.gov] that airline travel involves an increased level to radiation exposure.

    This happens because the altitude of modern airliners lifts the aircraft above layers of atmosphere that shield the ground from high-energy cosmic radiation. (As cosmic rays travel down through the atmosphere, they collide with air molecules and are neutralised, so the less air they pass through, the greater the radiation risk).

    To be fair, it's worth noting that there are plenty of other sources from which we can
    • Actually, few, if any of the FF ever get the same exposure that flight crew, particularly, the pilots get. My dad had 10K+ hours in the B-47, which he flew mostly around mid 40s' (and regularly over the arctic edge) and with a piece of glass to protect him, followed by another 30+K hours in various commercial aircraft. And those commercial aircraft's, actually also has a bit less protection in the cockpit vs. the cabin. And that does not include the fact that he likely had plenty of exposure to other gamma

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ytene ( 4376651 )
        You're making a fair point... however, I think there are a couple of observations we need to make here:-

        Firstly, there is an almost quantum nature to the manifestation of side-effects from prolonged high-altitude flying. Cosmic rays are literally just discrete particles, travelling at light speed, hitting our atmosphere from space. Sometimes the particle will sail through the atmosphere, bouncing of air and water molecules until it is robbed of energy. Sometimes it will strike an aircraft somewhere harml

  • Perspective and priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @03:53PM (#60740082)
    Global Carbon Emissions Breakdown:
    -Manufacturing & Construction: 24.3%
    -Transport (Road): 12.1%
    -Agriculture: 11.9%
    -Residential: 11% ... ...
    Transport (Aviation): 1.1%

    We should focus most of our effort on reducing emissions in those top four sectors. A 2% reduction in emissions in the combination of those four more than equals all of aviation's emissions. Not saying we shouldn't de-carbonize aviation, but it is around 10th priority.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Global_GHG_Emissions_by_Sector_2016.png

    • Yes, the airline industry is not the largest single source of CO2 emissions. However:

      1. The same is true for most everything, if we break it down enough. SUV:s? Some percent. Poultry industry? Not much, compared to the global total. Emissions from Belgium? Just some percent, no need to change anything in Belgium. This attitude however, will not make the change needed at all. Also, people tend to use it like "hey, look at someone elses emissions". That won't cut it.

      2. The climate impact is larger than one p

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        You're only considering the environmental costs of travel. What about the benefits?

        International travel is necessary for international trade. Without trade, how would you get other nations to sign on to any global carbon emission goals? There'd be nothing to threaten them with if they refuse. Trade allows nations that are currently too poor to care about environmentalism to quickly grow richer. Trade enables efficiencies of scale, reducing the overall amount of pollution necessary to create the same amount

  • So, when will we realize that the solution to our economic, social, and environmental problems is to address the elite, who push policies from which they exempt themselves? Policies that, if they were the ONLY ones following them, would make the biggest difference?

    • What percentage of the wealth do you think the top 1% should own?

      Serious question: What is the correct amount of disparity (gini index, whatever)? In a perfect communist state (which has never existed), the top 1% own 1% of the wealth. In practice that doesn't work very well. So what is the "right" number and what do you base that on?

    • 50% of global aviation emissions, not of all emissions. Aviation accounts for around 4% of global CO2 emissions. [ourworldindata.org] So half of that is closer to 2%, not 50%.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Do you realize that you may be the 1%

      We tend to think of the 1% as the ultra-rich, billionaires with private jets and mansions. When in reality, the world 1% is more like the average Slashdotter, and the US 1% is more like his boss, owning a nice suburban house and a frequent flyer card.

      Just being able to fly already puts you in a high bracket. According to TFA, 11% of the world population flew in 2018, 4% abroad.

      I really think we, as an income class, not "them", are the problem. The ultra-rich certainly ha

  • It's such a bad comparison when you compare US air travel to other countries like UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia. Their emissions are, of course, lower - their destinations aren't as far. Hell, some of the countries are smaller than some U.S. states. Automobile emissions are going to be greater too as the trips are traditionally farther. Apples & Oranges. Also, I didn't see a single statement about who those 1% people really are. They are the ultra-wealthy folks who own jets and charter private fli

    • It's such a bad comparison when you compare US air travel to other countries like UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia.

      Um, Australia is pretty big, it's a whole continent. Not much smaller than the 48 contiguous states. And the Australian state of Western Australia is bigger than Texas.

      • The U.S. is 27% larger than Australia. Out of the aforementioned countries though, it would be the closest to the U.S. However, the air travel patterns are very different because the western side of the continent has one major airport, Perth. Yet, all of the other air travel is heavily concentrated up and down the eastern coast. The U.S. has major airports all over the country but again concentrated up and down both the east and west coasts. Travel habits and distances just aren't the same.

  • How much pollution does a gasoline car produce per passenger in comparison to aviation? A Boeing 777 travels 80 miles per gallon .. that's about 3 times what a typical automobile consumes. In other words, their statistic is bullshit used to paint a false narrative.

    • even more importantly, is the fact that freight is far more than half of the mass, though passengers use a lot of volume.
  • The majority of flying is NOT for ppl, BUT CARGO. Where we should be charging is on ships and aircrafts for cargo. passengers make up a small amount of it.

  • What about the super-travelers on other forms of transit in other nations? What's the impact of the (potentially similar percentage) of Asian or European businesspeople who ride a bullet train a few 100km/day?

    The USA has made air transit a priority over ground transit, and it shows. In terms of safety, we almost went 10 years without a fatality on a major carrier. In terms of affordability, it has become a middle-class choice whereas it used to be for the wealthy.

    What would be the carbon footprint of try

  • That's just the Pareto distribution in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Ignorant comments. (Score:3)

    by BigDukeSix ( 832501 ) on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @07:23PM (#60740882)
    This isn't about rich people on private jets. This is about the fact that 1% of business travelers fly about 50% of the miles. It's a remarkable statistic that is widely known amongst business travelers.

    These are the people who are in the ebony credstick class of frequent flyers; airlines bend over backwards for these travelers. If they have a tight connection, the airline will have a car meet them at the plane and drive them across the tarmac to get to their plane.

    I know one of these people; she isn't at all rich, she just flies a quarter million miles a year for her job. This whole article is a troll.

    • doesn't change these people are wasting resources; 90% of them could stay home.

      • You know this how?

        • Because I know the world of big corporations and their empty suits.

          • So my friend who is in this category runs a very small niche company that supports hardware development for MEMS systems. Half of her business is in Europe. That's why she flies. But don't let reality intrude upon your stream of bullshit.

            • You are the one imagining bullshit, I speak of the 90% empty suit corporate wanks and your 1 person "example" means nothing

  • 315,000 commercial pilots in the world, assume commercial piloting is 99% of aviation emissions.

  • Don't blame me, I drive a sedan.

  • Not the elite, I suspect (Score:3)

    by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Thursday November 19, 2020 @05:45AM (#60742058)

    The 1% that fly the most are couriers (for high-value packages like diplomatic post), salesmen and service engineers. I know several people who fly at least one return every week to provide on-site service to industrial machinery.

  • In 2019 I logged more than 125,000 miles flying commercial over 17 trips and 9 countries. 2020 has of course seen a drastic reduction, though I still managed 35,000 miles before I was grounded.

    I work with teams spread around the world, from Chicago to Leeds, to Johannesburg, Mumbai, Chennai, and more. While video conferencing and phone calls can accomplish 75% of the necessary interactions, there is still a lot to be gained from face-to-face meetings. My job has been significantly more difficult this year t

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close