If we鈥檙e actually concerned about climate change and our contribution to it, should we really be flying all over the world to visit places for fun?
The simple answer is no. ,聽a nonprofit that helps transportation industries around the world become more sustainable, estimates that the 17,000 jets in service today produce nearly a third as much CO2 as the billion cars on the world鈥檚 roads and highways. Put another way: 鈥淔lying emits more carbon dioxide than any other form of mass transportation,鈥 says Daniel Rutherford, program director for ICCT鈥檚 aviation arm.
Of course, if we truly cared about climate change, flying isn鈥檛 the only modern convenience we鈥檇 have to nix (we鈥檙e looking at you, electricity and out-of-season strawberries). The depressing reality is that most of us depend, directly or indirectly, on some form of fossil fuel, and the best we can do is make small adjustments to reduce our footprint. We ride our bike to work. We compost. We use Energy Star appliances.
Air travel isn鈥檛 the most natural fit for this baby-steps approach to sustainability, but it is possible to be a greener flier. You can start, says Rutherford, by taking fewer and longer vacations to reduce your fuel burn.
Airline choice matters, too, as some carriers operate lighter planes with more efficient engines. According to , Alaska Airlines is number one in fuel efficiency, followed by Spirit, Hawaiian, Southwest, and Frontier. The worst offender is American Airlines, with Allegiant Air and Sun Country close behind.
For regional flights, Rutherford says that turboprops鈥攎odern propeller planes, basically鈥攁re more fuel efficient than jets, based on 鈥渦nderlying propulsive efficiency鈥 (we鈥檒l take his word for it). 鈥淕iven the choice of taking a regional jet or a turboprop to Yellowstone National Park鈥檚 airport,鈥 adds Rutherford, 鈥渢ake turboprop.鈥 Alaska Airlines also scores high in this category; its regional affiliate, Horizon, flies only turboprop planes.聽
Beyond airline choice, Rutherford suggests flying coach, where you鈥檒l take up less floor space proportionate to fuel burn than those in first or business class. Also, pack lightly. 鈥淚f you reduce a pound of luggage weight, you鈥檙e reducing maybe a half to three-fourths of a pound of CO2 round-trip,鈥 says Rutherford. 鈥淟eave a 20-pound bag at home and that equates to a gallon and a half to two gallons of fuel reduction.鈥 Like we said, baby steps.
One thing Rutherford does not bring up is carbon offsets鈥攁ttempting to balance or cancel out one鈥檚 carbon emissions by funding environmentally friendly initiatives and organizations. We won鈥檛 open the can of worms that is the debate over carbon credits, but we will mention that most major airlines now offer passengers the option to atone for all that gas guzzling by donating to various nonprofits, such as the Nature Conservancy and Sustainable Travel International.