Sept 18, 2021
Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash
A recent Pew survey of North American, European, and Asia-Pacific countries finds that 72% of respondents are very/somewhat concerned that climate change will harm them personally. The wording is crucial: the issue is not about harm to others; it is about harm to oneself and family. The concern about personal safety coheres with other reports about rising levels of climate anxiety.
Moreover, 80% of respondents are willing to adopt low-emission lifestyles. We recognize that many climate activists do not want to talk about lifestyle changes. Instead, they want to focus on systemic change through government policy. Yet, a very large number of people embrace the idea of low-emission lifestyles. Skeptics might wonder whether this will translate to real changes which could be both costly and inconvenient. Or, do the Pew Poll numbers reflect cheap talk, probably rooted in a social desirability bias?
How might we test the claim on lifestyle changes? Air travel is an excellent candidate for three reasons. First, it accounts for a substantial level of carbon emissions. Second, it is an elite activity and will not impose costs on the vast majority of population. Third, COVID has demonstrated that the world can carry on with minimal air travel.
Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions. This is a big deal because it would make the aviation sector the world’s 7th largest carbon emitter if it were a country. Airlines account for roughly about 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. Sweden, Greta Thunberg’s home country, contributes 40 million tons. California, the leader in US climate policy, accounts for about 250 million tons. Thus, aviation accounts for 25 times Sweden’s emissions and four times California’s emissions.
Who generates the aviation related emissions? The top 1% of the world’s population is responsible for 50% of aviation emissions. Flying is an elite activity which also means that a clampdown on aviation will probably not hurt the masses.
Broadly, there are three approaches to reducing aviation emissions: technological fixes, carbon offsets, and reducing air travel. Here is a quick assessment of their pros and cons.
Technological fixes preserve the status quo life and work styles. They take two broad forms: airplane efficiency and low emission fuels. Enhancing efficiency is not controversial: it is about getting more flying miles from a gallon of fuel. Seems like a no-brainer. Of course, this assumes that flying volume does not change. But if people begin to fly more because planes are more efficient—what Richard York calls “moral disinhibition”—the efficiency gains would be nullified by increased flying.
What about sustainable or biofuels, the favored strategy for the Biden administration and the airline industry. It is not clear how much emissions they reduce for every mile of flying in comparison to fossil fuels. Soybean and corn (along with biological waste) are supposed to be feeder stocks for sustainable fuels. Yet, as debates on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act in the U.S. Congress indicate, there is no agreement on their sustainability. If Amazonian forests are cut down to plant soybeans or corn is produced using petroleum intensive methods, their emission reduction is not clear.
Sustainable fuels sometimes have negative non-climate consequences. When Southeast Asian forests are cleared to plant palm trees which produce a biofuel, biodiversity is lost. Using corn for fuel probably increases food prices that hurts the poor. The bottom line is that the life cycle emission impact of sustainable fuels needs to be carefully documented and not assumed.
Unlike technological fixes, carbon offsets do not directly reduce aviation emissions. Instead, they allow travelers to purchase emission reductions elsewhere from planting trees, financing solar/wind power, or capturing carbon/methane.
In theory, carbon offsets seem sensible because it does not matter whether emissions are reduced in country A or country B. With offsets, I can continue to fly and remain carbon neutral. Moreover, carbon offsets are a sort of Pigouvian carbon self-tax. By activating the price mechanism, they might persuade individuals to travel less.
Yet, carbon offsets have problems. From an equity perspective, they are like purchasing indulgences, whereby individuals pay for forgiveness but continue with undesirable activities.
Moreover, their impact on emissions is also not clear. Think of their tax effect. Taxes change behavior only if they inflict sufficient pain. Carbon offsets typically do not. A round economy trip between San Francisco and New York generates 1.16 tons of emissions. It can be offset for as low as $11.51. This is less than the fee many airlines charge to reserve a preferred seat on a flight.
But there is a more serious problem about their emission reduction claim. Offset purchaser might find it difficult to verify emission reductions or sequestration. Suppose the offset vendor plants trees to sequester 1.16 tons of carbon over the life of these trees. How would the passenger know that these trees have survived their full life of 40-60 years? What if there is a forest fire or the tree dies due to a pest attack? And, what if offset sellers are cutting down mature trees to plant new ones to secure offset credits?
Technological fixes and carbon offsets skirt an obvious question: should we simply reduce air travel? One could telecommute and take holidays in a location closer to home. After all, the world did something quite similar during COVID. Yes, some economies were hurt such as the ones invested in airports, recreational tourism, and conference tourism. A rapid decline in air-travel will create a “stranded asset” problem and “just transition” policies would be required to support these economies.
If the Pew Poll is to be believed, individuals should be motivated to reduce air travel. It is fair to assume that the travelers have information on climate impact of flying. They have probably heard of Greta Thunberg, who does not fly, or about social movements such as flight shame. Perhaps, the outspoken environmentalists who use private jets (for example, see here and here) should display leadership and publicly renounce flying, or at least in private jets.
As economies recover from COVID, we should monitor the bounce back in flying. Would flying return to the pre-COVID level, stabilize below it, or even exceed it? This will help us assess if the Pew Poll accurately captures respondents’ “real” willingness to change their carbon-intensive lifestyles, or it merely reflects virtue signaling.
www.forbes.com
Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash
A recent Pew survey of North American, European, and Asia-Pacific countries finds that 72% of respondents are very/somewhat concerned that climate change will harm them personally. The wording is crucial: the issue is not about harm to others; it is about harm to oneself and family. The concern about personal safety coheres with other reports about rising levels of climate anxiety.
Moreover, 80% of respondents are willing to adopt low-emission lifestyles. We recognize that many climate activists do not want to talk about lifestyle changes. Instead, they want to focus on systemic change through government policy. Yet, a very large number of people embrace the idea of low-emission lifestyles. Skeptics might wonder whether this will translate to real changes which could be both costly and inconvenient. Or, do the Pew Poll numbers reflect cheap talk, probably rooted in a social desirability bias?
How might we test the claim on lifestyle changes? Air travel is an excellent candidate for three reasons. First, it accounts for a substantial level of carbon emissions. Second, it is an elite activity and will not impose costs on the vast majority of population. Third, COVID has demonstrated that the world can carry on with minimal air travel.
Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions. This is a big deal because it would make the aviation sector the world’s 7th largest carbon emitter if it were a country. Airlines account for roughly about 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. Sweden, Greta Thunberg’s home country, contributes 40 million tons. California, the leader in US climate policy, accounts for about 250 million tons. Thus, aviation accounts for 25 times Sweden’s emissions and four times California’s emissions.
Who generates the aviation related emissions? The top 1% of the world’s population is responsible for 50% of aviation emissions. Flying is an elite activity which also means that a clampdown on aviation will probably not hurt the masses.
Broadly, there are three approaches to reducing aviation emissions: technological fixes, carbon offsets, and reducing air travel. Here is a quick assessment of their pros and cons.
Technological fixes preserve the status quo life and work styles. They take two broad forms: airplane efficiency and low emission fuels. Enhancing efficiency is not controversial: it is about getting more flying miles from a gallon of fuel. Seems like a no-brainer. Of course, this assumes that flying volume does not change. But if people begin to fly more because planes are more efficient—what Richard York calls “moral disinhibition”—the efficiency gains would be nullified by increased flying.
What about sustainable or biofuels, the favored strategy for the Biden administration and the airline industry. It is not clear how much emissions they reduce for every mile of flying in comparison to fossil fuels. Soybean and corn (along with biological waste) are supposed to be feeder stocks for sustainable fuels. Yet, as debates on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act in the U.S. Congress indicate, there is no agreement on their sustainability. If Amazonian forests are cut down to plant soybeans or corn is produced using petroleum intensive methods, their emission reduction is not clear.
Sustainable fuels sometimes have negative non-climate consequences. When Southeast Asian forests are cleared to plant palm trees which produce a biofuel, biodiversity is lost. Using corn for fuel probably increases food prices that hurts the poor. The bottom line is that the life cycle emission impact of sustainable fuels needs to be carefully documented and not assumed.
Unlike technological fixes, carbon offsets do not directly reduce aviation emissions. Instead, they allow travelers to purchase emission reductions elsewhere from planting trees, financing solar/wind power, or capturing carbon/methane.
In theory, carbon offsets seem sensible because it does not matter whether emissions are reduced in country A or country B. With offsets, I can continue to fly and remain carbon neutral. Moreover, carbon offsets are a sort of Pigouvian carbon self-tax. By activating the price mechanism, they might persuade individuals to travel less.
Yet, carbon offsets have problems. From an equity perspective, they are like purchasing indulgences, whereby individuals pay for forgiveness but continue with undesirable activities.
Moreover, their impact on emissions is also not clear. Think of their tax effect. Taxes change behavior only if they inflict sufficient pain. Carbon offsets typically do not. A round economy trip between San Francisco and New York generates 1.16 tons of emissions. It can be offset for as low as $11.51. This is less than the fee many airlines charge to reserve a preferred seat on a flight.
But there is a more serious problem about their emission reduction claim. Offset purchaser might find it difficult to verify emission reductions or sequestration. Suppose the offset vendor plants trees to sequester 1.16 tons of carbon over the life of these trees. How would the passenger know that these trees have survived their full life of 40-60 years? What if there is a forest fire or the tree dies due to a pest attack? And, what if offset sellers are cutting down mature trees to plant new ones to secure offset credits?
Technological fixes and carbon offsets skirt an obvious question: should we simply reduce air travel? One could telecommute and take holidays in a location closer to home. After all, the world did something quite similar during COVID. Yes, some economies were hurt such as the ones invested in airports, recreational tourism, and conference tourism. A rapid decline in air-travel will create a “stranded asset” problem and “just transition” policies would be required to support these economies.
If the Pew Poll is to be believed, individuals should be motivated to reduce air travel. It is fair to assume that the travelers have information on climate impact of flying. They have probably heard of Greta Thunberg, who does not fly, or about social movements such as flight shame. Perhaps, the outspoken environmentalists who use private jets (for example, see here and here) should display leadership and publicly renounce flying, or at least in private jets.
As economies recover from COVID, we should monitor the bounce back in flying. Would flying return to the pre-COVID level, stabilize below it, or even exceed it? This will help us assess if the Pew Poll accurately captures respondents’ “real” willingness to change their carbon-intensive lifestyles, or it merely reflects virtue signaling.
Pew Reports Widespread Support For Low-Emission Lifestyles. Will Individuals Then Cut Down On Air Travel?
Pew survey suggests 80% of respondents support low-emission lifestyles. To assess if this is cheap talk, look at air travel. Flying is an emission intensive elite activity. COVID shows that the world survives with flying less. Will this continue post COVID?
www.forbes.com
