Why has it taken me so long to understand the impact which every link in the travel chain has on the climate and environment?
I recently received an email from a very good friend in the travel industry about his ideas about climate change from more than a decade ago. These included green invoices, green baggage tacks, overview over green footsteps and visible, flexible climate discharge.
At the time we both believed that companies had really started to review their green policies. We were certain that business travel itself would decrease and be replaced with new and old communication options such as virtual and augmented reality, video, Internet of Things, etc. We both realised that a huge number of trips were just for face-to-face internal meetings and very few were about doing some physical work.
Despite some trips having been replaced with technology and new communication, business travel has increased substantially. This is accelerating climate change and worsening pollution. Every step in the process from searching for information to go to the airport or station, being transported to a destination and using local transport and accommodation increases CO2 pollution, plastic, fossil fuels and garbage.
Suppliers all say they try to minimise their impact on the environment, but it is a fact that airlines alone are responsible of 4-5% of the global CO2 pollution. (The accepted measure is about 2% but because most of the exhaust is happening at 30,000 feet that should be multiplied by 2 so we reach 4-5% of global CO2.) Ground transportation, accommodation and entertainment all add to this pollution.
Since the Kyoto agreement, airline pollution has increased 3-5% annually despite the targets set in that protocol. The main reason goes back to the Chicago Convention where 165 countries agreed to avoid taxing fuel, their main polluter. The problem was international travel and what part of the loaded fuel was taxable and how. Countries have taxed domestic traffic but, in most cases, international airlines have avoided any fuel or pollution tax for seven decades. Daily global departures now exceed 200,000.
Most politicians and corporate executives talk about finding ways to curb the increases in pollution, but in most cases this has been all talk and no action. However, the situation may change as the recent upsurge in public protests has added pressure to governments, politicians and companies.
So how to walk the talk?
Companies are starting to appreciate the value to be "green" even if they are not. However, the key lies in using all the developing technology to rethink business models. Companies now use technology to create global teams, projects and business in the virtual world. Politicians, governments, local municipals and institutions all have realised that the public monitor their green actions and policies.
Can we stop travelling? The answer is NO.
Globalisation, science, politics, manufacturing, transportation, culture, education and social interaction will need physical travel and face-to-face meetings and actions. The key is to decrease the pollution footprint made by travel. We need to plan for the long as well as the short term.
Short term
Replace physical conferences with virtual
It is interesting that every UN Climate Action Summit is taking place at a physical destination. With thousands of participants the footprint from just travelling to and from the conference is huge.
Another example is Strasbourg and Brussels both hosting the European Parliament. From a pollution point of view this is utterly ridiculous and hypocritical: the CO2 footprintfrom this monthly move from one city to the other is huge.
But there is an alternative. A large Danish medical company replaced their Commercial Strategy Summit from a physical destination to 100% virtual. It was broadcast from their Global HQ with 350 colleagues in the US, South America, Middle East, Asia and Europe actively engaged in virtual workshops and live sessions.
Replace physical internal meetings with virtual
It is happening, but companies and institutions must accelerate the process. Travel will of course carry on but some simple changes in policy could decrease the number of physical trips.
Make more use of robotic products and artificial intelligence
All companies should review their business model, include green rules and document their progress.
Increase the CO2 payment to finance offsetting projects
Some countries are already taxing flying. The postulated reason is to decrease flying and travelling, but we need to change that perception. Any levy added to transport or products being bought by polluting companies should be channelled into semi-public funds and used to finance science, protecting rainforest (Norway has invested US$230m in Guyana to control foresting in their 45 million-acre rainforest), planting new forests, solar projects and much more.
The keys to success:
- Ensure professionalism by involving existing companies already doing projects. The CO2 funds should be used as part investments. The board should be comprised of politicians, scientists and businesspeople.
- Document and publicise the progress of any project annually in a way which ordinary people understand.
Individual countries can and should start this immediately. At a later stage when knowledge and learning has taken place initiatives could become more international.
Long term
Countries should also be looking at longer term initiatives to cut emissions. For example,
- Finance projects replacing fossil fuel and products with alternatives
- Limit lobbying from companies involved in producing or using fossil fuels
- Increase finance either from taxes or from investments, eg pension funds
- Accept that stopping or influencing the climate changes, rebuilding biodiversity and cleaning up environment will have a cost for every country and its population.
In 20 years' time no one will understand how and why we allowed the uncontrolled growth of the aviation industry while having full knowledge of the industry's harmful effects on the climate. Scientists will explain how strong the aviation (IATA) lobby was and its argument that the health of the world economy depended on air travel. Many suffered severe withdrawal symptoms if they were unable to fly 3-4 times a year. Air travel was perceived as the natural framework for social contact between people, so forbidding a visit to an individual on the other side of the planet was equal to forbidding the right to meet one's neighbour.
To exaggerate the scenario and add a bit of humor, we may even imagine this scenario:
- Travel advertisements are prohibited.
- Taxes are imposed on airfares that far exceed their price.
- Lounge and a luxury status for air transport is prohibited.
- Only standing places without heating are allowed on flights.
- The sale of air transportation is reserved for pharmacies who are required to advise the purchasers on the harmful effects of air travel, offer rehabilitation courses and treatment for withdrawal symptoms such as chewing gum or patches.
All jokes aside, we are heading into disaster if we just do the talk.
So start walking now!