To obscure the climate field in the way Gunnar Garfors does in the statement “We must fly more” is in no way constructive. I don’t want to debate whether or not the concept of flight shame helps us. I am not in a position to complain about what people do, in terms of climate footprint. People are welcome to choose the climate footprint they want, but they should do so on a better basis of knowledge. There are mainly three points Garfors makes that can be criticized: 1) Traveling, preferably far, provides better understanding between peoples, and provides opportunities for the disarmament of defenses and thus reduced climate footprints. 2) You should also travel far because long flights have “far better” fuel economy due to high fuel consumption during ascent after takeoff. 3) There are other, simpler ways to reduce the climate footprint than reducing travel activities, including the clothing industry, meat production and the internet. All these claims are so misleading that they deserve to be reviewed: 1) This claim is based on the fact that your visit to a foreign nation contributes to so much fraternization and disarmament that your greenhouse gas contribution becomes negative. There is no data on any such connection. In addition, most of the wars between two neighboring countries that rage against each other are dictated by leaders who care little about public opinion, often despite relatively large “fraternization” and traffic across the border between the countries. 2) This effect decreases considerably with increasing distance, and after just over 2000 km it is negligible. So when you have traveled from Oslo and reached the Mediterranean, the fuel economy per kilometer is already quite good. For the very longest journeys, fuel economy actually worsens as the extra fuel needed to make a long-haul flight compared to a short-haul flight also has to be transported further before it is used. The most fuel efficient per trip to get warm sandy beaches is therefore to travel south to the first suitable destination. Incidentally, this is something very similar to Norwegians’ average holiday pattern. 3) The reason why the clothing industry, meat production and the internet have a greater global climate footprint than the airline industry is that significantly more people globally buy clothes, meat and use the internet than there are people who fly. In Norway, private flights account for 750 kg of CO₂ per person per year, and correspond to 16 per cent of private emissions, which is almost equivalent to a return flight to Madrid. If you take a trip to Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean, as suggested by Garfors, you will emit over six times as much, and will probably have a greenhouse gas emission over 80 percent higher than the average Norwegian. The defense sector in Norway emits 1.3 million tonnes of CO₂ per year in direct and indirect emissions, which is significantly less than private flights. Refraining from a flight, especially a very long one, is thus one of the most climate-friendly choices you can make. But by all means, people should be allowed to travel as much as they want, but no one should try to justify their choices with Garfors’s view.
ttn-69
No, we must not fly anymore – Statement
