Why travel & tourism is wrong to embrace net zero as its climate change response

Sens­ible and rig­or­ous envir­on­ment­al­ism in travel & tour­ism is desir­able, accord­ing to Ken Scott. How­ever, the pre­ma­ture pur­suit of net zero when the most prom­ising tech­no­lo­gies aren’t ready is an unne­ces­sary act of self harm for the industry, he argues. 

It’s a “Good Tour­ism” Insight. [You too can write a “GT” Insight.]

I con­sider myself a sens­ible and prac­tic­al envir­on­ment­al­ist. But I want to share with you why I believe net zero is a severely mis­guided policy. I’m going to lay out my argu­ments below. I’m going to chal­lenge the orthodoxy.

Let me get my retali­ation in first. Yes, I depend on the travel industry for a liv­ing. But the truth is, I could prob­ably make more money as a PR pro­fes­sion­al for the travel sec­tor by going along with the net zero agenda i.e. by not rock­ing the boat. But I’m not going to. What I’m see­ing and hear­ing on net zero doesn’t add up. Not by a long chalk.

So here we go.

A costly capitulation to the net zero agenda for travel & tourism

Based on the evid­ence so far, the travel industry seems to have essen­tially capit­u­lated to the net zero agenda. Without think­ing it through and fight­ing its corner, the glob­al travel industry has, in effect, pledged to take on board a whole lot of extra costs and bur­dens and be held account­able to a frankly unwork­able road map. 

The fol­low­ing travel insti­tu­tions have pledged to sup­port net zero by 2050: World Travel & Tour­ism Coun­cil (WTTC), Inter­na­tion­al Air Trans­port Asso­ci­ation (IATA), United Nations World Tour­ism Organ­isa­tion (UNWTO), Air Trans­port Action Group (ATAG), Asso­ci­ation of Asia Pacific Air­lines (AAPA), Cruise Lines Inter­na­tion­al Asso­ci­ation (CLIA), Sus­tain­able Hos­pit­al­ity Alli­ance (SHA), and others.

I believe it’s a massive mis­take for six reasons: 

1. With pro­posed fre­quent fly­er levies, new car­bon emis­sion taxes, com­puls­ory car­bon off­set­ting, more expens­ive bio­fuels, and the intro­duc­tion of man­dated new tech­no­lo­gies such as elec­tric vehicles, tour­ism will become more expens­ive. This will hurt long haul travel espe­cially, which will slow tourism’s role in poverty alleviation. 
2. It com­mits the travel industry to take on a lot of unne­ces­sary costs that will be passed on to trav­el­lers, mak­ing travel increas­ingly the pre­serve of the rich.
3. It exposes the travel industry to great­er levels of gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence through taxes, sub­sidies, levies, restric­tions and inter­ven­tions; in short, a lot of red tape.
4. Flight sham­ing pos­i­tions travel as an indul­gence, rather than a vital com­pon­ent of the glob­al economy. 
5. The travel industry is a rel­at­ively small play­er in the battle to reduce glob­al CO₂ emis­sions. That battle will mostly be won or lost depend­ing on the nation­al energy policy decisions of coal-depend­ent China, India, Brazil, and oth­er less­er-developed coun­tries with large and rel­at­ively poor populations.
6. Net zero tar­gets dimin­ish travel at a time when we need enhanced inter­na­tion­al under­stand­ing and empathy. Travel exper­i­ences are a beau­ti­ful anti­dote to stay-at-home isol­a­tion­ism and digit­al tribalism.

Adopt­ing net zero obliges the travel industry to pay more than its fair share for glob­al warm­ing. For example, avi­ation (includ­ing cargo) is respons­ible for 1.9% of glob­al green­house gas emis­sions, accord­ing to Cli­mate Watch and the World Resources Insti­tute. Ship­ping (includ­ing cargo) is respons­ible for 1.7%.

Total road trans­port of all kinds is 11.9%. There­fore, using fin­ger-in-the-wind guess­work, the per­cent­age of road trans­port per­tain­ing spe­cific­ally to tour­ism is min­is­cule. Let’s say 1% of glob­al total emis­sions; and that is surely on the high side. 

Also see Kev­in Phun­’s “GT” Insight
“Foot­prints: What does it mean for travel & tour­ism to be car­bon neutral?”

How­ever, in 2019 the travel industry con­trib­uted 10.4% of glob­al GDP, accord­ing to the WTTC. And it con­trib­utes sig­ni­fic­antly high­er than that in dozens of coun­tries that need it, from Leso­tho (13.7%) to the Mal­dives (75%).

Over the last 30 years or so, the UN and the World Bank have been ener­get­ic in pro­mot­ing travel as a glob­al engine to fight poverty, espe­cially in less­er developed eco­nom­ies. Think of the trans­form­at­ive role of tour­ism dol­lars in formerly impov­er­ished coun­tries such as Cam­bod­ia, Laos, Myan­mar, Nepal, Tunisia, Cuba, and Fiji.

The con­tin­ued unhindered eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment of those tour­ism eco­nom­ies and dozens like them are now under par­tial threat because West­ern gov­ern­ments and travel organ­isa­tions are fall­ing under the sway of mis­placed net zero orthodoxy. 

Also see Geof­frey Lip­man’s “GT” Part­ner mes­sage
“CODE RED: SUNx’ 7‑point cli­mate action plan for tourism”

This de facto war against fossil fuel-based travel is wrong, and at the very least pre­ma­ture, at a time when green tech­no­logy, sup­port infra­struc­ture, and new fuels, such as sus­tain­able avi­ation fuels, aren’t up to the job of repla­cing fossil fuels — yet. 

Tim­ing is the point.

Green tech transitions take time

When soci­ety transitioned from horsepower to steam engines, from steam engines to the intern­al com­bus­tion engines, from pro­pellers to jet engines, it did so without massive gov­ern­ment-induced restric­tions and bur­dens being inflic­ted on the economy. 

These suc­cess­ful trans­itions were bene­fi­cial to man­kind because each new tech­no­logy was ready. It was ready to make trans­port faster and more effi­cient. It was scal­able and there­fore ulti­mately cheap­er for the public. 

Until now, man­kind has benefited from a series of fit-for-pur­pose tech­no­lo­gic­al revolu­tions. Each one, when it was ready, cre­ated genu­ine value and eco­nom­ic development.

Also see Daniel Rye’s “GT” Insight
“It’s men­tal: Why remote resorts are res­ist­ing renew­able energy”

How­ever, in the early 2020s we are simply NOT there yet with bio­fuel aero­planes, elec­tric vehicle char­ging points, sol­ar cruise ships, hydro­gen home heat­ing, or heat pumps. 

Wind and sol­ar power is by defin­i­tion inter­mit­tent. We simply can­not store elec­tri­city from renew­able sources in bat­ter­ies at scale. The tech­no­logy doesn’t exist. It may be dec­ades away. It may be years away. It may nev­er hap­pen. We simply don’t know. 

Fur­ther­more, you know some­thing is wrong when gov­ern­ments don’t want to reveal the eye-water­ing fisc­al costs and phys­ic­al dis­rup­tion to ordin­ary people like you and me in case it des­troys sup­port for net zero. 

Also see Dav­id Gill­banks’ “GT” Insight
“Don’t pan­ic: Oppor­tun­ity, ingenu­ity will give us cli­mate-friendly travel”

Society’s com­mit­ment, there­fore, shouldn’t be to net zero. The com­mit­ment should be to massive green research and development. 

Arti­fi­cially for­cing us on the road to net zero while the tech­no­logy isn’t ready is not only obscenely expens­ive, it’s an oper­a­tion­al disaster.

Indeed, on Octo­ber 4, 2021 when Wil­lie Walsh, the Dir­ect­or Gen­er­al of IATA announced the air­line industry’s com­mit­ment to net zero by 2050, he did so with a des­per­ate plea for gov­ern­ments to intervene. 

“Gov­ern­ments must be act­ive part­ners in achiev­ing net zero by 2050,” he said. “The costs and invest­ment risks are too high otherwise.” 

Walsh even hoped for “new propul­sion sys­tems, wheth­er that’s hydro­gen powered air­craft, or some oth­er sys­tem that we haven’t even dreamed of yet”.

Hope is a des­per­ate strategy. We have to live in the real world.

Fur­ther­more, what if a new tech­no­logy comes along that makes the exist­ing pro­cess of try­ing to impose avi­ation bio­fuels, elec­tric vehicles, and home heat pumps into our lives wholly redundant? 

Also see Neville Har­greaves’ “GT” Insight
“With sus­tain­able fuel, is a new era of green air travel pos­sible by 2025?”

All that gov­ern­ment-man­dated, tax­pay­er-fun­ded expendit­ure will have been wasted. This is money that you and I as tax­pay­ers have to stump up. It is money that should be inves­ted in sec­tors that deliv­er a much high­er soci­et­al ROI in the short to medi­um-term: health, edu­ca­tion, infra­struc­ture and, yes, green research and development.

Now, good-faith pro­ponents of net zero will counter: There will be no travel industry in 30 years. We’ll all be on fire/submerged/frozen/or cast out on an apo­ca­lyptic land­scape like Den­zel Wash­ing­ton in The Book of Eli.

Not so.

Over the last 60 years, pre­dic­tions of cli­mate cata­strophe have all been wrong. 

Nev­er­the­less, warm­ing is hap­pen­ing. And it is pos­sible, even likely, that man is speed­ing the pro­cess through CO₂ emissions. 

Also see Nico Nich­olas’ “GT” Insight
“What do you do when car­bon off­set­ting is off-putting?”

How­ever, the story of the human race is one of pro­found ingenu­ity and adapt­a­tion. The Indus­tri­al Revolu­tion, which Bor­is John­son in effect apo­lo­gised for dur­ing COP26, has powered human flour­ish­ing and delivered mag­ni­fi­cent out­comes in terms of life expect­ancy, infant mor­tal­ity, lit­er­acy, crop yields, amount of leis­ure time, and more.

That revolu­tion is still being played out in devel­op­ing eco­nom­ies. We shouldn’t hinder it.

A more sensible clean energy road map for travel & tourism

The end game is not ‘Hur­rah! Fossil fuels forever!’ 

No, a more sens­ible and viable clean energy road map for soci­ety and there­fore the travel industry would surely be: 

1. Con­tin­ue using fossil fuels in the short to medi­um term to drive the glob­al eco­nomy, espe­cially in less­er developed countries.
2. At the same time invest in clean energy R&D, a sec­tor in which gov­ern­ments can and should have a major role.
3. Move from coal to gas as much as pos­sible. (CO₂ emis­sions from gas are much, much less than from coal. In the trans­ition away from coal, frack­ing is our friend.) 
4. Embrace zero-emis­sion nuc­le­ar energy for nation­al power grids and/or loc­al city needs (There has only been one — one! — dir­ect fatal­ity from nuc­le­ar power (Fukushi­ma) since the Chernobyl dis­aster, which was a func­tion of Soviet mis­man­age­ment allied to poor design and safety stand­ards. Fur­ther­more, we have been stor­ing nuc­le­ar waste suc­cess­fully and eas­ily for over 60 years without incident.)
5. (Here’s the leap-in-the-dark bit if R&D goes well) In a few dec­ades’ time start onboard­ing new green tech­no­lo­gies at scale to start repla­cing fossil fuels in avi­ation, road trans­port, man­u­fac­tur­ing, home heat­ing and cool­ing, and oth­er sectors.

The good news is that the world’s pop­u­la­tion is pre­dicted to peak at around 11 bil­lion by year 2100 and then start fall­ing (as increased prosper­ity leads to low birth rates). 

How­ever, in the early 2020s it is mani­festly pre­ma­ture to aban­don the fossil fuels which today sup­ply 84% of our glob­al energy needs. Such a move would lim­it and deny fast-tracked eco­nom­ic growth to bil­lions of people try­ing to escape poverty.

Also see Tan­ner C Knor­r’s “GT” Insight
“Cli­mate change, COVID-19, and the need for glob­al sys­tem­ic change”

Devel­op­ing eco­nom­ies need cheap and reli­able energy, not mor­al­ising from the West. 

So, wheth­er we live in a developed or devel­op­ing eco­nomy, we should all insist that the travel industry doesn’t chuck in the tow­el on fossil fuels. It would be a huge and unne­ces­sary act of self harm for everyone.

In the mean­time, gov­ern­ments and green act­iv­ists — who I hope are first and fore­most human­ists — should instead com­mit to sup­port­ing the inter­na­tion­al travel industry, not crimp­ing it. Remem­ber, tour­ism turbo charges poor economies. 

Also see Jim Butcher­’s “GT” Insight
“Why tour­ism degrowth just won’t do after COVID-19″

And, in an age of increas­ing men­tal health chal­lenges, a good hol­i­day can be a per­fect anti­dote to a range of ills. Memor­ies of my one-week fam­ily hol­i­day in sum­mer 2019 to Greece, and the pro­spect of doing it again one day, helped sus­tain me through the long dark days of COVID restric­tions and the defer­ment of nor­mal life. 

Travel must not be turned into a guilty elit­ist indul­gence avail­able only to the rich. That is the sad and very expens­ive path that WTTC, IATA, UNWTO and oth­ers have unwit­tingly put us on.

Let’s wake up and travel a bet­ter road.

What do you think? Share a short anec­dote or com­ment below. Or write a deep­er “GT” Insight. The “Good Tour­ism” Blog wel­comes diversity of opin­ion and per­spect­ive about travel & tour­ism because travel & tour­ism is everyone’s business.

Fea­tured image (top of post): Will air travel become an elit­ist activ­ity only under­taken by the very wealthy? Pic: VOO QQQ (CC0) via Unsplash.

About the author

Ken Scott lived in Thai­l­and for 28 years work­ing as a travel journ­al­ist before join­ing the Pacific Asia Travel Asso­ci­ation HQ in Bangkok and even­tu­ally lead­ing its com­mu­nic­a­tions depart­ment. In 2006, he left PATA to set up Scot­tAs­ia Com­mu­nic­a­tions, a travel industry com­mu­nic­a­tions firm. Now based in the UK, with an office in Bangkok, Ken con­tin­ues to serve a vari­ety of travel industry cli­ents, most with an Asia Pacific con­nec­tion. He is also a co-founder of “GT” Part­ner World­wide Travel Alli­ance. Pas­sion­ate about pro­mot­ing sens­ible envir­on­ment­al­ism rather than cli­mate alarmism, Ken launched People’s Energy Blog in 2021.