Plane travel has become about as ubiquitous as driving a car or maybe even walking, but rarely do we factor in the massive toll that that takes on the planet.

Today we're talking with a group of people who have made some bold choices when it comes to the way they travel.

I'm Jasmin Singer and this is Environmental Connections.

First, we have joining me in the studio, Dr. Jane van Dis, co-founder of OBGYNs for Sustainable Future.

She's deeply passionate about the impacts of environmental factors, especially the climate crisis in plastics and how that affects women and maternal fetal health.

Welcome.

Dr. van Dis.

Thank you, Jasmin.

Pleasure to be here.

I know this is a topic you are very passionate about.

I'm looking forward to picking your brain a little bit.

Joining us remotely is Dan Castrigano, an educator and community organizer who's committed to living flight free since 2019 due to his concerns about the climate emergency.

Dan also engages in direct action for climate, racial, and social justice.

Welcome, Dan.

Thank you, Jasmin.

Good to be here.

And finally, also joining us remotely, we have Chuck Collins.

Chuck is the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies.

He is an expert in economic inequality and sustainable development and co-edited the website Inequality.org.

Welcome, Chuck.

Hi, Jasmin.

Hi, Dan and Jane.

And Chuck, I want to start with you.

If you could give us the big picture here.

What is the global impact of aviation emissions?

Well, at the global level, aviation accounts for 2.53% of total emissions, which doesn't sound like a lot, but it's one of the fastest growing areas of emissions.

It's also the least it's the most unequal.

So, you know, globally, you know, 89% of the population has never flown on a plane, which explains that.

But I think the idea that that area is going to keep growing.

Right now, it's about 850 million tons of carbon emissions a year.

So it's going to be a hard sector to decarbonize.

And we're going to talk about that throughout this hour.

But before we get into more detail, I want to get some personal stories to set the stage.

So, Dan, you've made a significant lifestyle change by pledging to stop flying after realizing the carbon impact of air travel.

Can you share a little bit about what led you to this decision and how it shaped your life?

Sure.

Yeah.

Thanks, Jasmine.

Yes, that's kind of my my entry into climate organizing and was first looking at my own emissions.

I read Peter Kalmus’ book called Being the Change and calculated all of my choices.

And then it turned out that in 2019, more than 85% of my pollution was from flying alone and and had seen some other climate folks give up flying.

The fastest way to fly the planet is for the privileged and wealthy few on Earth and decided to stay grounded for the rest of my life.

Hmm.

Interesting way of putting it.

Staying grounded.

Let's talk about that, Jane.

As someone who studies the impacts of environmental factors on health, particularly for women and maternal fetal health, can you talk a little bit about your journey and how you became passionate about this issue?

Sure, Jasmin.

I am an obstetrician gynecologist.

I'm an assistant professor at the University of Rochester.

But I used to live in Altadena, California, which actually is where Peter Kalmus lived as well.

And I was very impressed, as was Dan, by the ways in which Peter not only spoke out about climate he works as a climate scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, but he talked about the ways in which we, each of us, need to examine our own lives and how we may or may not be contributing to the problem.

You know, in California, we had a lot of wildfires, and I had a window on one of delivery rooms and the hillside behind was on fire.

And I was placing a baby on a mother's chest.

And I thought to myself, what's going on here?

You know what?

What kind of future does this baby expect to have if none of us can change the way that we live?

And so I like Dan in 2019 joined while 2019 was my last flight, but I joined flightfree.org with a pledge in 2021.

So I actually feel like it's very freeing to imagine other ways of travel.

I'm very happy I've made this commitment.

And I'm happy to hear it.

I think you might be the perfect one to answer an email that just came in.

So we're just going to jump right into that.

An email came in from Charles.

He says, Kind of a niche audience this hour, wouldn't you say?

I certainly don't need to make changes to my aviation related habits and I'd wager most listeners don't either.

All those people who tell me I have to believe climate change is real while simultaneously owning and using private aircraft might, though double think, I believe is the phrase Orwell used.

So, Jane, what is your response to this email and tell me why you think limiting flying or maybe not flying at all is such a important commitment for you to make?

I thought to myself, well, if these countries recognize and the scientists recognize that we need to decrease emissions in order to have a livable planet, what are some steps that I can take?

So I actually I think the to the caller's question, unless and until we are to make changes ourselves, I don't see how we can then make demands on others because this is a community.

We all share this planet.

It has finite resources.

And if we're all not talking and engaging with this issue, I think we would expect business as usual, which is as the climate that were surveyed by the Guardian a couple of weeks ago said we're looking at a 2.5 centigrade Celsius, rather, rise, and that's not a livable planet for billions of people.

So I guess I think the caller maybe doesn't feel the urgency.

let's, in setting the stage, talk about who is flying.

So, Chuck, am I right in saying that the 12% of Americans who fly six times annually, so taking six flights a year are responsible for two thirds of U.S. passenger flights, is that right?

That's right.

That's exactly right.

12% of the population accounts for two thirds of emissions in 2022, about 44% of the population flew on a plane.

Still in the U.S. there, 10 to 15% of the population has never flown on a plane.

But just to the point of the email and the others, you know, there are at more of an affluent class of people who fly and whose families are spread out over multiple time zones because of a century of low cost energy and settlement patterns.

So what makes it hard when you say I can't fly is my grandkids are in Seattle and I live in the East Coast and you hear that.

And part of that is decades of failing to build an alternative transportation system that and also to keep people geographically in terms of their families not being quite so spread out.

So these are all things we're going to have to face as we try to decarbonize aviation.

Sure.

And I think our emailer who wrote in whose name is Charles, I think that Charles stands for a lot of people, maybe not in terms of like the is climate change for real.

But I would imagine that a lot of people listening to this right now think that not flying is not possible for them.

And so I want to kind of give those people a voice right now.

And Chuck, I would love just your thoughts on when you hear that from people out in the world, like I could never stop flying.

And what about if there are planes flying any way?

What about you know, how big of a difference would it make if I don't fly?

Can you speak to that a little bit?

Well, I do think each of us has to individually look at our lifestyle, our consumption, and figure out how to dial it down.

And actually, I am trying to be like Dan and Jane in terms of drastically reducing air travel.

but my view is let's start with the super emitters and in this case, private jets.

Private jets are again, the fastest growing area of aviation.

It's the greatest emitter.

It emits 20 times the emissions of a commercial passenger, per passenger, per flight.

They're the least defensible on a warming planet.

In fact, Warren Buffett named his private jet the Indefensible.

So my view would be let's start by requiring private jets to pay their real costs, environmental and taxpayer costs.

Let's stop subsidizing this indefensible form of transit, tax them and invest in transportation alternatives.

We are really different than Europe, you know, where there's really good speed rail in lots of the lots of the country.

We have a disinvested alternative transit system.

I just wanted to piggyback on something that Chuck said and he talked about the cost.

And I think our society globally, and especially here in the U.S., we have been done a real disservice by our economists because one of the hallmark of fossil fuels is that the externalities of the cost of fossil fuels are not paid for by the people that sell us the fossil fuels right.

And so to Chuck's point, there was an economist study that came out a couple of weeks ago showing that the true price and Chuck, I'd be curious or Dan, your thoughts on this.

A true price of one ton of carbon was an additional thousand dollars.

And so if you have, let's say, a ton of carbon in a flight between New York and San Francisco, and the cost of that flight is $550, the true cost of that flight, when you add in the costs of the carbon emissions damage to our planet would be $1,550.

And the fact that we have put off or, you know, put these costs on that on society and on the loss of biodiversity and the loss of a livable planet means that we are not paying the true price of carbon when we fly.

And I think that consumers deserve to know that if this is something that they choose to do.

Dan, let's turn to you.

Tell me about your thoughts on what Chuck and Jane are talking about and just let me know a little bit about what kind of societal shifts you think need to happen in order to normalize, let's say, fast train travel or slower travel?

Yeah, they're kind of two branches of what I've done and a lot of people have done is individual action is taking a look in the mirror and saying, I'm one of the privileged, wealthy few on this earth and I'm choosing to fly less or not fly at all.

We also have to organize and do things like ban private jets.

Ban private jets, ban short haul flights and just reduce the total amount of flights that we have.

To Charles’ email, he actually already sent a follow up.

Charles, I just want you to know we appreciate you.

He says the flights I take per year can already be counted on one hand, so don't tell me that I have to cut it down further.

And, you know, I appreciate that comment.

Jane, what do you think?

Do you feel like just by nature of speaking on this issue, you're going to get met with defensiveness?

Or do you understand why people like Charles are reacting that way?

Well, I think Chuck and Dan and myself probably have been talking about this long enough that we're sort of used to all of the types of responses and including the type that you typify, Jasmin.

You know, what I will say is that we talk about tipping points in climate.

We talk about when the West Antarctic ice sheet might fall, and that would be a tipping point.

We talk about when the Atlantic meridial overturning current might stop and that would be a climate tipping point.

Well, in addition to these physical and chemical and molecular tipping points, there's also social tipping points.

And so these are times when 3.5 up to 25% of the population decides to make a change.

And I do think that social movements are going to be necessary in order to address this issue.

So what does the average person consider when it comes to travel?

We went to Rochester's public market to find out.

When you were thinking about how to get down to Miami, what factors came into play for you?

I think it's the money wise and also like the length of time, like because I've taken a bus actually before all the way to Florida before.

Wow.

That was like four days.

Nowadays, especially for me, I can't sit in the car that long, so I'd rather just be able to get there and go.

I mean, honestly, at this point it is really just like finance based.

Like whatever is cheapest.

I definitely say cost is a big one.

I mean, I feel like everywhere you go, you kind of want to see how much you can save up, especially because anywhere you go, you're always spending money.

If there was a high speed train that went from here to California, would that intrigue you?

I’d definitely consider that.

Yeah, because I know it's more prevalent in the EU and so I would love that.

Something like that in the U.S.. Yeah.

It seems incredibly illogical that how long it takes to get even to New York City from here by rail.

Right.

Yeah.

If you're trying to get halfway down the coast like South Carolina, it was 15 hours.

Getting the next to go to Florida, we're talking to another 12 to get to Miami.

You know, So if we could go light rail, yeah, absolutely, it would make total sense.

And the amount of fuel that you bring down the cost on the environment is unquestionably lower.

And just compare it to the European model where we should unquestionably be able to get to another state, you know?

Yeah.

As we're moving forward, we're thinking more about environmental changes and climate change.

So would you consider swearing off plane travel because of the environment?

Um, I mean, probably.

It just depends because there's many places that you just can't get to.

Yeah.

I'm not quite there yet.

Possibly in the future, though.

Chuck, turning to you, there are some proposed policy changes in France and the Netherlands that would limit domestic flights.

Do you think that that could significantly reduce the aviation industry's carbon footprint and are there other countries taking this path?

What I'm saying is could that work here?

Well, the European Union is way ahead of us in terms of looking at these issues of aviation.

In fact, there is a global coalition called Stay Grounded.

that I'm part of.

I think, in the United States, one of the challenges is we have a core alternative.

You know, if you want to take high speed rail, I confront the situation.

My employers in Washington, D.C., I live in Vermont.

It is helpful to show up in person.

Sometimes for me to take the train is going to be two times more expensive.

It's going to take 9 hours.

There's going to be stretches of that train ride where I'm like, I could bicycle faster than this train.

So it's not exactly a modern high speed rail system infrastructure, we're talking about Amtrak, compared to a short hop flight that's going to cost half of my plane ticket.

The incentives are wrong.

And this goes to what Jane says, if we paid the real costs, if I had to pay the real costs of flying, all of a sudden that train ride is more cost effective.

And maybe we're starting to shift the investments.

We should stop investing in private jet and other airport expansion and invest in ground, you know, mass transit and high speed rail.

Those are so it's harder for us because we don't have the alternatives in the US.

Well, I have a caller, actually, somebody emailed in.

His name is Evan, and he might or might not be Evan Dawson.

I'll let you figure that out.

He says, Hi, everyone.

Mark Twain, ratherly famously promoted travel, by now you know it's Evan Dawson.

Mark Twain, rather famously promoted travel as a cure for some of society's ills.

He said, quote, Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow mindedness.

And many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.

Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetate.

In one little corner of the earth, all one's lifetime, end quote.

So what do you say to that idea that by traveling, we end up a more connected global society, more energized to care about one another, perhaps more concerned about issues like climate change?

Jane, I'll let you take that.

Well, I do think that Mark, if that is Evan, I do think that they have a good point.

Having said that, you know, to Dan's point earlier, we've grown up in a climate that no longer exists.

Right.

We, in the last 12 rolling months, have been over 1.5 degrees Celsius increase and that will only continue.

So the idea that we bring the values and traditions that we had in that in the 20th century into the 21st without an examination of the consequences of those actions, I think is false.

I think that as the climate changes, we have to adapt as well.

I think that you can actually travel in your own backyard.

You can travel at America's national parks.

I think there's lots of ways to achieve what your writer in talked about.

I don't think actually it needs to be big and I don't think it needs to be international.

I want to go to one of our callers right now, we've got Paul from Brighton on line one.

Paul, thank you so much for calling Environmental Connections.

What is your question?

You may remember during the height of COVID, there were millions of vaccines being transported here by air from Germany, the Pfizer vaccine.

And I think people probably would have preferred that they came by air versus 4 to 6 weeks on a on a ship.

You know, there's two sides of the story as usual, or it's not all one sided.

And the airlines are trying to work on sustainable fuels.

I think you're going to maybe speak about that in the next few minutes, as I'm sure there's two widely disparate viewpoints on sustainable fuels.

Jane, I want to turn to you as an M.D.

on the panel here.

Obviously, COVID was very big, very big for all of us.

But I certainly can't imagine what you were seeing from your perspective.

So about what our caller said regarding the vaccines reaching us.

And certainly these are things that we need in our lives.

Yeah.

And I think his point is so, so great.

And that is we're not talking about the abolition of airfare, but we are talking about thinking about your choices.

And I think Chuck and Dan both have mentioned, you know, leisure travel.

And I think leisure travel, everyone would put in a different bucket than, you know, receiving life saving medications.

And absolutely, there will be jet travel that is necessary in the future.

But right now, Jasmin, there is anywhere between 7 and 9,000 planes up in the air right now.

Like right now, are all those 9,000 planes necessary for human health happiness?

I would argue no.

I would argue that some of those emissions actually are causing harm.

Let's talk about carbon offsets and carbon credits.

Chuck, I'm going to turn you There is a hierarchy of, you know, emissions, right?

So rail, trains, is the most efficient, you know, eco vehicles or hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles are better, you know, next tier.

Then there's commercial aviation, which, you know, the more people on a plane, the less carbon per transportation.

And then private jets are, the least efficient.

So we can sort of rank those and see and you can make choices.

And it's probably true, though, that, you know, driving in a relatively efficient vehicle is still going to be way better than aircraft travel.

But when it comes to carbon credits, I think it's a little bit like if you go to the grocery store and you see natural food, it's a really good idea to probably look at the ingredients because there are a variety of carbon credits, some of which may actually effectively create carbon, expand carbon sinks and draw down carbon.

But there's a lot of greenwashing in that market and in that space.

And one of the dangers is that we use biofuels and things like that as the offset, which then leads to deforestation, which then causes other carbon emissions harms.

So it really requires us to kind of do a little bit closer examination and probably have some rules, you know, about what can be considered an offset or not.

Right now it's a little of an unregulated space and you have a lot of airlines and other actors promoting them.

And it's clearly a form of marketing and greenwashing and not really a carbon reduction solution.

Dan, I'm going to turn to you for a moment.

Tell me what your thoughts are on carbon offsets.

Would you say that they are blanketly greenwashing or maybe they're not all created equal?

Tell me more about that.

Yeah, Most carbon offsets aren't real.

It's just report after report saying like it's not working, the forests are burning down.

They're like junk.

I bought them in like 2017 and 2018.

It's like add $5 or $10 on your flight when you're booking online.

But I wouldn't, even if I flew now, I wouldn't even buy them.

I wouldn't even pay into that system.

And the say, if you care about climate, you can fund direct action.

There are a lot of other ways in a lot of other places where you can put your money than like this fake giant system that like is greenwashing and like displaces indigenous people and kind of alleviates responsibility from the fossil fuel and aviation industries.

Okay.

Dan, just sticking with you for just a moment.

In preparing for this episode, I did reach out to the National Renewable Energy Lab to ask about emerging technologies in aviation transportation because I think a lot of people who certainly who I have chatted with, including people on the production team here, are just curious, well, is there any effort being made to kind of green a fly, for lack of a better word, aviation fuels?

And they responded with this.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NRAL, is developing and de-risking a portfolio of technologies for converting renewable carbon resources into sustainable fuels, including sustainable aviation, fuel, SAF.

NRAL works with industry, academia and other national laboratories to develop scale and de-risk technology pathways for producing SAF from renewable resources such as biomass and other forms of waste carbon, including carbon dioxide.

So Dan, as the science educator, can you unpack that a little bit for us what Intel is doing and what impact these technologies might have on the climate cost of flying?

Sure.

Yeah, there's a lot to unpack and a lot of different angles when you talk about sustainable aviation fuel.

So the term itself is a greenwashing term.

It reminds you of clean coal or renewable natural gas.

It's a really nice word that the fossil fuel and aviation and big ag industries use a lot.

It’s been promised for a really long time and it's basically not scalable.

Humans like, as a species, there are more than 8 billion of us and we all we consume energy and we have to think about what we use our energy for.

And so at the root of this is just endless growth, endless expansion rooted in capitalism of just, we have to grow forever on a finite planet, and our current system extracts profit out of the natural world and out of human bodies and funnels it up to the 1%.

And so this like we can just grow forever and keep burning stuff forever is not a good option.

So we just have to reduce the amount of air traffic we have.

At the beginning of the show, we talked about how our guests today were making some bold choices.

But after our discussion, the question looms is it bold or is it necessary?

I'm Jasmin Singer.

Until next time, thanks for making today's environmental connections