Should You Stop Flying? A Reasonable Answer
Climate-Positive Travel
🌱
Earn rewards while booking climate-conscious trips
Book 8M+ hotels in 195 countries · Up to 45% cashback.
The answer isn’t “never fly.” It’s “fly less, fly deliberately, and offset what you do fly.”
Dear IMPT Family,
“Should you stop flying?” is the climate question that generates the most guilt and the least clarity. Some people advocate for a flight boycott. Others argue that flying is negligible compared to industrial emissions. Both are wrong in useful ways—and both miss the pragmatism that actually shapes behaviour.
Here’s the honest answer: no, you shouldn’t stop flying entirely. But yes, you should fly less, more deliberately, and with offsetting.
🔥 Key Highlights 🔥
1️⃣ Aviation is roughly 2–3% of global carbon emissions; meaningful but not dominant
2️⃣ A single transatlantic flight generates 1–2 tonnes of CO₂ per person—significant for one act
3️⃣ Train and bus alternatives exist for regional travel; planes win for long distances
4️⃣ Flying less (not zero) is the realistic climate action; offsetting complements it
5️⃣ Radiative forcing (altitude emissions effects) multiplies aviation’s warming impact by 2–3x
6️⃣ Frequent flying is high-impact; occasional flying is defensible
1️⃣ The Global Context
Aviation produces roughly 2–3% of global CO₂ emissions annually (roughly 900 million tonnes). That’s substantial—larger than the entire carbon footprint of many countries. But it’s also less than half the emissions from global agriculture, less than a third from electricity production, and a small fraction of transport (cars dominate).
This matters because it reframes the question: flying isn’t the problem. Frequent flying is. Frequent flying by the wealthy is even more so.
2️⃣ The Per-Flight Carbon
A round-trip transatlantic flight generates roughly 1–2 tonnes of CO₂ per person. For context: the average person’s total annual carbon footprint in a wealthy country is 10–15 tonnes. One flight is 7–20% of an annual footprint. That’s significant. But it’s also not insurmountable, especially if it’s rare.
A person taking two international flights per year is generating 2–4 tonnes just from flights. Someone flying monthly (common for some jobs) generates 12+ tonnes from flights alone. That’s undefensible on climate grounds. But someone flying once every two years? That’s defensible, especially if offset.
3️⃣ When Alternatives Exist
For journeys under 1,000 kilometres, alternatives usually exist and are superior: trains, buses, possibly driving. London to Paris: take the Eurostar (14 kg CO₂ vs 120 kg by plane). Amsterdam to Berlin: night train or bus (50 kg vs 90 kg by plane). These alternatives are also often cheaper, more comfortable, and increasingly competitive on time.
For regional trips, flying should be the exception, not the norm.
4️⃣ When Flying Makes Sense
For long-haul travel (over 2,000 km), flying is often the only reasonable option. A flight from London to Tokyo is 9,000+ km; the train doesn’t exist (and would take weeks). In these cases, flying is pragmatic. The question shifts from “should I go?” to “can I make this trip meaningful enough to justify the carbon?”
A month-long trip to Tokyo amortises the flight carbon across more days and deeper experience than a week. A flight to visit family once a year is different from flying monthly for business that could be virtual.
5️⃣ The Radiative Forcing Multiplier
Here’s something most discussions miss: aviation’s warming impact isn’t just CO₂. Emissions at altitude (soot, nitrogen oxides, water vapour) interact with the atmosphere in ways that amplify warming. Scientists call this “radiative forcing,” and it roughly multiplies aviation’s warming impact by 2–3 times.
A flight that emits 1 tonne of CO₂ has roughly 2–3 tonnes of warming effect. This is why offsetting flights is important and why flying less genuinely matters.
6️⃣ Offsetting and the Nuance
Carbon offsets are controversial (rightfully—some projects are weak). But credible offsets—verified reforestation, renewable energy development, carbon capture—do neutralise emissions when done rigorously. Buying offsets for flights you do take makes sense. Offsets don’t excuse frequent flying, but they do make occasional flights defensible.
7️⃣ The Reasonable Answer
Should you stop flying? No. Should you fly less? Yes. Should you fly deliberately, only when alternatives don’t exist or when the trip is meaningful enough to justify the impact? Absolutely. And when you do fly, offset it.
For most people, this means: one or two international flights per year maximum, regional trips by train/bus, and carbon credits on every booking. It’s not zero-flight virtue signalling, and it’s not permission to ignore impact. It’s pragmatism.
Looking Ahead — Flying With Intent
The aviation industry will eventually decarbonise through sustainable fuels and efficiency improvements. But that’s a decade or more away. Until then, the climate action is in how we choose to use flying: less frequently, more intentionally, with offsetting built in. Book through IMPT and earn carbon credits on your trips, automating the offset. Stop shaming people for occasional travel and start encouraging them to fly less, fly better.
Let’s keep building — together. 🌍💚
