I last flew on a plane in March 2018. It was because the Eurostar was fully booked for my urban planning course’s field trip to Lyon. In other words, I hadn’t been organised enough to take the low-carbon option. Oh, the shame…
The UK has 261 million aviation passengers per year, third behind the US and China. This also (fairly obviously) means we are creating the third most aviation carbon emissions of all countries in the world.
Clearly, if everyone individually decided not to fly, that would help with, you know, the massive planetary problem that we have. But, also clearly, this is completely unrealistic. Many journeys to see family in other parts of the world have no alternative option – either due to distance or the amount of time required to make the low-carbon journey. Indeed, there is the incredible case of the climate researcher Gianluca Grimalda. Grimalda was, I kid you not, studying the social impact of climate change in Papua New Guinea when he was unceremoniously sacked from his job for refusing to travel back by plane. Time is of the essence, you see.
Such conscientious objection (as Grimalda himself calls it) is always admirable and impactful, but clearly there are much bigger social realities at play and, when all’s said and done, we are aiming for net zero, not absolute zero, right? So, with that in mind, how many flights should any one of us be taking if we want to meet our net zero targets and how do we ensure this happens?
Before I became a councillor, I worked as an aviation campaigner for a climate charity called Possible, and we tried to answer this question. Possible has all kinds of reports that you’d probably be interested to read, but the most pertinent one here is called Net Zero and the role of the aviation industry. This research paper says that to achieve the reduction in carbon emissions set out in the government’s aviation plans, we will need to reduce flying by 36% by 2030 (compared to 2019 levels).
So what does this 36% reduction in flights look like? Well, the first thing to say is that in the UK, a small group of people who fly most frequently are responsible for most of the emissions from flights. It’s only 15% of people who take 70% of all the flights. Most of us don’t fly very often – around half of people in the UK don’t fly at all in any given year, while around a quarter take just one return flight each year. Access to flying is also highly dependent on income levels; the fifth of people who make the most money take a plane five times more often than the poorest fifth of people.
In this context, it would be possible to achieve large reductions in carbon emissions without affecting the travel habits of most people, who already fly rarely (if ever). To hit the 36% reduction target, all that would be needed would be for the 23% of people who currently take more than one return flight per year to reduce their flying by one trip, and for no one to take more than four return flights per year. The remaining 77% of us, who already fly once or less each year, wouldn’t need to change our travel habits. Yes, this is a Green politician saying that your annual trip to Crete is not going to break the climate bank.
All well and good in theory then, but what’s the policy lever we need the UK government to pull? It’s two things – one that tackles the most polluting flights (increasing Air Passenger Duty (APD) and fuel dury on private jets), and one that progressively taxes all flights (a frequent flyer levy).
Private jets are the most polluting form of travel, emitting far more harmful greenhouse gases per passenger than scheduled flights. For instance, a London to New York private jet passenger emits 27 times more CO₂e than a passenger flying economy. And the incredible thing is that the kerosene used in these planes is not currently taxed! Possible recommends that APD for private jets should be set at 30 times the current higher APD rate, meaning private jet passengers would pay 15-45% of the ticket price as tax. Combined with a fairer fuel duty, this would create something like an additional £2.7 billion in tax revenue. This revenue could be pumped back into the fight to decarbonise in other areas of the economy.
And the frequent flyer levy is simple. Possible’s most recent report (in conjunction with the New Economics Foundation) even proposes a £20 “first flight discount” for all UK residents, combined with targeted taxes on ultra-frequent flyers and high-carbon travel. This would protect access to the annual family holiday while ensuring those flying the most, and polluting the most, contribute their fair share.
So what is the barrier to these kind of sensible, fair and practical policy measures being adopted by the UK Labour Government? You know the answer before you read it: vested interests. The aviation industry has an incredibly favourable deal at present, with ultra-low taxes and a very effective lobbying strategy. Andy Burnham has already been shown to be a weak leader on climate with his “stop using disposable barbecues” approach to the terrifying heatwaves we’ve had in summer 2026. He still needs some more Green councillors and MPs to get his head sorted out, I feel. OK, party political broadcast over!
But hang on a minute, I hear you cry. Didn’t your Green guy just get spotted flying across an ocean to attend a conference?
Yes, after weighing it up carefully, Tony Dyer, leader of Bristol City Council did do that. He’s currently the Core Cities lead on net zero and so he was representing ALL the UK’s major cities outside London, not just Bristol. I’ll let Tony speak for himself and give the full picture, but I also think it was a trip worth taking to gain valuable insight from city leaders and mayors of other major cities and to share our successes with others.
The Green Party’s analysis is that, although lifestyle changes do have an impact on reducing emissions (and should be encouraged to breed wider cultural change), it is the cumulative impact of emissions that need tackling to transform our city, country and world. This is best done by creating the more progressive and green national and international government policies of the type that I’ve mentioned above.
We also feel it is imperative to state that the concept of a carbon footprint was invented by fossil fuel companies to try to shift the blame for their sky-high emissions onto individuals in society so the debate is constantly played out on the individual level. This use of “divide and rule” tactics continues to create a media discourse where people who have committed their lives to standing up to fossil capital are still perennially blamed or called hypocrites for being spotted eating a beef burger or taking a flight once in a while to go on holiday or, if it’s part of their job, to work with colleagues overseas.
For some, it’s very satisfying to make people in positions of authority out to be hypocrites, but I think hypocrisy really amounts to saying one thing and doing another. We made no manifesto commitment for Green councillors to abstain from flying anywhere. We know that the battle to decrease emissions is systemic, not tokenistic.
Bristol Airport announced their new CEO this week. This is a business that, over the last 15 years, has persistently sought to expand and thereby commit our sub-region to a massive increase in carbon emissions. The people and elected representatives have stood up to this, but you can’t beat the UK Government’s Planning Inspectorate, who have overturned refusals at appeal because of a dearth of national policy. We desperately need a national commitment to a moratorium on airport expansion and to keep fossil fuels in the ground. I campaign passionately for low-traffic streets, but I know that Bristol’s vehicle emissions pale into insignificance compared to the emissions baked in from successive expansions of Bristol Airport.
Overall? City leaders have a vital role to play in climate leadership, and I know Tony and our Green-led administration is rising to that challenge in so many ways. However, perhaps we should be refocusing our efforts on the airport, the aviation industry lobbyists, big oil and gas and the UK Government who are, after all, the people who can get us out of this mess by changing tack and reining in our growth at all costs philosophy. That’s how we get to a bearable existence for our children and grandchildren.
The real target is the fossil fuel burners and the UK Labour government, not Green politicians who take a flight
