To Fly or Not to Fly?

If I am to reduce my use of fossil fuels I need to cut down on air flights. This is a hard decision, because if I want to visit either of my adult children, and grandchildren, I would be looking at either a two day drive, or a five day drive (minimum). Flying is a much easier option.

Back in 2006, the Guardian columnist George Monbiot talked about the huge carbon footprint of flying. He concluded that "journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and that they will require both slow travel and the saving up of carbon rations." He called these visits "love miles", and suggested that most other reasons for flying - such as holidays - should be rejected. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving}

Earlier this year my brother and his wife, who live in Alberta, Canada, were considering a holiday that would have involved air flights to central Europe. To inform their decision making process my brother researched their household's annual emissions of CO2, and what would be the implications of a round trip for two to Europe. The graph below shows the results. (They ended up holidaying locally.)

This graph is specific to Alberta, which uses 47% coal, 40% gas, and 13% renewables in the production of electricity. For British Columbia, where I live and where electricity is mostly generated from hydro-dams, the CO2 is less - about 13 g of CO2 per kWh. But other things, such as home heating and automobile use, would be comparable.

This is a vivid example of what JUST ONE AIR FLIGHT means; it was more than my brother's annual carbon budget in either home heating, automobile use or home electricity use. 

The bottom line for me is that I need to do what Monbiot suggests, and save my carbon rations. Rather than a quick weekend flight to visit someone I love, I need to save up those rations and use them wisely, and for longer, and deeper, visits.