Flying isn’t the worst offender for carbon emissions

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish clim-ate activist, recently ann- ounced that she will cross the Atlantic Ocean by boat to attend a United Nations global warming summit in New York. She does not believe in flying in airplanes, for the obvious reason that air travel is a contributor to the carbon emissions problem.
I am here with a simple message: Greta, it is OK to fly.
Indeed, I encourage you to fly.
International meetings such as Davos are criticised for holding sessions on climate change attended by people who may have flown in on their private planes.
But flying isn’t the worst offender when it comes to sources of carbon emissions. Some critics suggest flying accounts for 5 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, but most estimates put aviation’s share at closer to 2 percent. Whatever the exact number may be, it is hardly the major problem.
Carbon emissions can come from stationary power sources (such as burning coal), automobiles, food production, construction, cement and, among other sources, air travel. It is plausible to expect a lot of progress on solar, wind, nuclear and even fracking to cut carbon output. The use of more electric cars and possibly hydrogen vehicles will also help reduce emissions. Food production could be improved significantly if people simply ate less meat. Energy-efficient construction may prove harder to achieve. But air travel may be the very hardest part of the problem to solve because nuclear, solar- or battery-powered large jets seem to be very far from market, even if biofuels can offer some relief.
Obviously there is a symbolic aspect to Thunberg’s decision. Perhaps Thunberg and others feel they should take a public stand against all possible decisions to generate carbon emissions. But no one can meet that standard and remain alive. Arguably the symbolic message we ought to send is one of prioritisation, not one of picking out a few highly visible public acts simply for the purpose of making a show of it.
Or think more broadly about how to choose one’s symbolic commitments to combat climate change. Buying a carbon offset, verifiable by an independent third party, seems like a good practical step. Thunberg also could take a stand in favour of nuclear power — a feasible source of green energy — except that she opposes it. Nuclear power has worked quite well for France for about 70 years, even if it is not suitable for earthquake zones.
Another way to show one’s dedication to limiting global temperatures would be to educate the public on carbon sequestration, which recently
has made a good deal of real progress. How about a strike or demonstration to call people’s attention to the possibilities of this new technology, and to ask for additional funding?
I think breakthroughs on carbon capture are more likely than the world’s wealthier citizens deciding to give up or even severely curtail their flying.
Keep in mind that flying also has a green upside. Green technologies will need to spread around the world. That could involve, for instance, China learning new ideas from America, or vice versa. That process will go a lot more quickly with flying, including to scientific conferences and to set up green factories.
I’m fine with people deciding they don’t want to fly, but the rest of us should not rush into thinking that is the mark of a dedicated purist, or an especially effective practical tool. It is one symbolic commitment among many, and not obviously the best one.
—Bloomberg

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution.