How Green Is Flying? Aviation Vs Cars

Flying and driving are two of the most popular modes of transportation, but they are also two of the most polluting. Transportation is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States, and since 95% of transportation power comes from fossil fuels, it significantly contributes to climate change. While it is difficult to compare the environmental impact of flying and driving, various factors influence the level of pollution caused by each mode of transportation. These include the number of passengers, the type of vehicle, and the distance travelled.

• The more passengers in a car, the less the carbon emissions per person
• Longer flights are more fuel-efficient than shorter flights or those with multiple layovers
• Battery power and eco-friendly alternative fuels are growing more popular for both aircraft and cars, but they’re not mainstream
• Aircraft flying between 16,500 and 46,000 feet alter the planet’s global radiation balance
• Aviation emissions have strong and immediate effects on the environment

The environmental impact of a long drive is challenging to measure accurately

The environmental impact of transportation is a pressing issue, with the sector contributing significantly to climate change. While flying is often considered more harmful to the environment than driving, the comparison between the two is complex and depends on various factors. The true environmental impact of a long drive is challenging to measure accurately, but it is undoubtedly significant.

Firstly, the number of passengers in a car makes a substantial difference. Driving solo is worse for the environment than flying, whereas driving with multiple passengers can be more environmentally friendly than flying. Carpooling reduces emissions per person, making driving a more sustainable option than flying for long-distance trips with family or friends.

Secondly, the type of vehicle matters. Electric vehicles are generally more eco-friendly than gas-powered cars, with very minor environmental effects. They do not emit tailpipe carbon emissions and can be recharged using solar energy. In contrast, gas-powered cars contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, with the EPA stating that a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Additionally, the distance and duration of the trip play a role in the environmental impact. Longer flights have a higher altitude, which increases their climate change impact. A larger proportion of fuel is used during takeoff and landing, so longer flights with fewer takeoffs and landings can be more fuel-efficient. However, the comparison becomes more complex when considering the number of passengers, as a plane's CO2 emissions per passenger decrease as the distance increases.

The environmental impact of a long drive is challenging to quantify due to various factors, including vehicle type, fuel economy, and the number of passengers. While there are online carbon calculators available, they may not consider all variables, such as recent technological advancements in fuel efficiency. Ultimately, the decision between flying and driving depends on individual circumstances, but both modes of transportation contribute significantly to climate change.

The number of emissions per person is lower for flying when compared to driving

The number of emissions produced by flying versus driving is a complex issue that depends on several factors. While flying generally has a higher carbon footprint per passenger than driving, the number of emissions per person can be lower for flying when compared to driving alone.

When considering the number of emissions per person, it is important to take into account the number of occupants in the car or plane. For example, a cross-country round-trip flight in economy from New York to Los Angeles produces an estimated 0.62 tons of CO2 per passenger, according to the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) carbon calculator. The same route, when driven alone in a car, will result in the release of 1.26 tons of carbon emissions. However, if three or more people are travelling in the car, the emissions per person are reduced, making driving more environmentally friendly than flying. This is because driving becomes less energy-intensive per person when the weight of the additional passengers is taken into account.

The type of vehicle or plane also impacts the number of emissions per person. For instance, private jets produce more carbon emissions per person than commercial flights because there are fewer people on board to share the emissions. Similarly, flying in first class or business class has a larger carbon footprint per passenger than flying in economy class since there is more space per seat, so each passenger accounts for a larger amount of the plane's pollution. On the other hand, electric cars have a lower carbon footprint than diesel or petrol cars, which can make driving more environmentally friendly than flying, depending on the number of occupants.

The distance of the journey also plays a role in the number of emissions per person. Longer flights are more fuel-efficient than shorter flights or those with multiple layovers because a large share of fuel is consumed during takeoff and landing. Therefore, the greater the distance, the smaller the relative fuel consumption burden from takeoff and landing. Similarly, for shorter flights, the emissions produced during takeoff and landing account for a larger proportion of the journey.

It is worth noting that aviation emissions include water vapour, black carbon, nitrous oxide, and sulphur oxide, which contribute to the greenhouse effect and the trapping of heat. These non-CO2 emissions have a stronger warming effect when released at high altitudes, further impacting the climate. Therefore, when considering the number of emissions per person, it is important to look beyond just carbon dioxide emissions and take into account the total "radiative forcing" of air travel, which includes these short-lived climate factors.

The growth of air transport is undesirable as it encourages people to take a plane instead of a train or bus

A journey from London to Madrid would emit 43kg of CO2 per passenger by train, but 118kg by plane (or 265kg if non-CO2 emissions are included). This margin varies depending on the type of train, with diesel trains emitting twice as much as electric trains. Similarly, a cross-country round-trip flight in economy from New York to Los Angeles produces an estimated 0.62 tons of CO2 per passenger, while the same route driven would result in 1.26 tons of carbon emissions. However, when more people share the drive, emissions per person are reduced, making driving more environmentally friendly than flying.

The environmental impact of flying is often worse than people realise. Aviation emissions include water vapour, which creates clouds, and releases of black carbon, nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide, which contribute to the greenhouse effect and the trapping of heat. The total plane-related "radiative forcing" – a measure of the varying influences on climate change – goes beyond just carbon dioxide emissions. Additionally, the number of international flights doubled from 2021 to 2022, surpassing pre-pandemic levels.

While it is difficult to make a direct comparison between flying and driving, as it depends on many variables, for longer distances, flying solo is better for the environment than driving. However, this is not the case for shorter distances, where flying produces more emissions per kilometre. Furthermore, flying in first class is more harmful to the environment than economy, as business and first-class seats take up more space, so each person accounts for a larger amount of the plane's pollution.

Aviation emissions have a strong and immediate effect on the environment

One of the critical consequences of aviation emissions is the formation of persistent contrail cirrus clouds. These high, linear clouds trap the Earth's heat, resulting in a net warming effect that can be up to three times worse than the warming caused by aviation's CO2 emissions alone. This warming effect is a significant contributor to global climate change.

The impact of aviation emissions on the environment is further exacerbated by the hypermobility of air travel. With the increased accessibility of air travel to a growing number of people worldwide, the demand for flights has surged. As a result, emissions from aviation have been growing faster than any other mode of transport. Between 1990 and 2019, aviation emissions more than doubled, increasing from 1.5% of all European emissions in 1990 to 4.7% in 2019. Globally, aviation produced 2.4% of total CO2 emissions in 2018, and this share is expected to continue rising.

Additionally, the type of flight and class of service contribute to the environmental impact of aviation emissions. Longer flights at higher altitudes have a more significant effect, and business and first-class seats have a larger per-passenger impact due to the increased space per seat. Private jets, in particular, are extremely inefficient, with some estimates suggesting they produce up to ten times the amount of carbon per passenger compared to commercial flights.

While aviation emissions have a substantial environmental impact, it's important to consider the number of passengers when comparing flying to other modes of transportation. When more people share a car journey, emissions per person are reduced, making driving more environmentally friendly than flying on a per-passenger basis. However, for long-distance solo trips, flying may be a more environmentally conscious choice. Ultimately, the decision to fly or drive depends on various factors, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

The true environmental impact of flying is worse than most people realise

Flying is one of the most polluting means of transport, along with cars. However, the full extent of the damage that flying causes is often overlooked. The aviation industry has a significant impact on the environment, and the recent surge in international flights has only exacerbated this issue.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights that aviation emissions are not limited to carbon dioxide. They also include water vapour, black carbon, nitrous oxide, and sulphur oxide. These emissions have immediate and strong effects, contributing to the greenhouse effect and the trapping of heat. When aircraft fly between 16,500 and 46,000 feet, they alter the planet's global radiation balance, creating clouds and changing solar energy levels in the atmosphere, which may further contribute to climate change.

The number of passengers on a flight also impacts its environmental footprint. For instance, flying in first class is more harmful to the environment than economy class due to the larger space per seat, resulting in each passenger accounting for a larger proportion of the plane's pollution. Private jets are even worse, as they often carry fewer passengers while producing similar emissions to commercial jets. Additionally, shorter flights and those with multiple layovers are less environmentally friendly as taking off and landing use more fuel than cruising.

When comparing flying to driving, the environmental impact depends on various factors, such as the number of passengers and the type of vehicle. While flying solo may have a similar environmental impact to driving alone in a fuel-efficient vehicle, carpooling with three or more people can make driving more environmentally friendly than flying. Electric vehicles, for instance, are much more eco-friendly and have very minor environmental effects.

To reduce your carbon footprint, it is essential to consider the mode of transportation and the number of passengers. While flying may be more efficient in terms of occupancy rates and reducing traffic congestion, the overall environmental impact of aviation is significant and often underestimated.

Frequently asked questions