Go to any travel conference and you’ll hear a common stat being enthusiastically thrown around: aviation travel is set to double by 2040.
The stat is a cause for celebration – the travel industry is growing exponentially, and we are all set to benefit from it.
There are plenty of economic and demographic trends that support a boom in travel – a rising middle class in growing economies such as India and China, an aging population, and the growth of AI (which hypothetically means we will have more free time).
There’s just one, little, inconvenient truth: according to the UN, we only have two years left to significantly cut emissions before the world, and all life on it, is doomed. And, despite very respectable steps forward in sustainable aviation fuel and carbon offsetting, the aviation industry is still a heavy-emission industry that is dependent on fossil fuels.
The industry is starting to come under growing scrutiny. Airlines worldwide – including Qantas – have come under fire for alleged misrepresentations in their marketing materials i.e greenwashing. In October, the Australian Association of National Advertisers launched a new Environmental Claims Code to combat greenwashing and increase consumer trust in sustainability claims.
In this analysis, Travel Weekly asks the honest question about what climate change will mean for the future of aviation and how airlines communicate with customers.
Will we need to cut down on flying?
The idea that global warming will lead to a decrease in travel has not been widely discussed.
When I recently interviewed Gaurav Bhatnagar, co-founder of TBO Tek Limited, he noted that whilst increased flying is “a worry because it contributes to global warming”, he added that he didn’t think there is any conversation right now around stopping air travel.
“That conversation is not happening. Hopefully, we will, over the next 5-10, years, find solutions,” he continued.
The numbers back up Bhatnagar’s point of view that climate change is not putting people off flying: the International Air Transport Association (IATA) says the number of passengers traveling by air is projected to increase from 4 billion in 2019 to over 8 billion by 2040.
Whilst the IATA has agreed to try to reach the UN’s net zero target by 2050, a lot of its efforts are focused on creating alternative fuel rather than cuttings own on flights.
It estimates that sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) can reduce emissions by 80 per cent, however, currently, just 0.1 per cent of jet fuel is made of SAF.
IATA estimates that SAF could make up around 65 per cent of the emissions reduction needed to reach the 2050 target. However, it adds that “this will require a massive increase in production in order to meet demand. The largest acceleration is expected in the 2030s as policy support becomes global, SAF becomes competitive with fossil kerosene and credible offsets become scarcer.”
Claire Snyder, director of Climate Integrity, is one of the few to suggest that we will need to cut down on the growth of the aviation sector if the net zero targets are to be achieved.
Speaking to Travel Weekly, she says: “Reaching net zero in the aviation sector does require less flying. The International Energy Agency outlines that we need to keep flying at 2019 levels.
“Most of this reduction can come from reducing ultra long haul flying and extremely frequent flying, rather than from those who fly occasionally,” she continued.
What are some of the most common misrepresentations airlines make about travel?
Given the current state of play when it comes to the sustainability of the aviation industry, many – including Climate Integrity who recently reported Qantas to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for misleading advertising claims – are critical of how airlines currently communicate with consumers around climate.
Climate advocacy group accuses Qantas of misleading customers on climate claims
According to Snyder, the most common mistake airlines make when marketing their service is claiming that flying is sustainable, or does not have an impact on the climate.
This often includes vague use of the term ‘sustainable’ or ‘fly carbon neutral’ messaging, she says.
“Making a commitment to net zero and a commitment to the Paris Agreement in marketing materials is misleading if the company does not have a science-aligned, independently verified, and therefore credible plan to achieve their net-zero goal,” Snyder continues.
Communication with investors and shareholders – which promise continued growth – also contradicts the science and the need for managing growth within accepted limits, she adds.
“The aspirational marketing and promise of sustainable aviation fuels in decarbonizing aviation often misrepresent the viability and decarbonization potential of the fuels.”
Why honesty is the best policy when it comes to communicating climate change
Megan McEwin, director of policy and regulatory affairs at the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) says that misclaims about the climate damages consumer trust.
“You need to stamp out greenwashing if you want to restore consumer trust,” she says. “Then people can actually start making an informed decision which will lead that transition to a more sustainable future.”
The AANA has worked with the government and has now developed a new code targeted at ending greenwashing.
“We started the review two years ago,” McEwin says. “We’ve done two lots of public consultation and we released a draft code in January.”
Whilst the majority of consumer complaints about advertising are still about the objectification of women, complaints relating to climate are on the up, McEwin says.
“We did see a spike in complaints about environmental claims and we know that government, research shows that consumer trust in environmental claims is low.”
It is not just the words themselves that can be the issue, McEwin advises. Imagery such as rainforests or the sounds of birds tweeting can also be misleading when it comes to selling flights.
What about the rest of the industry?
Whilst aviation might get the most headlines when it comes to travel and climate change, it is not the only offender.
A recent report published by the Transport and Environment (T&E) campaign group, found that Carnival Cruise Line produced more CO² than the city of Glasgow in 2023 (to be fair, 12.5 million passengers travelled with Carnival that year, which is more than the 620,000 people that live in Glasgow).
Whilst industry titans such as Qantas and Carnival might get the most public scrutiny when it comes to climate change, they are largely a victim of their own success. To date, climate-friendly fuels are still in development, meaning it is very hard for any travel company to be fully green – even if the intention is there. Whilst the industry’s largest businesses get the most attention, that doesn’t mean anyone else fairs any better.
So, what can the travel industry do? Speaking to Travel Weekly at this year’s ATIA Awards, Cam McDonell from Lindblad Expeditions (who picked up the sustainable supplier award) says it is important that the industry takes climate seriously.
“Take it seriously, don’t take it as a marketing exercise. That’s something we really need to recognise,” he says.
Whilst no one expects perfection when it comes to climate change, McEwin says communicating what you have done is more powerful than talking about hopes and dreams.
“The research shows that consumers don’t want to hear about your plans for the future. They want to hear about things you’ve already achieved. That’s the transition that needs to happen. So, what have you already done?”
With the focus on travel increasing, is it time we all started addressing the elephant on the plane?
