The other day I made up a German word. At least, I don’t think this is a real word. It might be a real word, but probably not in the sense that I mean it.
The word is “flugschmertz” — literally “flight pain.” For me it means not the assorted pains associated with traveling by airplane (as obnoxious as those pains are). Rather, it’s the pain I feel at seeing so many fellow environmentalists still constantly getting on airplanes.
Eco footprint consists of many things, of course, and travel is only one of them. I think what gets me is that we actually witnessed the effects of cutting out flying (and greatly reducing driving, and some other categories of consumption) during the pandemic shutdowns.
We witnessed the very quick and beneficial effect on air, water, ecosystems. So I find it heartbreaking that some fellow environmentalists have seemed to find it so easy to get back to hopping on planes.
My invention of the word “flugschmertz” was prompted by hearing on the news that an estimated 18 million people would be flying on Memorial Day weekend. (And a total of 40 million traveling.)
Ouch. I feel actual pain, almost a physical pain, when I hear about fellow eco-concerned people — who are seriously worried about biospheric collapse and all that — still taking multiple flights a year and so on. And I do have some eco-minded friends who are very frequent flyers. (Specifically, I am talking about fellow white eco Boomers, particularly those of us who have traveled already. Other demographics are outside my lane to comment on. And many have never before had the chance to travel in their lives.)
One of the ways I deal with this pain is by reminding myself that maybe my vegan friends feel this way every time they hear about someone who supposedly cares about the environment eating meat. Like, if I post a picture of a burger that I ate at a restaurant.
I also noticed that I have to sort of compartmentalize this in my friendships. Like, I just sort of try not to dwell on it. Maybe that’s how my vegan friends deal with being friends with me, an omnivore.
Also, it is possible that people are cutting down on flying even though they still fly. Just as some of us are cutting down on meat-eating even though we still eat meat. A person can be a high-volume consumer, but we don’t know where they started.
And: There are lots of ways to cut our footprint. Travel is only one category.
And, it’s possible to at least in part mitigate the impact of flying, by purchasing carbon offsets. Although carbon offsets are not perfect, they are a way to help mitigate the footprint of flights and other travel. If you have friends who fly a lot, and they seem like they might be receptive, you could suggest this to them.
And, according to what I have read recently, a transatlantic flight is about 1 ton emissions (as is a flight within the USA). We are allowed to emit a second ton per year and still meet the global climate target. If one gets really focused and sets priorities, it needn’t be terribly difficult to bring one’s household activity emissions to under 1 ton.
If you yourself are a person who flies a lot, but it does bother you from an eco-footprint standpoint and other standpoints, there are some other things you could try as well.
As I’ve mentioned before in this space, if you find yourself flying to a place more than a couple times a year, and it goes on for more than a year, and it’s not for work, you could consider moving to that place. (If it is for work, you could look into changing your job and/or the travel aspect of it.)
Or you could try to persuade the person/people who you’re visiting to move to where you live. Or, split your time between the two places. Six months there, and six months at your official place of residence. Try not to leave any empty houses on either end; we are in a housing crunch, and besides, empty houses are a liability in many ways.
You can also look into the emotions underlying your motives for wanting to fly a lot. For example, you could have some deep-seated feelings of deprivation left over from childhood. Or, you could be feeling your age and mortality, and not want to acknowledge it. This invitation to look deeper is something I strongly suggest to people who are really wanting to cut their footprint, and finding that their “travel wants” are colliding with their “footprint aspirations.”
You could also become an “armchair traveler” of your dream destinations. There are various ways to do this; I have written about it on this blog and will dig up the link for you when I get around to it. (Or type “Venice” into the search field of this blog; that should bring it up.)
Also, a lot of us find, as we get older, that we can satisfy a lot of our yearnings vicariously by giving young people the same opportunities we had (or didn’t have, but wanted) when we were young. So, you could pay for a young person in your life to visit Europe or wherever they want to go. If they don’t want to go alone, then you could buy an extra ticket for friend their age who wouldn’t be able to afford to go otherwise.
And finally, it’s worth remembering that the harmful footprint of flying and tourism isn’t just ecological; it has socially and economically harmful aspects as well.
If you are an eco-minded person and you still fly, and/or are a high-volume flyer, is there anything(s) that would make you willing to stop or reduce your flying? Knowing that each flight emits one ton of CO2, and we are supposed to be aiming to keep our emissions under two tons a year, total, for all of our activities? If so, what might make you willing?
PS. Something I sometimes forget is to remind myself that my little corner of the universe is not the whole world. Just today, Flight Free USA’s e-newsletter landed in my inbox with lots of good news. I’ll post some links below.
Further Exploration:
• “This Scottish City Just Banned SUV And Airline Ads. Here’s Why” (David Vetter; forbes.com). “Scotland’s capital city has banned advertisements for airlines and sports utility vehicles, along with ads for cruise lines and oil and gas companies, in what campaigners are calling a ‘historic’ step-up in action to tackle climate change. Edinburgh’s council announced on Tuesday that it had moved to exclude adverts and sponsorships for ‘high-carbon products and services’ that ‘undermine the council’s commitment to tackling the climate emergency.’ The ban covers airlines, car companies that advertise SUVs and cruise operators, as well as ‘all firms and associated sub brands or lobbying organisations that extract, refine, produce, supply, distribute, or sell any fossil fuels.’ Polluting companies and arms manufacturers have also been banned from sponsoring events in the city. The decision makes Edinburgh the first British capital, and Europe’s second capital city, to enact such a ban. In 2020, Amsterdam became the first major city in the world to ban fossil fuel advertising, along with ads for air travel. Other British towns to have enacted similar bans include Cambridge, Liverpool and Norwich.”
Hooray for these climate-courageous cities, and others that are taking action even when/where national governments aren’t stepping up.
• A movement called “make them pay” proposes to tackle climate injustice via a three-point plan: ban private jets, force wealthy polluters to pay for their higher emissions, and tax frequent flyers. The website points out that 80% of the world’s population has never set foot on an airplane, and 50% of commercial aviation emissions are caused by just 1% of the population.
• From Flight Free USA’s website: “One flight, One seat, One Ton of CO2. We are in a dire climate emergency, flying fries the planet and yet there are about 125,000 daily commercial flights in the world and growing. Pledge to fly less in 2024 for the climate!” (Note: The target agreed on by experts is to keep our carbon emissions under 2 tons per year. One single flight is more than many people around the world emit in entire year.)
• To find out the most effective climate actions that an individual can take, The Guardian did a survey of top climate scientists. “Most experts (76%) backed voting for politicians who pledge strong climate measures, where fair elections take place.” Cutting airline travel came in second: “The second choice for most effective individual action, according to the experts, was reducing flying and fossil-fuel powered transport in favour of electric and public transport. This was backed by 56%, and two-thirds said they had cut their own number of flights. Flying is the most polluting activity an individual can undertake and makes up a large part of the carbon footprint of the rich. Globally it is a small minority of people who drive aviation emissions, with only about one in 10 flying at all. Frequent-flying ‘super emitters’ who represent just 1% of the world’s population cause half of aviation’s carbon emissions, with US air passengers having by far the biggest carbon footprint among rich countries.” (Other effective actions cited by experts in the Guardian survey were, in order of rank, reduce meat intake; reduce home heating and cooling emissions; join a campaign or protest group.)