Tourism presents some thorny questions in a changing climate. Take the Maldives, which has at times been a powerful voice for climate justice. As a low-lying island they are highly vulnerable to rising sea levels, and so carbon intensive lifestyles in other parts of the world are an existential risk. At the same time, tourism is a mainstay of the economy and that relies on carbon intensive long distance flights.
There are no easy answers here, nor for the many other examples of climate vulnerable countries that are also tourist destinations. Business as usual will be disastrous, but cutting visitor numbers could devastate the economy and entrench poverty.
In this landscape of rocks and hard places, The Travel Foundation has just released a report looking at how the industry can play a role in a just transition. Called Climate Justice in Tourism: an introductory guide, the report is a call to solidarity with communities at risk, and for fair ways to reduce emissions from travel.
The travel industry has a lot of warm words on climate, the report notes. That doesn’t always translate into action, and it rarely involves the communities on the ground. “Looking through a climate justice lens at travel and tourism reveals how the risks of climate change extend beyond tourism businesses and travellers to threaten the livelihoods and central assets of host communities, both ecological and cultural, upon which tourism also depends.”
At its worst, tourism can compete with local needs. Residents may find their access to land or coastline restricted, or find they are at the back of the queue for clean water. When this occurs, the industry is almost predatory, consuming a location and its culture for profit.
It can of course look completely different. You can instead work with the community, hiring from underrepresented groups, or strengthening local businesses by using local suppliers. You can protect and restore ecosystems, and even involve visitors in volunteering. This more collaborative approach isn’t just better for destination communities. It gives tourists a more authentic experience, and it enhances the reputation of the companies involved.
With the best will in the world though, it’s still hard to get away from the impact of aviation. Here the report and its partners advocate for a frequent flyer levy, a solution I’ve written about before. Half of global aviation emissions come from 1% of the world’s population. Flying is an elite activity, with the richest taking the most flights. A charge on frequent flying would raise funds from those with the largest footprints, without stopping anyone from going on holiday or flying to see family.
Even with this, the quandary remains. “We cannot decarbonize aviation,” as professor James Higham says in the report. “Over the last three decades, efficiency gains have been achieved, but they’ve been
overwhelmed by demand growth. There’s no way to unlock this relationship. We can only decarbonize tourism if we manage demand.”
If the world has to reduce demand for flying, is there any way to ringfence the places that depend on it? Most flights travel between wealthy countries, with only 5.4% travelling from global north to global south. With that in mind, “the vast majority of global aviation emissions could be reduced without impacting on any potential benefits to developing countries.”
To put it differently, it’s not about flying or not flying, or growth or degrowth in the abstract. The just transition approach to climate change nudges us to ask better questions. Who gets to fly? How often? And where to? This could be managed internationally through carbon budget allocations to different destinations, ensuring that vulnerable places are supported while aviation overall is scaled back.
These are ambitious ideas for the travel industry to be considering, so kudos to The Travel Foundation and its partners for not ducking the difficult questions.
The Earthbound Report 
Who gets to fly? How often? And where to? 👏