How Canadians Can Unpack Airplanes Filled With Emissions

When I was a teenage farmer from Wallenstein, Ontario, my first jet flight was an expansive experience. Suspended above the Earth, my mind and spirit wandered and wondered unrestrictedly about time and space as we navigated the landscapes. This point of view was a huge leap from the seat of a tractor.

However, unbeknownst to me at the time, the cost of gliding skyward on an airplane is toxic to the environment. Its climate impact per passenger hour is six to 47 times greater than that of cars.

Given the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, non-carbon emissions and other climate impacts, passenger air travel accounts for at least 3.5% of global warming, more than him three percent of global emissions for the entire African continent. In Canada, the expense of burning jet fuel is our second largest transportation cost.

As you can guess, the flights are not evenly distributed among the population. In fact, “frequent fliers who make up just one percent of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018. “Also, in 2018, only 11 percent of the world’s 7.9 billion people traveled by air. It is worth squatting, preferably on the ground, to reflect on who benefits from all the subsidies to airlines to keep such a small proportion of people entitled to look down.

In 2019, there were 163 million air passengers in Canada, or about 4.2 flights per passenger in Canada, a pre-COVID peak. To correct for the climate impact of flights, most of which are carried out by a small percentage of the population, we could limit flight assignments in Canadian airspace. Let’s agree that each Canadian is allowed four flight assignments per year (that is, the right to purchase tickets for four flights).

Transport Canada could develop a market for flight permits, and Canadians who choose not to travel can sell flight permits per person to anyone (Canadian or international citizen) who chooses to fly in Canada. Since airplanes that navigate at high altitudes are relatively efficient, the emphasis is on the number of flights or the number of times each airplane must take off.

It is financially realistic for those who fly the most to pay their share of the bill, either personally or as a benefit to employees. Some Canadians may choose to keep two flight assignments and sell two, understanding that they have until the end of the year to sell their assignments.

What people are reading

Buyers could bid electronically, with the transaction facilitated and recorded by Transport Canada. The market price for each flight assignment calculated from aggregate offers and sales offers must be transparent to all buyers and sellers. In fairness, opportunities for low-income Canadians, who may not have access to electronic transactions, should be available to sell permitted flights at prevailing rates at post offices or other public institutions.

In the future, flight assignments could be for a period of 385 days, instead of 365 days, as in the initial offer. The period for each offer could be extended as necessary to meet GHG emission targets. That means that anyone wishing to fly in Canada within that period will need to purchase a flight assignment from those assigned for that time period. With a combination of time and a total amount of flight permits per Canadian, Transport Canada could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger flights.

Airlines argue that they are increasing the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). SAF’s holy grail is green ammonia, produced from water and air using renewable energy. So far, the use of SAF is more aspirational than real, but to drive innovation, a flight permit market could have provisions to conform to less stringent requirements, calibrated for specific SAF implementations with measured reduced GHG emissions impacts.

During the Christmas holidays 15 years ago, George Monbiot’s book challenged me, Heat and his analysis of the climate impact of flying. Although I was the director of a national organization, I told my board in January 2007 that I had decided to stop flying, except for compelling family obligations. Since then, I have taken two plane trips.

I understand the arguments about the apparent futility of small individual actions and how I have no right to be conceited for my decision. Trust me, I’d rather not discuss it with anyone. My intention is to show that it is quite possible to stop, or significantly reduce, the flight. I have not suffered from traveling in different ways. Perhaps roots in a Mennonite community predispose me to accept that some activities can be excluded.

Beyond individual action, Canadians could accept a system that allocates tangible financial costs to the growing environmental impacts of flying so that those who choose to fly will pay the bill.

Ralph C. Martin, Ph.D., professor (retired), University of Guelph. Information about your book, Food safety: from excess to sufficient in www.ralphmartin.ca