(12i) Flying - a necessary evil when one wants to meet other cultures

We all know climate is changing (although many don't want to acknowledge) and thus recently there was a discussion on the Flemish radio (as in other media) about the environmental cost of tourism. Indeed, planes burn fuel and thus pollute (quite heavily). Still, I think tourism should continue as it brings people together and provides jobs while I think it is less polluting than other industries when correctly used.

Low flying plane above Windsor Palace, UK

That doesn't mean flying shouldn't be done differently. Short distances can be done by train or bus that are less polluting while long distances can be made by plane. Indeed, planes (similarly as buses and trains) transport many people at ones and thus may be less polluting per persona than we assume (unless it is a private plane that only transports a few people). This is on condition that airlines stop flying short-distances as start and finish are always the most polluting moments while the in-between are much cleaner and thus the further apart the cities the cleaner. I don't even understand why people want to fly and airlines offer short distance flights in competition with trains, certainly with high speed trains that are more convenient as they travel from city center to city center and are often cheaper. I think even that flying short distances reduce airlines their profits unless they are fully booked. Also, when airlines are smaller companies but specialists in certain destinations, planes may be fuller, resulting in higher profits per plane. Of course, then collaboration with other airlines will be important so people have easy connections when changing company to fly to their destination. 

Further, airlines should not be allowed to fly to loss-making destinations when that can endanger the company, or is unfair competition with other companies. In addition, people should pay the real cost of flights, i.e. no tax-free fuels for airline companies so they are forced to buy the most energy-sufficient planes with little pollution so they can offer cheaper flights while countries may even fine airline companies that continue to use polluting (and noisy) planes.

Apart from buses, trains and planes, another possibility are boats, although they can be too slow to reach our destination in time before we have to return to work, unless people want to make a boat holiday. And as I recently experienced, making a cruise on a river can be very relaxing.

Everyone on the boat is enjoying the landscape

Tourism to faraway places is something most people do only once, twice or maybe three times a year and thus their carbon footprint is quite modest. On the positive side, when people travel they meet people from other cultures and thus may become less judgmental towards people who dress and eat differently, resulting in a nicer world (on condition they are open to the other cultures and don't only criticizes others for their habits but instead try them unless they oppress others). 

Discovering the world from the window of a plane

And of course, in general there is also much beauty closer to home so that people don't always need to travel to foreign destinations to see something exciting. But, how many people know their own town or region or neighboring cities and nature? Far away can be fun to completely forget work and every day life, but close-by can also be beautiful, certainly during shorter breaks.


I am less in favour of people flying too many business trips. Some people travel very often for work, even when meetings can be held over the internet (although than governments or other companies may listen to what people are telling and thus this should be very severely regulated). And if the numbers of business people who travel go down, the numbers of flights will also decline significantly and as a consequence air pollution. And as some people travel a lot for work, some are frustrated because they always have to fly and thus the frustration will decrease because people can be more at home with their family and friends while travel to important meetings.

Indeed, this doesn't mean people can't travel for business any more, as here too human contacts can be very important in addition to meetings over the internet. When people travel to a congress, it is not only to hear what people say (indeed, one day they will be able to read the results in articles or communicate them via email), but mostly to meet people for networking. But congresses are only a few times a year or even less. Further, certain meetings in person can also take part over the internet. Thus, when people travel less for work, pollution will go down. I also find that business trips shouldn't be allowed to be reduced from taxes, and thus when companies have to pay the real cost of the flight, it is more likely they will only travel to essential meetings (when I was a PhD student, I was allowed to go to congresses in other countries only when I had something to present, thus encouraging hard work while afterwards I took my holiday in this location). When employees fly less, that also probably means more profits for companies, certainly when companies need to pay the real cost of business trips. And when one can only travel once in a while, people will more appreciate their trip.

Meetings between divisions of companies or between different companies don't always have to happen in person as video conferencing can be quite efficient. Indeed, it is now even possible that people from all over the world join the meeting and see the presentation that is presented at one place. It also saves time and thus money because people don't have to travel. Nevertheless, if companies are nearby, people can still travel to each other for meetings, using less polluting trains while sometimes people far away meet in person to increase social bounding. And thus for those only interested in making profits, travelling more efficiently will save money and may cause less stress.

Public transport can be used for short distances while for very short distances people can walk or cycle. In doing so, I think pollution will go down much more than stopping tourists from flying. It will also result in less traffic and thus safer cities with cleaner air and thus less unhealthy cities while there can be more social contacts (of course, people in public transport can still determine whether they want to sit next to someone or prefer to maintain a distance and stand).


In conclusion, tourism should remain important and people should continue to travel but in an appropriate way, i.e. by bicycle, train or bus when travailing over shorter distances, by plane if they travel over longer distances while energy-friendly cars can be used if families travel together. But, business people may travel less by planes and even trains because it is less efficient, exhausting and costly, not only for the company but also society. By not travelling to the other side of the world for a shorter or longer meeting, people can spend more time with their families and friends while they will feel less tired. This doesn't mean they can't travel at all for work because also employees and employers sometimes need to meet each other for personal contact. Maybe trains can transport people to a place somewhere in between so both can travel and enjoy the trip? And when people travel less, they don't mind meeting someone somewhere as it is a break from normal work routine; on the other hand, people who travel too much for work stop having relaxed contacts with others as they become frustrated they have to travel again, resulting in meetings that are as short as possible without visiting the region together and thus in the end, personal contacts are reduced to short impersonal business meetings that could have been replaced with long distance video conferences while being allowed to travel ones in a blue moon will make people grateful they can travel and thus improve their performances.

10/04/2021: Update of the text to increase readability