SKH: In your transition paper, Stay Grounded proposes that "flights will be prioritised for those who really need them". How would that work in practice? Who would decide "who really needs" to fly and what criteria would be used?

This is one of the key questions we should discuss: What are legitimate flights and what are unnecessary, frivolous and unfair flights that should be stopped immediately? There is no easy answer, and not one person alone can decide. But we need a societal debate on that.

Also, I like the idea of a frequent flyer levy, which would only apply to those taking a lot of flights. It would still allow migrants to visit their family abroad while targeting wealthy frequent fliers. They have to be held responsible for their climate impact, and the money could be used for fostering alternative transport modes available to everyone, and for creating job alternatives.

SKH: The Stay Grounded paper talks about the need to "create a cultural shift" and perhaps that has already begun to happen with the "flygskam" movement. But how can you convince people to fly less often?

MH: Behaviour changes, cultural changes and structural systemic changes are closely interlinked. Some people have changed their habits because they realize that flights are extremely damaging. But that's not enough to avoid climate breakdown. Many people will continue choosing a flight if it's quicker and cheaper than a train. This is where structural change is necessary – we need to have common rules that incentivize sustainable choices and abolish damaging business.

But in order to achieve those policy changes, pressure from below is decisive. And this will only be possible if more than a tiny minority decides to not fly anymore.

SKH: Stay Grounded writes that "possible future technology should not be an excuse to not act now". What do you mean by that?

MH: The aviation industry is a greenwashing best practice case. Currently, there is almost no production capacity for e-fuels. Converting electricity to fuel is an energy-intensive process. Electric fuels could in theory be produced by surplus renewable energy and serve as storage technology in times of high wind or solar energy production. The problem is that we are a long way from even producing enough renewables for transport on the ground, manufacturing, agricultural production or heating. If all planes currently were to fly with e-fuels, this would consume more than the existing renewable electricity in the world, leaving nothing for other sectors.

SKH: Even some airlines are critical of CORSIA. Would you rather see airlines pursuing their own emission reduction strategies than joining together in something like CORSIA?

MH: It will never work to leave climate measures up to companies. They will not voluntarily threaten their business model while competing against other airlines.

SKH: Deutsche Welle found that participation in CORSIA will cost airlines less than 1% of their operating costs by 2035. Does that level of investment show that airlines are taking their environmental commitments seriously?

MH: Offsetting (or the CORSIA rules on it) are no incentive for airlines to reduce their emissions. Offsetting is cheaper than a kerosene tax or the development of alternative fuels and new propulsion technologies, so it delays action.

SKH: International aviation is the only sector that has an absolute cap on global CO2 emissions and today’s flights emit only roughly half as much CO2 as they did 30 years ago. Does the aviation industry deserve credit for its advancements to date and its future green initiatives?

MH: This is not entirely correct. It's true that one flight today emits fewer emissions than one flight 30 years ago. But in total, flight emissions have grown a lot! From 1990 to 2010, global CO2 emissions rose by an estimated 25%. Over the same period, the CO2 emissions of international aviation rose by more than 70%. And this is supposed to continue: Before Covid-19, the industry expected air traffic demand to double in the next 20 years.

So while coal-fired power stations are being shut down, there are no plans at all to restrict aviation growth.

International aviation is not the only sector that has an absolute cap on CO2 emissions – it is actually the only sector that almost solely relies on offsetting emissions instead of reducing them. This means paying others to reduce their emissions, in order to keep flying.

SKH: If we could ask you to look into a crystal ball, do you think the industry will hit its 50% emissions reduction target by 2050? If that target is reached, what sort of role will CORSIA have played in that?

MH: My crystal ball tells me two scenarios: In the realistic one, the crystal ball looks like the earth on fire. By 2050, several tipping points will have been reached and we're in a serious humanitarian crisis that we totally lost control of. In this scenario, some very wealthy will still take flights, while the majority of people fleeing from disasters will be left on their own devices.

The other scenario is the hopeful one. CORSIA will have been scrapped a long time ago and replaced by stronger national, regional and international commitments. There still will be a reduced amount of flights, and for this smaller number of planes, it will be possible to use truly renewable propulsion, while there are comfortable sustainable trans-oceanic ferries on which people can enjoy the journey or work from. Reduced working hours, thriving communities and the sense of contributing to a meaningful healthy life will allow people to feel nourished without the need for the current type of holidays.

Digital services

Quick Links

Quick Links

Legal Links

CORSIA critic: A ‘false solution’ that ‘delays action’