FAQs

Taking a flight is one of the most high-carbon activities we can do. Not everybody flies, but for those who do, flights will make up the most significant part of your carbon footprint. To put it in context, one return transatlantic flight generates more CO2 per passenger than eating meat for a year, or driving for a year. 

At at time where scientists tell us we must dramatically cut our carbon output, the aviation industry has plans to grow and expand. It is much easier to decarbonise other sectors such as heating and road transport than it will be to decarbonise aviation. Many flights are non-essential, so addressing how much we fly is a key part of facing the climate emergency.

2% is a low estimate and doesn’t take into account the full warming impact of aviation, which includes radiative forcing (high-altitude emissions) and non-CO2 effects (e.g. water vapour contrails).

All told, aviation is responsible for about 4% of global climate change emissions.

But even 4% sounds low and insignificant. That’s not because emissions from aviation are low, it’s because, globally, very few people actually fly – only around 10 or 11% every year.

Here in the UK, flights make up 8% of total emissions (2019 figures), even though around half of Brits don’t get on a plane in any given year.

On an individual level, depending on how much people fly, flights could make up over half of one person’s carbon output for the year.

It might be surprising to hear that business flights only account for 9% of the flights we take, and this hasn’t changed much in the past few years.

The majority of flights (61%) are for holidays, with 28% being to visit family and friends.

Of course, we still need to work towards reducing business flights further, not least because flying business class is approximately three times more carbon-intensive than flying economy class owing to the extra space required.

Technology will certainly play a role in decarbonising aviation, and there are some very impressive developments being made at the moment to explore carbon-neutral ways of flying.

These developments are still a long way off, though: it will probably be multiple decades before they make an impact on emissions. The first electric or hydrogen-powered flights won’t be commercially available until at least 2035, and will likely only be viable for short haul travel.

The electricity needed to power these planes will need to come from renewable sources in order to be truly carbon-neutral, and there are lots of other things competing for our renewable supplies at the moment, so aviation is probably not the priority.

So while these development could help in the future, they will probably be small-scale (e.g. short flights between our island nations), and won’t be able to replace aviation like-for-like as we know it today.

‘Green’ fuels are less promising, as not only are there questions about the sustainability of so-called ‘sustainable’ aviation fuel (SAF), the amount of SAF being produced and used is minuscule compared to the amount of jet fuel we burn.

There’s often confusion around this, because global emissions from animal agriculture are much higher than global emissions from aviation, so people assume that being vegan is better for the environment than stopping flying.

The reason aviation emissions are lower in comparison is because globally, hardly anyone flies (around 10%), whereas a much higher proportion of people eat meat or animal products. On an individual level, the impact is a lot different: while being vegan can save around 1 tonne CO2 per year, you could use that up in a single flight.

There are lots of things that the government could do to make flight-free travel the easier choice, for example, making trains cheaper, and removing tax breaks for aviation.

We would love to see our politicians making the best choice for the climate, but that doesn’t always happen. In the absence of proper climate action from our leaders, we can make those choices ourselves.

Our individual actions can influence the system and encourage change from the top, especially if lots of us do it together.

Governments and industry respond to public opinion and consumer behaviour, so if we demonstrate with our actions that we don’t want to fly, we can influence policy. For example, as more people are choosing low-carbon travel, more ferry and rail routes are opening up across Europe, especially night trains.

Not at all! Travel is still possible (and in many cases, far more enjoyable) without flying.

We have lots of ideas for places you can go on our Destination Inspiration page, and tips and info for flight-free travel on our How to page.

Some places are harder than others, but it’s possible to go anywhere in the world without flying, if you have the time!

There are plenty of hot holiday destinations accessible without flying, for example Spain, France, and Italy.

It is also possible to get to more exotic destinations such as Morocco, Sardinia or Greece by a combination of train and boat. Not flying doesn’t mean compromising on holiday destinations.

Having said that, the UK weather isn’t always as bad as it seems, and UK holidays can be just as enjoyable as holidays abroad.

Private jets are extremely damaging to the climate, with up to 40x the emissions (per passenger) of taking a commercial flight.

We support a ban on private jets, and at the very least taxing private jet use at a much higher rate than regular aviation.

However, overall, private jets contribute a very small amount to aviation emissions. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about it or regulate the industry, but there would be a much bigger impact if overall levels of aviation came down, not just private jet use.

It’s true that there are some eye-wateringly low prices out there. One of the reasons is that there’s no tax on aviation fuel, giving flights an unfair advantage over other forms of transport.

However, it’s not always cheaper to fly, especially once you factor in transfers and luggage allowance etc. in addition to your air fare. Book in advance or save with Interrail to get the best fares. Take a look at our budget tips here.

Carbon offsetting is widely used by companies and airports that claim to be ‘carbon neutral’. Unfortunately this is a bit too good to be true. A 2017 study showed that the majority of carbon offsetting schemes didn’t absorb the necessary carbon, and while there are some gold-standard schemes out there, most of them rely on future carbon absorption (i.e. through planting trees), whereas flying emits carbon now.

Carbon offset schemes often mean that people feel that they have dealt with the impact of their flight, so they continue to fly. The best way to offset carbon emissions is not to produce them in the first place.

In the short term, your decision not to take a flight won’t stop that particular plane from taking off, but in the longer term, lower demand leads to less supply.

Airlines respond to customer demand, for example by putting extra flights on during sports tournaments. And if a particular route isn’t profitable because people aren’t taking it, the airline will withdraw it.

It’s a difficult argument because your decision won’t make an immediate difference, but it will contribute towards a shift away from taking flights that will ultimately lead to fewer flights taking off.

There’s not a straightforward answer to this, as it’s inevitable that lower levels of flying would lead to fewer jobs in the aviation industry.

But there are equivalent jobs in other industries that are transferable from aviation. In fact, a 2022 study showed that moving to green transport would create more jobs than would be lost in the aviation sector.

In terms of tourism, it’s also a difficult question, because many places around the world rely on foreign visitors as a main source of income. But overtourism has become a problem in many places too, as a result of too many visitors putting pressure on local infrastructure, housing, water and natural sites. Machu Picchu is a prime example of this, as well as much closer destinations such as Barcelona and Mallorca, which have seen protests against tourism for many years.

One answer to this could be to avoid flying: we can still visit places that rely on tourist income, but because overland travel takes longer and tends to cost a bit more, it wouldn’t be at a rate that causes problems for locals.

It’s also worth supporting our own local tourism industry here in the UK.

Our main pledge is for people to stay completely flight free for a year. This is our tried-and-tested method of behaviour change, and it’s a great way to reduce emissions and try the alternatives.

However, being completely flight free won’t suit everybody, for example if you have work or family commitments. Offering a ‘free choice’ pledge means that you can choose something that suits your personal circumstances. This could be anything from not flying on holiday, to challenging yourself to a flight-free decade!

The ‘free choice’ pledge is designed so that you can pick whatever suits you. However, it still needs to be a challenge! We encourage you to choose something ambitious, given our fragile climate situation.

We strongly suggest that holiday flights are not included in any pledge, because of the severity of the climate crisis and our urgent need for climate justice.

You can change your pledge category by signing the pledge again with the same email address and name that you used the first time, but with your new category choice. The database will be updated to reflect your new category.

Asking people to stop flying forever is unlikely to appeal. But a flight free year can be a good way to break an established habit and enable people to start to see other alternatives. Having a time limit focuses the pledge as well as makes it an achievable aim. Committing to something in the short term increases the chances of longer-term behavioural change.

Flight Free UK is part of an international community of flight-free movements. Each country is different, with different social and political attitudes towards flying, and we take care to ensure our communications and messaging relate to the travel and political situation we have here in the UK. We aim to build a community of people who feel united about an issue, and we will have a more compelling voice with government if our signatories are all UK residents.

In practice, anyone can sign the pledge from anywhere in the world, but our focus is on the UK.

If an emergency situation arises, of course we understand that you would have to break your pledge.

It’s true that many other countries are far more polluting than the UK. But in terms of aviation, Brits take more flights than in any other nation in the world. It is also far easier to guide and influence other countries and regimes if you lead by example.

Yes. It is possible to register children and other close relatives who do not have their own email address by entering their name and the same email address that you used.

If you are interested in setting up your own campaign, please get in touch. It’s hard work but can be very rewarding to inspire your fellow countrymen to be flight free!

Yes, please do! Your voice will give the campaign credence and will show others that there is a desire to take action on this issue. People are more willing to change their behaviour if others show they are doing the same, so your signature will encourage others to also take the pledge.

Fewer flights is absolutely the aim of the campaign, and just reducing your flying by one flight per year can substantially lower your carbon output. However, for this particular campaign we are asking people to abstain completely for one year (or make their own custom challenge).

This is partly because of the fragile state of our climate and the need to take immediate and meaningful action, but it’s mostly to demonstrate that there are legitimate alternatives to flying. This challenge requires real commitment and, for some, a significant lifestyle change, which is more likely to promote greener transport choices in the future.