Effects of climate change policies on aviation carbon offsetting: a three-year panel study

Climate-Friendly Ethics Prescribed by Top World Airlines: Empirical Evidence

“…An important question is whether the appearance of the climate-related phrases and word expressions in 25% of the codes should be deemed as a failure or success. On the one hand, the contribution of the aviation industry to the global climate change is really significant [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14], and, thus, strict prescription of the climate-friendly behavior seems to be a must for all companies. On the other hand, the codes of conduct do not serve to reflect all business concerns and responsibilities (there are other corporate documents-e.g., sustainability strategies), and, thus, prescribing eco-ethics is voluntary.…”

“…The remaining skepticism [4] leads to inaction costing too much [5]. The significant human contribution to the ongoing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions is undisputable, and air transport, the growth of which is fueled by globalization and tourism, is among the most contributing industries [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Notably, this industry itself is affected by climate change [15,16].…”

A space tourism destination: environmental, geopolitical and tourism branding considerations for New Zealand as a ‘launch state’

“…Visitor mobility, notably international and domestic air travel, has increased exponentially over the last few decades reaching 3.44 billion passengers in 2015 (Ritchie et al, 2020) with a third of that being from international tourism (1.13 billion in 2014) and predicted to reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNTWO). With the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 it is likely that the aero-mobility 'peak' of 2019 is unlikely to be surpassed for some years, perhaps sometime after 2025.…”

“…With international travel accounting for about a quarter (23%) of tourism's global carbon footprint (Lenzen et al, 2018), and aviation growth at 3.5% per year, Cohen and Kantenbacher (2020) discuss a co-benefits approach to incentivise flying less by frequent flyers and suggest that a co-benefit approach combining environmental benefit and individual health, rather than purely pro-environmental messaging, can be more effective in influencing behavioural change in aeromobility. A pro-environmental choice can be at odds with a personal cost-benefit analysis, for example less than 10% of air travellers choose to purchase carbon offsetting by airlines offering voluntary offsetting schemes (Ritchie et al, 2020), whereas a co-benefit approach to influencing international tourist aeromobility may have greater effect and may be applicable to a broad range of behavioural strategies for transformative change and deserves further investigation.…”

“…The '2% of global CO2 emissions' frequently referred to by researchers and industry groups such as the IATA effectively understates the actual GHG effect at altitude of combined CO2 & NOx emissions from aircraft. Additionally, carbon offsetting schemes offered by airlines do not mitigate ozone depletion and may be typically focused on forest projects (tree planting) which represent 'uncertain long-term biological sinks' (Ritchie et al, 2020). Elgi called for the airline industry to limit commercial flights to below 9,000 metres to reduce ozone damage, but this would have increased travel times and brought greater public attention to aircraft emission damage which was clearly unattractive to competitive airline operators and, nearly 30 years since Elgi's research was first published, would be equally unattractive to space tourism operators as well.…”