Global warming sends chill wind for NZ tourism industry
THE latest big number on the impact of ‘‘flygskam’’ — or flight shaming — should have the aviation industry’s attention.
It does not come from an environmental group’s social media campaign, or a pronouncement from teen activist Greta Thunberg.
This is hardnosed research by an investment bank that makes clear that the future of flying and the enormous industry surrounding it is uncertain because of concerns about the climate.
That is worrying for airlines and tourism industries such as New Zealand’s, which vies with dairy as our biggest foreign exchange earner, but it is also a reminder of the opportunity that aviation and the energy sector must now seize.
The UBS research has revealed that travellers are already choosing not to fly: 21% of the 6000 people polled in the United States, Germany, France and Britain said they had reduced the number of flights they had taken during the past year, because of the environmental impact.
If current trends continue, this could halve the growth rate in passenger numbers.
Of those surveyed, 16% of British respondents said they were cutting back on the number of flights and 24% of those in the US said they were flying less. Both are key tourism markets for New Zealand.
And according to the BBC’s take on the UBS report, the number of flights in the European Union will increase by 1.5% a year, half the rate expected by planemaker Airbus.
The bank forecast that growth in US flights would fall from 2.1% to just 1.3%.
The number of smaller planes ordered from Airbus and rival Boeing would fall by 110 each year.
This would reduce revenue at Airbus alone by about $5 billion a year.
Already, Scandinavian airline SAS has experienced a 2% cut in traffic this year and Swedish airports say domestic traffic is down by 810% this year.
The overall rate of growth in visitors to New Zealand is well off its nearly doubledigit peak of a few years ago. Growth of the British market has softened in the past year, which has been attributed to Brexit uncertainty and the weaker pound, but the German market has also weakened.
Arrivals from the US are surging, though.
Around the world, 4 billion passengers travel every year and this is expected to nearly double by 2036.
Within that time, one report says, the aviation sector alone could emit a quarter of the world’s remaining carbon budget — the amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed if global temperature rise is to stay below 1.5degC.
New aircraft and engine technology have helped over the past 30 years but the rate of fuel efficiency gains is slowing.
Every flight taken by a passenger today will produce half the CO2 that the same flight would have emitted in 1990, and while the industry’s longterm goal is to halve net total CO emissions by 2050, that is aspirational. Without a massive shift away from today’s fuel for planes — dirty kerosene — that goal is likely to remain on the wish list.
Contrails from aircraft exhausts could have an even greater impact on global warming than carbon emissions, so aviation will remain a big target for environmental crusaders and environmentally conscious passengers who have alternatives to flying.
And that is a big problem for New Zealand. Nearly all our visitors have to fly here and once they are in this country, our rudimentary longdistance rail and bus network does not provide a viable alternative for them — or locals — who want to travel long distance in a hurry.
Twelve hours on a train between Auckland and Wellington compared to a onehour flight does not add up for anyone on a tight timetable.
This week’s UBS report has some stark, scary numbers but it will not come as a surprise to airlines and the tourism industry in this part of the world.
However, there is a renewed focus on the issue and during a Tourism Industry Aotearoa roadshow this year it was the most consistently voiced concern of all operators.
A Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment report this month said growing global concerns about climate change, environmental degradation and wider sustainability practices represented a threat to international travel to New Zealand in particular.
‘‘Growing awareness and concern about carbon emissions are predicted to have a significant effect on travel choices globally over coming years. Given New Zealand’s distance from most source markets, the potential implications for our international tourism industry of travellers’ carbon emission concerns is not to be ignored; careful reflection by our tourism industry is required.’’
Air New Zealand has identified the response to the climate ‘‘crisis’’ as pivotal and a member of the airline’s sustainability advisory panel, Tim Jackson, has spelt out the uncomfortable place where the company, and this country, finds itself.
‘‘When you’re living in the middle of a vast ocean 2000km from the nearest country, the last thing you want to hear about is flygskam,’’ says the professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey.
He says a return flight from Auckland to London accounts for about four tonnes of carbon dioxide, 10 times the annual carbon footprint of an average Bangladeshi.
‘‘Flying must either find a way to go fossilfree or else there must be fewer air miles factored into a business plan rather than more and more each year. Waiting for it to blow over is not really an option.’’
The airline’s sustainability report also delivered the unwelcome news that emissions in the past year had grown 5% because of network growth and being forced to use older aircraft to substitute for grounded newgeneration Dreamliners.
So what is the answer? Offsetting is one way of paying more to fly in order to support carbon reduction projects, such as forests, that generate carbon credits.
On Air New Zealand it will cost you $2.76 to offset a return flight between Auckland and Wellington, $7.58 between Auckland and Sydney and $32.74 between Auckland and Los Angeles.
The problem for the airline — and the planet — is that not many passengers do it; Kiwis are just ahead of Aussies near the bottom of the pack.
Former Air NZ chief executive Christopher Luxon said while up to 20% of travellers claimed they did, just 4.6% of New Zealanders offset their flights. This compares with 7.3% of North American passengers and nearly 10% of those from Britain.
During the past year 184,000 journeys were offset, up from 130,000 the previous year, although this is a tiny fraction of the 17 million passengers carried.
The only real solution is biofuel, sustainably produced and suitable to drop into aircraft tanks and onground infrastructure. In this area, progress has been glacial compared with the rate at which glaciers are melting.
Since 2011 there have been 200,000 biofuel blend flights — about the same number of flights in just one day in the peak of the northern summer last year.
There has not been the financial imperative, the will or the government support to replace more of the estimated 367 billion litres used every year by the airline industry.
When oil spiked to more than $US100 a barrel in 2008, there was a surge of enthusiasm, and Air NZ and other airlines ran shortlived trials. But it has been slow going since then.
Air New Zealand says it has joined with Z Energy, Refining NZ, Scion and Auckland International Airport to investigate setting up an aviation biofuel plant.