In the Wake of the Global Climate Strikes: A FlyingLess Update

A singing protest inside Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Sept. 2, 2019.

When we launched the FlyingLess initiative in October 2015, flying was a marginal issue in discussions surrounding global warming and co2 emissions. Four years later, it is remarkable how visible the issue has become—in academia and, more importantly, in the greater world. Greta Thunberg’s principled opposition to flying and her decision to sail from Europe to the United States across the Atlantic has certainly aided this shift, but many factors—not least the work of a whole host of organizations and individuals—underlie it.

The manifestations of the shift are multiple, and evident in recent weeks. They range from the individual to the collective.

On September 11, for example, Oliver Smith, the digital travel writer of The Telegraph, one of Britain’s leading daily newspapers, announced that he would limit himself to one roundtrip flight per year. He pledged to do so, he wrote, “until the aero boffins develop a zero-carbon alternative (and I don’t mean some dubious offsetting scheme devised to lessen the guilt of frequent travellers).” Less than a month later, Michael Kerr, a travel writer with the politically conservative daily, made a similar commitment, pledging that he would no longer fly for work purposes. Around the same time, The New York Times reported that Jérôme Bel, a renowned French choreographer, will no longer fly for professional purposes and renounced membership in what he calls the “artistic jet set.” As a result, Bel has had to change the way he conducts and organizes his work and travel. He has thus persuaded theaters to allow for train trips, and made plans to go by train, along with his four assistants, to Moscow and four cities in China in fall 2020.

On October 2, 36 young climate activists and five crew members set sail from Amsterdam on a seven-week voyage to Chile to attend the COP25 and lobby national governments to take the steps needed to radically cut flying-related emissions. Meanwhile the “flight shame” movement continues to expand and put a dent in the growth of commercial aviation. It is for such reasons that UBS predicted that rising concerns about the environmental impact of flying will reduce the sale of new jets from Boeing and Airbus in the coming years. Underlying the projected reduction are a doubling by Germany’s government of the taxes on short-distance flights as a way of bringing the country closer to its emissions-reduction target, as well as an “ecotax” on flights beginning in 2020 announced by France’s government.

In the United Kingdom especially, where more than two-thirds of those recently polled think that people should reduce the amount of flying they do, the issue seems to be receiving increased attention. In September, the BBC ran an extensive piece on the growing support for the anti-flying movement and an increasing embrace of slower forms of travel. It included quotes from Anna Hughes, head of Flight Free UK, and FlyingLess supporters Alice Larkin, a climate scientist at the University of Manchester, Roger Tyers, an environmental sociologist at Southampton University, and Steve Westlake, a behavioral psychologist at Cardiff University. Later the same month, the BBC ran a debate entitled “Should we stop flying” that featured geographer Paul Chatterton. (See Chatterton’s essay, “The Climate Emergency and the New Civic Role for the University” on

A global survey released at the end of August by Ipsos, a research organization, found that one out of seven people are willing to use a form of transportation with a lower co2 footprint than aviation even if were costlier and less convenient. (In China, the figure was nearly two thirds of those surveyed.) If the alternative forms of transport are as convenient as, and no more expensive than flying, 29 percent would switch.

What makes these developments all the more necessary is that flight-related emissions not only continue to increase, but also have grown much faster than many expected. In September, the International Council on Clean Transportation reported that, based on its study, emissions from commercial air travel are increasing 1.5 times faster than predicted by the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization, which had foreseen a tripling of emissions, over 2018 levels, by 2050.

It is thus both surprising and heartening to see the president and CEO of KLM, the world’s oldest airline, publishing an open letter, one which acknowledges, even if mildly so, the detrimental impact flying has on the environment. The Dutch airline’s letter calls upon both passengers and the commercial air travel industry to work together to bring about “a sustainable future for aviation.” An accompanying video encourages would-be travelers to consider alternatives to air travel, asking “Do you always have to meet face-to-face?” and “Could you take the train instead?” (KLM has also said it will continue to promote air travel, one reason being that it “needs to make a profit to survive.”)

Exciting Initiatives in Academia and Beyond

The Centre for Energy and Climate Transformation at the University of Bergen in Norway organized a conference train from Oslo to Bergen, site of the conference Beyond Oil: Deep and Rapid Transformations. The seven-hour trip between the two cities included workshops and academic discussions that took place in a train car dedicated to the moving gathering. “Who said slow travel had to be boring?” the organizers asked rhetorically.

On November 13, 2019, the University of Sheffield will host a one-day international symposium on “Reducing Academic Flying.” The gathering will “bring together leading researchers into academic and business flight, as well as people with experience of initiatives that help to reduce flight dependence.” If you would like to attend or to participate remotely, send an email to

In September, faculty associated with the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at Vancouver’s University of British Columbia launched an open letter to the university’s administration and governing body. In the name of “modelling best practices and encouraging other universities and workplaces to dramatically lower emissions,” the letter calls upon them to provide incentives and institutional support to lower aviation emissions among UBC faculty and administrators. Business-related flying is the source of an estimated 40% of the university’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The letter is associated with a larger effort called “Zero Emission University,” which also invites Canadian academics to sign a pledge “committing to restrict air travel and foster a low-carbon culture” in universities.

In Germany, a group of academics has come together under the name of “ClimateWednesday” to bring about climate-neutral universities by 2035. According to ClimateWednesday, there are efforts at numerous institutions in Germany to encourage academics to commit not to fly short distances (distances that can be traversed by non-flying means in less than 12 hours). As reported on its website, many hundreds of German academics have made the commitment thus far.

Recent academic articles and essays

An international team of five researchers published the results of a study of 29 international students at Sweden’s Lund University concerning the perceived importance of their flights over a six-year period. In light of the necessity of reducing the amount of flying, the term sought to ascertain the types of airborne trips that could be relatively easily reduced. Of the 587 flights taken by the students, 40 percent were for leisure purposes, and 23 percent were aimed at visiting friends or relations. The students rated 48 percent of their flights as lacking importance. For the authors, these findings suggest the need to incorporate the environmental costs of air travel into the price of tickets as a way of reducing “superfluous” air travel, that which travelers themselves deem as unnecessary. (See Stefan Gossling,, Paul Hanna, James Higham, Scott Cohen, and Debbie Hopkins, “Can we fly less? Evaluating the ‘necessity’ of air travel,” Journal of Air Transport Management, Vo. 81, published online September 26, 2019.)

Another five-person team—composed of individuals from the Departments of Geography at the Université de Montréal (UdeM) and its cross-town counterpart, McGill University—evaluated the study-/work-related mobility footprint (beyond daily commutes) of professors, students, postdoctoral fellows, and research staff. Focusing on the UdeM, the team surveyed 703 individuals about their travel habits. The team also gathered data from the university regarding the travel of sports teams and travel data related to study abroad programs and international students. The study found that most travel is to locations within Québec, involving short distances. In terms of mode of travel, 35 percent of trips were by plane. For students, the figure was 87.4 percent. Among professors who responded, the size of their work-related travel footprint alone averages 10.76 metric tons of CO2 per year. Academic air travel by itself is, the authors estimate, responsible for 30 percent of the university’s CO2 emissions, and 7 percent of its nitrogen output. (See Julien Arsenault, Julie Talbot, Lama Boustani, Rodolphe Gonzales, and Kevin Manaugh, “The environmental footprint of academic and student mobility in a large research-oriented university,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 14, 2019: 095001.)

One year after committing to give up flying—what she calls “one of the most unsettling things I’ve done as an academic” but about which, despite still feeling some conflict, “more convinced of the value of the exercise now than I did at first—anthropologist Hannah Knox offers a thoughtful reflection of her experience. Embracing a “slow academia” and alternative forms of travel, Knox has “found a new space for thinking about what it means to do anthropology and do academic work.” It is “a space in which she is exploring “with others new ways of reflexively critiquing and potentially transforming, the high-carbon version of knowing and acting that we have come to take for granted.” (See Hannah Knox, “A Year Without Flying,” July 2, 2019; posted at

In a similar spirit, geographer Sue Ruddick asks how, in a time of intensifying climate breakdown, “might we think alternative forms of connection in a way that doesn’t seem like the poor cousin to the big conference?” In an effort to “replace old seductions with new ones,” the brief article explores two “recipes” for low-CO2-emitting and “slow” forms of conferencing. (See “Slow Conferencing: A Recipe for Connection in Troubled Times,” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2019: 576-580.)

Finally, tourism, transportation, and energy scholars Scott Cohen and Joseph Kantenbacher assert in their conceptual article that a key reason that arguments for reducing air travel have failed to win over many frequent flyers is that they are narrowly framed around climate change. They thus advocate for a focus on the personal health benefits of flying less. Such gains, they contend, “are more numerous and likely more salient for frequent flyers than environmental benefits.” This points to the need for a “co-benefits” approach, one that conjoins the health and environmental benefits of reduced flying. In the end, the authors call for research to test empirically the effectiveness of such an approach. (See: “Flying Less: Personal Health and Environmental Co-benefits, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2019.)

Updates on Various Fronts

Climate strike protest, London, February 2019.

Exciting Initiatives in Academia and Beyond

The Université de Neuchâtel in Switzerland is encouraging its academic personnel to decrease its flying and has devised a chart to help them do so. In response to the efforts of the three PhD students at the French-speaking university, the institution is asking researchers, faculty, and graduate students to commit themselves to reduced flying—renouncing, for example, all flights within Switzerland and taking ground transportation to all destinations within 450 kilometers of Neuchâtel—by publicly signing a document. As of May 29, 166 individuals had signed.

Students in Europe have launched a European Citizens’ Initiative to get the European Union to end the privileged status of air travel by imposing a tax on aviation kerosene or fuel. The hope is that, by making flying more expensive, the tax will lead to a reduction in air travel and spur greater investment in sustainable modes of transportation. The initiators of the petition ask that FlyingLess supporters from EU member-states consider signing. You can do so here.

In April, the Council of the American Association of Geographers (AAG) received a petition signed by 234 AAG members. The document called upon the AAG Council to take far-reaching action to reduce CO2 emissions related to the Annual Meeting—one which sees about 9,000 attendees from the United States and abroad, the vast majority of them flying to and from the host city and producing thousands of tons of CO2 emissions in the process. Responding favorably to the petition, the Council is now in the process of setting up a task force charged with redesigning the AAG meetings and reducing their associated emissions at a depth and scale suggested by climate science and bodies such as the International Panel on Climate Change. Given the size and influence of the AAG, this development could have impacts well beyond the organization.

On May 31, 2019, the Department of Geography, Planning & Environment at Concordia University in Montreal adopted a “Flying Less Policy” that grew out of the work of its Climate Emergency Committee.  The policy requires, among other things, that all faculty members in the department disclose their annual flying activity (the results of which have already been made public, collectively and anonymously, for 2018-2019). The policy also commits faculty to prioritizing travel-free meetings and video conferencing over physical travel and, when travel is needed, collective forms of ground transportation for destinations within 12 hours of Montreal. Moreover, it commits the Department to promoting a Flying Less policy at the University as a whole, and within Quebec and Canada as well (by encouraging external funders, for example, to work to decrease flying). In addition, the new policy requires that the Department encourage students to participate in activities that do not involve flying and provide financial support to make such participation possible.

Concrete initiatives and strategies to reduce air travel will be the focus of a flight-free conference in Barcelona from July 12-14. Organized by the Stay Grounded network—in conjunction with various civil society groups and the Institute for Ecological Sciences and Technology (ICTA) in Barcelona—the “Degrowth in Aviation” conference will bring together social movements, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. To register, go here.

In the Media

Efforts to reduce flying within the academy and far beyond are receiving heightened attention in the media. A May 22 article in The Guardian (“Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers”), for instance, mentioned FlyingLess and linked to our website, leading to a huge spike in visits. Meanwhile, TRT World, an international news channel, recently broadcast a roundtable discussion addressing the question, “Can we stop flying?”  Among the four participants was Milena Büchs, as Associate Professor in Sustainability, Economics and Low-Carbon Transitions at the University of Southampton (and a Flyingless petition signatory ).

The coverage manifests the growing movement in Europe critical of flying and its impact. As POLITICO Europe reports, “If it were a country, aviation would be the sixth-largest carbon polluter in the world, eclipsing Germany.” The same article, whose title refers to a “popular revolt against flying,” asserts that “campaigns to reduce air travel emissions are gaining traction” in Europe.

This is especially evident in Sweden (see “#stayontheground: Swedes turn to trains amid climate ‘flight shame’”), where the number of domestic air passengers has dropped eight percent (8%) in recent months, after a three percent (3%) decrease the previous year, while train travel has increased by similar figures. In response, the Swedish government has stated that it would like to reintroduce overnight trains to cities throughout Europe. (Elsewhere on the continent, there are other favorable signs of the resurrection of night trains.)

In France, the national government is considering a proposed ban on flights within the country on routes traveled by train in less than five hours.  Regardless of what the government decides, it will push for an aviation fuel tax at the next meeting of the European Commission, according to France’s Environment Minister Francois Rugy.

Such developments have not gone unnoticed within the aviation industry. At the meeting in Seoul, South Korea of the International Air Transport Association in early June, airline executives expressed worry that anti-flying sentiment will “grow and spread” if they don’t win what one executive termed the “communications battle.” (See “‘Flight shame’: How climate guilt is the newest threat to airlines.”)

Recent academic articles

An article by researchers in the Department of Geography the University of British Columbia, one based on a sample of 705 academics at their home institution, found no relationship between the amount of professional air travel and academic productivity. They also found, using a smaller sample size, no significant difference in total air travel emissions between researchers they characterized as “Green” (those who study topics related to environmental sustainability) and “Not-green.” (See Seth Wynes, Simon D. Donner, Steuart Tannason, Noni Nabors, “Academic air travel has a limited influence on professional success,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 226, No. 20, 2019: 959-967.)

Another just-published article by a team of researchers at the University of Adelaide studied academic air travel—also among academics at their home institution. The authors were particularly interested between institutional pressures for academics to fly and their university’s formal commitment to sustainability. Drawing on a one-year qualitative study, they found that, while many academics are worried about climate change, only a small number are willing to fly less for fear of damaging their careers. The authors conclude that institutional and political shifts are needed to bring about individual changes in behavior on a large scale. (See Melissa Nursey-Bray, Robert Palmer, Bride Meyer-Mclean, Thomas Wanner, & Cris Birzer, “The Fear of Not Flying: Achieving Sustainable Academic Plane Travel in Higher Education Based on Insights from South Australia,” Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 9, 2019: 2694.)

A FlyingLess Anthropology: Revisiting #displace18

Bracco Illustration
This illustration by Michael Bracco appeared on screens on every break between panels during the Displacements conference livestream.

A little more than one year ago, the Society for Cultural Anthropology (SCA), in conjunction with the Society for Visual Anthropology, held its biennial conference. Called “Displacements” (#displace18), it was a hybrid undertaking, one composed of a virtual conference and in-person gatherings at sites across the world linked via the internet. In addition, it was an experiment—one aimed at radically reducing the ecological footprint associated with academic conferences and re-thinking what takes place within the conference itself.

Anchored by a dedicated website operating out of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland (USA), the April 19-21, 2018 gathering involved 150 individual presenters and more than 1,300 participants from over 40 countries, more than half from outside the United States. (Previous, in-person SCA gatherings typically had about 200 attendees, the vast majority of them from the United States.) The scores of local “nodes” from which participants accessed the conference ranged from Amsterdam, Quetzaltenango, Quito, and Seattle to Dakar, Jakarta, Tangier, and Toronto. (Many also accessed Displacements from their homes.) Moreover, the conference included a film festival.

#Displace18 succeeded on many levels, most notably by drastically cutting the CO2 emissions of the conference while greatly democratizing participation. (Conference registration was only US$10.) That said, there were also limitations and challenges associated with the new format—from the technical to the social and personal.

As many followers of FlyingLess often inquire about different “models” of virtual conferences, we bring to your attention a valuable essay, “Reflections on #displace 18,” authored by Anand Pandian, the lead conference organizer. The essay, one partially informed by surveys of Displacements participants, explores the successes and challenges of the 2018 meeting, while providing a helpful overview of the conference.

At the end of the essay, Pandian puts forth a number of “lessons” and “future possibilities”—both for those involved in Displacements and for others who are thinking of organizing similar endeavors. Among them is the great potential for better exploiting the node structure so that nodes become central actors in the overall conference—by serving as sources of conference material, for example—rather than simply tools of distribution. Another is the need for Displacements and similar undertakings to figure out how to negotiate the potential for distraction among conference participants. Because the format allows for virtual attendance, it also facilitates multitasking by attendees, thus raising challenges in regards to depth of engagement.

The effort to think through such matters is a manifestation of the Society for Cultural Anthropology’s intention to do another Displacements-like conference in 2020. Indeed, work on the next biennial conference is already underway.

Meanwhile, anthropologists are pushing the American Anthropological Association (AAA) to allow for virtual alternatives to in-person participation at its annual meetings. For the upcoming meeting in Vancouver (in November), Anand Pandian and some fellow anthropologists proposed an “Executive Session”—a status granted to panels seen as most relevant to the conference theme—on the carbon impact of conferencing and low-impact alternatives. The proposal quoted the AAA’s Global Climate Change Task Force’s final report (one approved by the organization’s Executive Board in December 2014). “Reshaping the relationship between people and their carbon-intensive lifeways entails a shift in habitus,” the report asserted, while recommending that the AAA “aggressively” pursue “developments . . . that reduce the carbon footprint due to association-wide activities.”

Such language notwithstanding, and even though the conference theme is “Changing Climates: Struggle, Collaboration, and Justice,” the AAA declined to include the panel among its high-profile sessions.

Despite the rejection, the organizers behind the proposal hope that the would-be roundtable discussion—one envisioned as a combination of in-person conversation for those physically present and of a series of video presentations available on social media—will be part of the regular conference program. Regardless, one can be sure that the energy generated by #displace18, along with a growing reality and awareness of climate breakdown, will only lead to intensified efforts to push the AAA and related associations in a low-CO2-emissions direction.