Messages From Above

Michael O’Leary recently informed us that carbon emissions (GHG’s) from aviation worldwide make up just 2.5% of the world’s total.  He did not mention, however, that flying happens to be one of our most carbon-intensive activities.  The reason it makes up such a small proportion of the worlds’ carbon emissions is that only around 10% of the world’s population fly in any one year.  

Here in Ireland that figure is probably closer to 100%.

Ireland has a population of 5.3 million.   In 2024, 13.7 million outbound trips were made by Irish residents (according to the CSO). 51% of these were for holiday purposes, 36% to visit friends or relatives and only 6% for business travel. 

Meanwhile, even as we are on the verge of breaching the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5° of global warming, flight emissions are increasing.  Since 1990 flying has become more than twice as energy efficient, but this improvement has not translated to lower emissions, as both passenger and freight demand have increased.  

Some people have moved to electric cars, had solar panels installed and their houses retrofitted, yet the number of flights taken are increasing. People ignore flying when it comes to global warming.

This is due to the messaging we are getting from our institutions, which are intent on growing consumption even more, instead of reducing it.  Flying is one area they want to increase.  It is written in Ireland’s current programme for government.  They say flying is important for the economy, but what figures are they basing this on?  

A recent Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) advertisement claimed that Cork and Dublin airports contribute €10.6 billion to the economy.  This figure did not take into account the €12.9 billion taken out of the economy by Irish people going abroad. The Advertising Standards Authority said that they did not consider that this was likely to mislead consumers, as there was no suggestion that the €10.6 billion was a net gain figure. But has it misled the government?

We can’t look to the EU to save us.  Even as I write this, the EU, (along with promising to spend billions on imports of US fossil fuels,) has negotiated two-way zero tariffs on flights to the USA. A return flight to New York emits 1.8 tons of carbon, a return flight to San Francisco emits 3.2 tonnes, Disneyland Orlando is 2.4 tonnes (all per person).

The government and the EU do not want to discourage flying, so instead they promote it.  Promoting such a carbon-intensive activity is as damaging to our hopes of tackling the climate crisis as any conspiracy theory.  Perhaps they have a selfish motive:  discouraging flying would mean well-paid government and EU officials would be obliged to avoid flying.  Perhaps, like Dr Strangelove, they have learnt to stop worrying and love fossil fuels.

One can’t help thinking that since government and the EU don’t seem to take it seriously, climate change is not a serious issue after all.

We need to change this behaviour in order to reduce emissions.  We should not expect the change to be prompted by Michael O’Leary: – he is paid to look after the pockets of Ryanair shareholders (among them the CEO of DAA).  We should expect our own elected officials, though, to lead us out of the biggest threat facing humanity – instead of bringing it on.

Recently Paschal Donohoe wrote in a review of a book about degrowth: “The author would no doubt argue that I am a prisoner of the very system that should be overturned.  If a revolution were to occur, my prospects would not be great.”  Dear Mr Donohoe, things mightn’t need to go that far.  Just start by discouraging flying.   Who knows where that might lead us?

C O’Reilly