Listen to Australian and world news and follow trending topics with .
In 2019, Alex Mungall pledged to never steal again.
“I was traveling quite frequently and seeing what was being done and what wasn’t being done in the face of climate change that I was seeing everywhere. And in fact, I was traveling from Melbourne to Perth to see the wildflowers, which are so beautiful. And I realized that a lot of it was going to be destroyed as Western Australia dried up and it broke my heart.”
As someone who actively strives to live sustainably, Mr Mungall says ditching flying seemed the logical next step.
“I had done the solar panels, I had done the battery. Recently we have the electric car. But none of that is an equivalent response to the destruction caused by climate change.”
As the holiday season approaches, researchers are calling on more people to follow suit.
Together, researchers from the University of Queensland, Griffith University, the University of Sydney and Linnaeus University in Sweden found that aviation, public services and the use of private vehicles for Travel represents the three main sources of net emissions from the tourism sector.
The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, reveals that tourism’s global carbon footprint increased from 3.7 gigatons to 5.2 gigatons over a ten-year period.
Associate Professor Ya-Yen Sun from the University of Queensland says the rapid expansion of travel demand means carbon emissions from tourism activities now account for nine (9) percent of the global total.
“Our study tracks tourism spending and the local energy profile of 175 countries from 2009 to 2019. Our analysis shows that global tourism actually costs a lot of emissions.”
Associate Professor Sun says the growth rate of tourism emissions was 3.5 percent per year over the decade, while global emissions increased by 1.5 percent.
“So aviation is the elephant in the room. This particular sector is very difficult to decarbonize. But at the same time, our demand for air travel is very strong.”
According to the study, the United States, China and India are responsible for 60 percent of the total increase in tourism emissions.
Australia also ranked among the top 20 countries which together contributed three-quarters of tourism’s total carbon footprint in 2019.
Associate Professor Sun says prioritizing domestic travel could help reduce emissions.
“If you must take an international trip, please combine multiple trips into one. In other words, if you must take three shorter international trips, make one longer so that you can reduce transportation use.”
Those kinds of numbers are exactly why Mr. Mungall refuses to get on a plane.
Currently living in Melbourne, the 57-year-old was born in Scotland.
He says he’s determined to stay grounded, even if it means never seeing his family again.
“It’s quite heartbreaking to think that if this response that I took, this position that I took means that I won’t see my family again. But I was born in Scotland and that’s more like five tonnes of carbon in the world. atmosphere. of the ground. If I take that flight there.
But researchers say the pressure to change behavior shouldn’t be left solely to the consumer.
They also call on the government to establish a national inventory of tourism emissions and support initiatives to make domestic travel more sustainable.
For example, creating more charging stations for electric vehicles.
“We think there is hope if we can convince people to travel more within the country, because electric vehicles will solve the emissions problems of private vehicles.”
Mr Mungall says purchasing his electric vehicle has helped him keep moving.
“I’ve traveled quite a bit. I’ve been to Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, all from Victoria. Purchasing an electric vehicle has allowed me to feeling much freer because I was able to charge with solar energy during the day and have the freedom to go anywhere.
Other measures adopted by airlines, such as offering customers the option to offset the carbon emissions of their flights, do not convince environmentalists like Mr Mungall.
“It’s really an accounting trick. And these offsets are really unreliable. This forest could burn in the next wildfire and the accounting still happened, but the offset didn’t happen. They’re not not reliable and I don’t trust them.”
Associate Professor Sun says technology is not advancing fast enough.
“We are not so optimistic in terms of technology in the aviation sector. I mean there are discussions in terms of biofuels, in terms of electric planes, but those solutions are not really close. I mean we have to wait maybe about 20 or 30 hours It will take years for these solutions to be available across all airlines. We suggest that the carbon tax is probably the best way forward. at present. »
For Mr. Mungall, the only way he can make a difference is to refuse to fly altogether.
“I can’t, in good conscience, think that I’m leaving behind a legacy of fires and floods and people being displaced from their homes and unable to grow food anywhere near the tropics and that sort of thing. It’s a horrible situation that the world is facing from one generation to the next and yes, I don’t want to be a part of it anymore.
