There is a longstanding debate in sustainable tourism, as to the tourist markets that are most worthy of our marketing efforts. Much of the debate centres on affluence which is assumed to link directly to economic impacts. But there is increasing evidence to suggest that in terms of a commitment to sustainable tourism development, the most affluent visitors may be best avoided.
References:
Gössling, S., Humpe, A., & Leitão, J. C. (2024). Private aviation is making a growing contribution to climate change. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 666.
Carbon Market Watch (2024). Taylor Swift and the top polluters department. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2024/02/13/taylor-swift-and-the-top-polluters-department
Cohen, S., Liu, H., Hanna, P., Hopkins, D., Higham, J.E.S. & Gössling, S. (2021). The Rich Kids of Instagram: Luxury travel, transport modes and desire. Journal of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211037748
Higham, J.E.S. & Sun, Y.Y. (2024). Surging global tourism emissions are driven by just twenty countries: Major new study. The Conversation (11 December 2024). https://theconversation.com/surging-global-tourism-emissions-are-driven-by-just-20-countries-major-new-study-244036
Transcript:
Last week my friend Stefan Gössling co-authored a paper published in Communications: Earth and Environment that received a lot of global media interest. The paper was titled: Private aviation is making a growing contribution to climate change. In this paper the authors attempted to calculate the CO2 emissions of private jet use, using flight tracker data for the period 2019 to 2023. The high level of interest in this paper arises from the fact that we know that commercial aviation’s contribution to climate change is growing, but the role of private aviation has, until recently, been allowed to fly under the radar.
At the same time,Carbon Market Watch (2024) highlighted the problems of private jetsetters, reporting that Taylor Swift’s private jet emissions are the highest of any celebrity in the world. This also made the headlines. It reported that: “Not only is Swift topping the charts but also comes first in the list of celebrities with the highest Co2 emissions from flying… Her private jet usage amounted to an estimated 8,300 tonnes of carbon emissions in 2022 – that’s about 1,800 times the average human’s annual emissions, or 576 times that of the average American and about 1,000 times that of the average European”.
Of course her private jet use ramped up enormously during her Eras world tour. It was widely reported that immediately after her concert in Tokyo she raced to her private jet to get to Las Vegas to see her boyfriend playing the in Superbowl.
Carbon Market Watch also reported on CelebJets. This was a Twitter (X) account, run by 21-year-old Jack Sweeney that exposed Taylor Swifts frequent flyer status. The account has been suspended and Jack is currently embroiled in a legal battle with Swift. According to Carbon Market Watch “Sweeney had previously endured silencing attempts by Elon Musk after highlighting the billionaire’s private jet usage”. This is an interesting trend in celebrities attempting to silence those who draw attention to the disproportionate impacts of private jet use when it comes to our rapidly dwindling carbon budget. Even though the information used by the tracker is publicly available and in the public interest.
All of this highlights the injustices of private jet use and the enormous emissions of the ultra rich”. It is probably unfair that Taylor Swift’s emissions have received so much attention. There is in fact high use of private jets in corporate culture and political circles, and wider patterns of excessive flying. Although the EU aims for a 90% reduction in emissions by 2040, the number of private jet flights in Europe increased by almost 65% in 2022 with the majority of flights being less than 750km. Some organisations are now calling for private jets to be banned altogether. They are simply incompatible with a stable climate.
Back to Stefan’s paper. It reports flight times for nearly 26,000 private aircraft and over 18 million individual flights between 2019-2023 as well as their average fuel consumption. They found that private aviation contributed at least 15.6 Mt CO2 in direct emissions in 2023, or about 3.6 t CO2 per flight. Furthermore 47.4% of flights were shorter than 500 km. Private aviation was found to be concentrated in the USA, where 68% of aircraft are registered. Flight pattern analysis confirms extensive travel for leisure purposes, and for cultural, sport and political events. Emissions increased by 46% between 2019-2023, with industry expectations of continued strong growth. They draw the obvious conclusion that regulation will be required to address the sector’s growing climate impact.
All of this reminded me of a debate in tourism about the relative merits of so-called ‘backpackers’ and super-wealthy tourists. In 2020 I wrote a piece for The Conversation about this after the then Minister for Tourism, Stuart Nash, delivered a speech at theTourism Summit in Wellington. In his speech he said that prior to Covid, issues of overcapacity, strained infrastructure, and environmental impacts were reaching a critical tipping point. His proposed solution was to banish backpackers and position New Zealand as expensive and exclusive – the Switzerland of the South Pacific.
There are five reasons why this approach is badly mistaken.
- It is important to understand the social, economic and environmental impacts of tourism markets.
Before targeting the super rich, we should reflect upon the fact that low budget travellers generally stay much longer than the average, and usually make a higher aggregate economic contribution than those who spend up large on a daily basis but pass through quickly. Does New Zealand really only want the uber-rich to experience our 100% pureness, when flying business class, travelling by cruise ship and hiring helicopters are the most environmentally damaging forms of tourist travel? If we were to consider the wider social, economic and environmental impacts of discrete tourism markets, it would be the cruise industry that we banish first, not backpackers.
- Backpackers bring many benefits
Because they stay longer, backpackers may bring wider benefits to our society, economy and environment during their stays. Backpackers tend to be more dispersed in the travel flows, bringing economic development and employment opportunities to regional communities. Backpackers are more likely to be conscious of their carbon footprint, engage in beach clean-ups, plant trees and involve themselves in conservation projects. They provide seasonal labour forces, which can help to address critical labour shortages in rural and regional economies.
- A diverse tourism portfolio is important
Backpackers support small regional tourism businesses, attractions and local services that would not survive without them. Backpacker hostels, homestays, camping grounds and other low budget accommodation sub-sectors would be at risk without them, as would many small-medium tourism businesses. In times of crisis it is important that tourism destinations have a broad portfolio of tourism markets, to ensure sector resilience and mitigate the potential economic impacts of the regular crises that periodically disrupt global tourism. Furthermore, today’s backpackers return in future as high end visitors. Some love New Zealand so much that they come back as international students or migrate to New Zealand, adding to the skilled labour force that has been so depleted in recent years.
- We should consider the importance of social tourism
Social tourism is the principle that opportunities to occasionally engage in leisure and tourism are important for personal wellbeing and an inclusive society. By contrast, the carbon-intense lifestyles and entitlement of the super-wealthy are major barriers to climate action. Our climate policies must deal with excessive wealth, not celebrate and encourage overconsumption. A few years ago we published a paper on the # Rich Kids of Instagram – I have included the reference to this paper is the podcast transcript. In this paper we report on how the #RKOI models demand among millennials for carbon-intensive transportation and luxury destinations. They present barriers to shifting social norms towards less carbon-intensive and more sustainable travel.
- Exclusivism damages our international reputation
Nash’s comments about the future of tourism in New Zealand as an exclusive preserve for the rich caused quite a splash, not only within New Zealand, but internationally as well. News and social media reported that people were “complaining about the news that Kiwis do not want to have us anymore and they are only interested in tourists who fly business class and hire a helicopter to fly around Franz Josef glacier”.
Our approach to sustainable tourism should, first and foremost, make our visitors welcome and extend hospitality through tourism that is inclusive. This reflects the hopes of generations of Kiwis who have set off on their OEs to visit places far away from home and experience the world. We should not make back packers unwelcome here. And we should certainly make transparent and take account of the very high emissions driven by the super rich.
Speaking of which, today our paper on global tourism emissions was published online in Nature Communications. I will be talking about this paper in my podcast next week, which will also be a chance for me to wish you all a happy Christmas and sign off for the year.
