Flying is too cheap. And that’s the problem.
Flying connects the world. It shrinks vast distances, fuels economies, and brings families together. But behind the joy and convenience lies a troubling truth: the aviation industry is disproportionately contributing to climate change. And the responsibility doesn’t lie with all travelers equally—it’s concentrated in the hands of a few.
Here’s the math:
80% of the global population has never flown.
Just 1% of flyers are responsible for 50% of aviation emissions.
10% account for over 75%.
This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about fairness, equity, and the planet’s future. Those who fly the most—and emit the most—are often shielded from the true cost of their actions, while the majority, especially those in climate-vulnerable regions, bear the brunt of the consequences.
The Frequent Flyer Problem
Frequent flyer programs reward more flying with cheaper tickets, upgrades, and perks, encouraging a cycle of unsustainable behavior. Meanwhile, aviation fuel remains one of the only untaxed fuels globally, further subsidizing an already unequal system.
Contrast this with other fuels. Petrol for cars, for example, is heavily taxed. So why is kerosene exempt? The answer lies in decades-old policies from the infancy of aviation—a time when planes were rare and environmental concerns were barely a whisper. Today, this outdated exemption distorts the true cost of flying and props up an industry that accounts for more than 2% of global emissions—a share that’s projected to skyrocket as passenger numbers double by 2050.
The Burden of Transition
Adding to the challenge is the financial structure of aviation itself. As Stefan Gössling highlights, the aviation industry must fly enormous distances before even earning a single dollar. This high capital intensity creates a significant barrier to adopting new, cleaner fuels, as airlines are hesitant to disrupt the status quo when profitability margins are already razor-thin.
Aviation needs financial support not only to decarbonize but to innovate. Some of the revenues from a fair fuel tax or tiered pricing system could be directed toward research and development of alternative fuels. The ones they promote today SAF, Hydrogen is not yet working. These investments could accelerate the transition, ensuring that the future of flying aligns with global climate goals.
A Fairer Way Forward
What if the cost of flying reflected its true environmental impact? And what if those who fly the most, and contribute the most emissions, shouldered a proportionally greater burden?
A tiered pricing model could do just that. Instead of rewarding frequent flyers, it would work the other way around:
The first flight in a year? Affordable and accessible.
The second, third, or fourth? Incrementally more expensive.
The tenth flight? Significantly higher costs.
This approach doesn’t punish those who rely on flying for essential travel—such as rural residents or people visiting distant family. It simply asks frequent flyers, who are responsible for the majority of emissions, to pay their fair share. The data supports this: most flights are taken by a small, wealthy minority. A tiered system ensures flying remains accessible while addressing the outsized impact of frequent travel.
Addressing Concerns
Critics might argue that taxing flights or increasing ticket prices could hurt tourism-dependent economies or widen the gap between those who can afford to fly and those who cannot. But let’s consider the bigger picture:
Tourism can thrive without relying solely on long-haul flights. Encouraging local and regional travel, accessible by trains or buses, can mitigate emissions while sustaining local economies.
Climate change itself poses an existential threat to tourism. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss directly endanger the destinations travelers want to visit.
Another common argument is that flying is essential for business and global connectivity. But the pandemic proved otherwise. Remote work, virtual meetings, and hybrid models have redefined the way we connect. For the few instances where in-person meetings are indispensable, higher costs can be justified as part of doing business responsibly.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about flying; it’s about accountability. For decades, aviation emissions have been excluded from national climate targets, allowing the industry to grow unchecked. That must change. At upcoming climate negotiations, governments must push for aviation fuel taxes, integrate aviation emissions into carbon budgets, and support innovations like sustainable fuels and electric aircraft.
But these technological solutions won’t scale fast enough on their own. Behavioral change—flying less, flying smarter, and rethinking the incentives that drive frequent flying—is crucial.
A Call to Action
The aviation industry can no longer be a free pass for emissions. It’s time to end the era of untaxed kerosene and frequent flyer perks that reward unsustainable behavior. A tiered pricing model would align with broader sustainability goals, curbing emissions while protecting accessibility for those who need it most.
Flying doesn’t have to be a luxury, nor does it need to be a climate catastrophe. With bold policies and collective action, we can strike a balance—making the skies open for everyone while ensuring the planet remains habitable for all.
Some of the revenue from these measures could be channeled into groundbreaking innovation. Imagine a future where aviation no longer depends on kerosene but operates on sustainable fuels, supported by the very system that once relied on outdated models. By creating a feedback loop of accountability and reinvestment, we can turn aviation into a driver of change rather than a source of harm.
It’s time to ask ourselves: how often should we fly, and at what cost? Because the future of travel—and the planet—depends on it.
