Was Greta’s decision to sail actually worth it?
Now that Greta Thundberg is back in Europe from her 3 months expedition through the Americas, we thought it would be a good time to ask: was her choice of making it a flightless trip worth it after all?
As you remember, in june 2019, Greta flooded world headlines by announcing she would be sailing the Atlantic to attend the UN’s Climate Summit. Now, she just sailed back to europe.
Since 2015 Greta has stopped flying altogether because of the major impact aviation has on our planet. In fact, according to figures from German nonprofit Atmosfair, flying from London to New York and back generates about 986kg of CO2 per passenger. There are 56 countries where the average person emits less carbon dioxide in a whole year — from Burundi in Africa to Paraguay in South America.
Ok, flying is not very green, but aren’t all forms of transportation polluting? Is flying really the worst?
Yes, it is. Along with driving, if we consider a single passenger. Particularly if we take into account non-CO2 emissions that flying releases in high altitude which are far more damaging than the equivalent ones released in the surface of the earth by other means of transport.
So, looking at the graph, taking a train would be the greener option. Well, we all know that option is off the table if you are trying to cross the Atlantic.
Faced with this climate dilema, Greta took the bold decision to sail to NY. On a zero-emissions sailboat, equipped with solar panels and underwater turbines to supply electricity.
To go to such an extent to act according to your principles was incredibly badass of her. Especially taking into account that the trip took 14 days instead of 8 hours, the boat had no shower or regular toilet, and the meals were freeze dried.
So, the answer to the question: was Greta’s trip truly emissions free? Is “Uhhh, yes…… but not really.”
Yes, the sailboat was zero-emissions. BUT what many don’t know is that 2 people had to fly to NY to bring it back to Europe.
If you do the math, you quickly realize Greta’s choice saved little to no emissions at all.
Greta fans, don’t be outraged yet.
Let’s expand the analysis. Greta’s trip, as Greta herself admits, was also and mostly about making a point. Two points actually:
- Raise awareness about the major impacts of aviation in the environment;
- Show how difficult it is to find lower-emission alternatives to flying that fit the convenience standards of travelling, especially if you have to cross an ocean.
Still, simply making a point is not worth anything. UNLESS it translates into action and change.
So, in the limit, to say Greta’s trip was worth it, you have to prove that it resulted in at least 1 less flight from someone or into some other type of action that spares emissions.
We won’t try to prove it, but its plausibility is quite high. A good indicator of Greta’s potential mobilization power is her huge platform. Look at social media followers alone: 3M on twitter, 8M on instagram, 2,5M on facebook. More, Greta does have proof of her power of mobilization with “Fridays for Future”, a movement that has taken worldwide proportions, involving millions of young people.
If you are still reading, you might be asking yourself what you can do.
Honestly, the best option is to stop flying. Although emissions vary with flight distance, company and airplane model, they are still too high no matter what.
Alternatives like railing are the best available option right now. But sometimes we simply don’t have the time or even available rail lines for our routes. Second best alternatives can be taking a coach or carsharing. They do not beat flying in terms of time-efficiency, but might be saving you some money on top of saving the environment.
If you do choose to fly, you can always:
- Choose direct flights, since take-offs consume a lot of fuel;
- Pack light;
- Offset your carbon emissions through Atmosfair or Myclimate.
- Select the greenest aircraft. Atmosfair allows you to calculate emissions from different aircrafts.
Written by Inês Lagoutte
