INTRODUCTION
If we understand the climate cost of travel, the next question is: what do we do about it?
In the second part of our conversation with Professor James Higham, we look beyond individual choices to the tourism system itself. Tourism has been built around growth, but the climate crisis demands that we reduce emissions. Can the two be reconciled?
We talk about what a low-carbon tourism system might look like, whether travelling less often but staying longer (slow travel) could be part of the answer, and where responsibility lies when it comes to reducing emissions. We explore carbon inequality and the disproportionate impact of the wealthiest travellers, as well as the choices available to those of us who want to travel while reducing our footprint.
This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation with Professor James Higham. You can read Part 1 here
The Climate Cost of Travel, and What We Can Do About It: A Q&A with Professor James Higham — Part 2
Note: The following responses have been edited for brevity while preserving their original intent.
1. CAN TOURISM KEEP GROWING WITHOUT BREAKING THE PLANET?
GM: Let’s move on to the question of balancing tourism growth and sustainability. A core tension in your research is about reconciling the idea of growth in tourism and meeting climate targets. Can you talk a little bit about why these are so difficult to reconcile?
JH: The simple reason is that, in many cases, growth is inextricably linked to tourism’s impacts. So the more growth we have, the more likely it is that the impacts will be challenging to manage and mitigate.
National governments and national tourism organizations typcially encourage growth. Year-on-year growth, as measured in terms of visitor arrivals, expenditures, and the economic contributions of tourism, is seen as an obvious measure of success.
But that is a trajectory that will ultimately strain communities, destinations, environments.
If we think about the social dimensions of tourism: Over the last 10 years we’ve seen the rise of overtourism concerns in many popular tourism destinations such as Barcelona and Venice, particularly in highly-seasonal tourism destinations.
The other reality is that growth in transport demand and growth emissions remain closely linked, with little sign of changing in the years ahead. That is another complexity we face when it comes bringing tourism emissions onto a downward and sustainable pathway, which is generally seen as being incompatible with sustained high growth in tourism.
GM: What would a low-carbon tourism system look like in practice?
JH: That’s the nub of the issue. It’s a difficult question to answer because, as we know, tourism is a complex system made up of many moving parts.
If we think about aviation, there are various leverage points that we could target to try and resolve the problem of high air travel emissions, such as frequent flyer programs, which have been instrumental to this acceleration of tourist demand.
You mentioned at the start of our conversation that tourism has become more accessible over time. But we have also found that with growing affluence, those who have access to tourism travel more. So part of the issue here is not so much that more people are traveling, but that those who do travel are traveling more.
Trying to restrain that demand amongst frequent, high-volume travelers is a big part of both the challenge and the solution here. Some have said that we need differential pricing for those who travel frequently.
Over time, we have seen increasing blurring between work and leisure travel, as they often are combined. But that said, there are different mechanisms that might apply to people who travel for work versus those who travel for leisure.
Studies have shown that conference-related emissions can be significantly reduced by prioritising attendance from people who can travel by low-carbon means. Those who would need to fly long-haul or intercontinentally could instead attend regional conferences or regional hubs, or participate online, which would substantially reduce the carbon footprint of conferences.
2. WHAT IF WE TRAVEL LESS AND EXPERIENCE MORE?
GM: The fact that people who have access to travel are traveling more reminds me of that paradox in fast fashion, where when people have the money for one shirt, they buy one shirt. But if you lower the price so they can afford three shirts, they don’t buy one shirt and save the rest of the money. They buy the shirt in three different colors.
It’s sort of the same with travel. Once they have more access to more travel, people travel more often. And it’s wonderful that people want to see the world and experience places and cultures. But it makes me think that slow travel might be a solution here: seeing fewer places, but staying longer in them, which would mean fewer flights.
JH: This is a really important consideration. It’s something I’ve tried to emphasize, because I don’t think that anyone who’s concerned about the environmental impacts of travel would argue that people should stop traveling.
I have lived most of my life in New Zealand. I now live in Australia. If you want to travel anywhere outside of these countries, you have to fly. There are no low-carbon alternatives. One promising avenue, and one I see evidence of already among people who are concerned about the climate and environmental costs of their travel decisions, is for people to focus not on avoiding travel, but on travelling differently.
That can certainly show up as finding ways to travel less frequently but for longer. If we can travel overseas once every three years for a month rather than every year for a week, we’re actually increasing the volume of our travel to four weeks rather than three, but significantly driving down the emissions associated with that travel.
Another option is choosing closer to home destinations. That immediately and significantly reduces the carbon footprint of our travel decisions. We saw this during COVID, when people were able to rediscover their own countries and places much closer to home.
When you’re at the destination, whether it’s nearby or further afield, the decisions you make matter. For example, in the last 10 years or so in New Zealand, we’ve seen a huge upswing in demand for cycle tourism. This has been triggered by very conscious government decisions about investment in developing cycle infrastructure, trails and networks.
It has proved to be phenomenally successful, and the numbers of people who are now engaging in cycle tourism has grown significantly.
They travel by low carbon means. They travel more slowly. They travel in a way that is more locally engaged and immersive. They tend to stop regularly, and when they stop they’re often participating in things like wine tours or visiting cafes. They’re spending in local communities. Sometimes they’re supported by businesses that facilitate their cycle tours. They may be renting bicycles.
The rise of e-bikes has made cycling much more accessible. They allow couples with different cycling abilities to ride together, and make cycle trails more accessible to retirees, who are generally less constrained by time and can therefore spend longer on their trips.
There are barriers, as annual leave provisions typically limit the amount of time most people can spend travelling. However, if employers offered longer blocks of leave, such as sabbatical-like periods, people would have more opportunity to take extended trips. A four-day working week could also give people more time to focus on destinations closer to home over long weekends, rather than waiting to have a week or more of annual leave, then flying off to distant destinations to make the most of limited time.
3. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
GM: We’ve been talking about personal responsibility, but in one of your podcast episodes you referred to research arguing carbon offset schemes can be a ruse to “transfer the guilt, accountability and cost of emissions from airlines onto the individual.”
How much of this should be our individual responsibility, and how much of this is a systemic issue?
JH: It’s a combination of the two. There is an urgent need for individual responsibility. But because of the systemic nature of much of what we’re talking about, there are limits to what we can achieve individually.
In some cases, travellers simply do not have sustainable options. Even where they do, the decision-making process is not a level playing field.
In parts of the world, such as Europe, people can choose between flying, driving, or using public transport such as trains or overnight buses.
Unfortunately, the least sustainable option, air travel, is often the cheapest and most convenient. Catching a train and then a ferry to arrive at an island in the Mediterranean is going to chew into your holiday time much more than flying direct.
Once you reach your destination, renewable energy availability varies. In many destinations, fossil fuels are being burnt, or they are highly dependent on non-renewable energy sources. Some destinations have accessible public transport. Others require the use of rental vehicles.
These are systemic challenges that make it very difficult for people to travel in ways that they may prefer in terms of environmental consequences.
One of the ironies with air travel is that aviation fuel is not subject to taxation. This dates back to the Chicago Convention, a global agreement signed to foster growth of the air travel industry in the years following the Second World War. It effectively subsidizes a climatically unsustainable mode of transport. It allows air travel to be sold at cheap prices that are far more cost effective than more sustainable alternatives.
Technically, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to decarbonize air travel. But there is so much that we can do in terms of trying to decarbonize our energy systems at tourism destinations, moving to solar and other renewable energy sources and making low-carbon options more available.
All of this needs to take place in association with individual decision making, so that individuals are empowered to make good decisions.
GM: I’d like to turn to carbon inequality. What does the concept of carbon inequality tell us about responsibility when it comes to travel?
JH: The sad reality is that tourism is deeply inequitable, both in terms of who gets to travel and who experiences the consequences of travel.
Although tourism has continued to grow, most of that growth has occurred in mature markets and among people who have already had access to tourism, often over several generations. The vast majority of the global population remains largely excluded from the privilege of travel.
Meanwhile, the majority of tourism emissions come from a small number of countries, particularly high population countries such as the USA and China.
The other reality is that the impacts of these high emissions often fall on those who are most vulnerable to climate change, who are often the same people who have little or no access to tourism. They are not creating the emissions, but they are bearing the consequences.
In recent years, this has led to the emergence of the field of tourism and climate justice, which highlights the inequities and injustices between those who produce tourism-related carbon emissions and those who bear their consequences. Addressing these inequities is a major challenge that tourism organisations and governments need to confront.
GM: There’s another side to carbon inequality that concerns the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else. For most households who grapple with our carbon footprint, we worry about whether we should take a couple of long-haul flights this year, or none? Should we drive? Should we take a train?
Meanwhile, the emissions of the wealthiest tranche of society, the multi-millionaires and billionaires, can be hundreds or even thousands of times greater than those of the average person.
Are we basically shouldering the responsibility of the super-rich?
JH: We know that there’s an association between increasing wealth and increasing travel, and therefore increasing emissions. The wealthiest travellers typically have the highest carbon footprint because they’re more likely to be flying on private jets, sitting on cruise ships, engaging in trips into space, or traveling business class on a far more routine basis than anyone else.
That does, in some ways, make a mockery of those who are more conscious of their air travel decisions, and who factor in emissions and climate concerns in their decision-making processes.
This is where we come to the question of systemic change and the need to rein in what some academics refer to as the “extreme high emitters”. Those are the people who have the wealth to travel without restraint, typically by very high-carbon transport modes, and who continue to do so without concern.
Our governments need to actively manage the emissions of the extreme high emitters.
At the moment space travel is pretty much entirely unregulated. The emissions of private jet users are largely unmonitored and unmanaged. But if we’re serious about the challenges that we’ve been discussing in the last hour or so, we need to make sure that everyone is brought into the equation.
4. WHAT ACTIONS CAN TRAVELERS TAKE?
GM: That brings me to practical pathways for travelers. Where does someone who loves travel, but they’re starting to realize, “I want to reduce my impact,” start?
JH: The key starting point is to begin to internalize the environmental and climatic consequences of our travel decisions. Typically, these factors are given little or no consideration, but we need to elevate them in priority.
I know this isn’t intuitive or easy. But if people can think about the frequency of their travel, the distance of their travel, and the modes of transport they choose. These are excellent starting points. When we begin to think about those things, we find that there are alternative ways of being a tourist. There are lower carbon options.
GM: The road is also hard because there are so many benefits to travel. I do believe that going out of your comfort zone and learning about places and cultures, in the best of circumstances, can foster an open mind.
JH: Travel can be a force for good, but we need to think critically as well. For example, for many years, Antarctic tourism operators have sold Antarctic tourism in part on the claim that people who visit Antarctica become ambassadors for the continent, and that for that reason, it’s ultimately good for Antarctica’s protection.
But it’s very difficult to prove if people who have visited Antarctica are actually benefiting Antarctic conservation in any way.
So these claims may sound appealing, and there may be lots of reasons why tour operators want to sell the impression of ambassadorship. But I don’t think we should take it for granted.
There are increasingly new and different ways of engaging with destinations. We’ve long been able to engage through wildlife documentaries, for example. Increasingly, we’re able to engage with distant places through virtual and augmented technologies and experiences that can make us feel as if we’re physically present. That can give people a sense of care and stewardship for distant places they may never have visited in person.
5. REASONS FOR HOPE
GM: Final question: Are there any changes you’re seeing now that give you hope for the future when it comes to reducing the impact of climate tourism?
JH: I think it’s really important that we finish a challenging conversation on an optimistic and positive note. When I look ahead, I do see reasons for optimism, and that is possibly driven by two things I’ve seen firsthand through my own research.
One is the most innovative and cutting edge tourism businesses, ones that define their purpose by putting people and planet at the top of their order of priorities. I’ve worked with a number of tourism businesses in New Zealand that do exactly this, focusing on regeneration of culture, environments, people’s connections to place, and creating long-term intergenerational positive outcomes, rather than simply trying to limit harm.
So there’s a shift from sustainability and limiting harm to regeneration and creating intergenerational positive outcomes. I’m inspired by those businesses, and they provide examples of how tourism could function in ways that are less demanding on finite resources.
The other thing that I see is engagement from young people who are concerned about their futures and want to see systemic tourism changes to protect resources, assets, and the beautiful parts of the world that tourists have enjoyed in recent decades, so that the travelers of the future can have the opportunity to enjoy them. I’m inspired by young people who have a genuine concern for the sorts of issues and challenges that we’ve talked about in this interview.
About James Higham
Professor James Higham is Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Tourism at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia, and Co-Director of the Climate Change Action Cluster at the Griffith Institute for Tourism. An internationally recognised researcher on tourism, climate change, and sustainable mobility, he has spent more than three decades examining the relationship between tourism and environmental change, with a particular focus on aviation emissions, tourism growth, carbon reduction, and the transition towards a low-carbon tourism future.
Before joining Griffith University in 2023, Professor Higham spent 30 years at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, where he held the position of Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Tourism. He remains connected with the University of Otago as an Honorary Professor and continues to contribute to international research and discussions on how tourism can respond to climate change while preserving the social and cultural benefits of travel.
He is also the host of Checking In, a podcast exploring the key challenges shaping the future of tourism, including climate change, aviation emissions, sustainable mobility, tourism policy, and the pathways towards a more sustainable travel system. You can listen to Checking In on Spotify and here on his website: Checking In with Professor James Higham.
