A Transatlantic Dilemma
I am just a day or two away from my latest Transatlantic trip and, once again, I find myself wrestling with my environmental conscience. I am flying to Las Vegas to report upon the highly-anticipated MinExpo mining exhibition where there will be a significant focus upon sustainability and emissions-free mining machines. I expect that much of my coverage on the show will also be focused upon all things environmental.
But I already know that air travel is one of the most carbon-intensive activities. So while we are talking the talk, myself and the thousands of others that attend MinExpo will not be walking the walk. Let’s look at some numbers.
According to the International Air Transport Association, aviation is responsible for approximately 2–3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, but the impact is far more profound when considering its cumulative effects. The high-altitude emissions from jet engines contribute to climate change in ways that go beyond just CO₂, including the release of nitrogen oxides, water vapor, and particulates that amplify global warming.
When a single round-trip flight from London to Las Vegas emits roughly the same amount of CO₂ as the average person’s total annual emissions in some countries, it is clear that air travel has a significant environmental cost.
So the question arises: How can professionals or organisations claim to be focused on sustainability when flying for work? How can I?
In today’s world, the pressure to appear sustainable is immense. Companies and individuals are expected to take active steps to reduce their environmental footprint. Many organisations are quick to tout their commitments to net-zero emissions, showcasing their green initiatives in marketing materials and sustainability reports. These efforts range from reducing energy consumption in offices to minimising waste, sourcing renewable energy, and cutting down on unnecessary resource use.
But all of these efforts feel hollow when juxtaposed against the carbon footprint of air travel.
It’s difficult to reconcile any claim of being “green” when a single flight can undo the benefits of weeks or even months of environmentally conscious decisions. In the court of public opinion, flying — especially for non-essential reasons — can be seen as a hypocritical act in the face of climate change.
However, the reality is that, for many industries, air travel is seen as essential. In a globalised economy, business often requires face-to-face meetings, particularly in sectors where building trust, relationships, and rapport are paramount. Video conferencing tools, though helpful, are often seen as a poor substitute for the effectiveness of in-person interactions. There’s something about shaking hands, reading body language, and engaging in real-time discussions that cannot be fully replicated online. In cultures where personal relationships are a cornerstone of business success, the absence of physical presence can be a disadvantage.
One way companies try to resolve this paradox is through carbon offsetting. The idea is straightforward: For every ton of CO₂ emitted during a flight, an equivalent amount of emissions is “cancelled out” by investing in projects that reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere. This might involve planting trees, funding renewable energy projects, or supporting carbon capture technology. Carbon offsetting has become a popular tool for businesses looking to maintain their air travel while mitigating its environmental impact.
But it is far from a perfect solution.
Critics argue that offsetting simply shifts the burden elsewhere without addressing the root cause. Offsets might reduce emissions somewhere, but they don’t stop the initial emissions from being produced. Furthermore, not all carbon offset projects are created equal, and some have questionable effectiveness or transparency.
And so I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, I am mindful of the impact my trip to Las Vegas will have. On the other, it is virtually impossible to cover an exhibition of this nature and size remotely.
I don’t expect many other UK publications to be at MinExpo next week. But that’s not down to the environmental impact — It is merely an unwillingness to invest and to bring their readers and viewers the best possible coverage. But long-haul air travel is becoming harder and harder for me to justify. And I am not alone.
The challenge of claiming sustainability while engaging in air travel for work reflects a broader dilemma facing society: How do we balance the environmental impact of our activities with the demands of a globalised, interconnected world? The convenience and necessity of air travel make it a difficult habit to break, but breaking that habit — or at least reducing its frequency — may be essential if businesses and individuals are truly committed to zero emissions.
