I recently saw a comment that since air travel only accounts for a little over 1/6 of the 12% worldwide carbon emissions due to transport, it doesn’t need to be a high priority.  Of course, this figure does not consider ancillary emissions, including getting to and from airports (cars are much less efficient than current airliners), the mile-cycle cost of those airliners (making the engines, refining and delivering the fuel over international distances, etc.) nor the potentially much larger reductions accessible if we consider telecommuting as well as straight business travel.

But I have started to become bothered by a general attitude among many groups that “my emissions aren’t the biggest slice of the problem, so it’s not up to me.”  Before the last election, one friend pointed out that China’s emissions will soon become greater than those of the US, so they should do something first. 

This reasoning can be applied to defend many kinds of inaction.  It’s how you play “chicken.”

That virtual travel yields both cost reduction and lower CO2 is a fortunate coincidence.  As more people travel virtually, airliner loading will decrease and lower flight frequency will be a natural consequence – another effect that the article writer does not mention.  My seat alone won’t do that, but a 10% decrease in travel will take out some planes, for sure.  Beyond that, fewer planes yields higher inconvenience, which drives higher virtual travel, and we wind up at a new, and more carbon-friendly, equilibrium.

I’ve just finished “Physics for Future Presidents,” written by Dr. Richard Muller at UC Berkeley.  Dr. Muller gives an excellent and nicely balanced overview of a number of critical topics including energy.  After detailing the pros, cons, and quantitative information about most forms of traditional and alternative energy, he concludes that a huge change in emissions worldwide, and the most cost-effective, will be through conservation because so much energy is wasted even today. 

When it comes to conservation, virtual travel is a low-hanging, and quite juicy, fruit.  Travel may not account for 90% of worldwide emissions, but if we can play a part in driving world transport-related emissions down by even one percent, I think we will have done something of global significance.  And set an example for the next guy to follow: who’s up for that next percent?