According to a study published in the authoritative Nature, in pre-pandemic 2019, the share of global tourism in global CO2 emissions reached 8.8%.
Tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy. Between 2009 and 2019, the value of tourism services, measured in monetary terms, grew from $3.5 trillion to $6.0 trillion. This is equivalent to an annual growth rate of 5.5% and significantly exceeds the average annual growth rate of the global economy.
At the same time, tourism is one of the key sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which all developed countries are currently trying to combat. To earn just 1 dollar in tourism, you need to throw 1.02 kg of greenhouse gases into the air, scientists have calculated. How much is that? For comparison: in the service sector, one dollar earned accounts for 4 times less greenhouse gas emissions on average. And in general, in the world economy, the figure is 0.77 kg/$.
Where do the numbers come from?
Of course, all of the above indicators are the result of collecting a lot of data and building mathematical models based on it. So even if they are not completely accurate, they can be trusted.
This may come as a shock, but in 2019, tourism as an industry “produced” 5.2 gigatons of CO2. A significant portion of this was produced by transportation – 1.8 Gt. Of which, airplanes accounted for more than half (52%), and cars for another 18%.
Another 2.5 Gt of emissions are so-called indirect emissions: 34% from utilities, 14% from the oil refining industry.
Fighting greenhouse gases is, of course, a noble cause. But what to do with the money? Tourism is a significant share of the national income of many countries. Not dominant, but significant and important. It feeds millions of families around the world, including in not very wealthy countries. So in matters of ecology, we should not forget about other sustainable development goals.
Less so, what result could be achieved if people started traveling less? The answer to this question is provided by another experiment that humanity has already conducted: large-scale lockdowns during the 2020 pandemic. The authors of the work calculated that the sharp decline in tourism that year reduced carbon emissions from the tourism industry by 2.2 Gt. This is two-thirds of the total reduction in emissions that year.
What to do with that?
The authors of the work, speaking about possible ways to combat such an influx of greenhouse gases, are thinking purely hypothetically.
First, they note that the greatest contribution to such a serious growth of the industry was made by the gradual increase in the wealth of citizens, especially in the most populous countries of China and India. Secondly, an important factor is the general growth of the population. Obviously, no one will think of fighting either the first or the second reason.
Similarly, it is unlikely that countries that aggressively support tourism as a source of national income will accept proposals to limit tourism as such. Although, the authors of the work calculated that if only the 20 most attractive tourist destinations had grown at least a little slower, at a rate of just 1% lower than the actual indicators, emissions from tourism would not only not have increased, but even have decreased between 2009 and 2019. First of all, thanks to the development of modern technologies, such as electric transport.
But let's be honest: even such a scenario is not realistic. No country will resist an increase in tourist flows.
So what can be done? Unfortunately, the answer to this question does not exist with the current development of technology. The largest contribution to "tourist" emissions is made by air transport. And here serious technological breakthroughs that could offer an alternative source of motive energy to burning fuel are not yet even a smell.
But something needs to be done. And the key countries that benefit from tourism development should be interested in this. One possible measure is to impose taxes on CO2 emissions at the global level. In this case, for example, air travel will become more expensive, so people will use this mode of transport less.
But will the world be able to agree, and is this really the best solution? I'll leave that question open.
