A recent study has concluded what’s been obvious for years. Travelers say they care about the environment but it’s not actually true.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
New Study Shows
Recently a study was released that showed travelers don’t care enough about the environment to change their habits or spend more money. Dori Saltzman recently highlighted the study:
“A recent report from Phocuswright, a travel market research firm, backs up the anecdotal evidence. The report, which compared what travelers say they care about with their actual purchasing behavior, clearly showed that sustainability barely ranks as a factor when choosing a hotel or even a destination.
For instance, 48% of U.S. travelers surveyed responded yes to “I am more likely to choose lodging based on its environmental friendliness than for price.”
Sounds great, right? If that’s the case, of course, hoteliers, tour operators, and cruise companies want to be talking about all the sustainable practices they’re implementing.
But … when asked what factors influence their choice when choosing between properties of similar price, location, and comfort only 8% ranked sustainability in the top five. Only 8%.”- Travel Market Report
That’s interesting but surely that’s weighed down by older travelers who may care less about the environment. But according to another study named in the post from April 2023, 18-25 year olds in the US and Canada prioritize environmental impact at 15% and 17% respectively. Of course, price, is the key factor that determines purchase criteria.
Absolutely no one should be surprised by this, but none the less brands continue to hammer away at what they are doing to become carbon neutral.
Confirms What We Have Known For Years
Any aviation enthusiast or industry pundit will tell you that when it comes to the environment, buyers are liars.
The most obvious, glaring example is consumer behavior around carbon offset projects. The notion is that guilt-ridden travelers will spend a little extra money to offset their carbon footprint through environmental initiatives. To reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by their travel, they can purchase CO2 emissions offset credits that plant trees to offset the amount of carbon used on the trip. Ultimately, via carbon reduction, these efforts intend to make a dent in global warming.
Purchasing carbon credit is easy. They are available from nearly every carrier and through OTAs like Expedia. Though they don’t sell well, the marginal cost to make offsets available outweigh the public relations nightmare of removing them and they do add some revenue so why turn them off?
True advocates stay at eco-resorts when available and look for signals that operators are like minded including avoiding single use plastics. But that doesn’t seem to extend to their mode of travel to reach the resorts.
Critics highlight how ineffectual many carbon offset firms are and manipulative they can be of their lasting, true impact. Most appear to be an exchange of a virtuous badge for money. In some cases, the “carbon neutrality” travel providers tout isn’t even a trade carbon project but plans to simply leave forestry intact which doesn’t actually cause emissions reductions or the elimination of greenhouse gases, it simply keeps a forrest that was already there in place.
John Oliver highlighted in a long and very much NSFW clip about both the companies that buy offsets, the companies that provide them, their effectiveness, and, of course, consumer responsibility.
The man is not wrong.
Especially interesting was the comparison to Catholic indulgences of the Middle Ages that allowed for rich sinners to offset their transgressions with money, rather than penance.
Google Flights Provides Sketchy Estimates For Emissions
Will a traveler opt to pay more for a nonstop flight? Google plainly demonstrates the most environmentally friendly option on a route using a par emissions value. Deciding which flights are better for the environment comes down to aircraft type, distance flown, or a combination of the two.
But it’s clear that Google doesn’t get that right because Spirit is given a -19% (almost one fifth better for the environment) than JetBlue (+21% emissions) on the same aircraft type. It’s possible that Spirit is using an A320Neo of which it operates 82 in the current fleet, whereas JetBlue is not (just 21 in the fleet right now.)
Yet there are still further errors in this analysis, the 787-10 that United operates is given an additional 13% efficiency over the Spirit A320. But the only reason that makes sense is because the larger jet distributes higher nominal fuel usage over more seats. However, perhaps in both the case of the JetBlue aircraft and United, the model assumes that all seats will be occupied. Obviously, a half full United 787-10 is not better for the environment than a packed Spirit A320 but it’s not like Google has access to sales information. (Yes, it does.)
But let’s let that go for a moment and just presume that Google is way smarter than me because it most assuredly is. How would Google justify rating a Spirit route that first stops in Atlanta as “average emissions” while JetBlue is still 21% less fuel efficient on the A320 nonstop? The search giant states that it factors in seating configuration but would that cause a 40% spread between Spirit and JetBlue A320s? Mint-configured aircraft have just 14% fewer passengers than a Spirit A320.
Or maybe it’s just hot air.
It’s possible that some travelers use this criteria to make purchases but the numbers reflect that price and convenience matter more. The nonstops sell first but load factor on Spirit is just 1.5% better than JetBlue in the last quarter. It must be all those environmentalists and not those looking for the cheapest flight from point A to B.
Conclusion
What has been known by most travel industry professionals has now been confirmed by data: travelers say that sustainability is important but they don’t mean it. Ultimately, it factors into travel purchases for just 8-17% of travelers though 48% state it’s an important factor they consider. The truth is that it’s not as important as time or money. Carbon offsets are not yet a reasonable replacement for burning fossil fuels but pretending they are is the norm. Travelers say sustainability is important to them, but not in the areas it matters most.
What do you think? Do travelers actually care about sustainability or just say they do? If they do, why does the data suggest they don’t?
ROFL! Let me seat back, relax and enjoy this post. People care for money. Did you see how many private jets were in Las Vegas for the Super Bowl? Do you think those celebrities that talk about saving the planet took an electric Greyhound bus to get to the game?
Exactly. The ones who whine the loudest are the worst offenders. Even beyond that, it’s hilarious to think paying a “sin tax” will really offset your imaginary carbon output. Then, add in that it is better to drive a 10 year old Toyota 1.6L or hybrid over that of manufacturing a new EV, much less the 10k lb monstrosity that is the Hummer EV. If these zealots really cared as much as they claim to, they wouldn’t be running travel blogs about consumption. Looking at that buffoon OMAAT (Ben). This is what happens when you convince the stupid they can save the planet via taxation.
@Brandon … Heard that EVs are much heavier than say , a VW bug , and therefore cause more damage to roadway surfaces .
To be fair, Hummer EV, or its competitors like the Rivian, Tesla Model X, etc/ aren’t being marketed as a planet-saving mobility solution, but a 0-60 IN 3 SECONDS WOW; I bet those things appeal more to the Escalade/F-350 King Ranch crowd than the Prius crowd.
@Santastico … Agreed . Vegas itself , Super Bowl , airlines and buses care for money . Vegas , Chicago , Bangkok and everywhere else are in business for money . Also the elected members of Congress and the newscasters , the street food sellers , and the entertainment industry . All for the money . Nevertheless , there Are Altruists here and there .
I think you’re going out of your way to paint everyone as a uniform block which is not the case. There’s an awful lot of nuance that you’re not mentioning. For instance, let’s say that you’re an environmental activist and you see that some airlines offer carbon offsets. Sounds great, right? Except that you know that the airlines are notorious about weaseling out of their ecological obligations, which makes you vastly less inclined to hand the airline more money under false pretenses.
That’s just one small example but making extremely broad generalizations isn’t going to make you look like a trustworthy writer. Maybe ease back a bit and include terms like many or mostly to illustrate that you’re not thinking in pure black and white terms.
That said, a verifiable uniform system would probably stand a better chance of success in getting travelers to be more ecologically aware.
@Christian … I am reluctant “to hand the airline more money” because of poor service, crowded conditions , poor food , and allowing heavy carry-ons . The 707 had a lot of exhaust smoke , but it was way more comfortable .
Exactly! People are a diverse bunch. Trying to make statements that include every single person goes a little far.
You make me feel young in that you can actually remember flying on a 707 although my dad flew the inaugural 747 flight
I find the SUSTAINABILITY claims to be unsubstantiated or bogus.
Hotels boast of these claims, but no insulated windows, the dumpster is overflowing with trash and food with no separate bins for recycling of any kind, zone cooling units that are older than me, mysterious surcharges on the final bill for energy conservation donations, etc. And don’t hang your hat on replacing the sheets every two to three days; it’s just a revenue enhancement scheme. On the 3rd day, we requested a refresh and never got it, not even fresh towels.
Climate Change is a false religion that most people believe so organizations pick up on this and virtue signal stuff like plastic cards in hotel bathrooms with polar bears that will die if you don’t reuse your towel.
I’m only angry about it because I should have started a carbon offset business 20 years ago and could have retired by now.
I’m surprised google hasn’t been sued out of using their stupid CO2 calculations when selling flights. It does often appear dead wrong, and more to the point. there’s no guarantee that X aircraft type (or even routing) will be what you actually fly on, and this greatly impacts those calculations. Seems it’s more about google “signaling” their “great concern” about carbon dioxide than anything else.
In other breaking news: water is wet.
Seriously Kyle, your posts are the most boring. We want Matthew on the weekends,
@Chi Hsuan – Is someone forcing you to read free content you don’t want to (blink twice if they are)? I certainly don’t read articles (let alone comment) on topics that don’t interest me and I find it strange that someone would. I *am* envious of the amount of free time you must have, that has to be nice.
I was actually reading this during my between-set time at the gym.
You know the gym right? A place you must avoid like the plague by the look of you.
Crazy turn of events. The gym bro finds a way to both denigrate someone else and elevate himself while making vapid surface comments. How many reps of patting yourself on the back?
Enough that I won’t have to worry about looking like you anytime soon.
Many people only care about the ticket price, they don’t even care about seat size/space so, yeah, that aren’t going to care about the environment. Honestly with all of the problems in the US and elsewhere, stuff like this don’t even register for myself and many others. And I’m someone who does believe in climate change but the list of problems right now are pretty high.
You got Nazi’s in Nashville and you care about sustainability?
You’ve got fascists and communists in charge of the government and you’re worried about a government psy op in Nashville? Get a life.
This finding should come as no surprise. We can’t control the climate folks. Most sane people understand that.
I’m reminded of the scene where Zorg educates the Father Vito in The Fifth Element on Keynesian economics: Populations and consumption need to grow exponentially because certainly sectors of the economy are based upon a ponzi pyramid scheme such as the pensions. In the meantime, CEO’s lay off workers to justify their massive bonuses while claiming higher efficiency. I’m astonished how many people around me don’t see how insane our current society is similar to the USSR in 1988.
Consider our tourism model: The elites, or at least many here in the middle bourgeoisie class, regard leisure in terms of getting-the-hell-far-away from the suburban cookie cutter or Bartertown they live in. People who live in Europe and Japan already are “home” to their vacations. Who travels to Detroit, Cincinnati, or Pittsburgh from Europe for tourism? Make cities and the countryside more fun and people won’t have to fly as far away, but that would require buildings that aren’t square cardboard boxes. How to get by with fewer people? Pay people higher wages but have fewer of them but that doesn’t go according to the model that more people who are less educated is good somehow.
So if I see a dozen immigrants filling an entire dumpster full of disposable diapers, don’t spend a lot of time fretting about whether I can put a number 5 plastic in the recycling bin. What’s the point? To feel like some empty virtue signaling matters? I suppose it gets people through their day living in a mass delusion.
Chi- get bent.
As to the article, I should note that the Sydney Morning Herald (aka the “woman’s magazine”) of newspapers has been regularly reporting this carbon emissions crap in their travel section and it has long been ignored.
As I’ve said before, Bill Maher gets it exactly right:
https://youtu.be/63KXfwC9BdU
My hero Bill. Thank you for summing it up. We are by nature hypocrites. Nice to see someone own it.
He’s funny and sometimes right, but in this case I think he’s mistaken on several things. I don’t think Amazon itself is bad for the environment. On the contrary, while Amazon’s treatment of their employees is abysmal the business model is actually quite efficient at getting people goods without expending energy to drive to a half dozen stores which will procure their materials through the same warehouses.
I think most people, well the first worlders quite frankly, did try to be “good” even if they were poorly educated. As you know in Germany, they have recycling down to a wunder-science. 6 different bins for colored glass. Here, we have single stream recycling and a lot of stuff goes into the trash. Sadly, to “feel good”, folks such as my wife want to put ALL plastic into the single stream bin even if it doesn’t belong so they toss the whole thing out. Virtue signaling at work.
I like that he does admit that the left’s hatred of nuclear is part of the problem as well as chasing after virtue signaling such as electric cars which wind up not saving any money or energy. How much energy goes into a $12,000 battery that saves about that much money in gasoline in its lifetime?
It is a bunch of (carbon) crap and taxes…. and the ones pushing it on us peons… fly their private jets and their giant yachts….. they are exempt
Your numbers on the aircraft emissions don’t match up. JetBlue’s A321s in Mint config seat 159 (there aren’t A320s in Mint like you suggest); Spirit’s A321s seat 228. That’s 43% more seats…
Of course the sales figures will have an impact, but Spirit’s average LF of 80%, Jetblue’s 83% and United’s 84% all suggest that relatively few flights would be going out so empty as to skew the figures.
Also, it doesn’t look like Google Flights has data on whether the Jetblue aircraft are Neos or not. But that’s besides the point – aircraft with more seats are going to (rightly) come out disproportionately better in this.