As small travel company grappling with impact of our customers travel and what best to do about it, I was filled with rage when I first saw this (image below) in The Economist. What a bunch of greenwashing rubbish. Flying more sustainably? Sort your language out Google. And take control of Greenwashing in your mag The economist.
I have since calmed down and *trying* to see the other side. Maybe there is some logic in it? Maybe it helps the airlines see a demand for LESS TERRIBLE fuel. If sustainable aviation fuel is going to be a thing then the airlines need confidence to invest?
After a quick play with Google Flights….
1. I couldn’t seem an example of a lower carbon travel option that wasn’t the cheepest/best anyway. Does that make it useless?
2. Nothing about off setting or similar
3. It DIDNT SUGGEST getting the train for flights from London to Birmingham or Geneva to Paris.
I am still calling greenwashing BS on it. Anyone got any thoughts?
Below is copied and pasted from https://support.google.com/travel/answer/9671620?p=co2_emissions&hl=en&visit_id=637780056604581563-406802540&rd=1#zippy=how-we-estimate-emissions
Why some flights have lower emissions
Carbon emission estimates consider the origin, destination, aircraft type, and the number of seats in each seating class.
Factors such as fuel-efficient aircraft and shorter routes usually result in lower carbon emissions.
The emission estimates are higher for premium economy, business, and first seating classes because the seats in these sections take up more space. They’ll account for a larger share of the flight’s total emissions.
Traveling by train
When a train is available on your route, you’ll find it listed on your Google Flights search results.
Traveling by train may result in significantly lower carbon emissions compared to flying. Carbon emissions for trains are compared to the typical flight for that route. As such, train options are mostly marked with a badge indicating lower emissions.