Home or away? Why planning a sustainable holiday is about more than swapping planes for trains

As we emerge from a relentlessly gloomy winter in the UK, many are itching for a holiday in the sun. For some that means seeking warmer climates abroad and hopping on a plane to get there.

But as climate change brings wetter winters to the UK, flying for holidays is fuelling rapidly rising aviation emissions. And addressing this not only needs a shift towards climate-friendly travel but a reimagining of where holidays take place.

For years we’ve been sold the promise of guilt-free flying through green technologies such as sustainable aviation fuels and carbon offsetting from polluting airlines.

But all come with significant limitations and none are ready to deliver the emissions reductions we need within the time we have. Ultimately, without curbing demand, current climate policies will not deliver any major emissions reductions in aviation. That makes it more important to reduce how much we fly.

In the UK, aviation is set to become the largest emitting sector by 2040 and this rise is being driven primarily by leisure travel. This includes vacations and visiting family or friends with the majority of departing passengers flying for holidays.

Beyond switching planes for trains

The good news is the growth in aviation emissions isn’t being caused by your annual holiday to Spain. Most flights are taken by a relatively small number flying several times a year, with 70% of flights taken by just 15% of people. This group is also more likely to take frequent short-haul flights which could be replaced by train. Shifting the behaviour of this elite group (from planes to trains) would have a significant impact on cutting emissions.

Trains are significantly better for the climate compared to flying, with a single flight from London to Berlin clocking up the same amount of carbon as 11 trips by train.

As a researcher focusing on how to promote flight-free holidays to reduce aviation emissions, I used to find this reassuring. We didn’t necessarily need to change where we went for holidays. We just needed to get frequent flyers on trains instead of planes.

But, sadly, it isn’t that simple. Recent research has found the majority of UK aviation emissions actually come from long-haul leisure flights. So even if all flights on routes that could be completed by rail in under 24 hours were replaced, this would only address around 14% of UK aviation emissions.

Reducing aviation emissions therefore requires not only getting frequent flyers to shift from planes to trains, but asking wider questions about where people want to go and why.

Rethinking what a ‘proper’ holiday looks like

Reducing demand for flying isn’t just a structural challenge addressing cheap flights and expensive trains, but also a social one. Five minutes scrolling on Instagram bombards you with bucket list destinations and influencers implying a life well lived is a passport full of stamps.

Since the rise of budget airlines in the 1990s, flying for holidays has become increasingly normalised socially, despite largely remaining something only a relatively wealthy few do regularly. And the pull isn’t just about cost and convenience.

Research shows if cost and time weren’t an issue, people say they would fly more. Flying has become a means to an end in reaching the exotic, unfamiliar and – crucially for British people – the sun.

Tourists associate distance with novelty, contributing to domestic holidays being less popular than those abroad. There’s almost a hierarchy of destinations where places furthest away and more novel feel more desirable. My ongoing research on how people talk about holidays reflects this – some questioned whether the UK even counts as a holiday.

I have found that holidays in far-away places seemed to impress participants more than those spent in the UK and Europe, often with responses such as “wow” and “amazing”. Destinations further afield were referred to as “grand”, “swanky”, “extravagant” and “big”, contrasting with the language used when discussing holidays closer to home with “only”, “little” and “just”. In this way, the places we visit on holiday act as social currency in conversations. Being well travelled grants us cultural capital, the accumulated knowledge and experience of the world signalling social status.

But ideas of a good holiday are open to change. In one survey, half of the respondents said they flew less because they knew someone who had given up flying due to climate change. So social influence works in both directions.

Some, for example those part of the slow travel movement, are already resisting the idea that closer destinations are somehow lesser. Participants in our ongoing research described planning trips around where they can feasibly get to by train, making the journey part of the holiday or foregrounding quality time with loved ones over the destination.

This isn’t about giving up holidays abroad and foregoing the sun, especially if you’re only flying to a European destination once or twice a year. Structural change, like fairer pricing and better rail connections, is also essential (and long overdue) if people are to make changes.

Even taking the train from London to Edinburgh costs on average 60% more than flying and this will persist until airlines are taxed fairly and train tickets are made the same price or cheaper than plane tickets. These are policies which the public supports.

So as we look ahead to summer it’s worth asking if what we’re actually longing for – whether it be warmth, rest, adventure, quality time, cultural interest or a change of scenery – really requires a long-haul flight (or lots of short-haul flights). A sustainable holiday starts with asking that question before deciding where to go.

Sarah Barfield Marks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.