Surely, everyone is already aware of the schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, who made a "fiery speech" at the UN about environmental protection. Moreover, she refused to fly to America from Europe by plane, because she believes that flights greatly harm the climate. And eventually crossed the Atlantic Ocean on an 18-meter solar-powered Malizia II sailing yacht - sailing took 2 weeks, instead of several hours of flight. Thus, she wanted to support her Flygskam initiative and protect the planet from global warming.

Greta(el), where is your Hansel?

And what is this "Flygskam"? This is a social movement originated in Sweden, and the results of the “anti-flight” movement are already quite tangible. So, according to El Periódico, last year 23% of Swedes indicated that, when choosing a vehicle for a trip, they abandoned the aircraft “due to its poor environmental friendliness”. This led to an overall decrease in flight load by 4.5%. It would seem that everything seems to be in order with the country's economy, and citizens have money, but “environmental self-awareness” does not supposedly harm the climate.

Now Flygskam is successfully gaining momentum throughout Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries and in the central part of Western Europe. In the UK, a similar wave has passed with a more angry slogan - Flight Free UK ("United Kingdom Without Flights"). In the Netherlands, green politicians launched an online campaign to cancel flights between Amsterdam and Brussels, explaining that traveling between the two capitals takes less than 2 hours by rail. Also, in France last summer they tried to pass a bill banning short flights. It was about routes where you can travel by train in 3.5 hours or faster. However, he did not pass.

Many say that the story of Greta Thunberg reminds me of a world-famous show professionally promoted by dad-producer (and mom - participant of Eurovision-2009), where aviation is designated as a fall guy.

At the same time, few people report that part of the yacht team that delivered Greta to the American continent, returned to Europe on a plane that she hated. And in order to overtake the yacht back, another 2 crew members flew to New York. Thus, the “environmentally friendly” transatlantic trip of Thunberg in reality did more harm to the environment than if it simply flew to the United States and back.

Not to mention how many products were eaten by the yacht team during the trip. After all, their development is also sometimes a considerable harm to the environment. So, over half of the methane in the atmosphere is the result of the extensive development of agriculture, primarily livestock. An ordinary cow is perhaps the most powerful source of methane. Gastric gases as a result of malnutrition and digestion, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, are becoming a serious problem in countries with powerful agriculture. However, there is no information that Greta Thunberg is a vegetarian, and the eco-activist also did not make any loud statements about this.

Why aviation?

According to the girl, airplanes are the most harmful type of transport. Meanwhile, in fact, according to environmentalists, air transport accounts for only 2.5% of CO2 emissions worldwide. And if you look around, for example, according to the UN, the same global fashion industry contributes to the pollution of the planet in the amount of 10%.

And if you look at other modes of transport, it turns out that aviation is almost one of the most environmentally friendly industries. For example, in Spain it was estimated that almost 90% of greenhouse gases from transport are produced by land-based modes of transport: cars, trucks, and so on.

It is mistakenly believed that emissions of fuel combustion products from an airplane are visually clearly visible - in the sky you can see white stripes stretching behind the engines of the aircraft. In fact, what we are observing is just condensed water vapour that forms under certain weather conditions. That is why sometimes we see an “inversion trail” behind the plane, and sometimes it does not.

Despite this, thanks to the 16-year-old from Sweden, having succumbed to the fashion of the struggle for environmental friendliness, Europeans increasingly prefer to use other modes of transport than fly by plane. At the same time, without hesitation, picking up the next suit from the new collection, they cause ecology much more noticeable harm.

Of course, abandoning air transport, especially in Sweden with a not very developed aviation industry, is much easier than other environmentally harmful habits. For example, not everyone can afford an electric Tesla, which means you have to transfer to a bicycle? Is it convenient in the metropolis? But what about electricity, heating, and so on? After all, this is just a myth that electric energy is environmentally friendly - fuel is also burned for its generation (coal, gas, fuel oil and etc.). Not every person will decide so selflessly to protect the environment in order to immediately give up all the benefits, especially since the world has become much more comfortable. Maybe that’s why Greta’s anger is not directed against obvious sources of environmental problems, but the least needed European in everyday life?

Fairy Tale VS Reality

Meanwhile, the aviation industry has long made a tangible contribution to reducing emissions and protecting the environment. So, in the past decade, new environmental standards came into force in Europe, which put a barrier to the operation of aircraft with old and less efficient engines and pushed manufacturers to create more economical and environmentally friendly aircraft. In Russia, after the transition of airlines from old Soviet aircraft to Western new generations, the emission of harmful substances into the atmosphere decreased by 2 times.

Moreover, many air carriers, both foreign and Russian, voluntarily participate in various environmental projects. Airlines are offering passengers to offset CO2 emissions by paying a little extra for a ticket to later plant forests that help save the planet.

For example, in 2019, S7 airline held a campaign to plant 1 million trees in the regions of Siberia in order to replenish the forest.

Now, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) plans to launch a campaign that will oppose the Flygskam movement in order to maintain an industry reputation. This was stated by the head of IATA, Alexandre de Juniac, reports Reuters.

“We will launch a very, very large campaign ... to explain what we have done, what we are doing and what we are going to do in the future,” he said.

According to the head of IATA, the campaign aims to explain to the public how the industry is reducing its environmental impact, in opposition to information that is “misleading”.