The Big Question: Is direct action targeting air travel ever justifiable?

Our climate and nature emergencies demand urgent and radical action. We can’t “offset” these crises, and denial or complacency will cost us dearly.

To secure our future, we must cut carbon and restore nature. That necessitates change – to what we produce, consume and waste, and yes, how we travel. Until it’s truly sustainable, we need to fly less.

We can each make positive lifestyle changes. And those do matter. But progress on the scale we need requires systemic change and robust regulation, yet our leaders sit on the fence failing to act. So what options are left?

Protest is vital, and history shows it can be highly impactful. But targeting the wrong doorsteps risks alienating the wider public, whose support is crucial. People who’ve worked hard all year to afford that one holiday aren’t the problem. Nor are those flying to be with loved ones who need them.

And what of the communities and conservation initiatives that rely on tourism? We need to fly less, not stop entirely. Target private jet use. Call out the fact airlines still pay no fuel tax, which could raise billions a year to invest in rail. Lobby your MP on aviation policy. I want to see polluters pay, not ordinary people.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Direct action targeting air travel is a desperate last attempt to protect our home and future. In that light, it’s hard not to see justification, provided it is peaceful and safe.

We need to confront an uncomfortable reality. Disrupting air travel may be inconvenient, or worse. But if we fail to act on carbon, we face far graver consequences than delayed flights.

Justin Francis is chair of activist operator Responsible Travel.

A recent survey by UK climate charity Possible of 50 environmental pledges made by airlines this century showed 49 had been missed or abandoned – a failure rate of 98%.

For all practical purposes, it’s therefore safe to assume that any promise on carbon emissions made by any airline can safely be ignored. Anyone who has followed the saga that was Heathrow’s expansion attempts will not be in the least bit surprised by this.

Yet governments continue to treat aviation’s participation in the drive to decarbonise as being in good faith, and they continue to at least pretend to believe the sector’s implausible claims and predictions.

If you accept direct action is sometimes necessary, then it’s difficult to imagine a better target than a highly carbon-intensive industry providing a non-essential service to a small percentage of the world’s population, a percentage which happens to include all the people with the power to regulate an industry which is, coincidentally, given a broad range of public subsidies and tax breaks.

The political backlash against decarbonisation policies that was visible during the recent European elections is fuelled by dubious claims that the rich are shielded from costs borne by the general public.

Many of these claims are false, but the leeway given to aviation – and particularly to private jet usage – makes it very difficult to argue against them when it comes to the transport sector.

This makes private jets not only the highest carbon mode of transport on earth, but also a source of social division that undermines wider decarbonisation efforts.

Graham Thompson is a spokesperson for Greenpeace UK.

The simple answer to this question is "no". Or more accurately, in normal times, the sort of disruptive action that has been undertaken by Just Stop Oil would be entirely unacceptable.

However, what is also unacceptable is how 13 months of record temperatures has seen us slam through irreversible tipping points – threatening to send everything spinning out of control.

It is unacceptable that we have passed the 1.5C climate warming safety limit governments committed to in 2015, yet the response from governments is more oil and gas.

What is also unacceptable is the level of influence oil companies have over our legal system, our media and our politicians. The Policy Exchange think tank, which helped the government draft the Public Order Act, received funding from US oil firm ExxonMobil in 2017.

In the face of this monolithic power, there are few options available to those who do not possess billions of pounds to lobby politicians or own media empires to manipulate the news discourse.

History has shown us repeatedly that one option available to ordinary people is to cause massive disruption. This forces the issue to the top of the news agenda and to the forefront of the political debate. And although many may "shoot the messengers", the evidence is clear that society overwhelmingly hears the message.

It is time for governments to enact an international, legally binding treaty to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.

James Skeet is a spokesperson for Just Stop Oil.

The Big Question is a monthly feature from TTG taking on some of the burning issues facing travel through expert commentary, insight and debate. While it's not designed to be adversarial, it won't flinch from placing a spotlight on some often uncomfortable topics travel – like it or not – will one day have to reckon with.

• Is the 'S' word starting to put customers off?
• Is direct action targeting commercial travel ever justifiable?
• Is it time to rebrand the travel agent?
• Does travel have an ageism problem?
• Has travel added too much capacity for summer 2024?
• Can celebrity endorsements ever be truly responsible?
• Do women have equal opportunity to progress in travel?
• Should the cruise sector shout about lower prices?
• Is it time for a change of government?
• Has the pandemic changed peaks for ever?
• Is it finally time to turn APD into an environmental tax?
• Does all-inclusive value come at too high a price for the planet?
• Can cruise sail ahead of land-based breaks?
• Should travel companies still be selling captive animal attractions?
• Can aviation do more to help disabled travellers?
• Is there a future for private jets in travel?
• Should agents start charging for their time?
• Is it finally time to reform the Atol scheme?
• Should we be flying during a climate crisis?