"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
A recent study published in Nature Communications shows that the tourism sector alone was responsible for 8.8% of anthropogenic climate warming in 2019.
Christmas holidays are approaching. If it is still a bit early to pack your suitcases, a large majority of the population has already chosen between skiing and fondue at a resort or warm sand and vahinés on a paradisiacal island. It is a fact: tourism is experiencing a new boom. “The rebound in tourism after the pandemic was rapid, and global tourism is expected to again exceed 20 billion trips in 2024,” reads “Nature Communications”.
However, this thirst for travel, this very human desire for elsewhere, naturally does not come without consequences for the planet. Data are lacking, or rather incomplete at a global scale, to clearly estimate the impacts. Using tourist spending profiles from 175 countries, a recent study sought to establish a real database to determine the carbon footprints of global and national tourism.
Covering the period 2009-2020 and entitled “Drivers of global tourism carbon emissions”, the study warns of growth it deems unsustainable for the climate. Here are the key points:
1️⃣
Negative trend: During the decade analyzed by the study authors, the first observation is that we are clearly not on the right track. Alone, in 2019, global tourism was responsible for 8.8% of anthropogenic warming. The tourism industry is particularly polluting, since each dollar earned in this sector generated 1.02 kg of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By comparison, this is about four times more than the services sector (0.24 kg/$) and 30% more than the global economy (0.77 kg/$).
In terms of pollution sources, unsurprisingly, most net emissions were generated by air transport (0.27 Gt) and public utilities (0.26 Gt). As for travelers' use of private vehicles, it also contributed substantially, notably 0.29 Gt due to combustion engines.
2️⃣
Brief pause due to Covid: The pandemic represents a short anomaly that led to a drastic reduction in tourism's carbon footprint. “In 2020, international travel restrictions and reductions in domestic tourism led to a decline in global tourism emissions, from 5.2 Gt in 2019 to 2.2 Gt in one year,” the study indicates.
This drop in emissions is attributable to a fall in global tourist spending of about $3 trillion, as well as the concomitant reduction in air travel and private vehicle use. Spending associated with these two components fell by 50% in one year.
Air transport breaks all records
The latest estimates provided by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) show that the aviation sector has largely regained its dynamism since the pandemic. In 2024, it carried more than 4.89 billion passengers, generating cumulative revenues of $965 billion and a net profit of $31.5 billion. Forecasts for 2025 anticipate continued rapid growth, with 5.2 billion passengers expected and total industry revenue exceeding, for the first time, the symbolic threshold of $1 trillion.Despite this spectacular recovery, there remains some frustration within the sector. Indeed, the sector could perform even better if manufacturers delivered the aircraft ordered. “The greatest frustration for airlines lies in the inability of Boeing, Airbus, GE, Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney to deliver the aircraft and spare parts needed,” emphasized Willie Walsh, director of IATA. “This is an unacceptable situation, and nothing indicates that it will improve in 2025. It looks set to last several years.” O.W.
3️⃣
Disparity between rich and poor countries: The authors were able to confirm that there is a strong disparity between different regions of the world. “Economic prosperity determines whether people travel and, above all, how they travel,” reads the study. While, on average, the global per capita carbon footprint of tourism in 2019 was 0.68 t of CO2, large disparities appear between the richest countries and those with much lower incomes. “Using the World Bank income classification system, we found that high-income countries have a travel footprint of 1.52 t of CO2 per capita, while low-income countries have only 0.04 t of CO2 per capita,” the researchers indicate.
Currently, three countries lead in CO2 emissions: the United States, China and India. Interestingly, the global analysis reveals a large disparity in the per capita carbon footprint of tourism, both between countries and within them. Whether in China, India or the United States, it is indeed the growth of domestic travel that contributes most to the absolute increase of their emissions.
4️⃣
Insufficient technological transformation: The strategy of betting everything on best practices (greener tourism) and new technologies to reduce tourism's impact on the planet clearly does not seem ideal. Indeed, while technological improvements have slightly reduced emissions, they are not sufficient given the growing number of tourists and especially their spending.
“At the global level, the growth in tourist consumption is the main factor driving tourism emissions,” explain the study authors. Whether in accommodation, gastronomy or transport, tourist spending per capita rose from $536 in 2009 to $672 in 2019, which led to an increase in tourism emissions of 1.4 Gt CO2 equivalent.
Consequently, while emissions intensity improved by 0.3% per year over the last ten years, tourist spending grew by 3.8% per year. “This confirms that improvements in emissions intensity have been largely offset by growth in consumption,” the scientists regret.
The study's conclusions are not very positive, as they show that the tourism industry has made very little progress in reducing emissions. And after the brief respite of Covid, the curve is once again strongly upward. The study authors forecast an annual increase in emissions of 3 to 4% according to current trends. “This trend represents an insurmountable challenge for the tourism sector, which must align with the goal of limiting global warming to +1.5 °C, as defined in the Paris Agreement. Yet, to reach this goal, the 5.2 Gt of CO2 emissions would need to decrease by 10% per year by 2050,” they indicate.
Believing that it would be enough to simply push all countries to reduce their number of tourists is illusory, according to experts. The approach is deemed unfair and inequitable. “The IPCC suggests that a ‘fair contribution’ to mitigation should take into account four elements: equity, responsibility, capacity and cost-effectiveness,” reads the study. The urgency naturally concerns the twenty most emitting tourist destinations in the world, particularly the United States, China and India. “If the top 20 destinations had reduced their tourism growth rate by 1% per year between 2009 and 2019 (from 5.9% to 4.9% annual growth at current prices), they could have reduced their CO2 emissions by 0.38 Gt in 2019. That alone would have represented a 7% reduction in global tourism emissions.”
On the other hand, in terms of air transport, the latter remains the Achilles' heel of the sector's global emissions. Should the ability to travel by plane be limited? The question arises, because, according to the study authors, “focusing on limiting the continued growth of international air transport, rather than on domestic tourism, would offer a more socially equitable approach.” They consider, in any case, that it is urgent to establish targeted measures, such as “CO2 taxes, carbon budgets and mandates on alternative fuels.”
Information about the authors
Authors and affiliations
University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia Ya-Yen Sun and Futu Faturay
Budget Policy Agency, Ministry of Finance of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Futu Faturay
ISA, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Manfred Lenzen
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
