The decarbonisation impasse: global tourism leaders’ views on climate change mitigation

Abstract

The Paris Climate Agreement is based on pledges from 195 countries to substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to prevent dangerous climate change. The tourism sector has likewise pledged to reduce its GHG emissions (−70% by 2050); however, current emission trends would result in a tripling in the same timeframe. In order to understand how the sector understands the decarbonisation challenge, 17 senior tourism leaders were interviewed with regard to their perspectives on the risks and opportunities associated with climate change impacts and action. Respondents affirmed that the climate is already changing, fuelled by human activities, including tourism, and that its impacts on society and tourism will be largely negative and devastating in some regions. Opinion was divided regarding mitigation timelines, the compatibility of continued tourism growth with Paris Climate Agreement decarbonisation goals, and the role of technology and governance in reducing emissions. The paper examines leaders’ perspectives in terms of “belief systems” that interpret information in decision-making, as well as forms of agnogenesis; this is, the fabrication of uncertainty to justify non-action. Belief systems and agnogenesis are thought to represent important barriers to progress on the decarbonisation of tourism, as they are for the global low-carbon transition.

Keywords:

• Agnogenesis
• aviation
• belief systems
• climate change
• climate policy
• mitigation

Introduction

In its most recent assessment report, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) concluded that climate change is “unequivocal” and that human influence on the climate system is clear. Evidence of the rapid warming of the planet continues to be unrelenting (Blunden & Arndt, 2017; USGCRP, 2017). Global climate will continue to change as a result of past heat-trapping greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate system feedbacks, however the magnitude of climate change and associated risks in the decades and centuries ahead will be determined by the choices made today and in the years ahead to reduce GHG emissions. Inaction to significantly and rapidly reduce GHG emissions represents a commitment to profound climate change, where little in society would remain unaffected. Such a climate future would transform areas of the earth and, according to Michael Jarraud, secretary of the World Meteorological Organization, and Achim Steiner, Executive Director, United Nations Environmental Programme, substantially increase the likelihood of “… severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” (IPCC, 2014: v).

The implications of climate change for the tourism sector are far-reaching (Scott et al., 2012, 2015) and already influencing sector investment, planning and operations (Nicholls, 2014; Scott et al., 2016). Any phenomenon that is anticipated to adversely affect economic growth in many areas of the world, greatly increase regional water and food insecurity, harm or displace more than a billion people, greatly increase extinction risk, and progressively threaten security is not compatible with sustainable tourism development. The 2007 Davos Declaration on Climate Change and Tourism (UNWTO et al., 2007: 4) urged “the entire tourism sector to face climate change as one of the greatest challenges to sustainable development, and to the Millennium Development Goals in the 21st Century”, and underlined the need to reduce the sector’s emissions. As one of the largest tourism business organisations, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC, 2015: 5) more recently affirmed that “The next 20 years will be characterised by our sector fully integrating climate change and related issues into business strategy, supporting the global transition to a low carbon economy, (and) strengthening resilience at a local level against climate risks”.

The challenge of climate change is recognized in these and many other official documents (ETC, 2018; IATA, 2018; World Bank, 2018), with pledges to build a low-carbon, climate-resilient tourism sector. Tourism sector GHG emissions have nonetheless continued to grow (Gössling & Peeters, 2015; Lenzen et al., 2018; Scott et al., 2016), primarily due of the sector’s continued strong growth trend. International tourist arrivals have grown from 25 million in 1950 to 1.245 billion in 2016 (UNWTO, 2017a). Tourism transport, accommodation, and activities at destinations contribute approximately 5% to global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in 2005 (UNWTO et al., 2008). This estimate may be conservative, given the large growth in tourism over the past decade (Lenzen et al., 2018). Most tourism-related CO₂ emissions are generated by transport (Lenzen et al., 2018; UNWTO et al., 2008). Tourism is projected to grow at an average rate of 3.3% per year to 2030, with estimates that there will be 1.8 billion international tourist arrivals in 2030 (UNWTO, 2017a). It is estimated that these growth trends will drive emission increases of 170% between 2010 and 2050 (Gössling & Peeters, 2015).

In a situation where all economic sectors will be required to make contributions to reduce emissions in order to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement objective of limiting global warming to 2 °C (over pre-industrial levels), any growth in emissions from specific sectors or countries will mean that there is a widening gap between trajectories and mitigation objectives. For tourism in a business-as-usual scenario, this would correspond to more than 2.5 Gt CO₂ per year by 2050 (ETC, 2018). To achieve a 70% emissions reduction from 2015 levels, which is required to realise the IPCC’s (2014) scenario for meeting the 2 °C maximum warming objective, a 2.2% reduction from absolute emission levels will be required each year throughout the 2015–2035 period. In contrast, ICAO (2016) projects that emissions from aviation alone will grow by a factor 2.8–3.9 between 2010 and 2040. For this reason, air transport growth and climate stabilisation are considered incompatible, even under highly optimistic technology development and uptake scenarios (Bows-Larkin, 2015). Several analyses have highlighted a similarly widening gap between climate change mitigation objectives and emissions from tourism (Bows-Larkin, 2015; Gössling, 2013; Lenzen et al., 2018; Scott et al., 2015, 2016; UNWTO et al., 2008).

Climate resilience and decarbonisation needs are highlighted in sector communications (UNWTO, 2017b; WTTC, 2015), but there is little evidence of significant mitigation action (ETC, 2018; Scott et al., 2016; UNEP & OECD, 2011). Against this background of limited progress towards the decarbonisation transition in tourism, the paper investigates tourism leader perspectives on climate change and decarbonisation to understand potential barriers to the implementation of measures that would bring the sector on the path to absolute emission reductions that is consistent with its stated ambitions and the Paris Climate Agreement. Findings are interpreted through theoretical frameworks that include belief system theory and agnotology. These refer to systems in which specific views of reality are maintained even against evidence questioning the validity of these beliefs (Rokeach, 1968). Agnogenesis (Proctor & Schiebinger 2008) refers to a situation in which misleading views are spread to introduce doubt (Cook, Ellerton & Kinkead 2018; Oreskes & Conway 2011), for instance with regard to the need to introduce policies for decarbonisation.

Theoretical background

Leadership and climate governance

Given the lack of scientific knowledge transfer into policy-making (i.e. the implementation of measures to curb GHG emissions growth), Banister and Hickman (2013) postulated an ‘implementation gap’, while Bache et al. (2015) observed a “governance vacuum” (Bache et al., 2015). It is argued that the political impasse to act on climate change can be explained out of various perspectives, and may include, on the most fundamental level, a belief in ecological modernisation and neoliberal governance that relies on industry self-regulation and voluntary behavioural change (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2007; Ciplet & Roberts, 2017). In this view, emissions growth will be resolved through technological breakthroughs, for which responsibility is largely with industry (Bailey & Maresh, 2009). The potential of behavioural change has also been highlighted as an important part of decarbonisation strategies (Creutzig et al., 2015). Yet, it is clear that emissions continue to rise sharply. Technology innovations have not been significant enough to make a contribution to absolute emission reductions, while evidence from multiple sectors indicate that voluntary change does not work (Cohen et al., 2011, 2014; Hares et al., 2010). Measures believed to have great significance for mitigation, including carbon taxes and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, are not addressed by policy makers (Sovacool, 2017; Stern, 2006; van Beers & van den Bergh, 2001; World Bank, 2014).

This impasse calls for further insights into climate governance, that is, the “regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services” (Lynn et al., 2001, p. 7). Tourism, as a global activity, is regulated both at sub-national and national (accommodations, activities, transport) as well as supra-national levels (international aviation, cruises). To reduce emissions from tourism will consequently require action at multiple government levels (Marsden & Rye, 2010, Marsden et al., 2014).

Belief systems and agnogenesis

In his comprehensive examination of “why we disagree on climate change”, Hulme (2009) concluded that the discordant ways of narrating the significance of climate change reveal different attitudes to risk, technology and well-being, embedded in different beliefs regarding ethics, ideology and policy, as well as views of past and future. The political impasse in addressing an urgent societal problem can be studied using belief system theory, and it may be discussed in the broader context of agnotology. Belief system theory studies the organisation of attitudes, values and behaviours, and how these may change over time (Rokeach, 1968, 1973). In the context of this paper, “belief system” refers to a specific understanding of an issue or topic that may not necessarily be aligned with a more objective (scientific) analysis. A belief system guides cognitive and motivational processes, such as information processing, selective forgetting and remembering, defence of positions, and, ultimately, decision-making (Grube et al., 1994). As outlined by Steg and Vlek (2009), pro-environmental behaviour is guided by complex sets of factors, such as knowledge and social norms; cognitions, moral motivations or habits. Belief systems are also closely aligned with personal identities, which individuals seek to maintain within frameworks of positive self-conceptions and self-presentations (Grube et al., 1994), as well as lifestyles built on specific forms of consumption (Cohen, 2011). Where personal identities or lifestyles are at risk, for instance by insights that air travel is environmentally harmful, this will question favourable perspectives on travel and result in cognitive dissonance (Cohen & Higham, 2011). Stoll-Kleemann et al. (2001) described this as the ‘psychology of denial’, in which specific (unsustainable) actions are justified by discarding specific truths. Young et al. (2014) confirmed that cognitive dissonance leads travellers to ignore certain scientific evidence of travel impacts on the climate system (see also McDonald et al., 2015). In the process, positions inconsistent with sustainability are justified, as individuals refute insights and adopt alternative truth conceptions. For example, Peeters et al. (2016) found that continuously changing ‘solutions’ to aviation emissions had the character of technology “myths”, designed to create positive opinion on the future potential of innovations, and hence to dispel doubt on progress. Change can occur over time, when previously held conceptions are gradually impacted (Grube et al., 1994); it is more likely, however, for belief systems to be maintained on the basis of barriers erected to rationalize specific views. This may include the proposition that future technological solutions will make personal behavioural change efforts unnecessary.

Where cognitive dissonance results in rationalization strategies, this will also prompt individuals to accept and spread information that is factually inaccurate or misleading. These processes have been discussed from the perspective of agnotology, which studies the manufacturing of ignorance by creating “doubt […] without actually denying [the fact in question]” (Proctor & Schiebinger, 2008: p. 17). Bedford (2010, p. 159) outlines that anotology studies “how and why we do not know things”, which may include misconceptions as well as “misleading or inaccurate statements” in the media about climate change. With regard to misconceptions, there is evidence that journalistic principles have contributed to a skewed representation of climate change in the media (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). However, there is also much evidence of campaigns that have sought to deliberately mislead the public (Kolmes, 2011; Mailback et al., 2014; Oreskes & Conway, 2011; Van der Linden et al., 2017). For this reason, Bedford (2010, p. 160) distinguishes misinformation and disinformation, the latter being “deliberately false”. Tourism is no stranger to climate change denial and associated misinformation and disinformation, with for instance Hall et al. (2015) exposing strategies to create specific perspectives on climate change in the academic literature.

Method

In order to gain insights into the perspectives of tourism leaders on climate change and mitigation, seventeen semi-structured interviews were carried out with representatives of tourism organisations and businesses, including global tourism (UNWTO, UNEP, OECD), global aviation (IATA, ATAG), global cruises (CLIA), destinations (Germany, Iceland), tour operators (TUI, Thomas Cook), platforms (Amadeus) and private sector (Emirates, Etihad, Intrepid Travel, Mandarin Oriental, Ryanair). Of the 17 interviews, six were CEO or Board level, eleven were Senior Management, and none below this level. Further detail on sector leaders’ identities is withheld for purposes of anonymity, which was a condition of participation in the study. Respondents were identified and recruited by a major regional tourism organization in co-operation with one leading global tourism organization, in the context of a project on climate change and tourism.

Interviews were carried out from May to July 2017 and lasted between 25 and 45 min. Interviews were semistructured in order to provide a common set of questions to leaders, yet giving respondents latitude to explore specific areas of interest or expertise. All interviews followed the same interview protocol. After an introduction of the researcher, the topic of the study was introduced in a general way (“perspectives on climate change mitigation and tourism”), and it was reconfirmed that respondents agreed with the scope and conditions of participation in the study. Interview questions covered perspectives on climate change risks and opportunities for the sector; the sector’s mitigation responsibilities in the context of the Paris Agreement; as well as leadership and enabling conditions to move forward on decarbonisation and climate resilience. A last question invited leaders to discuss any salient topics that may have remained unaddressed.

All interviews were digitally recorded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach in manually interpreting the empirical material (Patton, 2002). This involved reducing the empirical material into categories guided by the participants' narratives and the identification of emergent themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994; O'Reilly, 2005). To ensure congruity of interpretations, blind spots and multiple ways of interpreting the empirical material were considered (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This process involved an analysis of the material on an individual basis, as well as in comparison. To illustrate often-complex positions, extensive verbatim quotations from participant interviews are included in the discussion (Decrop, 2004). To ensure anonymity, respondents were pseudonymed as respondents (R) 1 through 17. The presentation of the empirical material is followed by a discussion of its implications for climate change policies and decarbonisation, and with a view to identify barriers to the implementation of climate policies to enable GHG emission reduction.

Results

The following sections discuss tourism leaders’ perspectives on tourism and climate change. The alternate positions of the tourism leaders on central climate change topics are summarized in Table 1 and then discussed individually.

Table 1. Tourism leader positions on climate change.

Anthropogenic climate change is occurring and a threat to society	Consensus that global climate is already changing, and that this has human causes. Severe impacts for tourism and transport are anticipated.
GHG emissions need to be reduced	Agreement that emissions of greenhouses gases need to be reduced, and that the tourism sector has the same obligation to contribute as all other economic sectors.
Continued tourism growth	Continued growth in tourism is considered inevitable. Many industry leaders advocated for further strong growth, while others expressed caution about continued growth projections and their assumptions.
Sub-sector contributions to climate change and progress on mitigation	Differing views on the relevance of specific tourism sub-sectors in contributing to climate change (e.g., air travel or hotels), as well as progress made on slowing emissions growth within these sub-sectors.
Decarbonisation and technology	Disagreement on the role and potential of technology to contribute to emission reductions; most leaders are optimistic, but some are concerned about the rate of innovation and deployment.
Climate leadership	Diverse positions on mitigation leadership, opportunities, and whether progress has been made on decarbonisation. Concerns expressed over “greenwash” versus measureable progress needed for carbon risk disclosure.
Climate governance	Fundamentally different positions on importance of climate regulation, and the role of governments in leading decarbonisation efforts.
Market-based measures	Differing views on the importance and reliance on market-based mechanisms to curb emissions and support low-carbon innovation.
Barriers to progress	Leaders outlined a range of barriers preventing significant emission reductions.
The way forward	Different opinions as to how to proceed on emission reductions.

Climate change is real and a threat

There exists consensus that the climate is already changing, and that this is primarily caused by emissions of GHGs from human activities. The meaningful contribution of tourism to anthropogenic climate change is also unanimously acknowledged.

“[Company name] completely accepts that climate change is a real and present threat, and is induced by human activity.” R1

“We know that tourism also has a remarkable impact on climate change, especially the transport part.” R2

Leaders highlighted a range of specific climate change risks that already threaten tourism assets and operations, such as reduced snow or bleached coral reefs, and underlined the destructive impacts of extreme events for tourism infrastructure and destination communities.

“Ski seasons have become far more variable in the European Alps.” R3

“There are many risks. Climate change is threatening to produce extreme weather events. And extreme weather events are very critical to our planning and our product. Climate change is also increasing safety concerns, water shortages, loss of biodiversity, damage to assets” R4

“[During a recent] heatwave in the US, in Arizona, certain types of aircraft could not fly because the operating temperature parameter […] was exceeded” R6

Emissions need to be reduced

Leaders were collectively strongly supportive of the Paris Climate Agreement and its objective to limit global warming below 2 °C, compared to pre-industrial times. They recognized that achieving this goal would require deep cuts in global GHG emissions across all economic sectors, confirming a responsibility for tourism to contribute to reduce its emissions in line with other economic sectors. Leaders were aware that international aviation and cruises are not covered by the Paris Agreement, and that decarbonisation strategies have to be identified for these sub-sectors. While there was agreement on the necessity of action, leaders acknowledge that tourism had only begun to consider mitigation options and how to achieve sectoral emission reduction ambitions, and that non-action would imply regulatory, reputational and other risks.

“I’m increasingly concerned […] there is other industries that really start to put solid plans in place to reduce carbon emissions. It’s increasingly obvious that our industry is not doing anything in a collective sense. […] Tourism risks being considered a dirty industry, if it is not seen to be doing its share.” R7

“We were seen as […] a very heavily polluting industry, which we are because […] at the moment the majority of our fuel is still kerosene. The risk to us is about people wanting limitations on demand for air transport, you know, taxes, charges, even limitations in the number of flights because of that issue.” R6

Divergent positions were found with regard to the role of non-CO₂ emissions from aviation. Aviation representatives acknowledged that non-CO₂ emissions remained outside the planning for mitigation, suggesting that this was due to a lack of a scientific consensus.

“Where there is still a huge amount of debate is: what happens at altitude with those [NO_x] gases? There are conflicting reports - some would say that they add to global warming, some of them would say that they reduce global warming. The same thing with so-called contrails – the water vapor trails that aircraft sometimes leave in certain atmospheric conditions. There is arguments on both sides of this one.” R6

Continued tourism growth

Leaders affirmed that global tourism would continue to grow in the decades ahead. Although a majority of respondents expressed optimism that growth in tourism and deep emission cuts could be achieved simultaneously, continued strong growth was sometimes seen as an important impediment to decarbonisation needs. Emphasis was often placed on the potential of future technologies to enable growth and achieve deep emission reductions; that is, solutions that would only emerge in the longer-term future.

“We should not be shy or afraid from growth. Growth is the story of mankind. Growth is not something that we can deny certain societies from.” R4

“And then from 2020 on […] we are aiming for […] ‘carbon-neutral-growth’, so even though we expect traffic to continue to grow at around 4% per annum, we would like to stabilize our emissions at the 2020 level, and that is being done through a combination of measures […]. And then longer-term we set ourselves a goal of reducing our emissions by 50% compared to where they were in 2005, by 2050.” R6

Some leaders questioned the benefits of further growth, suggesting that there is a need to redefine “progress” in tourism development contexts.

“I am more concerned about the use of dumping by certain airlines that benefit from the attractiveness that bringing passengers to the destination does have for the municipality. Is the traveller really paying for the full cost of that trip? Are we artificially multiplying the number of travellers?” R8

“There are regions in the world that are already victims of tourism like Barcelona. […] Tourism can be too much. […] [As a destination], we raise the question if growth is everything. Or should we think more sustainably, trying to work on a new definition of ‘success’ in tourism.” R2

Subsector contributions to climate change and progress on mitigation

Leaders expressed differing perspectives on progress on sector-wide decarbonisation, specifically with respect to sub-sectors, with perceptions that some had done less or were more important as major contributors to emissions.

“Other means of transportation are less impactful [than aviation], but to be honest, they are not doing as good as aviation. There are more emissions per person in the land transportation than it is in the airline transportation. […] Cars, per unit, are emitting by far much more, and the advancement on car transportation, when it comes to emissions, has been very minimal, in comparison to aviation.” R4

“There must be a pressure on cruise ships especially” R2

“I think that where [CORSIA] falls short […] is that the timelines are a bit generous and that the measures lack the kind of enforceability that we are typically used to in the maritime sector.” R16

“[…] you also need to look at the underlying energy sources of high-speed rail. I mean in France, where it is coming from nuclear power you could argue that yes, it is significantly better; in Germany where a lot of the power is still from lignite power stations you can argue that the high-speed rail is, from a climate perspective, it is not much better [than aviation].” R6

Decarbonisation and technology

Positions were also observed to differ regarding specific measures to achieve emission reductions. Some respondents outlined achievements or longer-term mitigation ambitions, involving, for instance, technology innovations, alternative fuels, efficiency gains, or infrastructure improvements. Others highlighted the need for governments to introduce market-based measures to increase the cost of carbon to incentivise innovation in the tourism sector as well as the broader economy that would also contribute to decarbonizing tourism; for example, decarbonizing electricity grids, electrifying ground transport. A majority of respondents agreed, though often reluctantly, that fuel and carbon prices were instrumental in raising interest and incentivizing decarbonisation. Several leaders underlined that mitigation targets and measures had to be defined and implemented by governments, in part to ensure a ‘level playing field’ for industry. Individual respondents also highlighted the need to strategically increase pressure on the largest sources of tourism emissions, including aviation, cruises, cars and accommodation.

“Our [aviation’s] carbon footprint has not increased in spite of the fact that we have been growing in the last past five to six years. So we can continue to do this. Actually, we should even commit ourselves to the Paris Agreement, and try to be in line with the goals that were set at the Paris Agreement” R4

“I am quite confident, that in a couple of years, planes will not be driven by kerosene. There will be new solutions. There are already planes flying with electricity.” R2

More cautious voices underlined the lack of official assessments of tourism and transport emission trajectories and capacity to monitor changes in emissions that will be increasingly demanded by the financial sector as part of carbon risk disclosures. These respondents also highlighted the limited pace of new technology market introductions, and the challenges associated with research and development and the up-scaling of (sustainable) alternative fuel production.

“We need sector targets, and key indicators we are measuring. We need to agree on a baseline. […] We would need a platform where companies are informed, where they are helped to set a target.” R11

“[Our] Industry has said that by 2050 we want to be at 50% of emissions that we were in 2005. […] To be honest, the only way this is really going to happen is if alternative fuels become a big part of our jet fuel demand.” R13

“The way [CORSIA] is currently framed, it is not a perfect solution, and it would require more States to be involved.” R16

Climate leadership

Respondents agreed that leadership was needed on various levels to reduce climate change risks for tourism, including mitigation and adaptation. Leaders broadly looked to supra-national tourism organisations in driving low-carbon agendas, acknowledging that progress had so far been limited.

“I do think that the WTTC and organizations like it could play a stronger role in providing leadership on issues like climate change. […] I don’t see […] commitment across the whole travel and tourism sector.” R6

One respondent indicated reluctance within the sector to commit to emission reductions consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement (i.e. science-based emission targets), suggesting that organisations’ and companies’ official statements on mitigation hid internal dispute, while others voiced scepticism that industry would adequately tackle the challenge without new partnerships with governments.

“To be perfectly blunt, [name of industry organization] did not want to put a statement out that we should be trying to manage carbon emissions to ensure 1.5 or well under 2° increase, and it certainly did not want to take a structured approach towards action. […] I mean a quantifiable, structured approach to reducing our emissions in an absolute sense.” R3

“We cannot let the sector self-regulate.” R11

“To rely on industry is a leap of faith.” R10

Leaders also highlighted the importance of technological breakthroughs to achieve stated decarbonisation ambitions. They expressed a general preference for governments to support research and development, for instance with regard to the intensified development of alternative aviation fuels. Leaders also asked for incentives and reward systems to be implemented by governments to accelerate investment in emission reduction.

Climate governance

Leaders agreed that business-led initiatives would have to be supportive of governmental agendas incentivising greener business models, while advocacy was needed to better align sector relevant climate policy and investment strategies. Opinion varied with regard to the role of climate governance. While it was generally acknowledged that business-led initiatives are unlikely to be far-reaching enough, there was no consensus regarding the best policy approaches. Some leaders underlined that broad, untargeted taxation and regulation was unwarranted, while others suggested that a sectoral emission reduction pledge was not the right level because of the lack of data (i.e., monitoring capacity) and effective policy levers.

“We will support any measure that awards environmentally efficient behaviour. Taxation does not support environmentally efficient behaviour. Taxation does absolutely nothing for the environment. What would do something for the environment would be to penalize airline which fly inefficient aircraft with low seating densities and with low load factors.” R17

“We are doing what we can in the absence of more regulation than we have right now. […] I think to set a sector-wide target […] would be very complicated. […] I just think setting a target throughout tourism would be ill-advised.” R15

As one leader highlighted, uncertainty as to whether climate policy would be implemented or not, and at which scale, was worse than potential cost increases. The major “flip-flop” in national government mitigation policies witnessed in recent years in, for example, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States create massive uncertainty that is a major impediment to investment and commitment to emission reduction.

“If this means additional costs, we can live with it. But uncertainty is one of the worst enemies of industry. As long as we have clarity, industry can cope with it.” R8

Government initiatives, it was outlined, might even have positive effects, in that they force corporations to develop solutions. Leaders also acknowledged that travel does not reflect its climate change cost.

“The Norwegian government has recently put in place a regulation that all airports must supply, I think it´s 10% of their fuel must be from renewable sources by 2020. You know, that´s a problem because that will cost significantly more, but at the same time […] we see the quantity is ramped up and the unit costs come down all the time.” R6

Market-based measures

Leaders acknowledged that achieving a reduction in emissions will require market-based measures, also because of fossil-fuel subsidies and to reflect the social costs of carbon.

“I do not think air travel reflects the full environmental cost its involves.” R14

“When it comes to air traffic, there is only so much that can be done through innovation. […] Fossil fuels need to become more expensive.” R10

“The low oil price does not incentivise investments in alternative fuels. It is an economics and policy problem, where [alternative] fuels are simply too expensive to use on any significant levels.” R5

“It [mitigation] comes back to the cost of energy.” R9

Barriers to progress

Leaders articulated a number of key challenges and barriers faced by tourism stakeholders to act on decarbonisation, including the uncertain contribution that is to come from technology, changing climate policies that create uncertainty on investments in decarbonisation in some jurisdictions, the continued absence of a global carbon price signal, and the lack of basic data on tourism sector emissions. Leaders highlighted the disinterest of CEOs, company boards, destination marketing organisations and tourism ministries to seriously address mitigation.

“There’s people who talk like ‘oh, the complexity of climate change’ and ‘oh, there’s a lack of standards’, you know, and put up road blocks for actions.” R7

“Sometimes the views you have on these issues is not the view of the CEO. You have to spend quite a lot of time educating, informing and raising awareness internally.” R8

“It is a bit of denialism, you know some people will say ‘oh, the technology will come and fix it’[…] and also a bit of NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard. ‘Yes, I am very worried, but I really cannot be bothered with this myself, because my company is growing.’” R14

As highlighted by leaders, the limited action on mitigation may also be rooted in a lack of understanding of opportunities to save energy and hence reduce costs.

“We can always do more. But when you get back to owners, there needs to be a financial return as well. “R9

“We have tracked €67 million through eco-efficiencies since 2012” R12

A related barrier in this context was the limited measurement of GHG emissions at the company scale and capacity to estimate sector-wide emission trends.

“What we work on today is exact measurement tools and techniques, because that is exactly what we need. We need to be able to assess the exact impact of travel and tourism […] You cannot manage what you cannot measure”. R4

“Companies are not measuring. So how can they understand what the increasing cost of CO₂ will mean for them?” R11

“I think the industry keeps talking about the complexity of carbon emissions […] To be honest, it’s just verging on a stalling tactic. It’s a very simple affair to measure emissions. It’s done all the time, has been for years. So, what you can measure you can manage, so I think it’s a lack of effort rather a than a lack of systems or knowledge.” R7

The way forward

Leaders highlighted the need to develop alternate fuels at significant scales in order to power transportation systems. Several suggested the need for incentives and rewards, as well as other policy mechanisms to support structural change. Leaders highlighted the importance of climate governance, to set rules against which businesses can reliably plan for the future, with a specific starting point (emission levels) and timelines over which reductions have to be achieved.

“I think you really need a good mix of strict laws, more strict laws, and education, training, to convince people on several levels […] that it is really necessary to take action, and that it is possible.” R2

“Where we see government to play a fundamental role is in providing loan guarantees, capital grants for production facilities, adopting legislation which allows aviation fuels to compete on fuels used by land transports; it can be developing tax incentives for the development of fuel facilities. It takes leadership from policy makers, it takes leadership from industry.” R5

“One: We need to enhance the measurement of the environmental impact of tourism. […] Two: We need to engage both policy makers and finance communities […]. Three: We need to implement technological solutions in innovative ways. Four: We need to create links between the contribution of tourism businesses and the destinations. Five: Policy.” R4

Discussion

Leaders were united in their view that the climate change is underway and that limiting further climate change is vital to the future development of tourism. They confirmed that the Paris Climate Agreement constitutes a major governance breakthrough for future emission reductions, and that tourism and transportation need to achieve emission reductions consistent with the targets that are set out, in line with other economic sectors. Leaders did not anticipate that tourism should receive preferential treatment relative to other sectors. Leaders highlighted a wide range of risks of unmitigated climate change, including the loss of assets (snow, reefs), increased operating costs, weather extremes (storms, heavy rainfall and flooding), as well as associated risks including infrastructure damage and transport disruptions. They also acknowledged business risks related to declining socio-economic stability and lower economic growth, and affirmed reputational risks should the sector fail to make a contribution to decarbonisation. Interviews thus revealed consistent views on climate change, its underlying anthropogenic causes, and a well-defined understanding of the risks arising from climate change.

While leaders expressed consensus on the need for mitigation, they articulated diverging views regarding the urgency of change (decarbonisation timelines); continued growth in tourism as opposed to mitigation needs; and the role and potential of technology vís-a-vís climate governance in reducing emissions. Depending on their respective viewpoints, leaders may be categorized as decarbonisation leaders, technology optimists, or carbon economy conservatives (Table 2). Decarbonisation leaders acknowledged the need for immediate, significant mitigation action. They had more critical perspectives on continued growth and the certainty of technological solutions, and identified important roles for climate governance. Technology optimists revealed less urgency regarding mitigation needs, and the contradiction of continued rapid growth in tourism concurrently with accelerating climate change and a climate-disrupted global economy. They expressed beliefs that technology would make significant contributions to reducing emissions, even though they acknowledged a role for climate governance. Carbon economy conservatives expressed views that did not necessarily see tourism as a sector in need of rapid decarbonisation. They advocated for continued growth, while underlining the potential of technological innovation. Conservatives rejected climate governance, highlighting their perception of sector progress on emissions reductions.

Table 2. A typology of tourism leaders’ perspectives of decarbonisation.

Issue	Decarbonisation Leaders	Technological Optimists	Carbon Economy Conservatives
Mitigation timelines	Immediate action needed, in line with other sectors	Action to become relevant in near future, though difficult to achieve absolute emission reductions	Tourism emissions negligible, no urgency to act
Sector Emission Trends	Increasing, limited capacity to measure and monitor any progress toward reduction ambitions	Future technologies and offsetting will “reverse” emissions trajectory	Tourism is already reducing its emissions and making strong progress towards emission targets
Tourism Growth	Growth model needs to be discussed and replaced	Possible to align growth with decarbonisation needs	Growth more important than mitigation
Technology Solutions	Technology will make major contribution to decarbonisation	Technology will resolve issue, along with other measures and offsetting	Innovation will resolve problem
Governance Solutions	Governance needed to speed up technology innovation, influence travel behaviour	Some governance needed, including support for biofuel development	Governance unnecessary and even detrimental to resolving problem

Leaders consequently revealed differing and even contrasting views on mitigation, making it difficult to identify strategies that can be adopted by the sector as a whole. Notably, while decarbonisation leaders highlighted that greenwashing the sector’s activities was part of the impasse, technological optimists and carbon economy conservatives could be seen as contributing to carbon-greenwashing. This finding is further complicated by the fact that interviews revealed complexity in the internal workings of some organisations. Here, public positions on climate change may not translate to internal decisions in favour of decarbonisation, because for some CEOs and company boards climate change continues to not be a salient issue.

Even though leaders appeared to be well informed about climate change risks and the need for mitigation, interviews revealed a number of contradictory views and some knowledge gaps (Table 3). As an example, leaders highlighted that non-CO₂ emissions from aviation remained disputed; yet, there is scientific consensus on the positive contribution of short-lived emissions from aviation to global warming (Lee et al., 2009; Penner, 1999). Another example is the claim that aviation is less polluting per traveller or passenger kilometre than surface-bound transport, for which there is no evidence (Gössling & Peeters, 2015; UNWTO et al., 2008). Even more misleading is the claim that high-speed-rail is “not much better than aviation”, as a rail passenger kilometre entails only a fraction of the energy use of air travel (Peeters et al., 2007). Leaders also suggested that the cost of fossil fuels was already high, and contributing to low-carbon innovation. They simultaneously rejected governmental interventions, such as CO₂ taxes. This viewpoint should be seen in the light of evidence of considerable subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, an estimated 6.5% of global GDP in 2015 (Coady et al., 2017), and more specifically to untaxed aviation fuel (Gössling et al., 2017).

Table 3. Examples of contested positions on decarbonisation.

Leader held position	Science-policy evidence
Effects of non-CO2 emissions unclear	Non-CO2 emissions make significant contribution to global warming (Lee et al., 2009; Penner, 1999).
Aviation is as efficient or even more efficient than surface-bound transportation with respect to GHG emissions	Both cars and in particular railways are more efficient than aircraft. The view also ignores non-CO2 effects and transport ranges, as air travellers usually cover thousands of kilometres (Peeters et al., 2007).
Jet fuel is already expensive, no government intervention with carbon taxes needed	International jet fuel remains untaxed, while considerable subsidies have been documented for international aviation (Gössling et al., 2017).

As the examples in Table 3 highlight, trust in technology to resolve the mitigation challenge is either founded in misunderstandings or beliefs in technological potentials that are not evidence-based. These contested viewpoints may be considered belief systems, or attempts to justify and maintain specific “truths” about climate change. Where such “truths” are created with a view to deflect regulation, they may be considered ‘myths’ (Peeters et al., 2016) or forms of agnogenesis, that is, efforts to manufacture uncertainty or doubt among policy makers.

The complexity of agnogenesis and its implications can be illustrated for aviation. In October 2016, ICAO adopted a framework for the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). As highlighted by leaders, the very design of the scheme was an outcome of growing public and political pressure on aviation after 20 years of inaction. CORSIA is an aspirational programme designed to stabilise aviation CO₂ emissions at the 2020 level through what is termed “carbon-neutral growth”, and eventually reduce emissions 50% by 2050 (compared with 2005 levels) principally through market-based mechanisms (i.e. purchasing emission reduction credits from other sectors to offset continued growth in aviation) (ICAO, 2016). CORSIA will start a pilot and voluntary first phase in 2021, with full implementation between 2027 and 2035, when all member states have to join the programme. The scheme expects aviation emissions to continue to grow at a rate of around 3.5% per year over this implementation period.

However, the capacity of CORSIA to contribute to mitigation has already been challenged for a number of reasons (Lyle, 2017; Scheelhase et al., 2017). First, the scheme only covers CO₂, ignoring the effect of short-lived emissions at flight altitude (notably black carbon, nitrogen oxides and the precursors of aviation-induced cloudiness) (Lee et al., 2009; Penner, 1999). Second, it applies to only 80% of international air traffic, due to various exceptions, such as routes serving Small Island Developing States. Third, it covers emissions exceeding 2020 levels, having allowed the sector to continue to grow for years before “additional” emissions are addressed. Fourth, the scheme is voluntary in its pilot (2021 through 2023) and first phase (2024–2026) and is not anticipated to include all airlines for at least another decade. Only after 2035, it will apply to all ICAO member countries, except those exempted as noted (Lyle, 2017). Between 2021 and 2035 the offsetting mechanism of CORSIA is expected to cover approximately 25% of all international revenue tonne kilometres (RTK) or 73% of the growth RTKs above 2020 levels (Olmer & Rutherford, 2017). Fifth, a significant part of CORSIA will be focused on offsetting, as vast amounts of CO₂ emissions will need to be “neutralised” each year. There are limited options to purchase high-quality emission credits in other sectors and the emissions that require “offsetting” will grow to unprecedented scales, given an estimated emission “excess” of 142 to 174 Mt CO₂ in 2025 growing to between 443 to 596 Mt in 2035 Mt (ICAO, 2017). The scale of offsetting projects will have to increase every year, while offsetting opportunities will become harder to find. If expected breakthroughs in scalable low-carbon fuels do not materialize as early as projected, the requirements for offsetting credits would escalate rapidly after 2030 (ETC, 2018). Sixth, as CORSIA plans to include offsetting through low-cost projects, including Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), offsetting can be unreliable due to the risk of large-scale forest fires, but also systemically misguided, as evidence for reduced forest loss is limited and has been criticised for the limited biodiversity benefits (Angelsen et al., 2017; Fletcher et al., 2016) as well as its impacts on some indigenous groups (Ahmed, 2014).

The discussion illustrates the scale of agnogenesis in the context of aviation, the most important emissions subsector for tourism. In the light of this, it remains difficult to see how the sector can achieve its emission reduction pledges. Current initiatives to contribute to emission reductions are incremental, and focused on measures that have short return-on-investment periods. Without new climate governance arrangements specific to tourism (i.e. policies that will have to be introduced by national governments), sectorwide progress on its 2035 decarbonisation pledge is unlikely. These insights shed new light on the “implementation gap” identified by Banister and Hickman (2013) and the “governance vacuum” identified by Bache et al. (2015). Existing and planned emission reduction approaches will not be enough to generate meaningful change in emission pathways or permeate policy barriers fortified through agnogenesis. This raises the question as to how agnogenesis can be addressed. While solutions to this challenge are beyond the scope of this paper the role of sectoral innovators and leading jurisdictions to accelerate the low-carbon transformation are paramount. Their views should consequently find more room in the media and public discourse on decarbonisation in tourism, to force decision-makers to respond to the evidence-based mitigation challenge in tourism. This would also be true for drivers of more sustainable business practices, such as pressure from the financial sector to report on climate change risks (emissions as well as physical risks), fossil fuel divestment strategies, or climate litigation, all of which have received growing attention in recent years (ETC, 2018).

Conclusions

This paper has had a starting point in the observation that emissions from global tourism continue to grow rapidly, in stark contrast to the mitigation needs outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement and stated emission reduction ambitions of the sector. To better understand the impasse in acting on emission growth, 17 leaders from global tourism were interviewed with regard to their views on climate change, mitigation needs, climate leadership, and suitable strategies for decarbonisation.

Respondents revealed consensus as well as disparate views on these issues. While there was full agreement that the climate is already changing, and that tourism needs to make a contribution to mitigation comparable with other sectors, there was no consensus on how this could be achieved. Leaders revealed contradictory views regarding mitigation timelines and the ability to decouple tourism growth and emissions through technology and governance. While some leaders urged the sector to move forward on the basis of market-based measures, and also critically discussed growth in the sector, “technological optimists” affirmed a need for governance, though only to increase the speed of technology innovations. Other “carbon conservative” leaders held views that technological innovations will resolve the emission reduction problem and that new climate regulations are unwarranted. This group held a number of perspectives that are not supported by scientific evidence (Table 3) and characterizes forms of agnogensis (i.e. attempts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty to deflect regulation). This situation represents a major barrier to the capacity of tourism to join the low-carbon economy of the twenty-first century, a transformation that is fundamental to the future development of tourism. While all belief systems have biases, the inability of many tourism leaders to envision what could go wrong with the sector’s current decarbonisation strategy, as vividly as what could go right, is creating a dangerous blind spot. As Rockström et al. (2016) emphasize, the scale of the decarbonisation challenge to meet the Paris Climate Agreement is underplayed in the public arena broadly and this situation is not unique to tourism. It is nonetheless problematic, as the mitigation policy failure has vexed the World Economic Forum’s (2018) global risk index over the past several years, if continued, “… will have irreversible and deleterious repercussions for humanity's remaining time on Earth.” (Rockström et al., 2016, p. 465).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.