Does air travel have an impact on the environment?
Russia has restricted overflight rights and curtailed the number of flights with several countries citing geopolitical tensions and sanctions. Some observers have argued that this shift might improve the environmental picture, similar to the reductions seen during the pandemic. Some optimistic voices within Russia even believe that aviation-related sanctions could yield environmental benefits for the country.
Olga Stepchenko, the general director of ANO “Garden of Memory” and a contributor to the federal Clean Arctic initiative, an ecology and sustainable development expert, offered a different view:
Air travel accounts for only about 4% of total transport emissions.
“Any greenhouse gas releases harm the environment. Aviation CO2 emissions amount to roughly 2-2.5% of the total anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and about 4% of the overall air pollution share from all transport modes. While this figure may seem small when compared to road vehicles with internal combustion engines, it is essential to consider additional factors that negatively impact the environment.”
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimated that global aviation CO2 emissions in 2017 reached 859 million tonnes, with aviation fuels accounting for more than 2.5% of total CO2 emissions linked to energy combustion for that year.
“And emissions are rising each year,” added Karina Ivchenko, head of the public agency Garbage.
Stepchenko noted another environmental factor linked to aviation: the production of in-flight magazines adds to the footprint.
In civil aviation, more than 4.7 million trees are felled annually, covering about 10,045 hectares. In addition, around 85,481 trees—roughly the size of 252 football fields—are required to print tickets for all passengers. If those trees were preserved, they would help offset about 73,129 tonnes of CO2 each year.
“Noise from aircraft is another environmental issue, affecting both wildlife and flora. Airport noise can disturb natural forest backgrounds and disrupt wildlife migrations, potentially altering ecosystems.”
Possible consequences
On a global scale, CO2 emissions influence global warming and contribute to the broader greenhouse effect in modest yet meaningful ways. Ivchenko also cautions about potential health risks, noting that exposure to certain airborne pollutants can have adverse effects on people over time.
However, it is unlikely that Russians will feel a rapid drop in emissions from flights, as a substitution effect may occur. People might switch to other modes of transport, including cars, which could worsen some environmental aspects, Stepchenko argued.
“Citizens may not notice an immediate decrease in aviation’s environmental impact. Weather monitoring may show favorable indicators only if other pollution factors stay the same or decline. In my experience, moving from industrial zones to cleaner areas like Altai makes breathing feel easier, sometimes causing light-headedness.”
That clearer air translates into fewer irritating substances, a healthier cough reflex, and a generally better sense of well-being—an informal indicator of environmental progress, according to the expert.
“Immediate improvements are not felt”
A representative from the Clean Arctic project stated that, on a global scale, fewer flights will keep shaping a steadier environment in Russia. In particular, reductions in greenhouse gases could support climate protection efforts and biodiversity, while quieter skies might help restore forest ecosystems that rely on stable acoustic environments.
“Even if the changes take decades rather than years, some residents may not notice quick improvements. An integrated approach to solving environmental challenges is preferable,” the spokesperson noted.
Karina Ivchenko, from the public organization Garbage. More. No, emphasizes that short-term ecological gains should not be expected in Russia because persistent residues of toxic substances remain in the atmosphere for years.
“With flight activity down, the 2020 pandemic era showed a similar pattern globally. Emissions fell by 4-7%, yet CO2 concentrations did not drop dramatically. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries, so even a two-to-ten-year decline in flights will have limited long-term impact.”