Environmentalists are crying foul about the negative impact of air travel on the environment – carbon dioxide emissions from commercial airlines are increasing the carbon footprint and accentuating global warming.
Will Indians ditch air travel for a lower carbon footprint alternative, for long distance travel?
Views were a mixed bag.
Only 1 in 4 (23 per cent) Indians are willing to take a lower carbon footprint alternative to air travel, even at the cost of inconvenience and additional expense.
37% Indians on the other hand would take the transport with lower carbon footprint (e.g. Rail), if it’s at par with air travel, both in convenience and price.
24% Indians said they were undecided.
While 17% refused to choose their mode of transportation, basis the carbon footprint.
“Interestingly, if we see, for long distance travel, there is no alternative to air travel, unless we consciously look for using videocon, webinar etc. especially for business meetings. Air travellers probably can also on their part make an informed decision, if we at a country level have some sort of an ‘eco-labeling’ of the carrier; and passengers can act responsible by choosing, accordingly,” says Rinku Patnaik, Chief Client Officer, Ipsos India.
How responsible are Aviation Companies towards the environment?
Indians have a reasonably good perception of commercial airlines in their commitment towards reducing the impact of airplanes on the environment, with at least 52% Indians reposing faith in their intent towards the environment. While 26% held a neutral view. However, 21% were disappointed with the efforts.
And do the airlines have the ability to reduce the impact?
Over half of Indians polled (55%) felt airlines have the ability in finding solutions that reduce the adverse impact on the environment. 27% were noncommittal, while 19% disagreed.
About the study
These are the findings of a 27-country Ipsos survey for the World Economic Forum conducted via Ipsos’s Global Advisor online survey platform between June 21 and July 5, 2019.
For this survey, Ipsos interviewed a total of 19,023 adults aged: 19-74 in South Korea; 18-74 in Canada, China (mainland), Malaysia, South Africa, Turkey, and the United States; and 16-74 in all other markets. The sample consists of 1000+ individuals in each of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland), France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United States, and 500+ in each of Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Hungary, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden and Turkey. The survey data have been weighted so that each market’s sample composition best reflects the demographic profile of the adult population according to the market’s most recent census data. Data collected each month are also weighted to give each market an equal weight in the total “global” sample.
Online surveys can be taken as representative of the general adult population under the age of 75 in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Online samples in Brazil, Chile, China (mainland), India, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey are more urban, more educated and/or more affluent than the general population and the results should be viewed as reflecting the views of a more “connected” population. Sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error. The precision of the Ipsos online polls is measured using a Bayesian Credibility Interval. The credibility interval around percentages based on single-month data is of +/- 3.5 percentage points for markets where the monthly sample is 1,000+ and +/-4.8 points for markets where the monthly sample is 500+. Click here for more information on the Ipsos use of credibility intervals. Where results do not sum to 100 or the “difference” appears to be+/- 1 more/less than the actual value, this may be due to rounding, multiple responses, or the exclusion of don't knows or not stated.