Sask. pushes decision on site of potential small nuclear reactor back to late 2024

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Original plan had been to choose a site by next year for

small modular reactor

Kelly Provost · CBC News · Posted: Jul 27, 2022 

A concept image of a GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactor, the technology SaskPower plans to use if it moves ahead with its plan to build the nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan. (GE-Hitachi)

The Saskatchewan government's schedule for potentially building a small modular reactor in the province includes deciding on its location by late 2024 — a revision from the initial schedule published four months ago.

SaskPower recently announced it had selected the technology that could be used to build potential reactors, known as SMRs, for deployment in the province in the mid-2030s.

At the same time, the Crown energy corporation confirmed it's currently conducting a detailed technical evaluation of potential regions that could host such a nuclear facility. It expects to identify suitable regions this year.

A strategic plan released in March said site selection engagement would also begin this year and a site would be chosen in 2023. However, SaskPower spokesperson Joel Cherry said the utility now expects the selection process to be complete by the fourth quarter of 2024.

"After reviewing the project schedules it was determined that more time for engagement with the public, stakeholders and Indigenous rights holders would be beneficial," Cherry said, pushing the selection timeline back.

Plan to build 2 reactors in 1 location

Cherry said the delay will not impact the overall project schedule or the expected 2029 decision on whether or not to proceed with construction of a first SMR.

The Saskatchewan government has said that if it goes ahead, construction could start as early as 2030 and the reactor could be operational in 2034 — with the potential for construction of three other reactors between 2034 and 2042.

The province's SMR strategic plan says SaskPower's plan would have the first two reactors on one site, to reduce long-term licensing costs.

• Saskatchewan's plan to build small nuclear reactors draws mixed reactions

• Green Party leaders urge Sask. government to halt small modular reactor plans

SaskPower will perform an impact assessment for two SMRs on the same site, but the decision on whether to construct the second reactor will be made at a later time, it said.

Doug Opseth, SaskPower's director of generation asset management planning, said when the utility identifies potentially suitable regions in the province for an SMR this fall, that information will be made public.

Site selection work done so far has focused on technical criteria, he said, such as "water availability for cooling, access to existing transmission infrastructure, access to roads, and importantly, access to communities that have a workforce that could support a reactor like that."

SaskPower is currently in the process of creating a shortlist of regions based on its criteria, but hasn't yet ruled any out, he said.

According to the government's SMR strategic plan, the reactors need to be located on a site that is supported by the host community and meets all technical and regulatory requirements.

As a project proponent, SaskPower said it is responsible for reviewing and considering the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's list of site selection criteria for new nuclear sites, as well as additional criteria.

It said the Saskatchewan government "will bring forward additional socio-economic and regional drivers" in the selection process.

Reactors part of net-zero plan

A small modular reactor typically produces 300 megawatts of electricity or less — enough electricity to power 300,000 homes each year, according to the province.

The reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex. Modules are generally designed to be small enough to be transported easily — via a standard shipping container, for example.

The province said the reactors could play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electrical generation in the province and could contribute to Canada's efforts to address climate change.

Currently, about 75 per cent of electricity in Saskatchewan is generated from fossil fuels.

• CBC EXPLAINS
  'The next wave of innovation': Nuclear reactors of the future are small and modular

• SMRs could be key weapon in climate-change battle, engineer says

The deployment of four SMRs would help achieve net-zero emissions in the provincial electrical grid, the government said.

The reactors could also help boost uranium production — including providing new opportunities for uranium produced in Saskatchewan — enhance nuclear research and add jobs in construction and facilities operations, according to the province.

Saskatchewan is one of four provinces in Canada exploring the potential of building SMRs, along with Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick.

Selection may be difficult: Environmental Society

Ann Coxworth, a research advisor with the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, thinks the site selection process will be complicated and difficult for SaskPower, mainly because it's proposing a water-cooled reactor.

Coxworth noted the Lake Diefenbaker region has been previously considered for a reactor. According to a consultant's report commissioned by the then NDP government and prepared for SaskPower in 2007, that area of the province was the Crown utility's preferred location for a nuclear power plant.

"I think with the frequent droughts that we have and the really heavy demand on the Lake Diefenbaker water, I think they would have a really hard time getting permission to locate on the lake," she said.

• Lake Diefenbaker region preferred site for nuclear plant: SaskPower report

A northern site has more consistent cold water availability, said Coxworth.

"But again, I assume they would probably want to locate closer to the centre of demand, which is obviously in the south," she said.

"I think wherever they look at a site, there's going to be a lot of local reaction to deal with."

SARM supports nuclear power

Ray Orb, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, said its members got the chance to talk to SaskPower at an association convention about SMR site selection, without getting into the sites under consideration.

Given the federal government's plan to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030, Orb wonders about situating an SMR in an area that currently has a coal-fired power plant.

"It kind of makes sense that if you're going to build something to replace … [coal], you would use the same kind of site, because you've already got the grid in place," he said.

• Battery storage system in Regina will play role in helping hit net-zero goal, company says

• Sask.'s largest wind farm opens near Assiniboia

That's a "great thing" for the province, Orb said, and his association is supportive of nuclear power.

"The site that's selected, obviously there's going to have to be co-operation from the residents in that site. But if it is our members that are in favour of it, of course, we will support our members."

Asked if he thought there are any rural municipalities that would be interested in getting a reactor, he said he thinks there will be, specifically mentioning job creation.

"If you're looking at a place in Saskatchewan where you're losing some kind of industry, you'd be kind of eager to get another industry there," he said.

In a statement to CBC News, a spokesperson with the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association said it had little information regarding the process or areas under consideration. A discussion regarding small modular reactors is set to go before SUMA's community and economic development committee in late August or early September, the association said.

A statement from the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan said when the subject of potential locations for small modular reactors was raised, it organized information sessions in collaboration with SaskPower.

• Three Indigenous-owned corporations show support for small modular reactors

The province of Saskatchewan and SaskPower have taken important first steps on this topic to ensure that Métis voices will be heard, the organization said, adding it believes those steps won't be the last.

CBC also requested comment from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations and New North, a northern Saskatchewan municipal lobby organization, but has not yet had a response.

Britain sending military specialist on Russia's threat to Arctic to work in Canada

RUSSIA'S THREAT TO ARCTIC

The Canadian Press - Jul 27, 2022 /  | Story: 377354

Photo: The Canadian Press

Britain is sending a military expert on the threat posed by Russia and China in the Arctic to work in the British High Commission in Ottawa.

In a sign of deepening co-operation between Canada and Britain on defence matters, the U.K. is dispatching Nick Diggle, a former Royal Navy officer and research specialist in Arctic security, to Ottawa in September.

The former counterterrorism expert's move follows a warning from Canada’s defence chief that protecting the Arctic region is a key concern for the Armed Forces.

At a conference in Ottawa in March, Gen. Wayne Eyre said Russia had reoccupied abandoned Cold War bases in its Far North.

The threat of a Russian incursion into Canada’s Arctic is very low at the moment, he said, but it is “not inconceivable that our sovereignty may be challenged” in the future from the North.

Eyre also highlighted Russia's “remilitarization” of the North, which is potentially vulnerable because of its sparse population and lack of infrastructure.

Diggle, a former warfare officer with the Royal Navy, has been researching how the U.K. and Canada can work together “to combat the geostrategic threat from Russia and China in the Arctic" at the Changing Character of War Centre based at Oxford University in England.

The centre, which studies armed conflict, said Diggle will take up the post of minister-counsellor at the High Commission in Ottawa.

In an October interview with the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, U.K. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said London is planning to strike new security deals with democratic countries to fight the influence of China and Russia.

Gen. Sir Jim Hockenhull, chief of defence intelligence in the U.K., signalled last year that Britain is planning to send more intelligence personnel overseas during a rare public appearance at the Defence and Security Equipment International trade exhibition in London.

The U.K’s Ministry of Defence told The Canadian Press that Britain is increasing the number of defence intelligence personnel who operate overseas to help the country “build relationships with key international partners.”

Diggle, who did not respond to a request for comment, was commissioned into the Royal Navy as a warfare officer in 1988.

He served in the navy for over 12 years, later joining the U.K.’s Foreign Ministry, where he served in a range of roles and overseas postings including in Oman and Mexico. He also recently worked on global counterterrorism issues in London.

A spokesperson for the British High Commission in Ottawa said developments in the Arctic affect the environment, prosperity, energy supply and security.

A 2021 review set out the U.K.'s approach of helping to maintain the region as one of high co-operation and low tension, contributing to Arctic science — particularly on the impacts of climate change — and working with partners such as Canada, she added.

Russia taking over ownership stakes in Arctic oil field

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia announced further moves Tuesday to take over foreign ownership stakes in energy projects, saying it would acquire the stock in an Arctic oil field now held by French and Norwegian companies.

The Russian government said it approved a proposal for the Russian oil firm Zarubezhneft to acquire the stakes of TotalEnergies of France and Equinor of Norway in the Kharyaga project in the Arctic. The move gives Zarubezhneft 90% of the projects shares, and the balance are held by another Russian company.

The Kharyaga oil project is operated under a product-sharing agreement, with Zarubezhneft serving as operator. Financial terms and other details of the transactions weren’t disclosed.

The acquisition is part of a divestment trend following foreign companies saying they would exit the Russian market because of the country’s military action in Ukraine.

On June 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree handing full control over a major oil and natural gas project partly owned by Shell and two Japanese companies to a newly created Russian firm.

The new company takes over ownership of the Sakhalin Energy Investment Co., which was nearly 50% controlled by British energy giant Shell and Japan-based Mitsui and Mitsubishi.

Definitions and implications of climate-neutral aviation

• Nicoletta Brazzola, 
• Anthony Patt & 
• Jan Wohland 

Nature Climate Change (2022)Cite this article

• 532 Accesses

• 104 Altmetric

• Metrics

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  details

• Analysis
• Published: 25 July 2022

Abstract

To meet ambitious climate targets, the aviation sector needs to neutralize CO2 emissions and reduce non-CO2 climatic effects. Despite being responsible for approximately two-thirds of aviation’s impacts on the climate, most of aviation non-CO2 species are currently excluded from climate mitigation efforts. Here we identify three plausible definitions of climate-neutral aviation that include non-CO2 forcing and assess their implications considering future demand uncertainty, technological innovation and CO2 removal. We demonstrate that simply neutralizing aviation’s CO2 emissions, if nothing is done to reduce non-CO2 forcing, causes up to 0.4 °C additional warming, thus compromising the 1.5 °C target. We further show that substantial rates of CO2 removal are needed to achieve climate-neutral aviation in scenarios with little mitigation, yet cleaner-flying technologies can drastically reduce them. Our work provides policymakers with consistent definitions of climate-neutral aviation and highlights the beneficial side effects of moving to aircraft types and fuels with lower indirect climate effects.

Main

The aviation sector is expected to quickly recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and resume its trend of rapid growth1,2,3. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of aviation’s non-CO2 effects on the climate4,5,6, on top of the general difficulty to regulate international aviation emissions7,8, aviation’s non-CO2 effects are currently excluded from international climate agreements (that is, the Paris Agreement), other aviation mitigation policies (for example, efforts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) such as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International aviation (CORSIA)9 and its mid-century targets8) and carbon markets (for example, the European Emissions Trading System4,7). If aviation’s non-CO2 effects are left unmitigated, the sector’s expansion could, however, conflict with climate goals such as those in the Paris Agreement7,10,11,12,13.

The burning of jet fuel at high altitude affects the climate both directly—due to the emissions of CO2, H2O, sulfur dioxide and soot—and indirectly due to the short-lived formation of contrail cirrus and the changes in O3, CH4 and stratospheric water vapour due to NOx emissions14,15. These various effects have different magnitudes and lifetimes and jointly have contributed about 4% of the anthropogenic forcing from pre-industrial times14,16, two-thirds of which are due to non-CO2 effects (with uncertainties between 38–77%) (ref. 14). While the non-CO2-related effects are both warming and cooling, their net effective radiative forcing—dominated by contrail cirrus—is positive14,17,18.

Climate-neutrality targets are designed to guarantee that human activities, such as aviation, stop further contributing to climate change19. For a long-lived greenhouse gas such as CO2, stabilizing atmospheric concentrations to avoid further warming requires reducing net emissions to zero20,21,22. This is not the case, however, for the short-lived effects caused by aviation19,23. Ceasing emissions would eliminate the (net positive) short-lived terms of radiative forcing, resulting in a cooling relative to the period preceding the cessation. Thus a definition of climate neutrality requires setting the baseline relative to which net emissions are neutral19,24. First attempts to investigate the implications of climate neutrality and the related issue of offsetting non-CO2 forcing with CO2 removal exist for some sectors dominated by short-lived greenhouse gases, such as agriculture23,25,26. There has been no such analysis of the aviation sector, which has far more complex climatic effects. We address this deficit here.

In this study, we explore the climate impacts of aviation under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), that is, SSP1–2.6 and SSP5–8.5, encompassing a large range of possible future changes in demand, CO2 intensity and energy efficiency. Besides scenarios where fossil jet fuels continue playing a predominant role (Fossil jet fuels), we additionally assess two technology scenarios envisioning a complete transition to zero-carbon fuels (Zero-CO2 fuels) or hypothetical emissions-free aircraft (No-emissions aircraft). Finding that climate neutrality, and not carbon neutrality, is necessary to align the aviation sector with Paris-compatible climate change mitigation, we propose and formalize three plausible definitions of climate-neutral aviation that consider non-CO2 effects. We calculate the levels of CO2 removal required to offset the residual emissions overshooting the different climate neutrality targets. Finally, we assess the impacts of these climate neutrality frameworks, including the needed CO2 removal, on global temperature in the context of the different demand and technology scenarios.

Our modelling approach is summarized in Fig. 1. We use empirical relationships to translate aviation emissions into climate forcing (the sensitivity parameters, σ, of each emitted aviation species and indirect effect14), an alternative application of the Global Warming Potential (the GWP*)27,28,29 as a heuristic to estimate carbon-removal rates and a reduced-complexity climate model (the Finite Amplitude Impulse Response model, FaIR)30,31 to compute temperature change. In doing so, we fully propagate the uncertainty (that is, the standard error of the sensitivity parameters and of zero-carbon fuels emissions reduction) through our modelling chain. More details are provided in Methods.

Fig. 1: Modelling approach used in this study.

First, we explore different scenarios of future aviation, taking into consideration future technologies and demand changes following different socioeconomic pathways. These scenarios result in different pathways of future aviation emissions and indirect effects (Supplementary Methods 1.1). Then, we use the sensitivity parameters, σi, to calculate the effective radiative forcing of the different aviation species and its uncertainty. We then apply different definitions of climate neutrality (Gold, Silver and Bronze) and calculate the needed carbon-removal rates, using the GWP* metric to establish a relationship between aviation non-CO2 forcing and CO2 removal. Finally, we input CO2 emissions and removal rates and non-CO2 effective radiative forcing in a reduced-complexity model (FaIR) to calculate the temperature outcomes of the different scenarios of climate neutrality.

Full size image

The role of non-CO2 effects in future aviation scenarios

In Fig. 2, we show the evolution of the different terms of aviation’s effective radiative forcing (ERF) according to the two socioeconomic and three technology pathways. While non-CO2 effects currently account for 67% of aviation’s total historical ERF (38–77% when considering the whole uncertainty range)14, their future contribution could substantially change. The non-CO2 term is largely dominated by the ERF of contrail cirrus, followed by the short-term O3 increase caused by NOx emissions. Under the Fossil jet fuels scenarios, CO2 emissions are only partially mitigated (for example, via energy efficiency and CO2 intensity reductions) and thus their ERF continues increasing. For contrail cirrus and other short-term forcing, the growth trajectory of emissions determines whether short-term forcing decreases in the second half of the century (as in SSP1–2.6) or continues increasing (as in SSP5–8.5). Under assumptions of undisturbed sectorial growth as in SSP5–8.5, the share of ERF due to CO2 decreases from the observed 38% (27–67%) in 2018 to 26% (18–52%) in 2100, while the contribution of contrail cirrus rises from 58% (30–69%) to 71% (42–81%). In SSP1–2.6, the non-CO2 ERF terms peak at 79% (53–86%) before 2060 and shrink to 61% (31–73%) by 2100 because of decreasing emissions.

Fig. 2: ERF components of aviation.

Components with a negative ERF (cooling effect on the climate; blue shades): sulfur aerosol and decreases in CH4, ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to NOx emissions. Components with a positive ERF (warming effect on the climate; grey to red shades): H2O, soot, CO2 and contrail cirrus. The black dots show the total ERF in each year, while the grey bars encompass the standard deviation of the total ERF of aviation. Different panels relate to different input emission scenarios, with rows for the most optimistic (SSP1–2.6) and most pessimistic (SSP5–8.5) socioeconomic scenarios and columns for different technology scenarios. The black horizontal line corresponds to zero effective radiative forcing and shows the divide between warming and cooling species.

Full size image

A rapid transition to cleaner-flying technologies changes the breakdown of ERF by aviation species. For instance, the 100% transition to zero-carbon fuels by 2050 in the Zero-CO2 fuels scenario eliminates CO2 emissions, stabilizing the ERF of CO2. As a result, the relative contribution of non-CO2 effects to the total ERF increases, despite zero-carbon fuels partially mitigating some of these effects. Consequentially, by 2100 CO2 contributes only 13% (8–36%) to the total aviation ERF under SSP5–8.5, while contrail cirrus contributes 78% (39–86%). While in this scenario, the short-term increase in O3—an indirect effect of NOx emissions—seems to play a prominent role, it is almost completely compensated by NOx cooling effects.

In the exploratory No-emissions aircraft scenario, about a quarter of the flights are emissions free by 2050 and all of them by 2080, eliminating all short-term ERF contributions and lowering the total ERF by the end of the century. Only a rapid shift to no-emissions aviation would thus justify the current standard of excluding non-CO2 effects from mitigation efforts7,8,9,32. Yet such a transition relies on very optimistic assumptions about technology development and diffusion that might well not materialize. For this reason, aviation’s non-CO2 forcing should be addressed through climate neutrality targets.

READ ON/DOWNLOAD PDF   Definitions and implications of climate-neutral aviation | Nature Climate Change

Carbon Offsets Alone Won’t Make Flying Climate-Friendly

Carbon dioxide emissions aren’t the only way aviation warms the planet. Exhaust contains a host of polluting particles, from soot to nitrogen oxides.


PHOTOGRAPH: SOEREN STACHE/GETTY IMAGES


JET A-1, A straw-colored, kerosene-based fuel used in most big airplanes, is a difficult substance to replace. It’s packed with energy; per unit of weight, at least 60 times as much as the lithium-ion batteries used to propel electric cars. It’s also terrible for the climate. So as the aviation industry has gradually climbed aboard global pledges to get rid of carbon emissions, it has mostly promised to make up for its damage elsewhere—through offsets that might involve planting trees, restoring wetlands, or paying people to preserve ecosystems that otherwise would have been razed. But according to a growing body of research, those efforts leave something out: Most of the planet-warming effects of flying aren’t from carbon dioxide.

Burning jet fuel at 35,000 feet sparks a molecular cascade in the troposphere. The initial combustion releases a shower of particles—sulfur, nitrogen oxides, soot, and water vapor. At those frigid heights, some of the particles become nuclei around which condensation gathers and then quickly freezes, helping to produce puffy contrails that either vanish or persist as wispy, high-altitude cirrus clouds. In the presence of the sun’s rays, nitrogen molecules set of a chain of reactions that produce ozone and destroy free-floating atmospheric methane. It's tough to pin down the meaning of all this chemistry. Some of these reactions, like the methane destruction, help cool the Earth. Others warm it. It all depends on the atmospheric conditions for each flight, multiplied across tens of thousands of planes streaking across the sky each day.

Overall, the warming effects add up. In an analysis published last year, an international team of researchers pinned 3.5 percent of total warming in 2011 on aviation alone—which may sound small, but the number has been growing fast. The authors found that roughly two-thirds of warming due to aviation at that time was caused by all of those factors that aren’t CO2 emissions.

Which is why some scientists argue that the term “carbon-neutral” doesn’t mean much, at least when it comes to flying jets. If the aviation industry wants to do its part to help meet global temperature goals, it’s better yet to think in terms of “climate-neutral,” says Nicoletta Brazzola, a climate policy researcher at ETH Zurich. In a study published this week in Nature Climate Change, she outlines all the ways to get there, including rules for more efficient flying, new technologies like low-carbon fuels and batteries, and more intensive efforts to remove carbon from the air that would go beyond canceling out aviation’s CO2 emissions, accounting for all of the industry’s warming effects. And, oh yeah: less flying. “It would require an enormous effort to meet this climate-neutrality framework solely with technology fixes and no changes to lifestyle,” she says.

So far, the industry’s focus has been on offsetting carbon. It’s the greenhouse gas we all know, and it’s easy enough to measure how burning jet fuel converts into tons of carbon emissions. That’s based on intimate knowledge of existing fuels and engines. Airlines already make those calculations and let customers see their damage—and often pay a little extra to offset those emissions through partner programs that do things like plant trees. Expecting continued growth in demand for aviation, members of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have pledged to hold their net carbon emissions to 2019 levels through those types of offsets. That effort itself is far from perfect—a number of investigations have found that many of the offset programs that airlines partner with chronically overestimate the amount of carbon that they successfully store. 

And again, those schemes are all about carbon.

In part, that’s because it’s tricky to account for all the non-CO2 factors. Atmospheric chemistry at 35,000 feet is inherently localized, dependent on factors like temperature and humidity. The greatest uncertainty is the potential behavior of contrails—the tendrils that form behind planes as water molecules condense around exhaust particles and freeze. “The basic microphysics of the ice crystals is quite difficult to get a handle on,” says David Lee, an atmospheric scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University who studies aviation emissions. If the air is humid and cool enough, they can hang around as cirrus clouds, and that would likely have a net warming effect. The time of day is another X factor. During the day, those clouds can reflect sunlight, keeping the Earth cool. But they can also trap heat, especially at night.

In theory, it might be possible to mitigate some of those effects by flying differently—avoiding particularly cold and humid patches of air, for example, or flying less often at night. But the atmospheric models the airline industry relies on aren’t good enough at predicting the exact conditions along the flight path—and there’s a risk that changing flight patterns might emit more CO2 while resulting in little benefit. “The risks of making things worse are very, very real until we can predict things better,” Lee says.

It could be better to address the emissions problems related to jet fuel directly, but finding replacements is challenging. Batteries have a long way to go before they’ll be able to pack enough energy for flight, even for short hops that carry relatively few passengers. (Though researchers are exploring more energy-dense chemistries that look beyond the lithium-ion batteries used in cars.) Another possibility is to produce sustainable jet fuels that are derived from CO2-sucking sources, like crops or algae. That would help the planes get closer to carbon neutral, because the carbon in the fuel was originally taken from the air. But there are immense logistical challenges to scaling up production of those fuels.

In the meantime, “the biggest lever you have is conserving fuel,” says Rohini Sengupta, senior manager for environmental sustainability and climate at United Airlines. In addition to cutting back on CO2, that helps mitigate the other forms of warming, she says, by reducing emissions of nitrogen and soot. The airline is also working toward to expand its use of sustainable fuels by the year 2030, and is pursuing a switch from carbon offsets to more robust carbon removal strategies to meet its 2050 carbon-neutrality goal.

In a statement, Southwest Airlines also said the company would continue to monitor non-CO2 research and pointed to its investments in sustainable jet fuels. Representatives from Delta, American, and British Airways-parent IAG did not respond to interview requests.

One good thing is that the non-CO2 effects of any particular plane streaking across the sky are short-lived. Clouds form and then fade, and molecules like ozone get destroyed by chemical processes within months. (In contrast, CO2 emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere for thousands of years.) This means that today’s efforts to curb non-CO2 effects will have an immediate effect on warming.

The key is keeping fuel use in check. “We’re addicted to flying, even though it’s a tiny percentage of the population that actually flies,” says Lee, who has avoided taking personal flights for the past 21 years (though business travel took him around the world before the pandemic). Asking people to change their behavior is never easy, but the current imbalance is all the more reason for those who have choices in how they travel to consider their own impact, Brazzola told me from a scorching Greek island, where she was on vacation. She had reached her destination by a complex chain of trains, buses, and boats. “It was quite the journey,” she says. But a step in the right direction.