If you don’t want to holiday on your balcony, you have to travel by car, train or plane. Flying to your holiday destination is controversial, at least in some parts of society. This is symbolised by the Swedish word ‘flygskam’, which means ‘flying shame’. More and more tour operators in Europe want to focus on sustainable tourism. The lame foot of tourism is clearly air mobility. That’s because up to 80% of a trip’s CO2 emissions come from getting to the destination and back. Experts recommend that where air travel is not absolutely necessary, it should be avoided and bus or train travel used instead. It is up to holidaymakers to manage their own climate budget. If there is no alternative to flying at all, i.e. on long-haul routes, people will be forced to take several days off for holidays. Aircraft manufacturers are working on alternative fuels and completely new aircraft. Experts recognise that airlines are doing the same, as flying more economically also saves kerosene. But we are still a decade or two away from climate-friendly aviation. Even with a high proportion of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), we should not delude ourselves that emissions at high altitude do not have the same impact as on the ground. Travel in Europe is largely independent of aviation – at least those that are available on land. Some experts believe it is realistic to expect that by 2040 Europe will have expanded its rail routes to the point where air travel will be a non-issue.  But this would presumably involve railways getting a better, standardised booking system across Europe, with connections properly coordinated.