According to the European Commission, tourism accounted for 7.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2024, whilst contributing nearly €1,800bn to the European Union’s GDP. The question, therefore, is no longer whether we should continue to travel, but how to reduce the impact of each trip.
Choosing your destination is already a key factor. The WWF recommends prioritising destinations that can be reached without taking multiple flights or enduring long flight connections. The organisation also encourages people to travel less frequently but for longer periods, so as to spread transport-related emissions over a longer stay rather than across several short breaks lasting just a few days.
Where possible, the train is generally the lowest-carbon option. The results from EcoPassenger confirm this: among the five destinations compared, it consistently remains the mode of transport with the lowest emissions. The difference compared with flying varies, however, depending on the distance, whilst journey time can sometimes be a key deciding factor.
To illustrate these recommendations, we have compared five popular destinations for travellers from Luxembourg, each representing a different challenge for sustainable tourism: a nearby getaway (Knokke-Heist), a Mediterranean destination (Nice), a city facing overtourism (Barcelona), a heritage city (Rome) and a more distant destination (Porto). CO₂ emissions are calculated using the EcoPassenger calculator, developed by the International Union of Railways (UIC), which compares the main modes of transport on a door-to-door journey.
Transport accounts for only part of a journey’s environmental footprint. The WWF points out that the choices made once you arrive at your destination can also make a difference.
In particular, the organisation recommends travelling less often but staying for longer, opting to walk, cycle or use public transport, supporting local shops, restaurants and producers, and reducing waste by, for example, taking a reusable water bottle with you.
The choice of accommodation also plays a part. Some establishments are reducing their water and energy consumption, improving their waste management or prioritising more sustainable products. The European EU Ecolabel helps identify tourist accommodation that meets strict environmental criteria.
1. Knokke-Heist, a local getaway
You don’t have to travel thousands of kilometres to enjoy a seaside holiday. Located just over five hours by train from Luxembourg, Knokke-Heist proves that a nearby destination can also be one of the most low-carbon options.
At 8.2kg of CO₂ per passenger, the train’s carbon footprint is nearly five times smaller than that of a car (39.3kg) and far lower than that of a plane.
The journey time is well suited to a long weekend. Once there, the seaside resort is easy to explore on foot or by bike. The nature reserves, cycle paths and local shops also help to reduce the need for motorised transport, whilst ensuring that the local area benefits directly from the economic benefits of tourism.
2. Nice: take the time to travel
An iconic destination on the French Riviera, Nice is one of the most popular holiday destinations for travellers from Luxembourg. However, the train journey takes just over sixteen hours and involves several changes.
In contrast, emissions fall to 10.3kg of CO₂, compared with 124.2kg for a flight.
Like other Mediterranean regions, the Côte d’Azur faces periods of drought and increasing pressure on water resources. Choosing accommodation that is committed to environmental sustainability, reusing towels where offered and prioritising public transport are all ways in which you can help minimise the environmental impact of your stay.
3. Barcelona faces the challenge of overtourism
Barcelona is one of the most visited cities in Europe. This popularity brings with it a major challenge: spreading visitors more evenly to ease the pressure on certain neighbourhoods and the housing market.
To reach the Catalan capital, the train remains the lowest-emission option, at 14.6kg of CO₂, even though the journey takes nearly twenty hours.
Once there, the extensive network of underground, trams and buses makes it easy to minimise car journeys. Exploring less crowded neighbourhoods and favouring independent shops also helps to distribute the economic benefits of tourism more evenly.
4. Rome: protecting a heritage under pressure
Rome, the capital of Italy and a Unesco World Heritage Site, welcomes several million visitors every year. This influx of visitors contributes to the city’s economic vitality, but it also places constant pressure on its historical heritage.
The train remains the option with the lowest emissions (30.8kg of CO₂), whilst the car (129.3kg) has a smaller carbon footprint than the aeroplane (166.9kg).
The historic centre is best explored on foot or by public transport. Limiting motorised travel and visiting outside peak times also helps to better preserve the most popular sites.
5. Porto: when distance becomes a hindrance
Porto illustrates the current limitations of the European rail network for long-distance travel. The train remains the mode of transport with the lowest carbon emissions (54.2kg of CO₂), but the journey takes nearly thirty-five hours.
Another finding is that, in this case, the car produces more emissions than the aeroplane (185.4kg compared with 138.7kg) because of the nearly 2,000km travelled by road.
Once you arrive, the historic centre is easy to explore on foot, whilst the underground and regional trains allow you to reach most attractions without a hire car. Choosing local restaurants, craftspeople and accommodation also ensures that the local community benefits directly from the economic benefits of tourism.
Key takeaways. The results show that, in all five cases studied, the train remains the mode of transport with the lowest CO₂ emissions. They also highlight another fact: the further away the destination, the more journey time becomes a decisive factor.
Travelling more sustainably is not, however, simply a matter of choosing between the train and the aeroplane. The destination, the length of stay, the choice of accommodation, getting about locally and local consumption also influence a holiday’s environmental footprint. Taken together, these choices help to reduce the impact of each trip whilst supporting the local areas visited.
