Not taking the flight is not always an option (work, family emergencies etc). Generating waste is a separate (but equally valid) concern to CO2 emissions. I can't have a direct impact on how much a plane causes pollution, but generating waste is absolutely in my control. There are also such things as reusable plastic (or even wooden/bamboo) cutlery.

You can control the CO2 emissions up to a point, by choosing a more fuel-efficient aircraft type. For exmaple using a Boeing 787 instead of an 777 from London to New York will save around 300-400 kilograms of CO2 (out of two tons) per round trip. One could argue that this has more of an impact than saving a few hundred grams of plastic cutlery.

I agree with the key point that the CO2 footprint of the flight itself dwarfs that of anything else that happens on that flight. If you are unable to take the train instead of flying (family emergency, unavoidable transoceanic trip etc.), your next concern should be to minimize the total weight of you and your baggage combined. On a 6000km flight, every extra kilogram of weight carried leads roughly to an extra 0.2L of fuel consumed. So that e.g. going to the bathroom just before boarding leads to a very significant CO2 reduction (seriously!).

@Phill both of those reasons still make the flight optional. Barring some sort of prisoner transport there are few cases where air travel isn't. I agree its the choice we would all make but let's not lie to ourselves that we aren't choosing it.

You can get wood cutlery, as I do. But indeed the food usually is packaged together with the plastic cutlery, so the only option seems to be if you specify in advance that you don't want in-flight food. (Or in case of low-cost airlines where the food is not included, you simply don't order it.) And yes, the best impact is to not take the flight. :)

@RyanfaeScotland The fastest non-plane crossing of the Atlantic that's commercially available is via the Queen Mary 2 and takes 7 days. If ocean liners like were in use before planes were introduced, it might take 3 and a half days. If you got a very rich friend with an expensive yacht, you might be able to make it in 2 days. In addition, transoceanic travel by ship is almost twice as polluting as traveling by plane: the Queen Mary 2 generates .43 kg of CO2 per passenger mile, a transatlantic flight 0.257 kg. This doesn't include the extra trash from having 20X the number of meals etc.

@RyanfaeScotland "I agree its the choice we would all make" -> well, I'm about to go from Moscow to France by train. I've done this round-trip about 4 times this year, always by train. So, no, global warming is NOT inevitable if you put in the effort :-) I agree, though, that there ARE circumstances where flights are pretty much inevitable. And, yes, transoceanic crossings are one of them (provided, of course, that forgoing the trip is not an option)!

"I doubt you'd be able to take steel cutlery into the aircraft cabin." - bs. You can always get your spoon there.

@RyanfaeScotland I'm not sure your boss is going to approve of you taking an extra week to get to your transatlantic meeting, and then another week for the return trip, for up to 10 times the price. And as far as I know, no funeral director would delay the burial of your dead relative for a week so you can say goodbye before they go in the dirt. At some point, taking a plane is not a choice but a necessity so you can keep your job/live without the regret of not being able to be there for your brother's funeral.

@RyanfaeScotland I think you and I disagree on how much this actually is a choice...

@RyanfaeScotland Oh, sorry, I should have read your comment more carefully.

@IliaSmilga - don't forget that something has to power your train. Even if you're all behind it pushing, there's the food you're consuming and the energy necessary to produce, deliver & prepare it. Even if it's an all electric train, the electricity comes from somewhere...

@FreeMan - of course! But you need to think quantitatively. A train usually consumes 5 to 10 times less energy per passenger and per kilometer than an airplane.

@IliaSmilga If you're thinking quantitatively, you'd never set foot on an airplane.

@IliaSmilga Hmm, I've never been asked to pick the airplane model when boarding a ticket. Is that something you can pay extra for?

You can usually see which plane it is when you’re searching for the flight. If not, then take the flight number and date and put it into Seatguru or equivalent site. You don’t get to pick the plane specifically, but often different flights or different routes to the same end destination have different aircraft.

@Nzall Keeping a job that requires you to pollute is not mandatory, neither is feeling regret for a funeral you cannot attend. People did manage to live before planes, so it is indeed just a choice.

Keeping a life that requires you to constantly consume oxygen and produce CO2 is not mandatory; the best choice is to completely stop consuming anything. (Not to get personal, just pointing out that "you always have a choice" isn't the best argument.)

@IliaSmilga your comment about CO2 footprint would make quite a good answer. Why not turning it into one, preferably with some back-up confirmation?

@Nzall In some countries funerals are not held until many weeks after the deceased has passed away, a tradition in some large countries dating back from the days that travel actually took a long time, which has stuck in a time that people may have a hard time taking sudden time off for acquaintances who are not close friends or immediate family members. And if a close relative cannot fly for good (such as medical) reasons, I would very much hope that the funeral director will postpone the burial.

+1. Exactly answer I was about to give. Environmental impact of such flight is huge and even if all that plastic will end up burning, it won't change anything much. Plus, airlines are probably better at recycling than households due to economics of scale

@Tristus I recognise that funeral timings are certainly strongly culturally dependent. I remember being surprised in Sweden that the funeral service was 6–8 weeks after the deceased passed away, but apparently that is normal there.