Boris Johnson’s private jet home from Cornwall holiday emitted 50 times more carbon than train

The Prime Minister flew back to London on ministerial jet

Boris Johnson has come under fire once again for use of a private plane for a short journey (Getty Images)

Boris Johnson’s private jet flight from Cornwall last month is likely to have produced nearly 1,000kg more carbon emissions per passenger than if he had taken the train.

The Prime Minister opted to fly home from a trip that included a weekend on the beach with his family, as well as attending the Royal Cornwall Show and meeting with farmers ahead of the 23 June Tiverton and Honiton by-election.

The ministerial jet was sent from London to the Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose, near Helston, on 13 June, the Sunday Mirror first reported. Mr Johnson flew back to the capital that evening.

Had he taken the train, the approximately 300-mile journey from Truro to London Paddington would have emitted 10.6 kg per passenger, according to the Campaign for Better Transport, an organisation that strives for all communities to have access to high quality, sustainable transportation.

While flying from Newquay, Cornwall, to London on a commercial flight emits approximately 78.7 kg per passenger, private jets emit significantly more carbon. Research by EU NGO Transport and Environment (T&E) found that private jets are 50 times more polluting than trains.

Given that Mr Johnson’s ministerial jet had to be sent from London to Cornwall to pick him up, the Prime Minister’s carbon footprint from the trip is around 1,000kg higher than it might have been.

Flying from Newquay to London takes around 80 minutes, while the train journey from Penzance to London is nearly six hours.

A No 10 spokesperson said: “All travel decisions are made with consideration for security and time restraints. The Prime Minister is accompanied on government business by a delegation of staff, which is taken into consideration as part of ensuring taxpayer value for money.

“This was the sole reason for the plane being used to transport the Prime Minister and his delegation back from this particular visit, which was to mark the launch of the food strategy.”

The spokesperson added that flying meant that Mr Johnson was able to complete a full diary of engagements that day, and that all carbon emissions from his flights were offset.

Boris Johnson has been acccused of inappropriate use of the ministerial jet in the past, most recently when he flew home from the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow on 3 November to attend a dinner at a private London club. That trip is likely to have produced at least 980kg more carbon emissions per passenger than if he had taken the train.

A government spokesperson told the Independent at the time: “We use a specific type of fuel which is a blend of 35 per cent sustainable aviation fuel and 65 per cent normal fuel – which is the maximum amount allowed.”

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is being held up by much of the aviation industry and many world leaders as the way forward for “greener” flights. However, at the moment it must be mixed with kerosene – and SAFs do not reduce inflight emissions. Any carbon savings refer to the way the fuel is produced, rather than the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere when the aircraft is airborne, which remains the same or more than a regular flight.

Anna Hughes, director of the campaigning group Flight Free UK, said: “Boris Johnson has shown yet again that he has no understanding of what the climate crisis is or what it will take to address it. Whether this trip was for work or family reasons is beside the point. At this time of climate emergency, we need the people in charge to show genuine climate leadership, and that doesn’t include using a private jet to travel between Cornwall and London.

“Travelling by rail or road emits significantly less carbon than a private jet, and could provide just the same level of security if done right. There is no excuse for using a government plane as a glorified taxi.

“The kicker is that the UK taxpayer foots the bill – including people who are taking the climate crisis seriously and working hard to reduce their own emissions. It’s a slap in the face for our leaders to behave in this way.”