Can a climate activist work a travel-heavy international role?

The international charity I work at just offered me a big promotion, but it involves frequent flying. I’m deeply concerned about climate change and have cut back on air travel in my personal life. Would turning it down on principle be foolish or admirable?

—Infrequent Flyer

You may unsubscribe from any of our newsletters at any time.

Dear Infrequent Flyer,

Can we work for change within systems whose practices we oppose? It is an important question to be asking — one that you’re in a position to pose to those promoting you. You see, the international charity trusts you enough to offer this role. That trust is a foundation you can build on through honest dialogue. Pursue it.

What is at stake in this conversation is not ideological purity but moral prudence. Are you moving your organization toward practices aligned with climate reality, or simply perpetuating business-as-usual with a guilty conscience? The question matters more than any single answer.

Before declining or accepting the new role, have a candid conversation with management about frequent flying. International organizations are increasingly grappling with the climate costs of flying, so yours might welcome fresh thinking here — especially from someone they’re promoting. Perhaps some trips could be virtual. Perhaps you could pioneer a slower travel model by using trains where feasible, taking longer stays to justify emissions and consolidating regional visits.

More on Broadview:

Consider also what you might accomplish in this role. If your work truly serves the well-being of others, it embodies a humanizing solidarity. These commitments matter not for the overall outcomes, but for the dignity of those you encounter. Likewise, making reasonable efforts to reduce climate harms while staying true to your relationships and responsibilities can be both practical and wise.

That said, if the role fundamentally requires unsustainable travel with no flexibility, declining isn’t foolish — it’s prophetic. Christian moral teachings emphasize that structural sin requires structural resistance. At times, this means pushing back or refusing to participate.

Such prophecy, for me, recalls writer, poet and farmer Wen- dell Berry’s 1987 refusal to buy a computer. Berry understood something important: the ways we work shape our character as much as our results. He wasn’t opposed to all technologies — he still used a tractor — but he recognized that some tools deepen our craft while other quietly erode it. With his refusal in mind, you might revisit your earlier question: what does this new role ask of me, and can I pursue, it with moral purpose?

So, question as you are doing. The answer to accept or to refuse the position will become clear. But know this: the conversation itself is an act of integrity.

***
Ashley Moyse is a Canadian ethicist, theologian and associate professor of bioethics at Baylor University in Texas.

This article first appeared in Broadview’s May/June 2026 issue with the title “Is Frequent Flying a Deal Breaker?”