It’s also the subject of The Big Question in this month’s TTG, the first of a new series exploring some of the important, if uncomfortable, issues facing travel.

This month aviation is in the spotlight. And, given it currently accounts for 2-3% of global CO2 emissions, it’s a crucial issue for travel to address.

There’s little doubt the concept of flight shame is growing. The Swedes even coined a term for it – flygskam.

And as the travel industry becomes ever more conscious about its critical role in reducing emissions, so flygskam has become not just the sentiment of extremist eco-warriors but also of people who love to both travel and work in the industry.

Travel editor at The Independent Helen Coffey has announced her intention to spend another year travelling without flying – her fourth in a row.

Meanwhile, travel businesses such as Byway have been built on the sole premise of offering flight-free holidays.

So should we still be flying? Yes, say aviation experts. Their argument, though unsurprising, is valid. Aviation sustains thousands of jobs in the UK – if we stop flying, we end these livelihoods. They agree, though, that urgent investment in technology is needed if aviation is to reach its 2050 net-zero ambitions.

For those on the other side, the answer is clearer cut. Technology is not yet available, therefore flying less is the simplest solution to cut emissions.

But if we reduce our flying, we also reduce financial support for communities around the world who rely on tourism.

Perhaps the only fair answer to the debate is to pose another question: how can we better offset our flight emissions while we wait for carbon reducing technology to evolve? And is this even possible, given the concerns around tree-planting schemes?

This, perhaps, is a Big Question for another day (and another issue of TTG).

Sophie Griffiths is TTG editor and chief purpose officer.