For once, I agree and sympathise with Tony Blair. Like the Prime Minister, I do a great deal of flying, for business and pleasure, and I haven’t the slightest intention of altering my travel plans in any way. Mr Blair’s one mistake in flying to Florida for a family holiday was to offer a half-baked apology. He would have much done more good, for the global environment and for the quality of public debate in Britain, by sticking to his original position, pithily summarised by The Guardian’s front-page headline on Tuesday: “Carry on flying, says Blair — science will save the planet”.

This headline was meant ironically, but it offered an excellent summary of what should be done about climate change. We should carry on flying as much as we want, but we should also create economic conditions to ensure that science does “save the planet”. More precisely, we should express our justified anxiety about climate change not by feeling guilty or changing our lifestyles, but by putting in place incentives to reduce carbon emissions, not only in Britain and Europe, but much more importantly in China, Indonesia and Brazil.

Why is more flying compatible with a serious attitude to climate change, given aircraft emissions are the fastest-growing cause of global warming? The answer breaks down into four parts — arithmetic, technology, economics and politics.

Start with simple arithmetic. Although they are growing quickly in percentage terms, aircraft emissions start at such a low level that they will remain an almost imperceptible factor in global warming, even 50 years from now. According to the figures in the Stern review, aviation currently generates just 1.6 per cent of global emissions. Assuming that recent rapid growth rates remained unchecked this would increase to 2.5 per cent by 2050.

Because aircraft emit carbon high in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effects are stronger than they are on Earth, by a multiple of 2 to 4 times. Thus, the true contribution of aircraft to global warming according to Stern is today about 3 per cent (with an upper estimate of 6 per cent) and could rise to about 5 per cent in 2050 (with an upper estimate of 10 per cent).

Aircraft emissions , therefore, are a tiny contributor to global warming — far smaller than road transport, which creates 10 per cent of greenhouse gases or industry and agriculture, which create 14 per cent each. Air travel is totally dwarfed by the two main causes of carbon pollution — electricity generation, which accounts for 24 per cent, and deforestation at 18 per cent. Half of this deforestation — accounting for 9 per cent of global climate change — is due to the annual destruction of rainforests in only two countries, Brazil and Indonesia. Thus, if Indonesia and Brazil could be persuaded to stop their environmental vandalism for one year, the consequent preservation of rainforests would be sufficient to neutralise the climate impact of all the aircraft in the world until 2050. The same would be true if just one third of fossil-fuel electricity were replaced by renewables or nuclear power.

That British Airways and other airlines have failed to convey these elementary facts to the British public — and indeed done nothing to counter the belief that air travel is among the main causes of global warming — is a testament to something that passengers have long known: airlines are among the worst-managed companies in the world.

Now consider technology. Aircraft may be a relatively minor source of greenhouse gases, but their emissions are much more difficult and expensive to eliminate than those of other industries. While there are plenty of methods of generating electricity without any carbon or powering cars with much lower emissions, there is currently no alternative to kerosene as an aircraft fuel, and none is in sight on the technological horizon. This means that, to the limited extent that aircraft do contribute to global warming, their effect can only be mitigated by ensuring that planes are fully loaded, and by creating mechanisms to offset the emissions produced by flying with carbon reductions from power generation or land use, where such savings are much easier and cheaper to achieve.

So to economics. To make aircraft fly as efficiently as possible, governments should replace the present, irrational passenger levies with fuel taxes or, better still, a system of carbon trading that would force airlines to buy emission rights from other sectors, such as nuclear power or forestry, which can easily and cheaply eliminate carbon on the ground. The purpose of such levies should not be to discourage travel, but to increase incentives for emission-reducing activities, whether nuclear generation in Britain or rainforest preservation in Brazil.

This leads us finally to politics. China and Brazil will only develop their economies in a globally responsible way if they are offered technologies and incentives that allow them to approach Western levels of comfort and mobility with lower emissions. This is not just a pipe dream. Rainforests could be defended with quite modest subsidies and necessary technologies for nuclear and solar power and low-emission vehicles already exist, but they will be commercialised only if carbon emissions become very expensive, while non-polluting energy is subsidised in the early years.

This is where increased air travel could play a constructive role. Carbon trading by airlines could channel large sums of money into low-emission energy. The more people fly, the more profitable low-emission technologies would become.

To judge by their obsession with air travel, however, many so-called greens are really only puritan ideologues who care more about curbing what they see as selfish capitalist lifestyles than they do about controlling climate change. But sincere environmentalists who genuinely want to reduce emissions should stop trying to induce guilt and exhorting politicians to set an example by changing their lifestyles. Instead, they should campaign for economic arrangements that would make it financially attractive for Western businesses and governments in developing countries to eliminate carbon.

They should remember what is perhaps the most important insight in political philosophy, as expressed by Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Economic self-interest offers the only solution to global warming. Everything else is hot air.

Reader feedback on 'Rise above the hot air and carry on flying':

Where to start? We stand no chance of averting climate change by adopting Anatole Kaletsky's 'after you, Claude' standpoint. Aviation accounts for 11% of UK emissions - 5.5% without taking into account the altitude effect. The 1.6% figure is a red herring. The government has committed to a 60% reduction in emissions (vs 1990 levels) by 2050. Aviation is growing at 6% per annum. Between 1990 and 2000 aviation emissions doubled as emissions from all other sectors combined reduced by 9%. If aviation continues to grow at the current rate it will represent 2/3rds of the government's targeted emissions in 2050. In fact, the latest science says that an 80% reduction in emission may be required. And Stern says the next 10 years are critical. It is highly likely that such a reduction would break any emissions trading scheme. 4,000 international treaties and the 1944 Chicago Convention would have to be unwound for fuel tax to be legal. Understand the reaction to Blair now? Dan, London, UK

Getting away from the whole CO2 debate for a moment lets talk about noise. I spent 2005 living and working under the Heathrow flight path which nearly drove me mad – at lest a plane a minute from 6 in the morning till 11 at night and a good few night flights in between, with the noise equivalent to someone standing outside my house screaming at the top of their lungs (and this 7 miles from the runway). I moved jobs and homes to get away from this, but it strikes me that with the planned airport expansion more and more of us will be affected by aircraft noise – for example my gran’s house is now overflown by aircraft from the increasingly busy Bristol airport. Is this what we really want – is the blight on a significant proportion of the population really worth the ability to have the odd cheap European city break? Ed Dearnley, Brighton, UK

Like everyone, I'm doing what I can to cut back my carbon footprint - I've done as much as I can domestically without making the house uncomfortable to live in. I've cut down car usage to the point where having one is pretty pointless and made sure we only buy local food. Giving up all air travel, which we did a few years ago is comparitively easy. I'm not going to obsess over the percentages each of these changes have made, they're all a useful contribution to reducing emissions. Minum, London,

I've never read anything so mad. Carbon emissions frmo aviation have almost doubled in the last 20 years, and calculations by the Tyndall Climate Centre state that at the present rate of expansion, carbon emissions from aircraft could by themselves exceed the emissions of carbon dioxide permitted from the UK by 2050. We have the highest carbon dioxide emissions from aviation in Europe. The UK also produces 2.7% of the world's carbon emissions with 0.9% of its population, whilst China produces only 14% of emissions with 20% of the population. Only a tiny proportion of the world's population will ever board an aircraft. A rather larger proprotion will be victims of climate change if people like Anatole Kaletsky continue to have their way. Chris Bluemel, Southampton, Hampshire

Look up 'Milankovic cycles', and you will see the real causes of climate change. The earth's relationship with the Sun explains all there is to know about the subject, and requires no human input. Since almost all Climate change has occurred before humans even existed, I think the current hysterical obsession with 'Global Warming' is irrevevant. In this context Air travel is of no importance, and should be undertaken with impunity.jon corfield, Telford, UK

At last! Somebody who talks sense on climate change. I do not understand the namby pamby, nicely nicely, unrealistic policies and ideals from all three major political parties in this country. Funny how this "socialist" government is adding so much tax to air travel; thus making it far less affordable for the less well off. Sam Pritchard, Billingshurst, West Sussex

I gleaned a most infuriating, patronising and insulting notion from this article. It is the idea that those with plenty of money, like Anatole Kaletsky I would imagine, should provide enough resource for science to 'save the planet'. Specifically, for the likes of Mr. Kaletsky to make sure enough poorly paid scientists work on the complex issues involved to solve the problem. And let us be clear, the vast majority of scientists are highly motivated people who relish the task of problem solving and are generally at the lowest end of the professional pay scales. George Loizou, Chesterfield, UK

The words "the most rational" should be redefined in these comments as "most backing up my own prejudices". Number one failing is Anatole's daft claim for the proportion of carbon emissions that aviation will be responisble for in 2050. True, if emissions in all sectors grow unabated his coments are valid. But if it is accepted we will need cuts of 60-80% by then the picture changes. Either aviation should play its part in the cuts, or if Anatole believes it should remain exempt, then he has to accept its contribution in 2050 will be a far larger than he claims. Martyn, London, UK

Yes carry on flying. Politicians are falling over themselves to make increasingly ridiculous comments on climate change, (or global warming as it now likes to be known.) Climate change is a natural process, governed by forces over which we have no control. And Co2 emissions are almost entirely from natural sources. Our planet has coped with major upheavals in climate many times in the past, and what we are seeing now is a minor warming period, most likely temporary. If the entire human race disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, climate change would still happen. The current hysteria is a waste of time and energy, with people falling over themselves to prove the unprovable. It's a sobering thought that the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 produced vast amounts of Co2 emissions, more than could be produced by the human race in many centuries. Politicians should calm down, and concentrate on issues they can control, such as health, education and the economy. Jon Corfield, Telford, UK

I find it incredible that the environment minister should dare to accuse the airline industry of not taking climate change seriously. His remarks are directed at the very airlines who operate the latest fuel efficient aircraft bought at enormous expense. Let us remember that as a minister Mr Pearson is effectively on the board of the most polluting airline in Europe, if not the world. The fact that it is called the transport fleet of the Royal Air Force is no excuse. How many aircraft in the airline business are forty years old, fuel inefficient, polluting in the extreme, and operate round the clock as do these aircraft? On the other hand, as it will not be possible to collect any "Greenwash" taxes from the Services under the pretext of the environment, perhaps his choice of target is understandable. Bob Osborne, Horsham, West Sussex, UK

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone