A TRANSATLANTIC flight creates roughly 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per passenger. Does this mean that you are a carbon criminal if you take a family holiday in the Caribbean? That certainly seems to be the gist of the debate in Britain about the contribution of air travel to climate change.

A common claim in the media is that air travel is set to become the biggest single contributor to global warming. When it is pointed out that air travel will create only 5 per cent of global carbon emissions by 2050, the argument seamlessly shifts: flying is the fastest-growing cause of climate change, so surely it is time for the Government to act. Maybe it is, but the debate suggests that many people want government to tax “the rich”, even if this proves totally ineffective.

Every serious study of aircraft pollution — including those commissioned by environmental groups — has concluded that the surest way of reducing aircraft emissions would not be to tax airlines but to bring them into a carbon-trading regime. Emissions trading forces passengers to pay for pollution and airlines to become more efficient. But its real advantage is that it allows airlines to pay for carbon reduction on the ground instead of in the air.

The idea, endorsed in principle by the European Commission, the Government and the airlines, is that airlines would be allocated an annual limit for carbon emissions, which they could trade among themselves. To expand beyond these limits, airlines would have to buy “carbon credits” from earth-bound industries such as power stations, steel-makers and motor manufacturers, who would then find ways of reducing their carbon emissions by an equivalent amount.

And because there are many ways of cheaply reducing ground-based emissions, while there is no foreseeable alternative to kerosene for flying, every pound spent on ground-based carbon reductions is hundreds of times more effective than the same amount spent in the air.

To illustrate, consider the voluntary carbon reduction scheme introduced by British Airways on its website. This shows that a passenger who wants to offset the 1.2 tonnes of carbon created by a transatlantic round trip needs to spend only £9 on planting new trees or subsidising an energy efficiency programme in rural India. By contrast, an additional £9 per ticket fuel tax would achieve absolutely no carbon reduction, since it would not deter people from flying.

Why, then, do environmentalists campaign for new airline taxes or for outright bans on air travel instead of arguing for the rational solution of bringing airlines into a carbon-trading scheme? Maybe the opponents of flying are less interested in reducing carbon emissions than in waging a class war against air travellers, whom they still view as the idle rich.

Cut the carbon

YOU might be forgiven for thinking that air travel accounts for an enormous share of our total carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, as Anatole Kaletsky points out, it is about 2 to 3 per cent. That’s because most of us fly relatively rarely, compared, for example, with the number of times we turn on our heating (see the comparisons, below.) So to “afford” that holiday flight, you might want to cut back on your energy use at home. For tips on going green, see www.timesonline.co.uk/green.

• 4,000 miles of driving (the circumference of mainland Great Britain) in an average-sized, 35mpg car: 1.3 tonnes CO2
• Return London to New York flight: 1.54 tonnes CO2
• Return London-Rome flight: 0.33 tonnes CO2
• Average annual UK home energy use: 5 tonnes CO2

  Data: www.climatecare.org

  STELIOS HAJI-IOANNOU ‘BUDGET BEST’

  “OF ALL the airlines, low-cost ones are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. EasyJet has new planes. We invest in new equipment with the lowest emissions in our class. Then we pack more seats into them and fill them more than other airlines. One of our A319s has on average 156 seats and more than 130 people on board, while BA used to (before budget airlines) have planes with more emissions that carried half the people. At easyJet there is a policy: we will adopt an emissions trading scheme when the Government backs it. My argument is you might as well fly a low-cost airline rather than business class. From an emissions point of view, it’s much better. If I had three ways of getting to the South of France — easyJet, BA club class or a private plane — which one pollutes the environment more?”

  Stelios Haji-Ioannou is the founder of easyJet

  MICHAEL O’LEARY ‘RUBBISH’

  “A GREEN tax on flights is complete rubbish. It’s just taxing the poor to salve the conscience of the rich. And it would never work. There are taxes on cars, so how does that explain the explosion of SUVs? Green taxes will increase the cost of travel. It would be a regressive tax. It would hit the poor. It’s horse s**t that flights are ruining the world. It’s just something people driving SUVs to Sainsbury’s every Saturday say because they’re guilt-ridden and middle-class and full of bulls**t. Low-cost flights create jobs, and are a positive force.”

  Micheal O’Leary is chief executive of Ryanair

Times recommends

• The world's 10 weirdest things to eat
• Correspondents: hoteliers revenge for Tripadvisor
• A slow, ponderous journey up the Mekong