If you're worried about the impact of flying on the environment the answer is simple, if somewhat unpalatable: fly less. By choosing to reduce the number of times you get on a plane each year you are, in a flash, making a major reduction in the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of your lifestyle.
However, ignoring the allure of those £10 flights to the far side of Europe can be as testing to one's will power as refusing the dessert trolley. Why not start as all dieters mean to go on, by setting realistic, achievable targets? Promising yourself that you'll never fly again is an admirable aim but one that that is unlikely to be met in the long term. Refusing to fly to a destination within the UK, though, is far more achievable. In fact, except for destinations at the extreme ends of the country, it is often quicker to travel city-centre to city-centre by train - and usually cheaper once you have factored in the cost of getting to the airport, parking and all those impulse buys while waiting for the flight to be called.
Beyond the UK, train travel basically limits you to western Europe for any trip less than, say, a two-week holiday. But travelling by train to Europe offers some key advantages over flying, namely, it's much more child-friendly, it's typically less stressful and, by using a sleeper carriage, you can, with a bit of planning, save on accommodation costs. Beyond Europe, though, flying still remains the only real option. It is with these long-haul flights that abstinence remains the most effective tool.
There are, however, a growing number of people who are voluntarily limiting themselves to no more than one flight a year (the fact that this should feel restrictive is a sign, perhaps, of how much flying has now become part of our lives compared to just a decade ago). One technique is to set yourself a personal carbon quota. Greenpeace, in partnership with the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales, has recently set up its "Carbon Gym" scheme (www.cat.org.uk/carbongym) whereby you work out your annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by answering a set of questions on your lifestyle (size of fridge, how you heat your home, how far you drive, etc) then receive advice from its "personal trainers" about how to meet your quota. The trouble is that Greenpeace's ideal quota would be 2.5 tonnes of CO2 per person a year, which is its "global fair share" target. This is an uncomfortably long way off the UK average of 10 tonnes a year. In fact, the only real way of achieving this target without giving up flying for good would be to ration yourself to, say, holidays that alternate each year between being UK-based and foreign-based. Even then, to get the average down, long-haul flights would probably have to be a once in a three- or four-year treat.
In recent years, carbon-offsetting schemes have been a popular way of avoiding the abstinence route. Plant a tree, goes the theory, to "offset" the CO2 that has been emitted by your actions. One tree, say the proponents, absorbs about a tonne of CO2 a year. But there is increasing dissent about whether this is the best way to atone for our pollution, with question marks over the science behind the practice, alongside the belief that such action simply helps to further legitimise our unsustainable lifestyles. While there's never any harm in supporting tree-planting schemes (via companies such as Future Forests and Climate Care), it would of course be far better not to pollute in the first place. An alternative, therefore, is to support organisations campaigning against further airport expansion, such as Airport Watch (www.airportwatch.org.uk). Begin by signing the Pledge Against Airport Expansions (www.airportpledge.org.uk) which was set up in 2004 by a coalition of environment, transport and airport campaign groups.
