Max Hastings has written on Comment is Free that our “binge- flying” culture must end because of the disastrous effects it will have on the environment. This is indeed a big problem. Air travel is becoming steadily cheaper, and traveling long-distance to far-flung exotic destinations is ever more popular. Developing countries rely on tourism and exporting goods via the air to support their growing economies, and flying at the weekends is perfectly normal for many people in need of a quick change of scene.  
Max Hasting’s argues that the best solution to this is a tax on aviation fuel, upping the price of flights drastically. Suggestions have also been made to ban “budget” travelers, who holiday cheaply and explore off the beaten track.  This is an unfair solution- the rich will continue to fly and pollute as they have always done, whilst the rest of the world will be closed to poorer tourists. Money will be a determining factor not only in education and life expectancy, but also the right to leave these shores to experience new cultures- even if people can only afford to go across the Channel to France or to the Costa Del Sol.  

However, if flights are not restricted through fiscal means, what then to curb the aviation industry’s growing emissions?
Firstly, airport expansion should end. The industry cannot expand any more if we are to tackle climate change. There is just no room for this vastly polluting sector’s increasing emissions. Secondly, flights must always be full. Flying two half empty planes to the same destination within hours of each other is farcical.  
Thirdly, whilst I would not advocate pricing people out of tourism, perhaps we should consider flying quotas- restrictions on the number of air miles that people can travel in one year. Countries should be given, depending on population, size and other factors, a binding target on overall emissions, which they cannot exceed. Individual governments could determine what proportion of overall emissions could come from aviation and ration air miles accordingly. The countries with the lowest amount of emissions from other sectors could therefore be more generous with air miles. Thus there would be an incentive for countries to use renewable energy and electric cars, for example, so a bigger proportion of emissions could be allocated to aviation.  Modern technology negates the need for flying in business- meetings can be conducted via web cams and conference calls. The same applies for politics. Wealthier people could still take their regular holidays, but once they had used their quota they would have to take alternative transport- using trains, coaches and boats. We have the Eurostar and there is an excellent train system over on the continent- therefore exploring Europe without air travel is perfectly feasible, and perhaps much more enjoyable as one gets to interact with the journey far more. For further afield journeys, there is the Orient Express, traversing Russia and China. Expanding the shipping industry, and coming up with fairly fast and efficient ships would make crossing the Atlantic not-impossible if one has used up all of ones air miles.  
Fourthly, offsetting carbon emissions, whilst not an answer to all ills, should become the norm for everyone traveling abroad. Finally, there must be more money spent on researching ways to improve the carbon emissions of planes. If they can be made much more environmentally friendly, then the above restrictions need not be so stringent.  

Humans have survived for thousands of years, and explored the world, without airplanes before. We can do it again.