Flying high on greenhouse gas

This will require the inclusion of aviation in a Kyoto-style emissions trading scheme. Governments and the private sector also need to invest in substitutes for air travel like rail and telecommunications infrastructure.

A high-speed railway line running between Sydney and Melbourne could substantially reduce aviation emissions. And improved video-conferencing services would reduce the need for people to travel for business.

The aviation and tourism industries will no doubt protest about the economic ramifications of these measures. But we have a choice: accept the relatively small costs associated with dealing with global warming now, or incur much larger costs if we do nothing.

For the tourism industry, this means accepting fewer international tourists as the price of protecting major tourism assets like the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park that are likely be decimated by global warming.

There will also be winners from these measures, most obviously rural and regional tourism operators. If we can’t travel overseas as often as we have in the past, we’ll spend more of our tourist dollars in domestic destinations, many of which are located in rural and regional areas.

In Europe, governments have already begun to come to terms with the threat posed by continuous growth of aviation. The British Government has introduced a small tax on domestic flights in an attempt to curb demand. Similarly, by 2011 aviation will be included in Europe’s emissions trading scheme.

To date, the Federal Government has dragged its feet on climate change, grasping at any excuse not to act. The resurgence of the Labor Party has forced the Government to rethink its message and, at the least, to sound like it is committed to do something about the problem.

Here is a litmus test of the Government’s bona fides. If it is really committed to addressing climate change, it would put in place the necessary measures to begin to curb aviation emissions and restructure the transport sector.