This story on Boeing's new plane, the 787 'dreamliner', caught my eye - initially because my brother is on the team designing its engines. But then I read the story: Boeing are boasting about the green credentials of the new plane. But, of course (as the article points out) more efficient planes doesn't equal less greenhouse gases. It equals cheaper flights - so more people will fly.

I don't know what percentage of the overall cost of flying is accounted for by fuel, mind. It might be miniscule. It would certainly seem unlikely it's the prime economic driving force for its expansion. But its nevertheless sobering to think that any gains in efficiency will merely contribute to increased demand.

The industry itself it making a lot of noise about 'efficiency', as if they actually stand a chance of become a 'green' industry on the path they're currently on. They're also quick to point out that aviation is a tiny percentage of overall greenhouse gas emissions. If anyone ever says that, reply something like:

According to calculations by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, aviation’s emissions alone would exceed the government’s target for the country’s entire output of greenhouse gases in 2050 by around 134%.

From this Monbiot article. As he points out, the government gets around this by... leaving aviation out of its calculations. Gosh, think how many pressing government problems that would solve. Child poverty causing you headaches? No problem: leave children out of the calculations!

The question is: do we want to spend all of our carbon allowance - and more - on flying? Well, we can't do this: its impossible. Flying is such a problem for this precise reason: unless its carbon emissions are strictly rationed, or airplanes are taxed out of the sky, there's simply no way it can be part of a low-carbon future.

Crooked Timber had a lovely paraphrase from '5 Days in London May 1940':

A possibly apocryphal moment has Attlee pointing out to Greenwood that if Churchill loses to the Tory grandees civilisation in Europe will be gone, Greenwood retorting that if so, "it won’t be our fault" and Attlee responding "I don’t want to go down in history as someone whose fault it wasn’t when civilisation was destroyed."

My flight to Oz and back is worth about two year's worth of driving, I think - though maybe five or more, taking into account the 'radiative forcing ratio' of plane emissions. So I can cry, 'its not my fault!' But can I carry on doing it? Well, I've got to get home. And its a strangely comforting thing to be eating little omelettes from a rectangular silver box, watching Groundhog Day again (!), and knowing you're travelling at 650mph, ten kilometres in the sky.