The Telegraph & Argus often reports on the plans for Leeds Bradford Airport and they emphasise expansion, more passengers, more flights and expanded runways.

For many flying is more normal than catching a train and there are daily flights for business folk to London and back, and those with second homes in France and Spain are in and out six times a year.

Florida, Spain, Turkey, the Caribbean and even the Maldives are destinations that surpass Morecambe, Bridlington, and Skegness as holiday destinations. Flying these days is nothing special.

But it is. It is the one CO2-producing climate change activity that is not only out of control but is also the only one where there isn't a simple technical improvement that will reduce the problem.

There are plans to more than double the number of passengers and flights within twenty years, 12 UK airports have agreed expansion plans, and there isn't an alternative to the kerosene fuel which produces excessive water vapour at altitude.

This and the CO2 produced high up is three times more damaging than at sea level and so the average passenger produces 300kg of climate change gas every time they fly. It's the same as driving 1,500 miles and passengers to Australia are responsible for one tonne of CO2.

Moreover it is unique in other ways as it is very hardly taxed, without duty on aviation fuel or VAT on tickets and no sky fund tax like the road fund tax. The passenger tax is minuscule. Moreover cheap fares are encouraged by the exceptional duty free sales at airports, an arrangement notably missing from railway and bus terminals.

Even more worrying is the fact that emissions from air travel (and from shipping) aren't included in the national targets set by the Kyoto agreement and so to suggest that the UK will reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 is less than accurate.

What's wrong with suggesting half the emissions are credited to the country where the plane leaves from and the other half to where it lands? The problem is the top two aviation countries, us and the US don't want to.

Flying must be made more expensive as at the moment it has a subsidy of about £10billion. Unlike proper public transport, it favours the well off, with the top three social classes making four times as many trips as the poorest. As 80 per cent of flights are for leisure purposes it is reasonable for the fuel tax to be higher than that for petrol in cars.

Perhaps one way forward is to give us all an annual flight allowance. The world average would be 380 miles, and if we wanted to go further then we would need to buy miles from those who don't fly - 20p or more a mile would certainly help to slow down the current rising demand.