Nanny state at its best!! In the past, if you could afford to go on holidays then you could without Officials meddling into your affairs. Now like everything else a few are trying to decide the fate of the millions while having different rules for themselves. You can not save the planet by just stopping the long haul flights. What is next? Back to horse and carriage or travel on foot (not a bad idea actually, it will reduce obesity and make us walk more :-) ) I have no doubt that no sooner another research would tell us that it is not the emissions from the airlines causing the planet to weaken but a natural process of evolution.

If Cruise industry can use greener methods, why not ask the airlines to take responsibility to reduce emissions or trying investing in R”&D to try find greener fuel. Why can Airlines not try a combination of solar energy plus fuel? I am sure that in this day and age of technological advances, someone somewhere can come up with new ways to reduce emissions but that would be bad for Politicians as they could not increase taxes to fill their own pockets.

Another example of ill considered recommendations. Yes, we will have to reconcile travel wants/needs with carbon emissions reduction, but long haul focus has a number of problems. Many destinations that rely heavily on tourism are long haul destinations, who are low contributors to global emissions and in many cases are most at risk from climate change.
There is no alternative to air travel for these countries to connect them to markets and incoming tourists.
A focus on short haul aviation would make more sense. It is higher emitting per mile travelled and there are rail and road alternaticves to air especially for trips under 500 kms which comprise a large number of flight routes.
Long haul should not be ignored but it makes sense to look at both existing capacity, emissions and economic benefits when recommending policy.

You have to wonder what planet some of these people live on.
I may well make 3 longhaul trips a year and yes, I'm well aware that my carbon footprint etc isn't perfect. However, I'm sure that the money I spend in developing countries is much appreciated by the people there and I'll bet they wouldn't appreciate being told that I couldn't support them because of some new edict from the climate change lot.

It seems that the esteemed Chief Exec of... and infact the entire climate change comittee seem to be missing the real and most significant cause of global warming. Whilst also missing the obvious solution which seems to be the common trend with modern british political institutions and commitees. Perhaps they should stop pointing thier fingers at the industry which forms the arteries of the modern business world and transports youngsters and holiday makers to thier deserved destinations of choice and concentrate more on the real cause "Cows". Yes those pesky critters produce 9% of the worlds total Carbon Emissions producing almost 1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. The cow population is increasing far in excess of plane production. On top of this they also contribute 20% of the worlds total methane emissions which per molecule has by far a greater effect on climate than each CO2 molecule and even further to this in collaboration with the logging industry, the clearance of Rainforest for farmland is reducing the globes ability to absorb CO2 emissions exponentially. So Mr Chief exec, how about you tackle the larger issues first. Keep the planes, Kill the cows!

If the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee takes or considers to take three long haul flights in a year, which i think is probably triple the amount of flights the average person in the UK takes then no wonder the aviation industry gets a bad wrap, he should slip his sandals back on and pedal off into the sunset (British based please to be green) before lambasting an already under pressured industry that is trying to do it's part in cutting carbon emissions.