If you really go to stop climate change, it is best to abstain from meat than from traveling by plane. As found in the University of East Anglia, if the person in selecting vehicles between the aircraft and high-speed diesel train or bus will give preference to the last two, it will lead to a significant increase in its ecological footprint. At the same time, flight would have virtually no "cumulative effect" on the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the world.
Opting for air transport also has a positive effect on the personal carbon footprint, as well as the installation of energy-saving light bulbs, additional insulation of housing, the rejection of a personal car and from eating meat. So widespread EU restrictions on flights in terms of reducing carbon emissions maloobosnovanny. If someone refuses to air travel, it just makes it possible to some other type of contaminant transport to do their job on cheaper terms, because all the costs of carbon pollution in flight covered waste trading scheme in the EU (EU ETS), adopted in 2005.
If you are planning a trip from London to Glasgow, then air flight physical greenhouse gas emissions will be higher than that of the bus trip. But all emissions in excess of the flight is fully reimbursed under the terms of ETS with the purchase of the ticket, while a bus ticket do not have such properties. That is, they are complementary and adversely affect the final statistics for carbon emissions. Abandon the flight can be for other reasons, because no one has repealed the presence of other types of pollutants other than carbon and energy efficiency.
As can be seen from the studies of the University of East Anglia, carbon pollution is present in both cases, just one of them his sources are liable, and not in another. And not to make a painful choice, enough to attempt to reduce the carbon footprint in the areas on which the EU ETS does not cover, for example, agriculture, household, personal vehicles, emissions from which more than half of world figures.