Staring global warming in the face ... is ending air travel really the key to saving the environment? Photograph: Antonio Scorza/AFP

In the second article of our week of debate on aviation and climate change, Justin Francis, co-founder of Responsible Travel, argues that the immediate end of air travel is not only impossible - it would be environmentally counter-productive too

Next week I'm flying to Ethiopia on holiday. My plane will emit carbon dioxide and other gases that will contribute to global warming. The Bishop of London would say people like me are evil. One leading environmentalist writing in The Guardian says that people advocating more responsible travel are culpable of "greenwashing" and that most of the aeroplanes flying today should be grounded.

Reading the papers you would think that air travel is the single biggest cause of global warming. In fact, air travel accounts for less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions. We must look to every sector to reduce emissions, but if we really want to target the biggest culprits then we need to look at homes, which account for nearer 25% of emissions, and power stations, the UK's largest coal-fired version of which wastes two-thirds of the energy it generates.

We've shown before how a few simple changes made in your home can save double the carbon emissions of a return flight to Egypt. In seeking to reduce our emissions we need to examine our entire lifestyles, not just our flying habits. The trouble is that it's sexier to write about planes than lagging your loft.

However, do not take this as my consent to keep on flying as we have done. In fact, I believe we are the first travel agency in the world to tell its customers to fly significantly less. This is because we recognise that aviation is the fastest growing cause of global warming. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by air travel doubled between 1990 and 2004. This is totally incompatible with the need to reduce carbon emissions by 60% before 2050 (or nearer 70% by 2035 according to the latest research from the Tyndall Centre).

Still, I believe there are a number of critical points relevant to this debate that some environmentalists miss.

What happens if we all stop flying?

The UN World Tourism Organisation states that one in 10 jobs around the world is in tourism and that the industry is growing fastest in developing countries. Many of these countries lack any real alternative since their only real assets are their cultures and natural environments.

I'd argue that increased global unemployment and worsening poverty in many developing countries is not conducive to creating new lower-carbon technologies and lifestyles. People in poverty cannot afford to take decisions for the longer term. Businesses in recession cannot afford to invest in research and development and pay for switching to new lower carbon technologies.

What needs to happen?

We all need to fly a lot less. One way to do this would be to cut out the dramatic increase in short breaks on cheap flights. The only way that this will happen is if the price of flights rises considerably. We must only vote for parties that are prepared to make the tough choices required to make this happen.

We all need to holiday closer to home, and travel more often by train. When we do fly, we need to ensure that our holiday benefits local communities and reduces other environmental impacts - and we need to offset our emissions.

But we do not need to stop flying altogether. That would send us back to the dark ages with massive unemployment, business recession, and increased poverty.

Will people listen?

The problem with many advocates of sustainable development is that they fail to consider people's emotions when trying to persuade them to change their behaviour. Telling them they are evil, or that they must all stop flying immediately, really isn't going to stop families flying off on holiday next summer.

In fact, the carbon dioxide that we have already put into the atmosphere is going to cause us immense global problems and we'll need all the tolerance we can find to work globally to best manage these impacts. Perhaps the cultural understanding that 60 years of international travel has created can help in this.

No forests means no tourists

When I visit Ethiopia I'll be visiting local communities in the Bale Mountains National Park, where the German Development Bank has funded a tourism project to replace local income previously earned from illegal logging. And there lies the incentive for local people to halt the deforestation. If we all stop flying, many national parks around the world will lose their incomes, deforestation will increase and global warming will accelerate faster.

Will technology save us?

George Monbiot argues that there will not be a new fuel or technology to replace kerosene as airline fuel. Sir Richard Branson's scientific advisors obviously disagree as he is prepared to invest over £1bn into bio fuels research. While it's unwise to allow aviation to grow unchecked, I think it's equally unwise to assume that no new solution will be found.

Are people like me guilty of green washing?

We give people who have already decided to travel the choice of a more responsible holiday. We stress the benefits of responsible tourism to local communities without hiding the environmental consequences of flying. We believe that people should fly significantly less, but that it would be detrimental if we were to stop flying altogether. You make up your mind if that's green washing.