As the holiday season begins, government, travel firms and consumers face the ire of ecologists

YOU'VE packed your bags, your e-tickets are printed, your hand luggage has been checked and checked again for liquids. The children have been marshalled to the airport, through check-in, then security, and on to the plane. Now you're strapped in, and the engine is running.

This is the start of your holiday, but the engine running while you sit on the runway is the start of another story: the potential damage your summer break does to the environment.

As awareness of carbon footprints rises, tour operators and holiday companies are trying to counter concerns about the impact of foreign travel on the planet, with measures such as more fuel-efficient planes, "green" hotels and ethical employment policies. Environmental campaigners have largely rejected the moves, pointing to the high levels of climate-wrecking emissions involved in air travel. Instead, they have called on the government to do more to tackle rising aviation emissions while urging consumers to take fewer foreign holidays.

The "big four" tour companies - First Choice, Thomson, Thomas Cook and MyTravel - claim to be proud of their green credentials. New brochures from Thomas Cook and Thomson specifically highlight "responsible tourism" at resorts in the Mediterranean, with logos attached to hotels which have met criteria on use of hot water, beach cleanliness and the local environment. Both companies are keen to make sure the hotels they send travellers to behave ethically towards their staff, and that local communities are kept involved.

Meanwhile, Susanna Wilson, corporate social responsibility manager for First Choice, said the company is working across the board - introducing energy-efficient travel shops and developing a green code for its resorts - to protect the environment.

"We are working with our most popular hotels, the top 250 of which 60% of our passengers go to, and work closely with them on developing a code of conduct, which covers things like water and energy use," Wilson said. "For the first time, in 2008 there will be a logo with our top performing hotels in our brochures, so customers can see for themselves how they have rated."

Resort representatives have also been tasked with finding sustainable trips. "We are seeing a gradual interest in sustainability," Wilson said. "I think if we get to a stage where sustainability is going to make a difference then we want to have done the work now so we are the company they choose - this is a very competitive industry."

A bigger question mark hangs over aviation emissions, the most polluting part of a holiday. Aviation accounts for 11% of the total climate change impact of the UK, and by 2045 these emissions are predicted to account for the EU's entire carbon "budget".

Moreover, as Friends of the Earth points out, the complex mix of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, soot and water vapour pumped out by a plane's engines has two to four times the climate-change impact of its carbon content alone, because it is released at altitude.

Stephen Page, professor of tourism at the University of Stirling, said air travel has grown exponentially since the introduction of budget airlines.

"If you look at figures from the Civil Aviation Authority, 3.1 million passengers went from the UK to Europe on a no-frills' airline in 1996," he said. "By 2005, that had risen to 51.5 million. In the same years, full-service' carriers took 42.2m people to Europe from the UK, but by 2005 that had only risen to 47.2m. So you can see, beyond dispute, the difference that the low-cost, no-frills service has had on the sector, and it isn't socially inclusive - this is the middle classes travelling more."

The educated middle classes, it seems, are failing to heed repeated warnings about the environmental cost of air travel - and they are also refusing to voluntarily pay to offset their emissions.

British Airways launched a carbon offset scheme in 2005. Despite the relative low cost - about £5 to offset emissions on a flight from London to Madrid, for example - fewer than 1% of passengers chose to participate. It is now difficult to even find the scheme on the airline's website. Similarly small levels of participation are found in other voluntary schemes. Carbon offsetting is clearly not a priority for jetsetting consumers.

On the plus side, holiday companies say they are taking emissions seriously - perhaps because the drive to become clean and green also makes sound economic sense.

Captain Chris Longley, a pilot with Thomas Cook, developed a fleet-wide programme for the airline to improve fuel efficiency, which has saved 5000 tonnes of fuel across its fleet of 24 aircraft. "The programme is based on efficient flying," said Longley. "We have tried to reduce the weight of the aircraft, and our pilots now fly at more efficient speeds, which has saved fuel and emissions. These initiatives are about being green, but they also represent a major saving for us. There is concern about aviation emissions, but also about the cost of fuel."

In another move, the company is also trying reduce the amount of fuel planes use while stationary.

"We have asked pilots to switch off their auxiliary power units," said Longley. "And we are now running that jet engine for only 10 minutes of the time the plane is on the ground. All these things do add up."

These improvements are not given much credence by environmental campaigners, however. Stuart Hay, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Despite all the claims made about efficiency, for low-cost airlines especially, it means they are just not as bad as other airplanes in other fleets. It doesn't necessarily mean they are good - they just aren't as bad as everyone else."

Ryanair, which has built its business on cheap flights, and which claims to be Europe's greenest airline, told the Sunday Herald it is efficient because its planes are new, they fly direct routes, and they can be filled to capacity as there are no business-class seats. But on Thursday, the airline started a giveaway of one million flights where the airline pays the taxes, fees and charges, sparking accusations that Ryanair is inviting the public to indulge in "binge flying" over the summer.

RECENT research showed that holidaymakers believe the government is responsible for tackling climate change. Results of a summit held last week between the government, businesses and consumers found that only 2% of the public feel industry should lead the way on climate change, with 4% saying the public are responsible, and 27% saying it is the government's job.

However, environmental groups claim that the government is merely dabbling at curbing aviation emissions. When the chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced that air passenger duty (APD) was to double earlier this year - sparking an outcry from holidaymakers and airlines alike - part of his reasoning for the hike was to put up prices and reduce the number of travellers. But the tax isn't earmarked for improving public transport or developing bio-fuels - it simply goes into the general tax pot.

Peter Lockley is from the Aviation Environment Federation, a charity that lobbies government on issues around aviation. He claims that "overall, government policy doesn't tally at all".

He said: "On the one hand they are supporting the travel industry, and on the other they are claiming to be aware of the looming environmental problems carbon emissions bring. The only way the government can go on like this is if they find a way to keep ignoring the huge issue of emissions from aviation. There is creative accounting going on."

The increased APD is also roundly hated by the industry. Peter Sherrard of Ryanair said the policy is misguided.

"The government should be incentivising airlines to invest in newer aircraft that produce less emissions in the first place. The APD is a stealth tax, propagated on a lie that it will somehow help the environment."

And British Airways describes the increase in APD as a "cash cow" for the government. When Brown introduced the increase, the airline shelved plans to revitalise and expand its failing carbon offset scheme, and says nothing more will be done with the project until the increase in the tax is removed.

Lockley has a suggestion on how holidays could be made greener, but it's one the tour companies are not going to like: he says we should all try staying at home.

"What this comes down to is that if you choose to fly you will often have to do the legwork in finding out how to offset your flight," he said. "Everyone needs to start being more aware of their own personal carbon footprint. We live in this country as if there are three planet Earths - we are wildly overconsuming.

"It is difficult from Scotland - people in London and the southeast have the option of getting to Europe quickly from their home by Eurostar. But overall we would encourage people to holiday in the UK - try getting the ferry, have an adventure, give up the flight for a year and see if you can do something else."