AIR travellers may be facing a long, hot summer of discontent and not just because of bubbling oil prices. The European commission is gearing up to slap new charges onto air fares. But taxing air travel in a bid to tackle climate change is the wrong solution at the wrong time.

Since January 2005, the European emissions trading system (ETS) has capped the amounts of greenhouse gasses that power plants and factories in Europe can emit.

Businesses can trade allowances for emissions among themselves, with a financial cost for exceeding the cap or a reward for undershooting it. Now, as the European commission reviews the scheme, it wants to expand it to cover air travel as well. There is no need to take such a regressive step, however.

Air transport accounts for just 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union, according to the commission, so it is hardly a priority in terms of size. In comparison, power generation and oil refining is responsible for more than 23% while transport generates 18.4% of emissions, according to the most recent report. Agriculture is the worst offender at 29%.

It is no surprise then that when Michael O’Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, was asked what people who were concerned about climate change should do, he said: “Sell your car and walk.”

O’Leary is right. Those who are concerned about the environment should focus on power generation and land transport rather than aircraft.

The good news is that reducing emissions is commercially viable already in electricity generation with wind turbines.

At the same time, car manufacturers are developing hybrid petrol-electric engines that can go up to 1,000km on a single tank of petrol as does the Toyota Prius.

For the foreseeable future, however, nobody believes we are likely to see an aeroplane that uses a fuel other than jet kerosene, even on the drawing board.

In the meantime, those who have been observing how the administration of the emissions trading system has been handled since it was started, will not feel heartened.

So far, more than 95% of emission permits rights have been given to incumbent, usually state-owned, power monopolies, a gift worth about €300m to the ESB alone.

Meanwhile, new wind turbines remain barred from Ireland’s national grid and competitors have been driven out by weak regulation.

When it comes to air charges, European governments are likely to pander to the wishes of their coddled and flabby national airlines.

The budget carriers have cut costs to the bone by packing in passengers, flying to uncongested regional airports and investing in the most economical new aircraft. While remaining profitable, they are unsubsidised.

In contrast, their high-fare competitors remain addicted to state aid, often paid out in the form of hidden subsidies contravening the laws of the European Union.

We can expect our larger neighbours to break the rules again while Ireland is powerless to enforce equal treatment for consumers.

Rather than further distorting the European transport market, the only realistic option is to recognise the wisdom of leaving air transport out of the Kyoto protocol and putting the issue aside until 2012 when it runs out.

Peter Nolan director of energy and environment studies at the Freedom Institute