Maybe it’s just because I’m back from a bank holiday weekend in north Wales that was filled with glorious Mediterranean-style sunshine. But reading about a new study that says global tourism now accounts for 8% of carbon emissions, three times more than was previously thought made me think– surely we can do better?

Whenever I hear about the impact global tourism has on the environment I experience a pang of guilt. While it’s not just the greenhouse gases churned out by planes that are the problem – the study points out it’s also what tourists do when they get to their destination – they account for a big chunk. And yet it’s a pang of guilt I never act on. It’s just too easy to ignore when it’s often cheaper to get a short-hop flight to somewhere sunny than it is to buy an off-peak return on the train to many parts of the UK.

How airlines can fly around new carbon rules Read more

Making consumers feel so guilty they change their behaviour – taking more holidays in the UK, forking out hundreds to get to European destinations by train – just isn’t going to work; I’m proof of that. We need firmer action. But increasing the government levies on air travel – forcing up prices to get people to fly less – isn’t the answer. This would have little impact on the most affluent travellers, while hitting the poorest in society.

Instead we should look to carbon trading schemes for inspiration. In schemes running in the EU and some areas of the US, international organisations or governments sign up to a total limit on carbon emissions. They then issue companies with permits that allow them to emit a certain amount of carbon. It’s then up to the companies to trade the permits. Companies that want to emit more can buy permits from those that manage to reduce their carbon emissions.

We could develop a similar system for flights. Everyone could be given an air mile allowance – say enough for one long-haul return flight a year, or three short-haul flights, so people with families on the other side of the world could see them once a year. If you don’t want to use your allowance, you could sell it off in a government-regulated online marketplace. If you’re keen to do a holiday a month, you’ll have to buy your allowance from someone else.

This would be far preferable to increasing tax on airline tickets. It would be redistributive: everyone gets a certain number of air miles, but if you’d rather get the thousands of pounds you could command for them on the online marketplace, you’re free to sell them. Same if you’re just not that bothered about going abroad. But if you want to go over your allowance, it will be at a cost.

How to reduce your carbon footprint #GlobalWarning Read more

Of course there would be lots of practical objections. Businesses would hate this – but they, like individuals, could be assigned a certain number of miles that they could supplement or sell, and it might encourage them to actually invest in the technology that can facilitate meetings between people continents apart. Perhaps the hardest aspect would be getting some sort of agreement on an international scale. But we’re only going to make a dent in climate change by doing something pretty radical.

Cutting global air travel may be only part of the solution but an individual cap on air travel – that people can trade with each other as they wish – could help reduce the impact flying has on our environment. It’s certainly better than the alternatives – crossing our fingers and hoping people suddenly discover an environmental conscience even if it does mean missing out on that weekend in the sun, or whacking up green taxes in a way that adversely affects less affluent families.

• Sonia Sodha is the Observer’s chief leader writer