I do feel a bit torn about this. We don't fly very often - usually (short haul) only once a year - but I suppose we really shouldn't fly at all. My husband's family is a long haul flight away. We've been married for 47 years and have gone there four times, which I don't think is excessive. He needs to see his family and I want to see them too.
Some people fly a lot - my friend went on 14 holidays abroad last year. If those people could even halve the flights they made it would make a difference, though, of course, it would be preferable to limit them even more.
These huge cruise ships - like floating towns - are very polluting too.
Given that all these things are so bad for the environment, it makes me wonder how sensible and moral it is to encourage overseas travel and to air such tempting adverts for overseas destinations. But then I suppose to try to curb such adverts would lead to cries of "police state", etc, etc. But if our environment is in such danger, perhaps desperate - and undemocratic - measures should be considered.
I try to make some sacrifices - mostly take re-usable container with water when I travel, have stopped buying liquid soap in dispensers, I mostly use public transport, eat almost no meat, etc, etc. But I know there is so much more I should be doing and I need to try harder.
I think carbon offsetting is disgraceful. It means those with money can pollute the environment as much as they like. Rationing - as was done in the war - would be a fairer method but a bureaucratic nightmare. I think people's behaviour will gradually change but will that change be too slow to reverse the damage?