I was reading an article in the Chicago Tribune recently that spoke about the global warming offender: airplanes. The irony is that many who speak about climate change and global warming fly far and fly frequently--e.g. Al Gore. The difficulty is that there is not much of an alternative, in order to get from point A to point B, unless a car can be the mode of transportation. Yet, we all know the cars take their toll on the environment, as well, so what is the best way to get around? Many think of commercial air travel as better for the planet because it's akin to carpooling--i.e. many people going together to the same place. The article mentioned the dichotomy one climate change scientist was in when he was asked to travel to London from the west coast of the U.S., to receive an award. Obviously, a car can't be driven overseas. So, both of these notions seems to weigh in favor of air travel--it's like carpooling and is sometimes the only option. Yet, the article noted that short flights are a bad idea and that cars in that scenario would be better. The reason is that more emissions are created (and fuel used) for ascent than descent, than in other parts of flying. In other words, short commuter flights can do a number on the planet. To me, the real answer at least in the business word, is to limit air travel to when it's really needed. Why in the world do we have all of this videoconferencing, etc. if we are not going to use it? If an inspection needs to be done, then fine, travelling by air may be necessary. Yet, why do meetings and presentations need to be done live when they can be done via electronic means? The real challenge will be how businesses approach air travel in the future and whether they will allow climate change concerns to change their way of doing things. Perhaps even more important will be how individuals look at traveling for leisure and whether people will consider exploring areas closer to home in lieu of flying half-way across the world.