Even the most environmentally unaware appear to understand that driving a car does not make for a healthier atmosphere. But now, growing awareness of the need to take personal responsibility for the impact of travel arrangements is beginning to have a practical effect.

A single short-haul flight produces approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide as driving a 1.4 litre car for three months, and 16,000 commercial planes create more than 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. But given the relentless rise of low-cost, no-frills airlines, flying is by far the cheapest and quickest way to get around. What politician would dare tell the electorate that cheap flights – which have opened up international travel to so many – would have to rocket in price to offset environmental concerns? Green policies are a long-term political concern, and it would take a brave minister to risk alienating vast swathes of the public.

However, there are some signs of a change of attitude. In April, the government announced its plans to develop a government carbon-offsetting fund to meet its commitment to offset CO2 emissions arising from official and ministerial air travel. At the same time, a new Civil Service Travel Group began work to generate ideas that would help to deliver sustainable travel policies for the government as a whole.

Offsetting can work in a variety of ways, but commonly sees funds set aside to invest in projects that absorb, prevent or reduce emissions that are equivalent to the CO2 emitted by a given activity. Slowly but surely, companies and charities are also looking at what steps they can take. British Airways earlier this year announced a scheme that allows its customers to volunteer to help offset the carbon dioxide emissions from their flight by making a contribution to environmental projects. BA is working with Climate Care, which then invests the money in sustainable energy projects that tackle global warming, such as the distribution of 50,000 energy-efficient lamps in South Africa. Tom Morton, the director of Climate Care, was quick to praise BA’s innovation.

“At a time when some airlines are burying their heads in the sand over global warming, British Airways is tackling the issue full on with a range of measures – of which this is just one,” he said.

But ultimately, carbon offsetting rests with the individual traveler, and how far they feel the need to make peace with their conscience. So, to a considerable extent, carbon-offsetting schemes are merely a pointer in the right direction. There are many different options out there for individuals to get involved in offsetting the impact of their air travel, but each suggests dramatically varying conclusions about how much carbon any given amount of air miles generates.

Question marks have also been raised over the value of planting trees – once a firm favourite with environmentalists and green campaigners. The Carbon Neutral Company last year changed its name from Future Forests to show its wider agenda. And experts have estimated that to offset Britain’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, a forest the size of Devon and Cornwall would have to be planted each year.

So carbon-offsetting is just a start, but it should at least raise the profile of the environmental fallout of flying. And it offers people and organisations a mechanism for compensating for the impact of travel arrangements that cannot be avoided.

And of course the same principle can be applied to activities other than flights. It is equally possible to offset car journeys or an individual’s total carbon footprint. If the popularity of carbon-offsetting for air travel grows, it could be the start of a much wider approach to tackling the issue of global warming.