The exchange of abuse between the UK government environment minister and Ryanair over carbon dioxide emissions (C02) by aircraft was an enjoyable knockabout but little more than that.
The charges and counter charges Ian Pearson, the minister, and Michael O'Leary, the low cost carrier's ceo, levelled at each other threaten to diminish a serious and enormously complex problem.
Most, certainly the main body of, independent scientific research indicates that global warming, caused by greenhouse gas emissions, is causing extreme damage to the earth. Something, consequently, must be done to stop or at least reduce significantly these emissions, the main one of which is C02.
Aviation is a minor contributor to C02 emissions. Aircraft also emit another greenhouse gas nitrogen oxide (NOx). Currently, it is estimated that flying accounts for about 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU region.
But flying is growing rapidly. OAG, the travel and transport information company, reported airlines offered 3.3bn seats in 2006, more than ever before and a 3% rise on 2005. It said that 6.3m people were flying every day of the year.
The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) says that worldwide passenger traffic is growing by 5% a year and freight by 6%. At this rate, the world's civil aircraft fleet will double by 2020.
The EU estimates that by 2050, aviation will account for 5% emissions in the region.
The respected UK institute, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research produced a report in 2005 which concluded that if aviation growth continues at its present rate, its emissions would wipe out all savings made in other sectors, e.g. less use of cars.
Stavros Dimas, the EC environment commissioner, said: "Aviation emissions need to be brought under control, because they are rising very fast. Since 1990, they have gone up about 90% and, by 2020, they are going to be doubled, if business continues as usual."
The EU proposals to include aviation in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), announced just before Christmas, aims to tackle this problem. Under the scheme, airlines would be allotted a quota of C02 emissions (the plan does not include any other greenhouse gases) and could sell ant excess or buy to make up a shortfall.
The EU estimates its ETS could save 46% of the growth in aviation emissions - or 183 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Mr O'Leary feels that his outlay of $10bn on fleet renewal over the past fiver years which had reduced fuel consumption by 45% and C02 emissions by 50% had made Ryanair the "greenest" airline in Europe. He is opposed to further measure like the ETS.
But this misses the point. It is the growth of aviation which is set to cause problems in the future and which the EU and some European governments think should be tackled sooner rather than later.
But it is here that the contradictions firmly step in. The UK government, for example, which paints itself as one of Europe's greenest, is planning to build fours new runways to cope with an expected doubling of passengers to 490m a year by 2030.
Business and the airlines are generally in favour of this.
But as the environmental lobby has pointed out, this is at complete odds with its parallel aim of cutting aviation emissions.
In a paper issued by the Tyndall Centre last month, two scientists, Alice Bows and Kevin Anderson said the expansion would negate any cuts in C02 emissions.
Basically the pursuit of measures to cut carbon emissions were not compatible with concurrently expanding facilities for flying.
At the same time in the UK, fares on trains, seen by many as a possible alternative to some air routes, have risen to be the highest in Europe and as such a distinct disincentive to anyone considering using them rather than the cheaper plane.
The remarks of the British prime minister, Tony Blair that it was "impractical" to expect people to stop taking long haul holidays, saying he would not curtail his, added to this confusion. To emphasise his point, he said he did not see any politicians running for office who were prepared to tell people they must change their ways.
He later modified his remarks to say that he personally would pay for carbon offsetting for his personal flights.
Mr Blair's remarks sound like the unacceptable face of politics, the classic 'I'm all right Jack' stance coupled with the politician's refusal to take what might be unpopular decisions.
It is not surprising that airlines react in the way that Ryanair did although that also was not of much help.
This was not a good week for the many in the business travel industry who have been striving to promote a responsible attitude to climate change.
A much more clearly defined policy is needed is the essential progress is to be made on combating climate change.
* See BTE's recruitment site www.businesstraveljobs.com