It would require international cooperation/agreement to quantify and enforce the amount of carbon a person uses while on holiday. The carbon intensity of activities while on holiday will vary considerably. For example, a person spending their holidays camping will be using less carbon than a person staying in a luxury air-conditioned hotel. As such without international agreement it would be impossible to monitor what a person does while abroad, and so there would be no way of assigning a carbon value to their activities. With the need for internationally recognized standards to implement such a scheme would come arguments about the threat to tourism that such a scheme poses.

In the UK electricity production uses over twice as much fuel as the airline industry.^[1] Penalising people for taking holidays abroad is unfair and ignores more urgent factors affecting the environment. The money and time used to implement a holiday rationing system would be better used to create cleaner electricity generating technologies.

Not only that, but newly revealed data and information, which had originally been manipulated and covered up by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), shows that CO2 may not be a threat to the environment at all. It now seems very possible that the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming may be fraudulent. Let's not take any drastic actions until there is a genuine consensus, and currently one does not exist.

1. ^ http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=901&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=208

Under a holiday rationing system each person would be assigned carbon credits that would be used up whenever they go on holiday. If someone has used up all their credits and still wishes to take a holiday abroad s/he would have to buy more credits. Introducing such fees may reduce the moral stigma of polluting the environment.^[1] If a person pays extra in order to engage in activities that damage the environment they may develop the attitude that being unsustainable is acceptable if it is being payed for.

1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kt7sh

Article 13.2 of the UDHR states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." To impose restrictions on the number of holidays abroad would deny people the right to mobility.

There is no need to ban people from flying. The average family fles away for a holiday once or twice a year, and they rarely travel far.

For those rich families who can afford to fly three times a year or more, they should be taxed double their air fare.

This could rake in hundreds of millions per year in the UK alone. This money can then go to fund research on Low-emissions aeroplanes and other sources of renewable energy.

Banning travel doesn't solve the problem as the same number of flights will be leaving the country - they'll just have fewer people on them (hardly cost effective or environmentally friendly). Taxes will raise the money needed to solve the problem once and for all.