I distinctly remember the Blairster casually laughing off a suggestion of fuel taxes on aviation fuel/airplanes (on some documentary or other) as not being in the interests of the country's economy. Irritating as it is and was clear that the continued growth of fossil fuel power flight clearly needs to be curved to even stabilise GHG emissions and this can only be done by increasing it's cost.
Even though I do largely agree with weighting all decisions of a capitalist government heavily on what will achieve the most economic growth (leading to prosperity) politicians have long maintained a facade of smug ignorance to the realistic cost/impact of human contributed climate change.
As usual, the people at the top are several steps behind on what's best to do: after letting ailing nuclear power stations, well, ail for decades, too afraid of the bad PR a pro nuclear stance would have, they're finally coming round to the idea of using nuclear as a power source with no atmospheric detriment: the lesser of 2 evils. This comes now that I’m convinced that the Lib Dem approach of: no fission as the only option (their only policy i used to disagree with on grounds of practicality) now make more sense to me. Typical.
The approach the enlightened German governance currently seems to be taking would be the way to go: big state investment in renewable energy technology (mainly solar - photovoltaic) to reduce manufacturing costs and make renewables outright competitive on the energy market. It wouldn't even take a supper-scale multi billion pound engineering project like a tidal damned estuary! (even though one on the seven estuary would provide 1/4 of the nations electricity!).
PS: Guardian Article tells of the UK recruiting Al Gore in an attempt to lobby the US to take said report seriously. No chance of anything happening before the Bush ousting of full elections in 2008.