Carney knows the Bank of England is out of options – but that won't stop it cutting rates

Two important and contradictory stories about the Bank of England have come out in the past fortnight. The first came when Mark Carney, who finishes his tenure as the BoE's governor in March, admitted to the Financial Times that central banks were running out of ways to fight recession. Carney even suggested it was time for governments to consider using their fiscal arsenals to tackle downturns – though he did stop short of anything concrete, because, in his words, "it's not [central bankers'] job to do fiscal policy".

The second story came a few days later, when news came that BoE policymakers were considering cutting interest rates again should the economy fail to bounce back after a dismal performance towards the end of last year. Carney said in a speech two days after the FT interview that the central bank was prepared to take "prompt" action if things don't improve.

Carney seems to know the horse he's flogging is dying – though he doesn't think central banking is a spent force yet. What else is there to be done? All eyes on Sajid Javid: March's Budget will determine whether the government will rise to the challenges ahead.

Flybe: In a reasonable world, wouldn't the entire aviation industry be in crisis?

Flybe’s financial woes, the Guardian reports, are a tragedy for professionals who rely on air travel to commute across Europe to and from work. My deepest sympathies to those affected. But then, I can only think: in a reasonable world – one where states were fully committed to tackling the climate crisis and stemming the tide of ecological destruction – wouldn’t most of the aviation industry be at risk?

This sounds needlessly provocative, but I am serious. Aviation industry claims that flight only accounts for 1.5-2% of global emissions are misleading and grossly underestimate the environmental impact of air travel. The Department for Transport estimates 6.3% of the UK’s carbon emissions are caused by flight, and even then the real figure is likely to be a lot higher. The capacity to make air travel greener is very limited and looks set to stay that way. Comparatively, green technology for automobiles and rail travel is leaps and bounds ahead.

We know therefore that the solution to aviation emissions is similar to those of the car industry: improve and expand ground-based public transport. This is precisely what the IEA (International Energy Agency – not to be confused with the Institute of Economic Affairs) argued last year in a report that found global transport emissions could peak in the 2030s if rail was “aggressively” expanded. The benefits are numerous: rail is the most energy-efficient means of motorised passenger transport; electric trains are effective at reducing emissions; high-speed rail is a low-carbon alternative to short-distance flights; the list goes on.

All things considered, the evidence is clear as day. The only thing missing is the political will of governments to make it a reality. And if they did, the impact on industries like air travel would simply prove we were taking steps necessary to combat environmental decline.

Of course, I’m not saying we should leave airliners to simply go bust. Jobs would be lost and the livelihoods of working people would be put at risk. For that reason, insolvencies should be planned well in advance and states should assist with the transition.

The means are there to make a success of this. We just have to be bold enough.