With due respect for your traditional views, Piltdown Man, "tree huggers and yoghurt knitters" is highly inappropriate language to describe the overwhelming scientific consensus that humankind has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable damage to the environment by burning hydrocarbons. Furthermore, it is almost unanimously agreed by these scientists (who spend their lives studying these phenomena and are in a far better position to know than you or I) that a significant reduction of our eco-footprint would result in a significant reduction in damage, namely, a slowing of global warming.
Regarding rail subsidies, I am not in a position to know the exact nature of government incentives to promote rail, but in a climate of zero tax on aviation fuel, I would certainly hope that some level of subsidisation is offered to rail. But it could never amount to more than a drop in the bucket compared to the effective subsidisation aviation receives due to no fuel taxation. I'm sure you're aware that fuel costs are already a large proportion of overall aviation costs; if fuel costs were increased by literally an order of magnitude you can easily see that aviation's viability over short routes on land would suddenly be thrown into great doubt.