If concern over CO2 emissions can get governments to do what simple fuel economy can't, so much the better. Our Hydrocarbon resources are limited, and their real cost to the human race is considerably more than the current cost to pump 'em out of the ground. That's the basic flaw in the capitalistic model.
Aviation takes a big hit in these debates. In part it's because a significant portion of any aviation cost consists directly in burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons. But in this world, burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons is integral to all transportation systems, including so-called "Green ones", and if you consider secondary costs (such as fuel burned by staff getting to work, line maintenance, and the rest), I doubt aviation would appear as huge an offender.
Those who think that Global Warming (or anthropogenic climate change) is not the scientific consensus need to talk to scientists before coming to that conclusion. Those who think that sudden climate change can occur in history without catastrophic results to human societies need to speak to historians.
It's gonna be bad, but killing aviation is not the answer. In fact, the very simplicity of Aviation's use of energy makes it a prime candidate for a green solution, which is why major companies are playing with swapping the kerosene-burners for algae-burners.