Greenwashing the UK's Chancellor With Air-Travel?

It's reported that the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer (its top Finance man) is keen 'to burnish his green credentials' (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/22/cost-of-flights-to-rise-as-rishi-sunak-prepares-to-raise-air-passenger-duty). One of the ways the Chancellor hopes to do this, is by tinkering with Air Passenger Duty (APD). Air travel is a major generator of 'greenhouse gases'. Currently, APD is charged at two levels, namely up to and more than 2000 miles. Passengers on the longer flights are charged more. The Chancellor proposes to introduce a third level, of more than 6000 miles. This would involve an even higher rate of APD being charged to people e.g. travelling to Australia, South Africa or Japan. The obvious flaw in his logic is that emissions associated with air-travel are maximal at take-off and landing. Consequently, short haul flights are very substantial generators of pollution per mile travelled. There are also often reasonable (albeit sometimes expensive) alternative modes of transport (e.g. by train) for the shorter distances. The Chancellor claims that keeping short haul cheap, is essential for maintaining the integrity of the UK. Many Environmentalists have been pushing for a 'frequent flyer levy'. In this, passengers would have an extra APD charge for 2nd and subsequent flights in a year. Fifteen percentage of the UK population actually take 70% of all the country's flights. In spite of its greater fairness, the Chancellor does not support a frequent flyer levy. One might guess that he and most of his colleagues are frequent flyers. Even worse, most of them, have their flights paid for by the tax payer. The Chancellor seems to need to put a lot more effort into his thinking to appear remotely 'green'?