Eyjafjallajoekull - Does it have a "Carbon Footprint"

The eruption of Eyjafjallajoekull has caused me to wonder about the size of it's "Carbon Footprint". Judging by the cloud of ash, it seems rather large, big enough to cover most of Europe.
When, back in 1982, British Airways flight 9 flew into the plume of a volcano from Mount Galunggung to the south-east of Jakarta, it was the lack of Oxygen which caused the engines to fail, and the crew were only able to restart them once they had glided down to a height below the volcano's plume. Thus the entire plume of the volcano was clearly Carbon Dioxide in which were suspended the fine ash particles which did the damage to the aircraft engines.
With the Icelandic volcano, there has only been mention of the ash, there has been absolutely no mention of the Carbon Dioxide.
Hence my question, how big is the volcano's carbon footprint. Is it more or less than that of all the aircraft which have been grounded? How does it compare with that of my 4x4. How much more will Britain have to reduce its carbon emissions to compensate for the volcano?
Funny, nowhere have I seen any answers to these types of questions! Is political correctness at work somewhere in order to avoid the climate sceptics asking awkward questions?