‘Sod them, let’s fly,” shouted full-page advertisements in several newspapers
last week - and, for a moment at least, thousands of readers were taken in.
Under the headline, “Flying, your patriotic duty”, a fictitious businessman
called Sir Montgomery Cecil railed against the “miserable” green lobby and
urged us to “enjoy ourselves and keep on flying”. Far from cutting back, we
should aim to fly more “since many destinations might soon become
uninhabitable”.“I’m bored of the tofu mafia and their climate change
hysterics”, added Cecil. “I didn’t fight in two world wars to see communist
liberals tell me, or my shareholders, what to do.”
The adverts were, of course, a spoof, designed to shock consumers into action
and to lampoon the (fast dwindling) number of people who either don’t
believe in or don’t care about climate change.
Unfortunately, Cecil’s adverts appear to have been missed or perhaps even
taken literally by the government. Evidence of its intention to allow
aviation to expand on a massive scale is provided in a document leaked to
The Sunday Times from Nats, the company that emerged from National Air
Traffic Services and now manages Britain’s air traffic control systems.
It wants to restructure Britain’s existing air corridors and add new ones in
preparation for a doubling of the number of flights over the UK from 2.4m a
year today to almost 5m by 2030. A confidential aeronautical map drawn up by
Nats points to sharp increases in the number of aircraft using the 15 or so
air corridors that criss-cross Britain, and the creation of several new
flight paths and six new stacking areas where aircraft fly in circles while
waiting for landing slots.
The terms of Nats’s licence from the Civil Aviation Authority, the industry
regulator, require it “to be capable of meeting, on a continuing basis, any
reasonable level of overall demand” and to “permit access to airspace on the
part of all users”.
If approved, Nats’s plans would mean hundreds of thousands of people - perhaps
millions - suffering from aircraft noise where there was little or none
before. They would also turn the aviation industry into one of Britain’s
biggest generators of greenhouse gases.
It is the kind of proposal that would delight Cecil but which leaves his
creator, Peter Myers, a former City financier turned environment campaigner,
spitting blood.
“Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us we had a
maximum of 10 years to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Myers
last week. “The government promised to make reductions but all the time it
has been planning the biggest aviation expansion the industry has ever seen.
It is pure hypocrisy.”
The clash between green campaigners such as Myers and the aviation industry
illustrates the conundrum that policy makers face around the world.
On the one hand, flying has become integral to our lives and our economy and
is something most of us aspire to do more of. On the other, climate change,
fuelled by flying, could contribute to the destruction not just of our own
environment but of the destinations we want to fly to.
For people such as Tim Smith, a father of two from Suffolk, Britain’s booming
aviation sector presents more immediate concerns. His plight illustrates
what could lie in store for hundreds of thousands of people across central
England if Nats’s plans are given the go-ahead.
Smith was looking for a peaceful corner of England in which to bring up his
children and moved to the hamlet of Cornard Tye in 1999. “One of the best
things about this area was that you could sit in the garden and hear birds
singing,” he said.
“Then one day I was sitting in my office at home when I heard a plane going
over, then another and then another. When I rang the Civil Aviation
Authority and asked what had happened they told me the air corridors had
been changed.
“We now get easyJets and Ryanairs one after another. Some fly so low we can
see the wheels and the people inside, but even when they’re flying higher,
at five or six thousand feet, the noise is very loud.
“I've effectively had a motorway put over my head. No one was told about it,
no one has been consulted and there is no compensation - but it has
completely ruined what I moved here for and now we want to move.”
Many more Britons could soon find themselves in the Smiths’ shoes. The leaked
Nats report states that the forecast increase in air traffic “is not
manageable within current airspace”. It goes on to propose new stacking
areas, each covering up to 50 square miles, over north Essex, Suffolk, Kent,
Dorset and around the borders of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and
Cambridgeshire.
A stacking area is designated airspace where aircraft waiting to land can
circle at 8,000ft-12,000ft while waiting to land. The proposed new stacking
areas would feed into Stansted, Luton and London City airports.
A significant new flight path is also proposed over Cambridgeshire and Essex
to ease air traffic congestion for Stansted and Luton. Nats also wants a
second new flight path to run northwest from Cambridgeshire through
Northamptonshire, Rutland, Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and
heavier use of existing flight paths over Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, the
West Midlands, Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire.
The map and documents are early drafts and likely to undergo many amendments
before publication as part of a public consultation due to start this year.
However, the issue at hand - that Britain needs more air corridors to soak
up aviation growth - is not going to go away any time soon.
“We are looking at 3%-4% growth a year,” said Simon Hocquard, Nats’s general
manager for air traffic strategy. “We are seeing 2.4m aircraft movements a
year now and that is likely to reach 3m by 2012 with continued growth after
that. Our priority, above all else, is air safety and these measures are
designed with that in mind.”
Steve Charlish, a commercial pilot who has led a campaign against increasing
air traffic over the East Midlands, said: “If Nats were proposing a new
motorway or bypass you could object but one thing you cannot do is touch the
airspace above because that is owned by the crown - you’ve got no right of
objection.”
Nats is, however, merely implementing an expansion policy drawn up by the
government and set out in its 2003 aviation white paper. In it, Labour
announced that it wanted to see new runways built at Stansted, Heathrow,
Birmingham and Edinburgh. It also proposed increasing capacity at numerous
other airports including Coventry, Doncaster, Lydd, near Dover, Kent
International at Manston, Bristol and Wolverhampton. Overall, about 40
airports were given the go-ahead to expand.
Air travel has already increased fivefold over the past 30 years, with 216m
passengers entering or leaving Britain in 2005. By 2030 that number is
expected to grow to 470m a year.
The results can be seen all over the country. At Lydd, on the Dungeness
peninsula in Kent, the owners of a small, private airfield have submitted
plans for a new regional airport taking up to 2m passengers a year by
2015.BAA, the owner of seven British airports including Heathrow, plans to
expand capacity at Southampton from 1.9m to 6m passengers a year by 2030.
Robin Hood airport in South Yorkshire, which opened at an old RAF base near
Doncaster in 2005, is planning to fly to 40 destinations and to increase its
passenger capacity from 1m to 2.3m.
Noise pollution is one thing. But how will such expansion affect greenhouse
gas emissions? The Department for Transport claims that Britain’s aviation
industry generates about 32m tons of carbon dioxide a year, equivalent to
almost 5% of Britain’s total annual emissions of 670mtons.But, as
ever, the statistics tell only half the story. When calculating aircraft
emissions, the department counts only flights out of Britain, not those
coming in. This would be fair if only half the passengers were British but,
in fact, the total is about 70%.
You then have to consider “radiative forcing” - the phenomenon whereby
greenhouse gases emitted at high altitudes have about three times more
impact on global climate than those emitted at groundlevel. Put all these
factors together and aviation in Britain is generating a greenhouse gas
warming effect roughly five times greater than the transport department’s
figure of 32m tons suggests. By 2030 that will have risen to the equivalent
of 400m tons, say critics.
Such statistics would not cut much ice with Sir Montgomery Cecil. “As a
businessman I have shareholders to think about, but these yoghurt-peddlers
won’t shut up about the poor and starving who don’t even fly,” he raved.
“Even our prime minister says we should keep flying. His carbon footprint is
800 times more than the average person’s. Now that is what I call
leadership.”
Flying: the facts
- Aviation is the world's fastest-growing form of transport. The number of passengers
passing through Britain’s airports alone rose from 32m in 1970 to 216m
last year.
- More than half the British population now fly at least twice a year
- British airports are a global success story with around 20% of all international
passengers using UK airports
- In 2001 aviation contributed £13 billion to Britain’s gross
domestic product – about 2% of the total
- British aviation employs 200,000 people directly and another 600,000 depend
on it indirectly
- Aviation now generates about 64m tons of greenhouse gasesa year, including landings
and take-offs
- Emissions at altitude have about three times the impact of those at ground level
- About 4% of Britons report being very annoyed by aircraft noise –
equivalent to 2.4m people
- About 22% of Britons, equivalent to 13m people, report having their sleep interrupted
by aircraft noise
One thing I don't miss having left Kent (under the flight path that covered Hastings through to Tonbridge and onwards) In North Lancashire - planes are few and far between!
PW, Lancaster ,
Over Guildford for the last three months we suddenly have planes overhead every 90 seconds from 8pm until 11pm - there goes another one!
Once again a case of the millions of little guys suffering because of politicians whims.
How many empty seats in all those flights I wonder?
Norman Burden, Guildford , UK
looked at the maps and could not account for the plane every 38 seconds that I've just witnessed while trying to enjoy the sounds of our resident hedgehog snuffling up slugs. Couldn't hear a damn thing. It's 22.38 and their still coming thick and fast. When did Nunhead become a flight path? V. sad.
Kathy Walker, Nunhead, London
My home now has a surprise ariel motorway. The culptrit is London City Airport. When 1st introduced they were careful about nuisance. Now it's full throttle to the last. Then the howl of deceleration at illegal heights. Yet they want to pack more flights in over our sick and dying bodies - fumes?
Paul Bale, London SE, England
The hypocrisy of this government is without parallel. Brown and his bunch of ex-university-never-held-down-a-real -job boys and girls bleat on about the the pollution caused by 4x4s and the hell of supermarket plastic bags while quietly forcing through major expansion of air travel!
Malcolm Stretten, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Why do the rural population what ever the issue always believe their views or interests should count disproportionally and the interests of the majority should be ignored in favour of them.
Whether it's endless business (farming) subsides, unecomonic post offices or noise pollution the normal rules apparently do not apply. Either we all have reduce our use of cheap flights or we all have to suffer the noise pollution and environmental impact. It's time to realise that having a nice pile in the rural shires doesn't exempt you from the consequences of your actions.
Heather Chapman, Leighton Buzzard, England
I moved from London to the glorious Victorian seaside resort of Ramsgate in Kent, partly because of the increasing aircraft noise over the capital. Now I find this jewel of a town is being ruined by the introduction of Oasis Hong Kong Airlines training flights out of Manston (Kent International) which sometimes circle a few hundred feet above our rooftops every nine minutes for up to five hours.
Our local Tory council promotes the area with a 'Ramsgate is Beautiful' campaign, encourages the largest offshore wind farm in Europe to set up shop here, and yet is 100% behind these oozalum flights. Where else would they allow 400 tonnes of jet propelled aluminium to go round and round and round a few feet over gorgeous sandy beaches and more listed buildings, allegedly, than Bath? Madness!
Richard Eastcliff, Ramsgate,
David Bingham, when the debate gets around to personal name-calling you do yourself no favours. Just take on board the facts. When I moved to my village there were no planes overhead . Routes were changed in 2004 without consultation and I now have over 200 planes per day over me, one every 3-5 minutes. I don't mind the odd plane, but there is no respite for 18 hours a day. Even the military jets are intermittent and you get peaceful periods.
I just do not see what makes the aviation industry so special that our democratic right to object/be consulted can be ignored. I wonder if you would object if you woke up one morning to find a motorway had been built at the bottom of your garden - I had no idea this was going to happen. Oh, and by the way , how exactly do you enjoy a rural lifestyle with jets going over at 3 minute intervals - isn't peace and quiet, save for the sounds of agriculture, what makes the countryside what it is ?
Tim Smith, sudbury, england
Noise pollution caused by planes has become a serious issue in our area of Nunhead, South East London.
And it seems to be getting worse. From the early hours of the morning, plane after plane flies overhead. They are coming lower and lower - so low that we can clearly see the undercarriage.
The noise has increased to such a great extent that they now wake us up every morning.
This is becoming a real blight on our life and reducing our enjoyment of our home and our garden.
Geraldine Lambe, London, UK
Make up your own mind if you are under the flight paths in and out of Heathrow from the 4 BAA maps of aircraft flight-paths over London which can be found on this website -
http://uk.geocities.com/derwentcrescent/noise.htm#start
or
can be accessed directly from -
http://uk.geocities.com/derwentcrescent/pix/noise/HRwArr.gif
http://uk.geocities.com/derwentcrescent/pix/noise/HReArr.gif
http://uk.geocities.com/derwentcrescent/pix/noise/HReDep.gif
http://uk.geocities.com/derwentcrescent/pix/noise/HRwDep.gif
M. Gentle, Whetstone, North London
A lot of proposed wind farms are blocked by air traffic control because they will interfere with their radar systems. This blocking (in the form of objections to planning applications) is because this radar interference is said to limit the amount of aircraft that can be routed safely. This expansion of air traffic will therefore mean a double increase in carbon emmissions. The first from the aircraft burning aviation fuel, the second from coal burned in power stations because of the electricity lost from the blocked wind farms.
Michael Watson, Long Melford, Suffolk
The case for global warming by human created carbon and methane emissions is not proven. Most scientists believe it, but cannot prove it.
As for aircraft, it has been proven empirically that when aircraft create contrails they block sunshine reaching the earth, which reduces the earth's warming. Before we stop planes flying, we had better figure out how to replace the cooling effect of the contrails or we may well be buggered.
It's only thirty or or forty or so years ago that we had global cooling and the approach of a new ice age - what happened to that? The earth provable cycles of cooling and warming, and in reality we are merely going through another. Wait a while and we will be headed for a new ice age.
It is the height of arrogance to assume we can shift the earth's temperature up and down at will. We are not Gods.
Neil Muprhy, cromer,
I am amused by all this discussion about more flying. Airliners use a very special fuel obtained from crude oil. There is no proven substitute although one obtained from coal is a possibility. But we now know what that means with respect to climate. There is global competition for the remaining oil as the giant fields decline and no new big discoveries in decades. It looks as though there will be competition between cars and airliners for a while as they both decline.
Denis Frith, Melbourne, Australia
To all those sceptics out there, open your eyes, read the reports. Global warming is happening and we can either choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Aviation isn't the only problem, but it is the fastest growing one; and thats why something needs to be done. I've cut the amount of times I fly and my life isn't any the poorer for it.
Siobhan, London,
Since the summer of 2001 when CDA (Continuous Descent Approach) was introduced, we here in Finchley have suffered hour upon hour of wailing jet engines every few minutes, directly overhead, following a tortuous path around or across London into Heathrow.
Over 10,000 complaints from myself last year and also the year before, produce an acknowledgement but they don't show up in the BAA's figures.
They simply do not represent the level of noise nuisance great swathes of London are experiencing.
The knock on effect is that take-offs now have to fly lower and they can reach noise levels of 83dBA here, equivalent to that about 1 metre from a vacuum cleaner.
Just ask the BAA for maps of their 'blight' tracks and be amazed at where they go and then ask, "when was this typical day" - they have been using the same one for years.
Air traffic nuisance is like a virus spreading across the country as this report shows.
M. Gentle, Whetstone, North London
Some comments on here amaze me ‘If global warming really is caused by man (and I'm still to be convinced)’ Even though the majority of scientists are convinced? ‘It is cheaper to spend holiday abroad than in United Kingdom.' Cheap to do = right to do? My favourite is disputing that the warming effects are magnified at altitude ‘…the concept of "radiative forcing” - the last time that I looked….’ The journalist does make a hash on this point but real science backs him up, the 1999 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, look again? Rather than applying our limited knowledge to denying there is a problem, maybe we should be applying it to fixing the problem. No wonder the world is in such trouble when we who have benefited most from the industrial revolution are unwilling lead the way in solving it’s unforeseen and inadvertent side effects; oh, and there’s even money in it for us if we do! Ah well, off to Venice for Valentines Day; fly there before she drowns!
Adrian, london, london
I have already stopped flying on domestic routes because of my concerns for the environment. However, what most people are not aware of, and is potentially much more damaging, is that by 2010 or shortly afterwards the growth in the oil supply which fuels our economy and travel will stop. This will lead to a shrinking rather than growing global economy with consequent effect on jobs, holidays etc. By the way we won't be worried about Climate Change after that.
Simon, Aberdeen, Scotland
Picking out the document from NATS is clearly opportunistic - and it makes it sound as though NATS is driving more air traffic through. In reality, NATS air traffic controllers stop planes from hitting each other - they don't run any flights themselves, they don't control demand.
Demand comes from people. If people didn't want to fly, there would be fewer aircraft. If they do want to fly, NATS is going to have to provide the safest and most efficient routings they can under the terms of their Civil Aviation licence.
Enough fine words from the deeply indignant - if you disapprove of air travel, don't do it.
Kalsang B, Southampton,
Well, whilst previous points are valid we have to understand that these are factors over which we have control (contrary to John Gibson's comment). We cannot change the Chinese or indian approach to economic expansion. We can tailor our usage of amenities as consumers. Simple action: Stop flying. I know most of you won't do it. If there is one thing that seems to anger the outwardly apparant environmentalist, it is being asked to make small personal sacrifices for the good of the planet and humanity. The old excuses are always regurgitated.. I'm only one person.. What about america/china/india?... I'm not going to sacrifice anything unless you can prove that everyone else will first. Wake up people. There are others to think of!
Roman Gawel, Leamington Spa, UK
'Labour wants to cut CO2 emissions but it is also pursuing a dramatic expansion of Britain’s airways. Can the circle be squared?'
You'd think not, wouldn't you?
But as this government's approach to ROI's on any basis, especially an environmental one, is, shall we say, 'creative'. Let's just fiddle for the next 10 years as the (potential) flames get fanned. I guess it's only when we're toast we'll know who was right all a long, if that's any comfort.
I guess Mr. Blair is paving the way for all the private jets bringing his mate Al's Global Cool performers.
When did leading by example get so discredited, yet those who would take it upon themselves to shoulder the mantle of leadership become so blind as to the consequences of their actions versus their deeds?
Peter 'Junkk Male' Martin, Ross on Wye, UK
Tim Smith, what kind of rent-a-complainer are you? I have airliners going over my house every day at 5000 ft or so and they are completely inaudible inside the house and barely noticeable outside it. We get military jets going over in afterburner and they are noisy but it lasts literally seconds and once again inside the house is no issue at all. My neighbour's lawn mower is much noisier than any aircraft; cars in the road outside also make far more noise.
Get a life and try and enjoy your rural location rather than whining about the occasional passing aircraft.
20 years ago you'd have had a LOAD more jets in your area - and they'd have been a LOT noisier. Have a google and see what used to fly out of RAF Wattisham, just 10 miles from your house.
David Bingham, Rushden, Northamptonshire
If global warming really is caused by man (and I'm still to be convinced), then UK flights contribute such a tiny amount that it is ridiculous even to consider it. As previously mentioned, India, China and Russia's heavy industry is a far more dangerous factor and the number one cause of all is surely the loss of Amazonian and Indonesian rainforests, so go raise a fuss about that instead if you must.
My own opinion is that we are wasting billions of dollars trying to hold back something that we have no control of.
John Gibson, Bradford, UK
For A Murdoch-
Cornard Tye is in Suffolk - on Google and came up as -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornard_Tye
Good luck with your move
BG
Bill Glanvill, Horsham, Sussex
STOP!!...Its 4% of the problem.....Should we not be more focused on the dirty gasoline engine...dirty power stations...and the dirty developing world??....Sorry but after spending 6 years in Asia where its difficulty to walk in the street because of pollution....I can not get excited here in the UK...and to have a government intent on Taxing the Air that we breath...its not all our fault...its not just OUR problem to fix.....I am willing to do my bit, as long as its not in vain!!
Adrian Robinson, Deal, UK
Why we think we need to to take a plane to go on a holiday?
Ask a family with young children, ask a honeymooning couple, ask a pensioner, ask any Londoner - it is cheaper to spend holiday abroad than in United Kingdom. So the government is going to tax us for flying away, and the government is going to tax us even more if we stay. I see only one winner here. I do hope the tax we pay will fund a problem-solving research and pay better consultants for our dire transportation systems.
Zarina Holmes, London, UK
Cornard Tye lies a few miles north of Sudbury. If plane noise bothers you though you might want to avoid South Suffolk full stop as complaints are coming in from Felixstowe on the coast right the way into Stansted. Even if you move to an area where there are no planes that means nothing - they can put flight paths anywhere they like and in reality there is next to nothing you can do. I would stay put until they decide what to do in 2009. After all, when I moved here 7 years ago there were no planes overhead, and my Solicitor search revealed that, no, our new house was not under a flight path!! Tim Smith , Sudbury, Suffolk( yes, the one in the article).
I am not saying people should not fly - just that there should be proper planning laws for aviation, compensation for those newly affected, and yes, there should be fuel duty on aircraft - it cannot be right that we who choose to drive, not fly, pay a huge amount of fuel duty, and the biggest polluters do not.
Tim Smith, Sudbury, Suffolk
This article is pure green claptrap riddled with anti-aviation bias.
Cows we know from the UN produce 18% of our greenhouse gasses. This figure is set to double. The greens are not bothered by this because cows don't fly. As for the concept of "radiative forcing” - the last time that I looked - air was a fluid medium that mixes all its components or are the greens now suggesting that all that aviation CO2 that is emitted at say 30,000ft stays there. If that is the case - show me the evidence that CO2 at 30,000 is 5 times the concentration at sea level.
pravin, london,
Stop being suckered by Labours latest tax plans. Not flying won’t change a thing paying extra to fly only puts more money in the government’s pocket. Look at your current tax bill. NO I MEAN LOOK AT IT. You are already paying a fortune. The Green Tax is a mugs tax. If you want the pollution to stop then go to the oil producing countries and look at the tonnage of junk they dump into the atmosphere every day. The clouds to the north of Kuwait every morning are not clouds they are the tons of pollution put out by their and the Iraqi oil fields. And it’s the same every where else that oil is produced. Oh and the 90p per litre you pay its 12p per litre in Kuwait. Your not being suckered your being robbed but don’t know it. Don’t feel guilty about flying feel angry that the oil producers are not responsible
Keith, Newcastle,
We all cherish freedom of movement, which in turn contributes to economic growth. Rather than scare mongering (and disputing each others statistics), why not accept that this activity will not easily decrease and instead start making efforts to reduce its environmental impact?
Eliminate the present unfair airport taxes that the government uses to support general spending & replace them with a tax on kerosene consumption to reflect the trueer cost of flying.
More importantly, ringfence such tax revenue & use it to encourage people to use other forms of transport (where available) and to stimulate industry to invest in making air travel greener.
Enough of today's claptrap, start acting!
Steve, La Gaude, France
Since a study by Glasgow University found that Trains are the most polluting. When everything is taken into account infrastructre wise you could turn of several Nuclear poer stations if you shutdown the railway network.
trevor, southend, uk
I think a big thing is to start to question whether/ why we think we need to take a plane to go on holiday especially when we the price for that will be borne by future generations (or, as I read recently, if we know we’re effectively burning Sudanese babies). Can we have the benefit of that holiday by travelling slowly or holidaying closer to home? Even if only a few of the ‘RyanAir’ masses start to think about this it’s a start :-).
There’s a petition on the Number 10 website ‘Asking the Prime Minister and his Government to Fly Less’. With a million people signing one against road pricing maybe a few thousand might sign this one:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CutFlying/
Jenny Stafford, London,
Interesting article. A couple of weeks ago I was visiting London (I live in southern Spain) accompanied by my boyfriend. It was his first time on an aeroplane and first time abroad. After the first night I asked him if he slept OK, he said the planes overhead kept waking him up. Its something as a born and bred Londoner you don´t really notice but to somebody from rural spain, who very rarely sees a plane let alone flies on one, the noise pollution caused by aircraft was worse than nearby traffic.
Linda Frost, Cadiz, Spain
The obscene increase in air travel that is being actively promoted by the government is a scandal. It is yet another example clearly showing that Blair and his government work primarily for the vested interests of a small number of businesses and not for UK citizens. No amount of weasel words can justify this atrocious business that is ruining the world's climate and thereby collaborating in the potential extermination of the human race, and to use economic arguments to prop up this despicable trade is breathtakingly stupid. Expansion of air travel is simply indefensible.
Mark Starling, Norwich,
The current government is being criminally negligent in not including air travel in it's targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
They should either change this policy or resign immediately!
Jeremy Pocock, Cowes, Isle of Wight
Voluntary reduction is useless for people are too egoistic. It is up to government to force people out of the air by making them pay the real cost of flying.
How can it be normal that trains and buses and boats pay duty on fuel whereas aeroplanes are exempt? And why no VAT on air travel?
Air travel should be properly taxed and the revenue used to rebuild our railways.
Peter GODDARD, CHEAM, England
Whers is Cornard Tye, my atlas, MultiMap and the AA all fail to show me where this place is.
I am hoping to move to Suffolk and would like to now where this place is.
Many thanks
A Murdoch, Chigwell, UK
When advocates of reducing greenhouse gases act by cutting back on their own air travel in a meaningful way I might do the same. You reported recently that Prince Charles flew to the USA with 17 staff (including his doctor!) and government ministers continue to use large saloon cars to travel short distances and yet go on to lecture the population to act responsibly. Ministers, and Prince Charles, also have use of/own several residences that are hardly occupied. They are just a bunch of hypocrites who can't be taken seriously.
Michael W Pickett, Crawley, W. Sussex,